http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33161464 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33161464)
Clint Dempsey rips up referee's notebook and sees red
Clint Dempsey ripped up a referee's notebook and was sent off as Seattle Sounders finished a cup match against Portland Timbers with seven men.
The United States captain reacted angrily to a red card for team-mate Michael Azira during a US Open Cup tie.
Referee Daniel Radford sent off the 32-year-old forward as well as Azira, having earlier dismissed Brad Evans.
Dempsey flicked the notebook out of Radford's hand, picked it up off the pitch and then tore it into pieces.
Striker Obafemi Martins also went off injured with all three substitutions used as Seattle lost the game 3-1.
Dempsey, who left Tottenham and returned to Major League Soccer with Seattle in August 2013, was dismissed in extra time at the Starfire Stadium.
After the red card Dempsey, capped 112 caps by the US, had to be restrained by team-mates and sarcastically applauded in the face of an assistant referee as he made his way off the pitch.
Now that's funny.
If you are going to get carded, i suppose do it in style.
Here it is in glorious technicolor
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?&q=Clint+Dempsey&qft=+filterui:videoage-lt1440&FORM=R5VR5#view=detail&mid=0787590FE91187E187DB0787590FE91187E187DB (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?&q=Clint+Dempsey&qft=+filterui:videoage-lt1440&FORM=R5VR5#view=detail&mid=0787590FE91187E187DB0787590FE91187E187DB)
From what I've been reading, it appears as if this will be deamed "referee assault" (damaging reg's personal property). That carries with it a minimum 3 month ban from USSF.
That, to me, sounds like he'll be banned from all USSF activities which would include the Gold Cup.
Guessing MB90 will be the US captain for a while longer.
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 17, 2015, 05:26:10 PM
From what I've been reading, it appears as if this will be deamed "referee assault" (damaging reg's personal property). That carries with it a minimum 3 month ban from USSF.
That, to me, sounds like he'll be banned from all USSF activities which would include the Gold Cup.
Guessing MB90 will be the US captain for a while longer.
Having watched the comical game last night because my child refused to go to sleep... The USSF may review and realize that it was probably the worst referee job in the world and may grant him some leniency... it was as I said... comical.
Quote from: mccscratch on June 17, 2015, 06:00:03 PM
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 17, 2015, 05:26:10 PM
From what I've been reading, it appears as if this will be deamed "referee assault" (damaging reg's personal property). That carries with it a minimum 3 month ban from USSF.
That, to me, sounds like he'll be banned from all USSF activities which would include the Gold Cup.
Guessing MB90 will be the US captain for a while longer.
Having watched the comical game last night because my child refused to go to sleep... The USSF may review and realize that it was probably the worst referee job in the world and may grant him some leniency... it was as I said... comical.
I've no reason to doubt it but, once one enters a decider like "was the refereeing comical or not" into the "should a player be allowed to assault (by the letter of the law) a referee" discussion, then USSF has already begun losing control. I predict that not only will Dempsey get the three months ban, he'll get made an example of because of his status within the game. He didn't just step over the line, he mocked it and then tried to go back for more. I foresee a very long vacation for Deuce, possibly the remainder of the season. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see that.
i notice on bbc dempsey is the ex spurs player no mention of fulham, if it had have been the other way round... i.e. tunnycliffe the ex man utd man.... just saying
by the way what dempsey did was really daft.
Quote from: nose on June 17, 2015, 07:02:28 PM
by the way what dempsey did was really daft.
yes it was. completely uncalled for. if the ref was that bad, take any one of the many opportunities to give an interview and call out the ref and USSF. take your fine and be done with it.
instead, he's made Joey Barton look composed and hurt both his club team and his national team in one go.
Well done Clint! Ada boy!
Not!
Here is the video of the incident for anyone who wants to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgSeuptey24 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgSeuptey24)
If he wins the league and Is top scorer, then he can be labelled ex-Fulham.
