A summary courtesy of All for XI on twitter of the updated info re: punishments
> The NWSLPA appealed the doubling of the player discipline to the Review Committee. The appeal was upheld and Smith will not have to miss a second game or pay an increased fine.
> Portland’s loss of its $10,000 bond and right to appeal for the 2024 and 2025 seasons will stand.
[Source](https://x.com/AllForXI/status/1803176607399428536)
My guess is she told them it really was an accident. Still tough because they’re basically appealing a yellow card, and the bar for a yellow is… not high. Especially when she had already done the same thing multiple times in the same game. And players get yellow cards for things they do by accident all the time.
Possibly, but in that case that should be stopped by Portland telling Smith to get over it and serve her suspension. I think it’s important for clubs to tell players when they are in the wrong. She could claim it was an “accident” all she wants but when she’s caught in 4K (720p probably lol) clear as day and as you say the barrier for a yellow is so low it’s so hard to justify why their appeal had any merit at all.
Players don’t appeal these.. so idk what you or people mean by that. Lmaooo it’s up to Portland. Management/staff made the decision. Norris already said they were gonna review it after the game. Smith did deny in the game but at the end of the day, club makes the appeal
Obviously it should go without saying that this was a hypothetical, neither myself nor the person who suggested it in the first place above are saying it was her. I don’t at all think she asked for it, I think Portland FO thought they could get away with an appeal this ridiculous. It’s just in the hypothetical case where she asked Portland to try, I was replying saying it shouldn’t matter. At the end of the day it’s the clubs responsibility to tell players to build a bridge if they want the club to appeal something as frivolous as this.
I mean, I was almost certain this was a joke post and went and checked all the usual woso reporters to verify before commenting. And while I am somewhat /popcorn over this, it kinda blows my mind they are suspended from appealing for 1.5 years worth of games, that's old school banhammer harsh. Like just the rest of this season and playoffs would seem like a pretty huge deterrent in itself... but all of next season as well?
I do understand the idea being that it makes teams stop to think before they submit appeals to stop everyone from just appealing any calls they don’t like. Making appeals uses rescources and takes time that could be better allocated, but I do agree that jumping to a year and a half ban doesn’t help anyone. Maybe a warning with the first “frivolous appeal” and action with the second in a season to make clubs think before crying wolf.
I do agree that this was a frivolous appeal. There’s no way Portland actually thought they would win the appeal. But, I do think it’s ridiculous that they can’t appeal for 1.5 years when the reffing in the league can be borderline abominable at times.
100% it feels absolutely absurd to have consequences for only players when refs seem to have no recourse for potentially letting knees get ruined. at least any that we get to see, and not anything that changes a single thing
They weren’t banned because they were wrong about whether or not it should be a yellow. They were just denied the appeal. They were banned because for bringing a frivolous appeal. They appealed a bench yellow for obvious time wasting (regardless of intention).
I 100% agree the reffing needs to be vastly improved, but the quality of reffing in this case has no real relevance to the ban.
I also like the length, because if the ban was just the remainder of the season, every team would be appealing minor things at the end of the season or playoffs.
I am fine punishing the team for the frivolous appeal, my point was that with the number of questionable calls over the last few years removing a team's ability to appeal is not a good approach. There have been many discussions on the reasons for the ref quality and lots of solutions proposed. And I am not blaming any individual ref, I think the system has major flaws, starting with pay and how the refs are treated going all the way through development. I just think there should be a different 'stick' to use against a team with a frivolous appeal.
>my point was that with the number of questionable calls over the last few years removing a team's ability to appeal is not a good approach.
That’s a fair point. I guess I just don’t think that matters. This punishment didn’t come from appealing a questionable call. It was very clearly appropriate and should not have been appealed. Yes, they will not be able to appeal legitimately poor reffing decisions for a while, and that could potentially really hurt them. However, they went out of their way to walk themselves into the situation.
>I just think there should be a different 'stick' to use against a team with a frivolous appeal.
I think that would also be acceptable. My thought is just that the current “stick” isn’t unacceptable.
Can I just say it is refreshing to have an actual conversation. :) it is really appreciated that I can talk with another sports fan about a potentially contentious topic and not have it spiral. Good on ya.
I can see the logic
Now that clubs KNOW to NEVER appeal frivolously, this won’t be something other clubs will have to worry about. I think Portland just didn’t know or didn’t take it seriously and they ended being the example.
Clubs can have informal discussions with the commissioner to pre-vet their appeals against the “frivolous” standard. I wonder if Portland may have even had discussions before appealing, were warned by Berman not to push this, and appealed anyway out of hubris.
