Confederations Cup: In Defense of Team USA's Questionable Red Cards

Despite night-and-day performances this Confederations Cup, Team USA has remained dependable in one department:

Unjustified, soft red cards to the midfield.

From Ricardo Clark’s late-but-harmless knee-high tackle to Sacha Kljestan’s late mugging of Ramires to Michael Bradley winning the ball first but cleating the ankle, it seems that Team USA wants to practice playing down a man against big competition while showing off some depth in center midfield. Bravo to them.

But the tackles, as many pundits and fans rightly claim, would merit yellow cards at most for every team except the United States. Fans blame the refs for this double standard, claiming the refs are colluding and conspiring to keep this upstart team from disturbing the balance of power in the system.

But allow me to, gulp, defend these officials for a moment. Before I do, let me say that two of those challenges, especially Bradley’s challenge, merited the softest red cards I have seen in international play. I was ready to blame the referee, but then I listened to the BBC’s take on Bradley’s red:

“They should have learned from their previous two sendings-off… I’d say in England that would probably be a free kick.”

These two statements sum up the recent problem with USA discipline. Let’s look at them separately, and in reverse order.

“I’d say in England that would probably be a free kick.”

Yes, and in MLS, play would have continued unfettered. These red cards illustrate the disagreement between the American and international (read: European) conceptions of a foul. 

MLS is not a La Liga dive-fest.  Play revolves around bruising hits and tackles in central defense and midfield.  

It’s not modern football, but MLS embraces and markets this brand of football as the “non-sissy” response to their sport’s domestic pantywaist stereotype. Whether that’s a good thing is another article altogether, but when it comes to translating American soccer to the big stage, American players have struggled to adapt accordingly.  

Look at it on the club level. Jozy Altidore, known for his physical play, can’t seem to get any love in Spain.

Those who have succeeded in Europe have done so in England and Germany, two of arguably the most physical European leagues.  Clint Dempsey, currently our most successful prototype, has succeeded by learning how to dive (poorly) and forgetting how to defend.  The rest of our players are relegated to France, Belgium, and Scandinavia, all respectable but not top European leagues.

“They should have learned from their previous two sendings-off.” 

Everyone in the world except Team USA seems to know that we have had a reputation for enforcer play in midfield, especially in big games.

Clark, Kljestan, and Bradley got their send-offs not just for their individual play, but for the bruising play of Pablo Mastroeni, John O’Brien, and Eddie Pope when they wore the Team USA jersey.  Yes, many times they didn’t receive cards for these fouls, especially in CONCACAF (known for terrible officiating) and even in the 2002 World Cup. 

But their style of play has compounded over time and resonated in the current American soccer tradition, earning Team USA the reputation of being stubborn, rigid, and reckless in defense and midfield.  Why did we love Onyewu and DeMerit yesterday?

They beat Spain to the ball. Literally.

That reputation, warranted or not, has given us a keener eye and a sterner whistle from international officials.

But even if we didn’t have that reputation and we still had those first two send-offs, should Ricardo Clark’s soft red teach us to stay out of reckless, studs-up tackles in the midfield?

Instead our midfield, unrelenting, refuses to adapt and stubbornly continues sliding into every tackle like banished Newcastle bad boy Joey Barton. 

So, when we get the seemingly inevitable send-off this Sunday, don’t blame the referee.

Blame MLS. Blame Pablo Mastroeni.  

And don’t forget: It’s not fair, but it’s our reputation. We earned it.