For his stupid actions, I'm glad they just labelled him ex-Tottenham
Absolutely disgusting behaviour by a player that should be able to demand respect due to both his status and skill.
Hopefully he will get the book thrown at him, there is NO place is professional sports for any behaviour such as this, no matter how great a player you might be.
Totally agree aaronmcguigan, I am happy the club was not mentioned in this piece.
http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/2498247/clint-dempsey-suspended-by-mls-for-three-games (http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/2498247/clint-dempsey-suspended-by-mls-for-three-games)
Hope he doesn't come back to us on loan if he does get a three month ban! He was woeful on his return when we were struggling in the Prem. Would rather remember the good old days with Dempsey and THAT goal against Juventus!!
Quote from: Logicalman on June 18, 2015, 02:27:40 PM
Absolutely disgusting behaviour by a player that should be able to demand respect due to both his status and skill.
Hopefully he will get the book thrown at him, there is NO place is professional sports for any behaviour such as this, no matter how great a player you might be.
Totally agree aaronmcguigan, I am happy the club was not mentioned in this piece.
:plus one:........and also we're not talking about a 'great' player here. CD scored a few important goals for us, but he was never a Fulham 'Great' as Haynes; McBride; Leggat and Saha were.....just to name 4.
Quote from: jms on June 20, 2015, 05:04:58 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on June 18, 2015, 02:27:40 PM
Absolutely disgusting behaviour by a player that should be able to demand respect due to both his status and skill.
Hopefully he will get the book thrown at him, there is NO place is professional sports for any behaviour such as this, no matter how great a player you might be.
Totally agree aaronmcguigan, I am happy the club was not mentioned in this piece.
:plus one:........and also we're not talking about a 'great' player here. CD scored a few important goals for us, but he was never a Fulham 'Great' as Haynes; McBride; Leggat and Saha were.....just to name 4.
Please. It's your opinion of course. It's also nonsense.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 20, 2015, 08:44:45 PM
On the radio they were talking about up grading the offence to assault which will make quite a difference to the Length of the suspension.
The US Soccer Federations rules clearly state that assaulting the ref includes the destruction of the ref's personal property and equipment. Dempsey certainly did that. The MINIMUM punishment for that under USSF rules is a 3 month ban which I believe would have been appropriate.
Since the US Open Cup is both a pro and amateur competition, USSF turned over the judgement and punishment to MLS (a cop-out IMO) and MLS clearly protected the on field product over the referees. Consequently, the next time the league has anything to say about respect toward the refs, it'll have no moral high ground upon which to stand, again IMO. I can foresee a future situation where the refs take it upon themselves to ensure they are better respected by their league and its players. Someone needs to.
I'm a fan of Clint's. I've always liked his style. I think that, despite the way that he exited Fulham, he still should be held in high regard as a Fulham player. I know that isn't a popular opinion but, that isn't a bother. Having said that, I think MLS should have thrown the book at him and put it's foot down regarding respect toward the refs. A missed opportunity that would not have hurt much short term and done a world of good in the long run.
Just askin': Exactly how bad was the refereeing in that game? Part of me thinks he got off lightly because he's Clint Dempsey, a major face of the MLS league, and a key player in the upcoming cup. Another part of me wonders if the Powers that Be saw a video of the game and were perhaps affected by the horrible refereeing (if that was the case).
Quote from: Forever Fulham on June 21, 2015, 03:02:18 AM
Just askin': Exactly how bad was the refereeing in that game? Part of me thinks he got off lightly because he's Clint Dempsey, a major face of the MLS league, and a key player in the upcoming cup. Another part of me wonders if the Powers that Be saw a video of the game and were perhaps affected by the horrible refereeing (if that was the case).
I didnt watch the game. As I understand it, the game was only streamed. I didn't realize that until after the game had occurred.
What I've read, the officiating was really bad with regard to the hanging out of cards and probably overall. The fact that many would bring up the quality of the officiating at all in the defence od CD's action spells it out pretty well to me.