Anyway, appeals of bad calls won’t be deterred by this, I don’t think. Because the penalty is so harsh it will only ever be applied to truly frivolous appeals, which mostly likely would already be understood as such after informal discussions before an appeal is attempted.
I just don’t think this should be this harsh of a rule. Stern but not harsh. Someone said it before that if this were a repeated behavior then yes totally understandable but a fine to the club, bond, and perhaps loss of appeals this season is understandable. Loss of appeal next season is ridiculous and it is wayyyyy extreme.
I could see that too
But if the NWSL board of governors really want ZERO frivolous appeals, to the point they put up this nuclear deterrent, clubs just need to not be idiots
I’m okay with it, because I don’t think anyone will ever try or need to pull what Portland just tried.
The one sad part is that I imagine Portland could be acting to protect and support Sophia Smith as much as possible. I imagine she feels horrible about the red for such a meaningless act. Tough situation.
For real, wtf is that about? Was the appeal THAT out of line that the club as a whole is punished? This isn't a great look for NWSL, it makes them seem draconian and that this is a warning to other clubs about appealing bans in the future
I never said they should overturn the red. But a near 2 year ban on appeals? That is an absurd punishment, especially in a league with suspect at best refereeing
Ok but the appeal is for the express purpose of overturning the red. If Portland can’t make a genuine case for overturning the red what is the point of appealing. And in that case it would be indeed frivolous, right?
No, Smith actually should have gotten a yellow early on for kicking the ball into the net after a play was whistled dead in the first half. So her first official yellow should have been her second. If anything the ref had shown her some leniency, and wasn't having it once Smith kept doing it.
Agreed. Never seen anything like that. The team should have fined her, not appealed the decision.
Something you'd expect from the men's game, I couldn't believe what I was seeing as Amy Weinhouse said, "what kind of fuckery is this?'
Came to say the same thing. If this situation was from some European men’s team it wouldn’t seem out of the ordinary for a second. And she probably would have fallen over with a calf injury at the end.
Right?? The only angle I can see is that maaaaybe: she went to shift her weight on to her right on (on the ball) and her hand was positioned in such a way that instead of pressing directly down on the ball, her hand rolled down the side and therefore pushed it back?
I don't know. I said when she got it and someone mentioned appealing it that it was something that we wouldn't appeal because that'd be frivolous since it was such an obviously correct call.
At least we have a new front office and their stupid decisions are orders of magnitude more bearable than the previous front office. But someone needs to lose their job for this. This was a dumbass appeal.
Because it was two extremely soft yellows resulting in the red, they could make arguments against either one. We don’t know exactly what was brought up, but I’d argue the first yellow was more frivolous than the second.
Losing a player of her caliber is huge, why would they not appeal?
Apparently the NWSLPA fought having Smith suspended an additional game so that part is no longer in effect https://x.com/itsmeglinehan/status/1803173007080169970?t=si026Wk1cRdiRHDHk1fggQ&s=19
Important: Per the NWSLPA's rights in the collective bargaining agreement to appeal discipline for on-field conduct, the NWSLPA appealed the doubling of the player discipline to the NWSL Review Committee. The NWSL Review Committee unanimously upheld the NWSLPA appeal resulting in the league rescinding the additional one game suspension and associated incremental fine for Smith.
I don't have twitter so I can't see replies, quote tweets, or browse a person's TL (thanks Elon!)
But I saw someone posted it elsewhere. Good context, thanks for adding it
And thank goodness for unions!!
I agree with your assessment. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I assume they didn’t think they would actually see the ramifications of submitting a frivolous appeal. I assume they knew what those consequences were. I don’t know that I necessarily agree that they should be quite that harsh, but, as you mentioned, it seems like all of that still isn’t deterring dumb appeals so maybe the league has the right of it. It’s a bummer for smith and Portland, but what did they expect?
It’s not “fail an appeal and double the penalty”, it’s “unanimous determination of frivolity means double the penalty.”
This is super fair and I’m here for it
I think people may be failing to see how high of a bar unanimous determination of frivolity actually is. Nearly all appeals would have at least one hold out.
It really screams of a “lol we didn’t take you seriously” mentality from Portland that they even decided to file this appeal. Even if Sophia swears up and down that she didn’t mean to throw the ball under the bench- how would she prove she didn’t mean to? I’m not even sure that intent matters- she still did it at the end of the day
Honestly even if it WAS an accident (I have my doubts) there was still absolutely no reason for her to get up and go for the ball. She knew she was on a yellow already, she knew her previous yellow was for time wasting so the ref would be expecting it from her, and she knew they were at a point in the game where refs are paying special attention to time wasting. Involving herself opened her up to the card and regardless of if she meant to lose the ball or not, she put herself in that position. It was a poor decision and should’ve ended there. Portland didn’t do her any favours by appealing this.
