Skip to content

Melissa Tancredi avoids suspension, can play in bronze-medal match

Aug 8, 2012, 12:46 PM EDT

18 Comments
210493

FIFA will not punish Canadian Melissa Tancredi for the now-infamous stomp on Carli Lloyd’s head in the 55th minute of of the United States’ 4-3 victory over Canada. (You’ve heard about this game, yes? If not, you really need to get out more.)

It’s a questionable decision, but I think it’s ultimately the right one.

In a vacuum Tancredi should 100% be suspended for a couple games, maybe more. Deliberately cleating a fallen opponent in the head is dangerous, dirty, and just plain “highly illegal” to borrow a phrase. There is no proof she did it on purpose, but I’d argue it is certainly as bad as Lady Andrade’s punch to Abby Wambach that drew a two-match ban.

But the game wasn’t played in a vacuum. It was an ugly affair all around, with plenty of suspect refereeing decisions on both sides of the ball. The aftermath of the game keeps getting uglier and uglier. If FIFA suspends Tancredi, they will only prolong the narrative, taking the focus away from what promises to be an epic final.

It’s not fair that Trancredi didn’t get suspended, but the decision is the right one. FIFA should tell Trancredi her actions were absolutely unacceptable, that they will come down incredibly hard if she does anything similar in the future, and move on.

After all, there’s a gold medal to win.

Skip to Comments (18)
More ProSoccerTalk
Back to Homepage
  1. djrrockthepitch - Aug 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

    Poor decision by FIFA… and I don’t really follow your logic. how can it not be fair that she didn’t get suspended, but at the same time the right decision? If a right to the eye gets two games, then doesn’t a stomp on the head warrant AT LEAST 2 games? and probably more considering how much more dangerous it was.

  2. silverhairedfox - Aug 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

    The Canadians and their fans were complaining about the officiating, but said nothing about this blatant foul. Sour grapes from sore losers. Tancredi is a vile punk and nothing more.

  3. buzahn - Aug 8, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    Noah, you stated Tancredi was wrong for stomping on the head of a USA player but that FIFA made the right decision in not suspending her. What the hell is that supposed to mean? She should be out for at least the next two games that Canada plays, probably even more. Maybe your editor chopped up your post and the meaning didn’t come through. How about some clarification? ;-)

  4. tylerbetts - Aug 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

    I think I get what Noah is saying, and I think I agree with him.

    Yes, by the letter of the law, she should be suspended for the bronze medal game.

    However, if you suspend her, you continue the story as “Canada are being unfairly scrutinized by the letter of the law, and FIFA/the IOC wanted the USA in the final anyways, and Canada never had a chance”. Instead, the story is “the referee missed a call during the game, and we’re not going to correct that after the game.”

    I belive the difference between this and the punch thrown at Wambach is that the US asked for an investigation into the punch. I don’t see the US asking for them to look at the stomp. Nor should they.

    FIFA are losing a battle they could easily win here, but in doing so are avoiding a potentially worse war.

  5. chrishutchinson - Aug 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM

    Tancredi played a dirty game from the outset, fouling needlessly not 5 seconds into the game (check it out). The logic of this article is: “the ends (don’t make Canada any madder) justifies the means (no suspension for dangerous, deliberate stomp).” Boo.

    • brittcro - Aug 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

      I agree. It was painful to watch the blatant fouling and it was clear (to me) this was Tancredi’s plan from whistle blow. She is a good player and I am bothered by her poor judgement.

      Lastly – if Pederson did anything wrong, I think she didn’t keep the game in control by warning Tancredi.

  6. bobinkc - Aug 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM

    Noah, Noah, Noah, for shame!!!!! What if one of those cleats had gone into Carli’s ear or, worse yet, her eye? You would swinging from the rafters wanting a 10-game suspension, banning, or something worse. Instead, you call it a poor but justified decision by FIFA. What’s next: soccer with staves, or perhaps futbol with swords? If you allow a missed call as egregious as Tancredi’s foul to pass, you are (not even) tacitly condoning the type of rough-house, pick-up soccer that results in career-terminating injuries. Pull up your big-boy pants and admit that you need to revisit this silly travesty of blogging.