That said, I don't understand how anyone can defend what Dempsey did even under those circumstances. He's a professional and an adult. He's not a inexperienced pre-teen. Indefensible IMHO.
three match ban
I didn't see the match either, but I was entertained by the FC Dallas announcers talking about it afterwards, saying it was the worst officiating they'd ever seen. I wonder if Clint knows that the legendary baseball manager Earl Weaver beat him to it. Each pre-season, Earl would request a dozen or so copies of the league rulebook. He always kept one in his back pocket so that when he was 096.gig -- as he was OFTEN -- he could pull out the rulebook and tear it up in the face of the Umpire he felt had no knowledge of it.
I was at this match so I'll give a little insight. First of all, I think what Dempsey did and the way he acted were extremely disrespectful and childish. Unfortunately the officiating of the match was not up to the standards required for this matchup between the teams with the most heated rivalry is US soccer. This rivalry goes back to the mid 70's when the two teams were in the North American Soccer League and has grown even crazier since both teams have joined MLS (when the entire stadium is opened up for these matches there are over 60,000 fans). This was a US Open Cup tournament match, not an MLS match, but was the only match in the fourth round that had two MLS teams playing against each other. The ref has never officiated a MLS match (only been the 4th official) and of the 11 matches (including lower division NASL and some Open Cup matches) where he was the center ref he has issued 65 yellow cards and 11 red cards. He was not ready for this match. The Sounders play these matches at their practice facility which holds about 4,000 fans – not in the large downtown stadium. Not trying to make excuses but the atmosphere in the small stadium was intense, as it always is when these two teams meet, and at the time we were playing in extra time with 2 men down for over 40 minutes (1 due to injury after all 3 subs had been used; and 1 due to a very soft second yellow that I doubt a more experienced ref would have ever called – and for a foul that is rarely if ever even called a foul in a MLS match). Then the ref gave a strait red to Azira (I thought it should have been a yellow) and things went downhill fast. It was a heat of the moment thing and I think most of us there thought it was pretty humorous at the time (not proud of this, just the way it was). There still is no excuse for what Dempsey did. I think a 3 match ban is probably light... this was MLS that banned him 3 MLS matches even though the US Open Cup tournament is not a part of MLS. It is assumed that he will also get banned from US Open Cup next year and not sure if any bans with US National team will occur.
I think this is a good article by a ref on the ref assignment issue for this game:
http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/159-turmoil-in-tukwila-open-cup-fiasco-could-have-been-avoided (http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/159-turmoil-in-tukwila-open-cup-fiasco-could-have-been-avoided)
First time he was there a very good player,2nd time he shouldnt of bothered.
Deserves punishment for this course of action,as he should be setting an example.
Quote from: MR.E on June 21, 2015, 08:15:36 PM
I was at this match so I'll give a little insight. First of all, I think what Dempsey did and the way he acted were extremely disrespectful and childish. Unfortunately the officiating of the match was not up to the standards required for this matchup between the teams with the most heated rivalry is US soccer. This rivalry goes back to the mid 70's when the two teams were in the North American Soccer League and has grown even crazier since both teams have joined MLS (when the entire stadium is opened up for these matches there are over 60,000 fans). This was a US Open Cup tournament match, not an MLS match, but was the only match in the fourth round that had two MLS teams playing against each other. The ref has never officiated a MLS match (only been the 4th official) and of the 11 matches (including lower division NASL and some Open Cup matches) where he was the center ref he has issued 65 yellow cards and 11 red cards. He was not ready for this match. The Sounders play these matches at their practice facility which holds about 4,000 fans – not in the large downtown stadium. Not trying to make excuses but the atmosphere in the small stadium was intense, as it always is when these two teams meet, and at the time we were playing in extra time with 2 men down for over 40 minutes (1 due to injury after all 3 subs had been used; and 1 due to a very soft second yellow that I doubt a more experienced ref would have ever called – and for a foul that is rarely if ever even called a foul in a MLS match). Then the ref gave a strait red to Azira (I thought it should have been a yellow) and things went downhill fast. It was a heat of the moment thing and I think most of us there thought it was pretty humorous at the time (not proud of this, just the way it was). There still is no excuse for what Dempsey did. I think a 3 match ban is probably light... this was MLS that banned him 3 MLS matches even though the US Open Cup tournament is not a part of MLS. It is assumed that he will also get banned from US Open Cup next year and not sure if any bans with US National team will occur.
