To Clear Up All the Confusion… (OR: 4 + 2 = 4, and Fredy’s NOT Called Up. Probably. Maybe)
By: Laurie | August 1st, 2009To clear up a bit of confusion on what I’ve written here, or what you may have read elsewhere:
Apparently the fact that Fredy Montero was called up for the August 7 Colombia friendly is news to the Sounders. Despite the fact that it’s all over the news down South America way, it is apparently not official. Yet. And he will apparently be in SanHo for the game on Sunday. Stay tuned. (Plus Aug. 7 is not an official FIFA date, so the team is not required to let him go. Although I think there’s significant bad juju involved when they don’t.)
Also, what about Freddie Ljungberg’s yellow/red suspension situation? (OR: When does 4 + 2 = 4?)
Here’s the deal: Freddie was sitting on four yellows and, according to MLS rules, facing suspension for a game if he got a fifth. So…he got a fifth. And then a sixth. Which, in the magical world of MLS, means he currently only has four. The fifth and sixth were rolled together for a red and a one-game suspension, and the current yellow card tally remains at only 4.
So rather than get a two-game suspension now for a red and five yellows, he’ll only get the second one-game suspension after the next yellow. Unless it’s the next two yellows, in which case they’d count as zero yellows toward the tally. Unless it wasn’t in the same game. Because then they’d count as two separate yellows and you’d have six.
(Oh, stop whining. It’s MLS. Just…cope with it.)
Alternatively, in the wise words of KFox over at the Goal Seattle forum, which provided me with my first laugh-out-loud moment of the day:
Does that mean they also take one away for good behavior? He’s had 4 for at least 3 games I think.
Yup, pretty sure that’s how it works.
Oh, also, the US Soccer referee review is up. They say everything to do with Freddie’s cards is just peachy-keen and the ref did exactly what he was supposed to.
Did we expect them to say anything else?
The biggest issue I have with this is that the video they use to justify the second yellow, for dissent, is all of what happened after he got the second-yellow-slash-red. So they’re validating the decision to give him the second yellow for dissent by showing what happened after the decision, when he has nothing to lose and is understandably going to be upset. They don’t show much of anything of what led to the actual dissent card.
Does that seem a little…um…duplicitous to anybody else?
And last, Freddie has been fined $500 for not leaving the field in a timely manner after his red. CarlosT suggested that we take up a collection and pay the fine for him in the most devalued currency on the planet, which I believe is Zimbabwean dollars, which, with current exchange rates according to CoinMill.com would be Z$179,495.34.
Do they make Zimbabwean pennies?
Just wondering.
 |
MLS Forums | MLS Results |  |
 |
Category: Seattle Team News
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments | Add your comment
-
They didn’t have audio of what Ljungberg said, so they had to just put up whatever they’ve got. Dissent isn’t rocket science anyways, it’s pretty strait forward. Also Ljungberg overdid it with his yelling and prancing around the field and threatening the referee, why should he have to pay a fine for that? Does he get to just take over the field and delay the game?
Posted from
United States
-
I can’t get the video to work, but if what is written is true (that as justification they show his tirade after the second yellow), then how can you (Dustin) say “they had to just put up whatever they’ve got”. Either video is relevant, or it isn’t. And if it isn’t (ie it does not show what warranted the yellow) then you don’t show it. That’s common sense. It would be no different if they had used a clip of Freddie yelling at a ref from his Aresenal days.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you? Or maybe the the video clip is not correctly characterized above?
Posted from
Afghanistan -
Here’s a summary of the video clips posted by the USSF (32 seconds overall, values below are approximate time in seconds):
0 – 8.5: play including the dive call
8.5 – 11: Freddie’s reaction after the call. We have no audio but basic lip reading any person with eyesight and command of the English language can do suggests it was something to the effect of “NO!” and as he turned away, “FUCK!”. Note that this is the end of the first clip and the end of the relevant video.
11 – 24: Second clip showing Freddie’s outburst after the second yellow and red card (you can tell it’s after the red because the ESPN score card in the upper left corner is showing the red card graphic.)
