In the wake of his new club's loss in Seattle, Peter Nowak cried foul over the "diving" of the Sounders, identifying Freddie Ljungberg as the biggest culprit. The Union were rough, got burned because of it, and were forced to play a man down for more than half the match. Nowak's words come off as whining, even if there is an element of truth to his assessment that Ljungberg and certain other Sounders dive on occasion.
Because of the reputation of those Sounders, referee Ricardo Salazar was in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation; call the game tightly and by the rules (as he did, for the most part), and he's castigated for handing out too many cards or unnecessarily influencing the game. Let more of the Union tactics go, and he'd be called to the carpet for allowing rough play, a characteristic of MLS bemoaned by many of the same fans who criticize the referees for "over officiating" or "losing control of the game".
Pick one, please. And yes, I realize that the plight of the referee is a difficult one, that it's not only MLS were they are harshly criticized no matter their what they do, and that much of the anger directed towards them is due to club loyalty. But there's a hypocrisy on that part of some fans that needs to be identified.
Do you want an open league where passing is actually possible, players aren't hacked down on a regular basis, and the game is more pleasing to the eye? Or do you want the physical, less skillful game that exists now where players too often make illegal challenges simply because the referees fail to penalize for it?
I'm not going to go to the wall for Ricardo Salazar, but I find little reason to criticize his performance last night. Nowak made excuses, something I can empathize with even as I wonder what kind of message it sends to his young team; but Major League Soccer needs an adjustment to the way the game is called, and whether or not Ljungberg and other Sounders dived does not mean that the Union were not guilty of card-able offenses.
Instead of lashing out at referees who may have had poor matches in the past, perhaps fans should applaud Salazar for calling the game as it needed to be and setting a tone for the season. The transition from a loosely-officiated league where overly-physical play is rewarded to one in which players are cautioned for fouls that were previously not called won't be pretty. While the players adjust, there will be ugly matches with an abundance of cards and the (perhaps more than occasional) sending off. If you want better soccer, you must be prepared to take a long view and deal with the repercussions of a fundamental change.
I don't know that the game Salazar called last night is indicative of a directive by MLS or US Soccer. I can't recall any announcements being made on the issue, though it's possible I missed it during the CBA mess. But if the season moves forward and Salazar and his colleagues call tighter matches that end with less than twenty-two players on the field, I hope fans (maybe just those not too blinded by club loyalty) can recognize the end result over time should be a better overall product. If you want to criticize, criticize those players who fail to recognize that there are things they just can't get away with anymore.
As difficult as it is to say, I have a small hope that 2010 sees the most cards in the history of the league because that will indicate to me that something is changing. It's time for Major League Soccer to become less about what players can get away with and more about who plays the best soccer.
Feel free to call me out if you think I've used too general a brush when it comes to fan assessment of the referees; but I know several people guilty of talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue.
We'll have more evidence after tomorrow's matches to determine if something is changing, or if this will be the same old MLS. If it's ugly, in a way that sees cautions and dismissals in numbers, keep in mind what it might mean.