I think this is a good article by a ref on the ref assignment issue for this game:
http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/159-turmoil-in-tukwila-open-cup-fiasco-could-have-been-avoided (http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/159-turmoil-in-tukwila-open-cup-fiasco-could-have-been-avoided)
Thank you for the detailed description of things Mr E. Nice first post. Welcome to the board.
Quote from: MR.E on June 21, 2015, 08:15:36 PM
I was at this match so I'll give a little insight. First of all, I think what Dempsey did and the way he acted were extremely disrespectful and childish. Unfortunately the officiating of the match was not up to the standards required for this matchup between the teams with the most heated rivalry is US soccer. This rivalry goes back to the mid 70's when the two teams were in the North American Soccer League and has grown even crazier since both teams have joined MLS (when the entire stadium is opened up for these matches there are over 60,000 fans). This was a US Open Cup tournament match, not an MLS match, but was the only match in the fourth round that had two MLS teams playing against each other. The ref has never officiated a MLS match (only been the 4th official) and of the 11 matches (including lower division NASL and some Open Cup matches) where he was the center ref he has issued 65 yellow cards and 11 red cards. He was not ready for this match. The Sounders play these matches at their practice facility which holds about 4,000 fans – not in the large downtown stadium. Not trying to make excuses but the atmosphere in the small stadium was intense, as it always is when these two teams meet, and at the time we were playing in extra time with 2 men down for over 40 minutes (1 due to injury after all 3 subs had been used; and 1 due to a very soft second yellow that I doubt a more experienced ref would have ever called – and for a foul that is rarely if ever even called a foul in a MLS match). Then the ref gave a strait red to Azira (I thought it should have been a yellow) and things went downhill fast. It was a heat of the moment thing and I think most of us there thought it was pretty humorous at the time (not proud of this, just the way it was). There still is no excuse for what Dempsey did. I think a 3 match ban is probably light... this was MLS that banned him 3 MLS matches even though the US Open Cup tournament is not a part of MLS. It is assumed that he will also get banned from US Open Cup next year and not sure if any bans with US National team will occur.
I think this is a good article by a ref on the ref assignment issue for this game:
http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/159-turmoil-in-tukwila-open-cup-fiasco-could-have-been-avoided (http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/159-turmoil-in-tukwila-open-cup-fiasco-could-have-been-avoided)
Good insight, and totally agree regarding how lightly he got off.
I've seen a few of the matchups between these teams, taking even more of an interest since CD joined them (well one of them should I say), and the rivalry is a great thing to see, but this behaviour is poor, very poor, and albeit the refereeing was apparently abysmal, by all reports including your very own, there will never be any excuse for this, and is a perfectly poor example to younger players that rightly look up to CD as a role model and inspiration for all he has achieved from his very humble beginnings in footie.
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 20, 2015, 11:21:10 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 20, 2015, 08:44:45 PM
On the radio they were talking about up grading the offence to assault which will make quite a difference to the Length of the suspension.
The US Soccer Federations rules clearly state that assaulting the ref includes the destruction of the ref's personal property and equipment. Dempsey certainly did that. The MINIMUM punishment for that under USSF rules is a 3 month ban which I believe would have been appropriate.
Since the US Open Cup is both a pro and amateur competition, USSF turned over the judgement and punishment to MLS (a cop-out IMO) and MLS clearly protected the on field product over the referees. Consequently, the next time the league has anything to say about respect toward the refs, it'll have no moral high ground upon which to stand, again IMO. I can foresee a future situation where the refs take it upon themselves to ensure they are better respected by their league and its players. Someone needs to.
