Debate: Discipline, Retroactive Red Cards, and Refereeing

Carter Crosland (@CoachCarterG)

I think that this organization, and its implementation, has been a good idea on paper, but so far this season the officiating hasn't improved much if at all in my opinion. I absolutely love the fact that the officials and the league can now go back and look at each match individually, and then correct mistakes that were made by the officials during each match. That's the way it should be as far as I'm concerned. I also think it should apply for all conduct out on the pitch, and not just for hard fouls or other serious infractions. Do any referees get suspensions for poor performance? Let's hope so.

Well then, now to get into specifics. The question was asked if the league is doing enough to cut down on the number of bad tackles during play? I believe that they are trying to do that, I'm just not sure how effective it's been yet. I do like the fact that almost weekly, you see players getting suspended after the match for their dirty/rough play during the match. I think the fact that we haven't yet seen as many brutal tackles is a testament to the players of at least being aware of the possible suspension. So, back to the question, I don't think the league is doing enough yet, but they are headed in the right direction.

As I mentioned, the league should definitely have the ability to suspend those who commit infractions. How could one reasonably argue against this point? If there is no punishment for dirty play, and other infractions, then why have these rules in place to begin with? Rules are rules, if you break them, you should pay the price.

If the league doesn't have the option to review the calls by the referees, what's the point of this organization? Officials should never be above the law, and should be suspended for poor performance just as players should be suspended for breaking the rules of the game.

The league should review all calls, from bad tackles to handballs, and everywhere in between. Don’t review it during matches, but without question go back and check how things could be improved. The league should have the ability to give red cards when they are warranted, and should be able to revoke a red card when it was not. If you're going to allow the review of officiating, you after to review everything, and not just those things you think needs it most.

Last but almost certainly not least, the officials themselves. I’m not an expert on these types of organizations, nor how they are ran, but are the officials subject to review as well? It is my belief that they should be. If you have an official who is absolutely terrible on a consistent basis, would you want him to be the head referee for your clubs’ match in a game of huge magnitude? Officials shouldn’t be above the law, and should be watched and reviewed by a different set of officials sitting in the stands. If one official is constantly making horrible calls, they should be held accountable.

Randal Serr (@randalserr)

The awkward Shalrie Joseph suspension for a bit of a reckless tackle brings to memory the Saborio suspension for diving. While these are two different scenarios, the recurring problem is that there is no consistency in the disciplinary actions that MLS takes. The harsh reality of this situation is that MLS is still very much a young league, especially in the world of soccer. I think it is safe to assume that every sports league has to work out some kinks for the first 15 to 20 years before they learn from their mistakes and establish a protocol for what works well. Reckless tackles do need to be punished, there is no doubt about that.

I am completely fine with the MLS reviewing violent conduct, but they have to be consistent or they lose all credibility. For example, if the MLS is insistent on reviewing players' conduct, they definitely should review Drew Moor's pitiful slap (hit? I don't know what to call it) to the face of Luis Gil. In any league around the world that would be an automatic red. You can debate Joseph's tackle, but not a hand to the face of another player. In sum consider this critique a call for consistency, whatever the action may be.

Scott Devey (@scottdevey)

Part of the problem with this is that it's very ambiguous as to what they are going to go back and review. Some are clear cut things that should be (Charlie Davies/Sabo/DeRo dives), others in my mind should be reviewed but haven't been (Warner's handball). The referee has a limited field of view and while I can't say I have seen a great idea out there for replay I do think that someone should be reviewing things in real time, feeding the ref information about it and then allowing the ref to make a decision based on that. The downside is that the ref loses his authority almost with it. Someone else has a say. /

Post match reviews should be kept to a minimum, however when they are done it should be consistent. If you are going to review one play for a hard tackle and there were three total missed that weekend all three need to be acknowledged as having been reviewed at the least. More detail would of course be ideal but even just knowing it was looked at would alleviate the complaints of "Well if this deserved one why did this other one deserve it?". Denz (@rslsoapbox) has commented on this many times but the real problem is a lack of transparency. Leaving the fans hanging and wondering "why is this ignored?" only creates problems and an even larger disconnect between the fans and the Disciplinary Committee.

