MLS rescinds Velazquez’s red card

Joaquin Velazquez

Photo by ISIphotos.com

It turns out Joaquin Velazquez will be able to suit up for Chivas USA this weekend, after all.

Two days after controversially being sent off in the Goats’ 1-1 draw with the LA Galaxy, Velazquez had his red card and subsequent one-game suspension and fine rescinded by MLS on appeal on Tuesday. An independent review panel determined referee Ricardo Salazar’s foul call on Velazquez in the 40th minute of this past Sunday’s SuperClasico was not worthy of an ejection and the Chivas USA defender will now be eligible for the club’s clash with the Chicago Fire this Sunday.

If you have not seen the controversial play or wish to see it again, here it is:

What do you think of MLS rescinding Velazquez’s red card? Still dumbfounded by Salazar’s decision?

Share your thoughts below.

This entry was posted in Major League Soccer, MLS- Chivas USA. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to MLS rescinds Velazquez’s red card

  1. P says:

    That is the right thing to do…for sure.

    • scott47a says:

      +1
      And let’s hear it for the soccer federation maybe calling Salazar up and giving him a couple weeks off to chew on how he could get a call so horribly wrong.

      • Seattle Coug says:

        If it hasn’t happened a long time ago with him, it’s never going to happen. He’s a one-man wrecking ball of a ref, swung by the crane of absurdity.

  2. Bobb says:

    Good job MLS!

  3. Nic D "The TX 2 Stepper" says:

    They deserve lots of credit for this. Bravo MLS!

  4. ed - houston says:

    Wow! Definitely new process and good for players.

  5. Seriously? says:

    Wow, I’d heard it was a terrible call, but hadn’t seen it, that was brutal. If anything, it looks like simulation of being hurt by the LA player, who might have been afraid he’d be called for something.

  6. Old School says:

    In the spirit of our upcoming match at the Azteca, I’ll repeat what I said in the game day commentary:

    Horrible call? Indeed. However, Chivas wanted the Mexican experience. There you go, Chivas. Welcome back to Liga MX.

  7. Murph says:

    When does an independent review panel look into Salazar? He loves to interject himself and his ego into games.

    • Mark says:

      You mean just like Vergara interjected himself and his ego into our league?

      • Murph says:

        Sorry, what owner doesn’t do that?
        Our league? Who’s league are you referring to?

        • Joe says:

          Gonna go ahead and guess….MLS? He meant MLS, right?

          One good snark deserves another. We know what he means. Unless he’s saying a non Latino league, or if you are making that assumption, you have become tiresome and mundane and I regret responding.

    • tim says:

      Referees’ performances are reviewed after every match.

    • Grant says:

      This was a terrible call for a ref whose had a history of impactful terrible/questionable calls throughout his time in MLS. With all of the match fixing issues going on throughout the world, we need to make sure MLS is clean of anything even remotely smelling of that. IMO, at least reviewing Salazar and his matches would be a step in the right direction to insure this terrible possibility isn’t occuring in MLS.

    • Kevin says:

      i whole-heartedly agree with this statement…and ask myself that same question everytime I see him and Jair Marrufo ref…and they are on the FIFA/CONCACAF referee list…what a joke.

  8. David St. Hubbins says:

    well done MLS.

  9. MA1 Rodriguez says:

    That game was horrible reffing standpoint, the wrong man got ejected, theres was at least three red cards from first half, but the ref did nothing.

  10. The Imperative Voice says:

    Was not worthy of an ejection? It didn’t have to be. Two yellows equals red. It only had to be worthy of another yellow. I understand after the fact the reffing union tried to say it was a straight red but that’s not the way it looked. Cause to me it’s fake to say the issue wasn’t a red offense if the card wasn’t a red per se anyway. It was a second caution.

    The correct way out of the bind would be simply to say that upon review the ref botched the second yellow. I’ve still not heard its basis, whether it was simulation on a perceived Clark tackle or Alvarez being perceived to tackle Clark. Because the video seems to disprove Alvarez fouled Clark, but be murky on whether Alvarez dragged a leg to try and get a call. I’d personally not call it simulation because there was contact and I think that penalty should be rarely trotted out for complete fakes, not get into tackling subjectivity, you were tripped but embellished.

    I assume from the situation the call was Alvarez fouled, but if you’re in the card rescinding business like this they ought to be very clear about the process. The ref called a tackling infraction we found upon video review to be nonexistent. I know that gets into ref critique pretty bluntly but if you’re pulling back cards you basically have to say the ref missed it, no way around it. This just sounds too cutesy….it was a straight red and not worthy of it. Really? That is not what the video showed. The video showed a nonexistent second yellow, if it was for Alvarez “tackling.”

    • Jedik says:

      He never had a first yellow to begin with. That would have been his first yellow card if a yellow was indeed intended. Also, that wasn’t an excuse by the ref union. The accidental yellow was salazars own explanation. You can see his official report right after the game all over twitter.

    • RAMONE says:

      Read elsewhere that when asked to explain, Salazar said it was a straight red for “serious foul play”. It wasn’t 2 yellows and if it was Salazar is experienced enough to 1. clearly show he is giving 2 yellows (one for the play and one for something the player said) and 2. document this in his game report. He didn’t do either and gave a straight red. I would argue it was actually Clark fouling Valazquez on the replay (studs up into his ankle) and he was the one that should have been seeing a card.

      Simply put, a blown call – a ref thinking he saw something that was not actually there. Now, I didn’t see this game and my understanding is that Valazquez may have been on the edge of a yellow before this play. I have reffed games where certain players are totally out of control and persistently infringing and sometimes it is difficult to be impartial when you have thinking to yourself for the last 5 minutes – “OK if that guy does that one more time, he is getting a card”. Players know this which is how Clark was able to bait the ref into a very poor decision by fouling the player and then simulating.

  11. emo says:

    Maybe next year US Soccer won’t have Salazar in charge of the US Open Cup final…

  12. laragon206 says:

    Yikes, terrible decision. Good thing Chivas managed to salvage a point from this game.

  13. stpauljosh says:

    wow, i was pretty confident that Chelis would be fined for his comment. i definitely did not think that the red card would be cleared!

    way to go MLS!

  14. whoop-whoop says:

    Don’t blame Chelis for his comments as I’d have been pretty PO’d and felt hard done as well…. but they were off base. Watch a few matches officiated by the same and he’d have a better perspective of what went on…. no conspiracy, just good old fashioned incompetence. Seems every match I see Salazar ref leaves me completely baffled.

  15. Shane says:

    Good to see. It was a ridiculous call and may have still cost them 2 pts

  16. Didier says:

    Terrible call, but he was lucky to be on the pitch after two terrible tackles anyways.

  17. Travis says:

    Take note FA, you can overrule your terrible refs if they make a mistake. Refusing to suspend McManaman for his tackle is a joke.

  18. john says:

    The player laying on the field faking injury should be fined. This is why the casual fan doesn’t like soccer. The league should make it a priority to eliminate diving.

    • Jedik says:

      I recall them fining players (not sure if suspending as well) las year for diving on penalty calls. That’s a start…

  19. RAMONE says:

    And how much is Colin Clark being fined and suspended for going in studs up and then simulating injury?

    Obviously MLS doing the right thing as far as Velazquez goes, but the flip side is had Clark not faked injury at worst it would have been just a blown call by the ref calling the foul on the wrong guy.

    • solles says:

      good point, its like when a ref waves play on for a guy simulating a foul in the penalty area; if it’s not a penalty, why wouldn’t it be a card for simulation going the other way?