I'm a fan of Clint's. I've always liked his style. I think that, despite the way that he exited Fulham, he still should be held in high regard as a Fulham player. I know that isn't a popular opinion but, that isn't a bother. Having said that, I think MLS should have thrown the book at him and put it's foot down regarding respect toward the refs. A missed opportunity that would not have hurt much short term and done a world of good in the long run.
Then it sounds like the MLS dropped the ball on this one, as Don Garber concluded Dempsey's behavior was "referee abuse," (3 game ban) not "referee assault," (6 game ban) if the reports are accurate.
I think there is some leeway allowed in applying the facts at hand to the definition in the rules book. He didn't bump, push, shove, or otherwise touch the official. Yes, he tore up the ref's book, but at no time was the ref "assaulted" as that term is generally understood. Abused, yes. That the definition includes the ref's personalty, his possessions, OK, it might technically be a defined as an assault. But the harm done was so minimal, of so little value. He didn't key his car, or slash his car's tires, or head butt him or any other of the long list of meaningful hurtful acts of a financial or physical safety nature. Let's apply the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it here. It was more along the lines of a symbolic act, which is more akin to abuse than assault. Aren't we really conflating ridicule and humiliation and disrespect with assault, when we should be seeing it more as a kind of abuse?
Quote from: Forever Fulham on June 22, 2015, 08:06:08 PM
I think there is some leeway allowed in applying the facts at hand to the definition in the rules book. He didn't bump, push, shove, or otherwise touch the official. Yes, he tore up the ref's book, but at no time was the ref "assaulted" as that term is generally understood. Abused, yes. That the definition includes the ref's personalty, his possessions, OK, it might technically be a defined as an assault. But the harm done was so minimal, of so little value. He didn't key his car, or slash his car's tires, or head butt him or any other of the long list of meaningful hurtful acts of a financial or physical safety nature. Let's apply the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it here. It was more along the lines of a symbolic act, which is more akin to abuse than assault. Aren't we really conflating ridicule and humiliation and disrespect with assault, when we should be seeing it more as a kind of abuse?
My problem with the whole affair is that one of the big, ongoing story lines with MLS has been the abusive attitude toward referees (players getting in their faces, crowding around them, intimidation, etc). And here, presented with the best (most fitting) opportunity possible, MLS (Garber) takes the low road and gives the minimum penalty for the minimum infraction. By the letter of the USSF law, which the US Open Cup falls under, what Clint did was definitely 'assault' as he destroyed the referee's tool of the trade.
Now, one can argue the circumstances (the abysmal performance by the ref) and the ensuing player frustration and one can argue the reasoning for subjective interpretation of the infraction. For me, the league missed an opportunity to improve itself and it's credibility and again favored it's moneymakers rather than do the right thing. Painful as it would have been, Garber should have administered at least something more harsh than the minimum.
MLS is too concerned about suspending the US captain and the effect it will have on the game as it relates to casual fans. US soccer fans who watch world cup and an MLS game if a US National happens to be playing.
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 22, 2015, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on June 22, 2015, 08:06:08 PM
I think there is some leeway allowed in applying the facts at hand to the definition in the rules book. He didn't bump, push, shove, or otherwise touch the official. Yes, he tore up the ref's book, but at no time was the ref "assaulted" as that term is generally understood. Abused, yes. That the definition includes the ref's personalty, his possessions, OK, it might technically be a defined as an assault. But the harm done was so minimal, of so little value. He didn't key his car, or slash his car's tires, or head butt him or any other of the long list of meaningful hurtful acts of a financial or physical safety nature. Let's apply the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it here. It was more along the lines of a symbolic act, which is more akin to abuse than assault. Aren't we really conflating ridicule and humiliation and disrespect with assault, when we should be seeing it more as a kind of abuse?
