I may be wrong here but my understanding of the way red card suspensions are handled in the UK is that a panel reviews each case and decides if and when the suspension should be served. They take into account the actaul foul as seen on video, the positioning of the referee and assistants, the records of the players involved (did they have a history of such stuff, grudges, etc.), the game situation and other matters. I think the same thing is done in the Champions League. 99% of the time the ref's decision is upheld but there are times when at least the sit down time is delayed. So Gulati, our world expert, may be talking through his hat in this matter. I just wish Joe Max could run out at the Boro this Sat. and am heartened that JK is going to try to set up an alternative grand entrance for a great player. JIM DOW
Point of clarification The article states ''In soccer, it's a rule of the game that if you get a red card, you automatically miss the next game. You can't appeal that first-game suspension.'' This is not true. The Laws of the Game require that a player needs to leave for the rest of the current game. Each individual league must state any further restriction to that player. England for example has a process for appeal I believe. Scott
"If you get kicked out of an NFL game, you're not automatically out for the next game,'' said Kraft. ''It gets heard right at the league office and there's a window of time during which it's heard. And then if a guy gets suspended, he can appeal it or serve the suspension. Yeah, and in the NFL, they fine guys for not having their socks pulled all the way up to the knee. Not to mention a whole bunch of other things. I also hear baseball players carry around big wooden sticks...
''In soccer, it's a rule of the game that if you get a red card, you automatically miss the next game. You can't appeal that first-game suspension.'' Was this what Kraft said, or Sunil? The Magpie
It's my understanding, based on a convo I had yesterday with someone I have the utmost in respect for, that missing a match after a straight red card is a certainty, and, within FIFA, uncontestable. That's what the man said - no, Jon Kraft and I did not speak. Sadly, I would have to agree with FIFA. The basic problem is that the officiating in MLS is questionable at best. Essentially, contesting and subsequently getting a call reversed undermines the officiating [Why are they there?]. If every decision/card is subject to question, then, for all intents and purposes, the system is worthless. Basically FIFA's backing up the officials, which is what they should do. It still, however, doesn't address the fundamental problem: The officiating sucks - big time, too.
Right. The only question here is if it was a red card, and if the referee judged it as such, then it is, no matter if it "should" have been. And if it was a red, then you sit. End of story. It has to be this way, and while making exceptions for some kind of appeal process may overturn a bad call (like this one) in the long run, it is a lot more detrimental to the game if people find more mechanisms to undermine the referee. It's a bit of a chicken-egg situation. The overall quality of reffing must improve, and when it does, the players will give more respect to refs. But it would go a long way to improving the officiating if players weren't so quick to argue, even if it was a horrendous call. Dissent is getting out of hand, and however justified arguing may be in an individual case, overall, it's killing the game. JMM will have to sit, and even if it's a result of a bad call, so be it. Let's move on. Tom
Gee, I guess nobody's interested in the RevsNet article posted last night about the two new trialists the Revs brought in yesterday. Also, don't check later for a game report from the today's BC scrimmage.
Although the FIFA directive is quite possibly "slightly inconsistent" with English FA procedures, the article below should clarify the situation. FIFA has made it clear that the inconsistency will be studied after the current season. Tuesday, September 24, 2002 FIFA introduce immediate 1-game ban for red card By Mike Collett ZURICH, Sept 24 (Reuters) - FIFA enforced a major rule change on the game on Tuesday when it announced that any player sent off must serve an immediate one-match suspension in the same competition with no right of appeal. FIFA will be contacting each of their 204 member associations immediately and the new rule is expected to come into effect next month, possibly as soon as October 1. It is a worldwide ruling with no exceptions. The only way the player can escape an automatic one-match ban is if the referee later admits a case of mistaken identity or concedes he made the wrong decision. The immediate ban applies for both a straight red card or a dismissal for two bookings. The one-match ban will also have no impact on any subsequent ban applied for the offence. Each domestic association, however, can apply their own ruling in their own way by, for example, reducing a current three-match ban for a professional foul to a two-match ban. Appeals can still continue as before, but only after the initial one-match ban has been served. FIFA's executive committee have acted swiftly following a case in the Swiss League when Grasshoppers goalkeeper Fabrice Borer was sent off after an incident with Basel striker Herve Tum. Although he was due to serve an immediate ban according to the rules in Switzerland, the referee's decision was subsequently annulled by the sole disciplinary commissioner of the Swiss League and Borer played in the next match. FIFA president Sepp Blatter said: 'From now on any player who is sent off will automatically miss the next match in the same competition. 'The only exception is if the referee admits a case of mistaken identity or says he made the wrong decision or an honest mistake. 'We have to protect the authority of the referee which is the foundation stone of the game. If people start casting doubts on the referee they start casting doubts on football.' 'The decision has no space for speculation. The player has to serve his one-match suspension immediately unless the wrong player has been sent off.' 'If a player commits a foul and is sent off, no scientific, whether cameras or other, shall change this decision.' FIFA's decision is not a law change -- the laws of the game can only be changed by the annual meeting of the International Board -- but they represent a fundamental change to FIFA's rules. DIFFERENT RULES Different rules have always applied in different countries. In England suspensions have usually started two or three weeks after an offence and often after a due process of appeal. In Italy, players have traditionally missed the next match in the same competition. FIFA spokesman Markus Siegler confirmed: 'The suspension will only apply in the same competition as the one in which the offence took place.' 'If he is sent off in the Champions League he will not miss the next domestic league game -- but there will be no exceptions to this rule.' There have been two examples in England within the last year which would have fallen under the new rules......
As always, thanks for the info. Here we've all been complaining that JMM will miss the next game, when I read in your article that Tony Frias has some type of injury. Now we're really in trouble...
So, there is an out: if Vaughn were to fess up to making a "mistake". Not that I'm holding my breath... I think there's something in the referees "reading between the lines" manual about admitting mistakes undermining authority. One thing I learned quickly in refereeing is that it is CRITICAL to give the impression that you will NEVER be persuaded - lest you invite torrents of dissent on every call/non-call.
Speaking as a referee, the understanding between the officials and the home office is *always* that your decisions will be backed up, no matter how much of a hash you make of things. For pure entertainment, I would suggest everyone keep an eye on how the EPL deals with the Campbell red card in yesterday's Arsenal v MU match. The severity of that foul is also being hotly disputed by folks.
Absolutely, and it has to be that way, no matter how bad the call. The "admitting a mistake" part refers only to situations of mistaken identity, where on the same play, the ref may give a yellow, and then a red, because he thinks it's the guy's second yellow, but it isn't. In that case, the red is rescinded and it goes in the books as just a yellow. The "mistake" is admitting that you confused the number 8, who looks a lot like number 6. It's not admitting you made the wrong call. The only way a ref can admit a mistake is to give a "makeup" call the other way on a border-line situation later in the game, and that's not too good of an idea either. Tom
Refs admit they make mistakes all the time, but it isn't really an "out." Unless it's a case of mistaken identity, when the suspension for a red card would be served by the player for whom the card was originally intended, the official has only the time between when s/he stops play and re-starts play to change his or her mind. After the re-start, any occurrence prior to that is part of the record of the game. I saw a situation in a youth match where the official gave a second yellow and subsequently sent off a kid whose twin brother on the same team had actually earned the first yellow. Maybe Vaughn meant to give the card to Mapp?