  7. jelliot1978 - Aug 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM

    I fail to see how the setting matters. It was cheap, dirty, dangerous and if it warrants suspension in a friendly it warrants suspension here. Just because the game was chippy doesn’t mean she can put her foot on an opponents face. Zidane was red carded in the World Cup final, Tancredi can be suspended from a medal game. The play in question happened when the score was tied at 1, plenty of time before the now infamous plays. There is no valid excuse for not suspending her. FIFA dropped the ball plain and simple.

    As to evidence she did it on purpose or not, all you have to do is look at her reaction to her foot not hitting the ground but something else. She didn’t even look, easiest explanation as to why is because she knew what it hit.

    FIFA not suspending her sends a clear message, if you lose an important game because of something out of the norm then you won’t get suspended for a blatant offense that under ‘normal’ circumstances would get you suspended.

  8. boscoesworld - Aug 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

    I am speechless!! I am literrally without speech!

  9. lewisgnc - Aug 8, 2012 at 4:57 PM

    Noah, you’re using someone’s tweet as your source? Are you sure FIFA has made a decision? That tweet is the only source I can find anywhere.

  10. bergkamper - Aug 8, 2012 at 5:20 PM

    I love how NBC doesn’t show the full context of the vid which shows that Tancredi went up for a header and as she was coming down she stepped on the US players’ head. Certain journalistic agenda? Hmmm…

    I can’t see any intent in her stomp after watching a longer version of the clip, especially as she’s looking at the ball the whole time. Did she play a physical game? Yes. Was she the only one? No way.

    How about Wambach’s studs up challenge on the Canadian player in the Canadian 18-yard box? Or the disgusting challenge on Canadian midfielder Desiree Scott which almost snapped her leg in extra time? I guess it’s “dirty play” when the US is played aggressively, but it’s “physically strong” or “resilience” when the US does it.

    This Tancredi-head stomp affair is a smoke screen by the US federation. Their team benefitted from horrible officiating, and then they try to throw the ref which handed them the game under the bus to show that “hey, we were wronged too” to take the negative press off of them. The fact that this game is still being discussed in major “soccer” centres around the world shows that this game raised the profile of women’s soccer. It makes the US federation, the IOC and FIFA on the whole embarrassed that much of the international soccer press sees this game for what it was: a game gifted to the USA by an inept ref.

    By the way I don’t think the game was fixed. The ref just sucked and wasn’t strong enough to see past Wambach’s crying and complaining so she caved in and ruined the outcome of an otherwise awesome game.

    Let’s hope the US team can win the next game without the help of the ref……

    • peakprofit - Aug 8, 2012 at 5:50 PM

      That Scott challenge was a perfectly clean – though unfortunate – challenge. If you actually watched the game, you would see that the US player touched the ball first of the two players and touched it before she and Scott had their legs meet. Sure it could have caused an injury. Soccer is a contact sport, with about 70% of the injuries being knee injuries.

      I won’t bother responding to the rest of the post, since it is clearly tinfoil hat type stuff.

      • bergkamper - Aug 8, 2012 at 6:46 PM

        I wouldn’t call clattering through a player recklessly “perfectly clean”, while the point you bring up about the US player making contact with “ball before body” is false.

        And you’re right. How dare I call out reputable organizations like the USSF and FIFA? What was I thinking?
        And God knows journalists and media networks like NBC would never play up or manufacture a story out of nothing to fit a narrative that they want to portray.

    • theraggles - Aug 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

      Yes, I agree that Heather O’Reily (one of my favorite players) should have gotten a yellow for that dangerous play But that doesn’t mean that FIFA shouldn’t punish a possibly life-changing injury. When a player breaks another player’s leg, they are almost always suspended. Because this was such a rough game FIFA should go back and review the entire game, including the call on McLeod.

  11. tackledummy1505 - Aug 8, 2012 at 5:20 PM

    Lol lol lol lol. All one can do is laugh. So far I’ve heard that holding onto the ball too long for the 6 second rule is a joke and shouldn’t have been called. Yet it’s a clear cut rule. Then we have a coach crying about highly illegal plays, yet his team played that way the entire game. Then lastly, Tancredi played what I thought was one of the dirtiest games I’ve seen in a women’s soccer match and should’ve gotten at least 5 yellow cards if it was possible. She made rough standing tackles with no regard to playing the ball, she grabbed every United States player’s jersey if it was possible, she slide tackled with the intent of trapping the ball handler’s legs and she stomped on Carli’s head. Do I believe it was intentional? Without a doubt yes. Do I want to see her suspended for an olympic medal game? No, but she should be suspended 1-2 international games. Lastly what I really want is to stop hearing the crying from Canada and their fans when they should’ve clearly been down at least one woman on the pitch and they were lucky the US didn’t get at least 2 pks. It was a great match. Leave it at that and stop all the BS. Cause you can’t just pick 1 thing out when there was several instances