My problem with the whole affair is that one of the big, ongoing story lines with MLS has been the abusive attitude toward referees (players getting in their faces, crowding around them, intimidation, etc). And here, presented with the best (most fitting) opportunity possible, MLS (Garber) takes the low road and gives the minimum penalty for the minimum infraction. By the letter of the USSF law, which the US Open Cup falls under, what Clint did was definitely 'assault' as he destroyed the referee's tool of the trade.
Now, one can argue the circumstances (the abysmal performance by the ref) and the ensuing player frustration and one can argue the reasoning for subjective interpretation of the infraction. For me, the league missed an opportunity to improve itself and it's credibility and again favored it's moneymakers rather than do the right thing. Painful as it would have been, Garber should have administered at least something more harsh than the minimum.
I don't think they missed an opportunity, as they were never going to do anything severe enough about it in any case, as McBride78 points out so eloquently.
This just indicates that the MLS chiefs are as bad as the referees themselves, and not unlike the FA, let the sport down by their own actions.
Quote from: Logicalman on June 23, 2015, 01:03:11 PM
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 22, 2015, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on June 22, 2015, 08:06:08 PM
I think there is some leeway allowed in applying the facts at hand to the definition in the rules book. He didn't bump, push, shove, or otherwise touch the official. Yes, he tore up the ref's book, but at no time was the ref "assaulted" as that term is generally understood. Abused, yes. That the definition includes the ref's personalty, his possessions, OK, it might technically be a defined as an assault. But the harm done was so minimal, of so little value. He didn't key his car, or slash his car's tires, or head butt him or any other of the long list of meaningful hurtful acts of a financial or physical safety nature. Let's apply the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it here. It was more along the lines of a symbolic act, which is more akin to abuse than assault. Aren't we really conflating ridicule and humiliation and disrespect with assault, when we should be seeing it more as a kind of abuse?
My problem with the whole affair is that one of the big, ongoing story lines with MLS has been the abusive attitude toward referees (players getting in their faces, crowding around them, intimidation, etc). And here, presented with the best (most fitting) opportunity possible, MLS (Garber) takes the low road and gives the minimum penalty for the minimum infraction. By the letter of the USSF law, which the US Open Cup falls under, what Clint did was definitely 'assault' as he destroyed the referee's tool of the trade.
Now, one can argue the circumstances (the abysmal performance by the ref) and the ensuing player frustration and one can argue the reasoning for subjective interpretation of the infraction. For me, the league missed an opportunity to improve itself and it's credibility and again favored it's moneymakers rather than do the right thing. Painful as it would have been, Garber should have administered at least something more harsh than the minimum.
I don't think they missed an opportunity, as they were never going to do anything severe enough about it in any case, as McBride78 points out so eloquently.
This just indicates that the MLS chiefs are as bad as the referees themselves, and not unlike the FA, let the sport down by their own actions.
Oh, I agree. As soon as it fell to MLS to dole out any punishment, I knew what would happen. And what happened was directly related to who was receiving the punishment and who he played for. If the same incident had involved a first year player who no one had heard of and that player was representing Columbus Crew or Philadelphia, there is no doubt in my mind that the punishment would have been more severe.
I have no doubt that the issue of referee abuse or assault will rear its head once again sometime in the future and everyone will wonder why the player(s) in question believed it was appropriate to have a go at the ref. They can look right back at their star player and how he was handled for their answer.
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 23, 2015, 03:31:59 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on June 23, 2015, 01:03:11 PM
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 22, 2015, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on June 22, 2015, 08:06:08 PM
I think there is some leeway allowed in applying the facts at hand to the definition in the rules book. He didn't bump, push, shove, or otherwise touch the official. Yes, he tore up the ref's book, but at no time was the ref "assaulted" as that term is generally understood. Abused, yes. That the definition includes the ref's personalty, his possessions, OK, it might technically be a defined as an assault. But the harm done was so minimal, of so little value. He didn't key his car, or slash his car's tires, or head butt him or any other of the long list of meaningful hurtful acts of a financial or physical safety nature. Let's apply the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it here. It was more along the lines of a symbolic act, which is more akin to abuse than assault. Aren't we really conflating ridicule and humiliation and disrespect with assault, when we should be seeing it more as a kind of abuse?
