Deuce sees red

[ToodlesMcToot]

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.

[HatterDon]

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.

[MR.E]

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

[hovewhite]

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.

[ToodlesMcToot]

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

Thank you for the detailed description of things Mr E. Nice first post. Welcome to the board.

[Logicalman]

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

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.

[Logicalman]

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.

[Forever Fulham]

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? 

[ToodlesMcToot]

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.

[McBride78]

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.

[Logicalman]

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.

[ToodlesMcToot]

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.

[Forever Fulham]

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. 

[ToodlesMcToot]

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.

[westcliff white]

for 6 games or 2 years, what ever is the longer, from the US cup for ripping the refs note pad up

[BigbadBillyMcKinley]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/mls/dempsey-handed-two-year-us-open-cup-ban/ar-AAc95Yp?ocid=HPCDHP

Harsh!!

[alfie]

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.

[YankeeJim]

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.

[jms]

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:

[HatterDon]

It's been a long time since we've had multiple threads about Dempsey.  092.gif