24 – 32: Third clip showing the ref calling Freddie over and giving him a second yellow and red card and Freddie reaction, all of which, as noted, happened BEFORE the previous clip.
So, they put together a 32 second clip, with only 8.5 seconds of it being relevant to the first decision they’re trying to justify and only 2.5 relevant to the second. To me, it’s pretty clear that they sought to make it look like there was much more reaction from Freddie before the card than there was. The way the clip is edited, you see 15.5 seconds of Freddie reacting angrily then you see him called over to receive the yellow and the red. Looks much better from the USSF’s perspective. After all, reaction of 2.5 seconds sounds a little too much like an “emotional outburst”.
Dustin, I’m now calling you out on your intellectual honesty. The USSF didn’t just put up what it had. It put up a video dishonestly spliced together using irrelevant footage. What the USSF is supposedly doing here is analyzing the action on the field and if the referee made the correct call. That’s it. They’re not supposed to be justifying the fine (which hadn’t been announced yet) or anything else, just what happened and was the call correct. To that end they’ve got 11 seconds of video. All the other stuff is irrelevant to what they’re trying to do. The only charitable explanation for the way the video is edited is that the USSF are morons who can put three video clips in the right order, even when there are logical and visual cues showing the order they go in. The more reasonable explanation is that the USSF wanted to make a case that it didn’t have the video for, but instead of admitting that they lacked the video and making their case anyway, they dishonestly and manipulatively spliced together a video that seeks to make their buddy look good. This is a new low, even for the USSF.
Posted from
United States -
“Dustin, I’m now calling you out on your intellectual honesty.”
Oh shucks.
If you want to believe that the USSF would go through all the trouble of craftily editing videos so that the people who watch this video package will be properly indoctrinated than be my guest. I think it’s just a video of all that happened, the USSF is not out to “Get” Freddie, and it’s not out to protect it’s referees from the big bad Seattle Sounders. What you’re trying to do it seems is make it like it’s the USSF and the referees vs the MLS, that’s more ridiculous than anything I can think of. The USSF is not a tyrannical organization looking to keep everyone in lock step by using referees to punish people they disagree with. You honestly just sound crazy to me.
Posted from
United States -
As an aside, it’s supposed to read “morons who can’t put three video clips in the right order.”
I think everyone can see that Dustin just confirmed my charge of intellectual dishonesty. Instead of addressing what I actually said one way or the other, he attacks an argument that I’m not making, one that conveniently happens to be ridiculous and crazy.
Anyone who sees the video has to believe that USSF “would go through all the trouble of craftily editing videos” because they did. That’s just an objective fact of the universe. In real life, the events of the second clip happened after the events of the third. Furthermore, it’s another objective fact that all the action in those two clips happens AFTER the decision to issue the second yellow and the red. That makes it by definition irrelevant to the call that they’re analyzing. You can’t punish a player for the things he’s going to do in the future. But if USSF is claiming that the second and third clips are supportive of the referee’s decision, and by including them in this video they are, then that’s exactly what they’re doing. They are arguing that a referee can issue a card for the dissent the ref is going to get by issuing the card for dissent.
In the previous thread, I said that the USSF review of the call would serve as retroactive justification by any means necessary and not as any sort of objective analysis. I really wish I hadn’t been, but I’ve been proved right again.
Posted from
United States -
So the USSF doctored the video in order to make one of their refs seem right? I wonder just how deep this conspiracy runs, I’m hoping I can count on you to investigate this….Leave no Corner of the Internet UNTOUCHED!
So did Freddie deserve his yellow or didn’t he Carlos? Please state the objective facts of the universe in play here.
Posted from
United States -
Dustin – Well, I’m not talking about conspiracies. But they surely shouldn’t support their point with irrelevant video, should they? Does that not discredit everything they say?