My problem with the whole affair is that one of the big, ongoing story lines with MLS has been the abusive attitude toward referees (players getting in their faces, crowding around them, intimidation, etc). And here, presented with the best (most fitting) opportunity possible, MLS (Garber) takes the low road and gives the minimum penalty for the minimum infraction. By the letter of the USSF law, which the US Open Cup falls under, what Clint did was definitely 'assault' as he destroyed the referee's tool of the trade.
Now, one can argue the circumstances (the abysmal performance by the ref) and the ensuing player frustration and one can argue the reasoning for subjective interpretation of the infraction. For me, the league missed an opportunity to improve itself and it's credibility and again favored it's moneymakers rather than do the right thing. Painful as it would have been, Garber should have administered at least something more harsh than the minimum.
I don't think they missed an opportunity, as they were never going to do anything severe enough about it in any case, as McBride78 points out so eloquently.
This just indicates that the MLS chiefs are as bad as the referees themselves, and not unlike the FA, let the sport down by their own actions.
Oh, I agree. As soon as it fell to MLS to dole out any punishment, I knew what would happen. And what happened was directly related to who was receiving the punishment and who he played for. If the same incident had involved a first year player who no one had heard of and that player was representing Columbus Crew or Philadelphia, there is no doubt in my mind that the punishment would have been more severe.
I have no doubt that the issue of referee abuse or assault will rear its head once again sometime in the future and everyone will wonder why the player(s) in question believed it was appropriate to have a go at the ref. They can look right back at their star player and how he was handled for their answer.
I agree with all that. But favoritism is alive and well in all sports, in all countries. The star gets the star's treatment in officiating. I remember watching star basketball players palm the ball when dribbling and get away with it. Helps them do what the nonstars can't do with the ball. They say the hand is on the side of the basketball but not actually under it. I'm calling B.S. on that. I remember Michael Jordan taking one, two, three steps with a picked up ball before dunking. Why was he entitled to the extra step? Once you have dominion and control over that last bounced ball, you don't get three steps. But he did. And other stars did. Same thing with football. The star player gets the benefit of the doubt on 'take downs' in the box, gets the benefit of the doubt on foul-centric calls.
Quote from: Forever Fulham on June 23, 2015, 06:07:37 PM
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 23, 2015, 03:31:59 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on June 23, 2015, 01:03:11 PM
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on June 22, 2015, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on June 22, 2015, 08:06:08 PM
I think there is some leeway allowed in applying the facts at hand to the definition in the rules book. He didn't bump, push, shove, or otherwise touch the official. Yes, he tore up the ref's book, but at no time was the ref "assaulted" as that term is generally understood. Abused, yes. That the definition includes the ref's personalty, his possessions, OK, it might technically be a defined as an assault. But the harm done was so minimal, of so little value. He didn't key his car, or slash his car's tires, or head butt him or any other of the long list of meaningful hurtful acts of a financial or physical safety nature. Let's apply the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it here. It was more along the lines of a symbolic act, which is more akin to abuse than assault. Aren't we really conflating ridicule and humiliation and disrespect with assault, when we should be seeing it more as a kind of abuse?
My problem with the whole affair is that one of the big, ongoing story lines with MLS has been the abusive attitude toward referees (players getting in their faces, crowding around them, intimidation, etc). And here, presented with the best (most fitting) opportunity possible, MLS (Garber) takes the low road and gives the minimum penalty for the minimum infraction. By the letter of the USSF law, which the US Open Cup falls under, what Clint did was definitely 'assault' as he destroyed the referee's tool of the trade.
Now, one can argue the circumstances (the abysmal performance by the ref) and the ensuing player frustration and one can argue the reasoning for subjective interpretation of the infraction. For me, the league missed an opportunity to improve itself and it's credibility and again favored it's moneymakers rather than do the right thing. Painful as it would have been, Garber should have administered at least something more harsh than the minimum.