  12. peakprofit - Aug 8, 2012 at 5:26 PM

    I am in th e pool of those that think the call Pederen made is just fine. So I might as well say that. Still, even if you are in the pool that thinks they saw Pedersen int he alley accepting cash from President Obama, you have to be ashamed with this ruling, if it is true.

    The decision is especially egregious considering that Lady Andreace received a swift and immediate 2 game suspension for an action of identical ( if perhaps even less) severity. If I am with the Columbian federation, I am going ballistic right about now. There can be no other interpretation than it being a red card foul. I can see how the REF missed it, as there was a challenge for the ball in the opposite direction. I am not so sure how the AR missed it, as they had to look right upon the foul, in order to track the ball. In any league, in any country, at any level, this is a red card and suspension.

    I have never been a fan of FIFA. The have specialized in confounding decisions for the past 20+ years. But they send two messages here 1) If you feel that you got the short end of the stick with the referee’s calls, we will take care of you in some other manner and 2) The welfare and safety of our players means absolutely nothing to us. And if you thought that there were conspiracy theorists out and about, regarding the 6 second call, imagine what has to come from their decision to ignore such a blatant foul from the team which is hosting the next WWC, and the country of a member ( chair, I believe) of the competition committee.) Me? I don’t think there is a conspiracy. I know FIFA well enough to never be surprised with anything they do.

    I think that it needs to be pointed out that even if one feels wronged by the calls at 77 or 79 minutes, this foul was at 55 minutes, with the score 1 – 1. Canada has about a 2% chance of winning this game if Tancredi is sent off at 55, and they play 11 v 10 for 35 minutes ( 65 if it happened to go to OT). It is clear that Tancredi felt somewhat emboldened after getting away with this, as her already rough play got amped up a bit, subsequently. As for the call at 77 minutes, you can argue what you wish. But it is a rule, and it is in the book. Whether it should have been called there has been argued in forums for 48 hours. But the thing to remember is that the call, questionable or not, still only provided an indirect kick from inside the box. It is really really hard to score on an indirect kick inside. I would have to estimate that 95% or more end up not being even the slightest threat. The US goal came from a handball – the same kind of handball you might see if Rapinoe shot the ball from 16 yards out. And there is not the slightest doubt that there were 2 handballs on the same play. The unpopular call did not lead to a goal. A handball by two Canadian players did.

    This is one of FIFA’s worst decisions, ever. From a personal perspective, I would prefer to see Tancredi and Sinclair both play in the bronze game. I want to see the highest level of competition. And I really don’t care what Sinclair bluted in the heat of the moment anyway. But, realistically, what are we teaching the young players, when they see this ( and it is viral folks.) More to the point, does this not set something of anarbitration precedent? The next time a player is mad that they got spiked and their team is losing, how does FIFA punish them for a flying drop kick to the head, when the offending player has this video and a lawyer, and asks why there was no punishment here?

  13. peakprofit - Aug 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM

    And, btw, Grant Wahl is a very reputable source. Unless he somehow got hacked – and would have clarified by now, I think we can say that thsi si the offical FIFA ruling.

  14. theraggles - Aug 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

    It does not matter whether it was an ugly affair all around or not. Getting a cleat to the head could have killed Lloyd. I’m not exaggerating. Small, albeit blunt objects, could have hit her in the temple and killed her. No matter if there was malicious intent, such a dangerous play will get you a red card every time. Not reviewing this game and suspending her because it was a rough game is like not prosecuting a murder because everyone else was fighting around them.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

More ProSoccerTalk
Back to Homepage
Top 10 Player Searches
  1. R. Gronkowski (NFL)
  2. C. Woodson (NFL)
  3. B. Harper (MLB)
  4. J. Odorizzi (MLB)
  5. D. Wade (NBA)
  1. M. Goodson (NFL)
  2. G. Hill (NBA)
  3. B. Beachy (MLB)
  4. D. Freeney (NFL)
  5. J. Profar (MLB)
Search player news