Posted from
Afghanistan -
No they shouldn’t, but I don’t think they did, I think they just posted whatever clips they had of the incident without paying too much attention to it. This is really the last you’ll hear about me on this subject though, I just don’t think the USSF is out to harm the game intentionally. Letting a Referee get away with obvious mistakes is harming the game, and not even Carlos can prove that’s what happened here. Done and done.
Posted from
United States -
Dustin – if they provided the video as support for their point, then doing so was highly unethical and would be regarded as such in any professional environment with a shred of integrity. I find it astounding that you see nothing objectionable about supporting one’s version of events with evidence that you yourself admit was bogus. People lose their jobs for much less.
Posted from
Afghanistan -
JDO I’m pointing out for the last time that I don’t agree with Carlos about the reasons why this happened. I believe that it was a mistake on the part of the USSF not a conscious decision in order to corrupt the game.
Also one final point, saying that you’re calling me out on my intellectual integrity, and then claiming victory when I don’t agree with you is completely dishonest. I didn’t dispute an “Objective fact” that the USSF video show’s what you said it did. I disputed the reasons why it was done that way. You proved my intellectual dishonesty by claiming I was attacking an argument you weren’t making…and then you conveniently made that very argument.
“I said that the USSF review of the call would serve as retroactive justification by any means necessary and not as any sort of objective analysis.”
This statement shows what I was saying, that you believe the USSF to be editing videos in order to indoctrinate those who seek the truth. Or trying to prove their case “by any means necessary.” You were trying to say that the USSF has a goal of corrupting the game and harming the players and coaches.
And Finally…this does not matter. It doesn’t prove that Freddie did or did not deserve a yellow card, and that’s what matters.
Posted from
United States -
Sorry Dustin, but you’re going to have to work on your reading comprehension. The main points you argued against were:
– That the USSF edited the video to “indoctrinate” people.
– That the USSF was “out to get” Freddie
– That the USSF was out to protect its referees from the Big Bad Sounders.
– That it was the USSF and the referees against MLS
– That the USSF was a tyrannical organization looking to keep everyone in lock step by using referees to punish people they disagree with.How you got all that from “I said the USSF review of the call would serve as retroactive justification by any means necessary and not as any sort of objective analysis” is a wonder of nature.
I’ll grant that I do believe half of one of those points. I do believe that the USSF is out to protect its referees, but the Big Bad Sounders thing is just your invention. I don’t believe the USSF has goals of corrupting the game and harming players and coaches. It’s much more simple than that. I believe the USSF has a goal of making itself and its refs look good, nothing more, nothing less, and they don’t look beyond that. I think they are afraid that if they admitted a significant, game changing call like this were not a 100% correct application of the rules by a wise, all-seeing team of referees, their credibility or the credibility of the refs would be damaged. To that end, the weekly referee review will always portray these decisions as not only correct, but correct in every detail possible. There could be no other league or competition in the world where that call would be made the same way and there could be previously published guidlelines from the USSF that stand in direct contradiction to the call, but they’ll use whatever Procrustean logic require to make it work. And if the video available doesn’t strongly support their case, then why not build a better video? After all, it’s important for the USSF to maintain the credibility of the refs.
As I said before, the most charitable interpretation for the video is that the USSF is so incompetent that they couldn’t tell which clips came before the card and which came after and then were unable to put three video clips in the correct order. This despite there being patently obvious cues defining when in the sequence of events the clip is from. That’s the position that you’ve now retreated to. Take a step back and consider: if they’re that incompetent, why should we trust any of their analysis? How is their credibility enhanced by taking such a position?
Finally, you seem highly invested in maintaining a pristine image of the USSF. Why is that? Why is it so hard for you to admit that they might not be perfect or that their actions could be harmful to the game in this country? One doesn’t have to believe that they are evil, that there’s some conspiracy afoot, or that they are tyrannical and oppressive. It could simply be that they have the wrong priorities, are too willing to cut corners, or even just not very good at what their jobs. I happen to think that it’s a little of all of those and I wish they would hold themselves to a higher standard.
Posted from
United States
Leave a Reply
If you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse ourCommenting Guidelines.
Home 