I don't think they missed an opportunity, as they were never going to do anything severe enough about it in any case, as McBride78 points out so eloquently.
This just indicates that the MLS chiefs are as bad as the referees themselves, and not unlike the FA, let the sport down by their own actions.
Oh, I agree. As soon as it fell to MLS to dole out any punishment, I knew what would happen. And what happened was directly related to who was receiving the punishment and who he played for. If the same incident had involved a first year player who no one had heard of and that player was representing Columbus Crew or Philadelphia, there is no doubt in my mind that the punishment would have been more severe.
I have no doubt that the issue of referee abuse or assault will rear its head once again sometime in the future and everyone will wonder why the player(s) in question believed it was appropriate to have a go at the ref. They can look right back at their star player and how he was handled for their answer.
I agree with all that. But favoritism is alive and well in all sports, in all countries. The star gets the star's treatment in officiating. I remember watching star basketball players palm the ball when dribbling and get away with it. Helps them do what the nonstars can't do with the ball. They say the hand is on the side of the basketball but not actually under it. I'm calling B.S. on that. I remember Michael Jordan taking one, two, three steps with a picked up ball before dunking. Why was he entitled to the extra step? Once you have dominion and control over that last bounced ball, you don't get three steps. But he did. And other stars did. Same thing with football. The star player gets the benefit of the doubt on 'take downs' in the box, gets the benefit of the doubt on foul-centric calls.
Don't get me started on traveling. That rule has to be one of the most bastardized in all of sports. I'm surprised that it's even called at all anymore. But, the product is somehow supposedly better for the lax application of the rules governing the sport.
for 6 games or 2 years, what ever is the longer, from the US cup for ripping the refs note pad up
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/mls/dempsey-handed-two-year-us-open-cup-ban/ar-AAc95Yp?ocid=HPCDHP (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/mls/dempsey-handed-two-year-us-open-cup-ban/ar-AAc95Yp?ocid=HPCDHP)
Harsh!!
Quote from: BigbadBillyMcKinley on June 26, 2015, 06:36:05 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/mls/dempsey-handed-two-year-us-open-cup-ban/ar-AAc95Yp?ocid=HPCDHP (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/mls/dempsey-handed-two-year-us-open-cup-ban/ar-AAc95Yp?ocid=HPCDHP)
Harsh!!
I don't think it's harsh the blokes a twit, what was he thinking that because he has played at the top level he can do what he wants.
Not harsh at all. The Open Cup isn't much. What would have been harsh would be a ban during the Gold Cup which is the competition that means something on this side of the pond.
Quote from: alfie on June 26, 2015, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: BigbadBillyMcKinley on June 26, 2015, 06:36:05 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/mls/dempsey-handed-two-year-us-open-cup-ban/ar-AAc95Yp?ocid=HPCDHP (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/mls/dempsey-handed-two-year-us-open-cup-ban/ar-AAc95Yp?ocid=HPCDHP)
Harsh!!
I don't think it's harsh the blokes a twit, what was he thinking that because he has played at the top level he can do what he wants.
:plus one:
It's been a long time since we've had multiple threads about Dempsey. 092.gif
indeed a long time, I actually posted a thread on this very topic this morning.
However for me I do not think it is harsh, I think he is lucky it is not a ban from all games including internationals.
I heard that the referees performance actually warranted him being fed his own notebook?
Quote from: HatterDon on June 26, 2015, 08:06:59 PM
It's been a long time since we've had multiple threads about Dempsey. 092.gif
And it took how long before he was called a twit and it was agreed to. Gotta love Deuce, he brought out the emotion.
He put more effort into tearing up that notebook than he did in the whole of his second spell with us.
Quote from: Snibbo on June 27, 2015, 03:12:38 AM
He put more effort into tearing up that notebook than he did in the whole of his second spell with us.
Yes he was a complete disaster the second time round, hardly broke sweat, a shadow of the player he was before he left.