In the end though, it should be done, but how it is being done just leads to resentment in a lot of cases. Consistency and transparency are the keys to making it work, and it seems neither is being improved.

Trevor Brady (@trevor_brady)

This whole talk centers around the Shalrie Joseph suspension by the MLS Disciplinary Committee, and this is the one incident I would like to focus on. For those that haven't seen the clip, you can do a search on mlssoccer.com for "Shalrie Joseph" and there are lots of videos of the incident. Basically, Joseph is on the ball, takes a long touch, and Ricardo Villar gets in front of him, and in an attempt to win the ball back, Joseph tackles Villar from behind. Correctly, a yellow card was issued on the play.

Later, the MLS DC issued a 1 game suspension for Joseph. There are 2 possible messages this action sends. 1) The ref got it wrong, and it should have been a red card on the foul so we are enforcing what would've been an automatic 1 game suspension, 2) The ref got it right, but we feel that there was a possibility of a serious injury on the play, and we are suspending Joseph for playing in such a way that an opponent may have gotten injured.

The problem with BOTH of these explanations is that there is no FIFA/CONCACAF directive or Law Of The Game (that I'm aware of) that supports EITHER of these actions. What this means is that either USSF or MLS is re-writing the rule book however they see fit. This should not be accepted for any reason.

Whatever standards there might be for these MLS DC suspensions are completely arbitrary, and flexible. To bring up a topic still sore to many fans, the difference in suspensions between Marcos Mondaini and Brian Mullan last season are a perfect example. Mondaini was issued a 4 game ban, and Mullan was issued a 10 game ban. The reasons for these specific lengths of time are what I want to discuss.

Mullan's tackle was committed in the opening 30 minutes of the game, inside the defensive third, where there was no threat on his goal, and appeared to be retaliatory from what Mullan perceived to be an uncalled foul on him. His tackle resulted in a broken leg that has kept the player out over a year. He was issued a 10 game ban based on these factors. Mondaini was issued a 4 game ban because his tackle was on a player that was attacking the goal, and appeared ready to make a pass or shot towards goal. The tackle resulted in a broken ankle, and the player has since returned.

Where is it written that these are the (seemingly arbitrary) standards we judge disciplinary sanctions on? What precedent are we setting? Though, these actions pose a much more serious question in my mind. What if nobody was actually injured on these specific tackles? Both tackles might (heavy emphasis on might) have only gotten a yellow, and no additional bans. Last year we banned people based on actual injuries? This year we're banning people based on injuries that might occur?

Both tackles were tackles that have been seen before in many leagues across the world, and sometimes people get injured, sometimes people don't. Injuries are a part of soccer, and they always have been. They will never not be a part of the game, its a contact sport. Thankfully the majority of injuries are hamstring pulls, or muscle strains which are relatively easy to repair and continue playing. Something though, there are broken legs, fractured ankles, ligament separations/tears, and other very serious injuries that have a long recovery time, and are sometimes unfortunately career-ending. This is a risk that every player is aware of and accepts.

I may be absolutely on my own on this one, but I feel that basing Disciplinary decisions on whether or not an injury occurred, or someone feels one may have occurred will slowly but surely ruin the game. Decisions to ban players should be standard, and based on the Laws Of The Game, and should never contradict what the referee says on the field, they should only serve to assist the referee.

If a referee issues Joseph a yellow card, and its considered the wrong call, then after the game you can discuss the referee's mistake in one of the many assessment session's referees attend. If a ref does not see, or does not call an egregious foul that is captured on camera, like the punch Phillipe Mexes delivered to Marco Boriello in this year's Coppa Italia semifinal, then a ban can and should be administered, as it was. (He served 3 games for it.) This type of ban is not going over the referee, or questioning his judgment in a very public way, but rather serving as an assistant to the referee. These bans are also not based on arbitrary standards, but rather written precedents. Violent Conduct = 3 games. Period. Everybody knows it, and no one is surprised when the ban comes down. No extensions for serious injury, or reductions because the player "didn't show intent" or other such nonsense.

These are the kinds of standard that MLS can and should implement. Not this wishy-washy, maybe so/maybe not garbage.