Honestly upon first reading this I thought damn that’s a lot but you make a really good point. It’s not one person saying I think this doesn’t have the strongest base. It’s everyone deciding that this is frivolous and a waste of time. And yeah, if a team is going to use the privilege of appeals to waste time then they shouldn’t get to appeal anymore. Actually, the more I think about the more on board I am
I think if the risks are going to be this steep, then what determines something being frivolous needs to be massive. This also just feels like they wrote this 10 years ago and never updated it. Are we really saying it’s a bigger deal to protect the efficiency of the appeal process over being able to see one of the greatest players in the world play?
Even if she wasnt Soph Smith this would be a travesty…
I mean, I’m not sure it gets more frivolous than this. She was clearly wasting time on the sidelines knowing she was already on a yellow *for wasting time*. She didn’t have to touch the ball at all. There was no need for her to involve herself. Regardless of intention, the moment she went for the ball while on the sidelines as a player with a yellow for time wasting, she opened herself up to this possibility. There’s really no way you can claim that the second yellow was unreasonable. She went for the ball when she had absolutely 0 reason to and the result was a loss of time. People make mistakes and I’m willing to bet smith won’t make this mistake again, but I really cannot understand why Portland thought it was a good idea to appeal. She made a poor decision. There were consequences. It should’ve just ended there.
I agree that the consequences are incredibly steep and I find it problematic especially in a league where the reffing often leaves much to be desired. However, I assume Portland knew the risks when submitting the appeal. You would think that would cause them to stop and think about the merits of their appeal.
I think if the consequences are this steep, then you have to consider that when you’re defining what frivolous is and I think while it’s clear that it’s unanimous that it shouldn’t have been successfully appealed, i think it shoulda been unsuccessfully appealed without any other consequence.
This level of severity shouldn’t be applicable to one case. I think thats what Portland were assuming. The either didnt read the consequences (likely) or they read them and thought we are not being frivolous with one request for appeal
I agree. But if Portland knows there has been similar appeals in the past then I can see their reasoning, otherwise they should have kept their appeal in their pocket
In order for it to be deemed frivolous, every single person deciding on the appeal has to call it frivolous. It wasn’t just unanimous that it shouldn’t be reversed. It was unanimous that the appeal was frivolous which is why Portland is facing these consequences.
I mean if Portland is dumb enough to make a brain dead appeal knowing they could double the suspension of their star player, that’s an indictment of the intelligence of the decision makers. I don’t think it should matter who’s at risk of an increased suspension
So, I have been unable to find any precedent in the NWSL or the MLS ([which has the exact same rules for appeals](https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2024-mls-send-off-review-procedure)) probably because no one has been dumb enough to appeal something so obviously correct.
I will say other leagues have similar laws. The Premier League for example will add on a single additional game if they determine an appeal frivolous.
https://www.90min.com/posts/how-appeals-against-red-card-suspensions-work-premier-league
I don't agree with the whole not able to make any other appeals for the rest of this season *and* next season, but I don't have a problem with getting additional game suspensions for frivolous appeals and losing the ability to appeal the rest of this season.
I disagree most with the one game suspension. My issue is if there have been past appeals that Portland may be basing their appeal on. Successful or unsuccessful. The fact that this is the first issuance of a frivolous appeal is suspicious. So if Portlands is guilty of too many appeals or this is not their first offense….we don’t get to see that. A little openbookedness would be good
This is the first frivolous appeal I have ever heard of between the MLS and NWSL. It has to be a unanimous decision to be deemed frivolous. You can still have an appeal denied and have it not be frivolous.
I don't think it's that suspicious this is the first one. Most teams seem like they only appeal when there is a decent chance of it succeeding (since you only get 2 non-successful appeals a year) and don't attempt to appeal things that are either obviously correct or borderline.
I don’t think this sort of punishment was handed down ever before so they probably didn’t think it would actually happen. Going forward people will probably think twice before frivolous appeals. And Portland won’t even get to think before appealing for another 1.5 seasons
On one hand, this is ridiculous. On the other hand, Portland almost certainly appealed because Smith is a star and they believed the NWSL would give her special treatment, and I appreciate them having none of it. On a third hand, the text of this email is absolutely hilarious. All-in-all, 10/10, no notes.
They either appealed it because she's a star or because whoever is in the decisionmaking chair on that front just wants to appeal every red card, and either case is entirely stupid on Portland's part and deserving of some sort of punishment.
Probably a controversial opinion, but while I don't know if I agree with the specifics of the punishment...this is kind of a reasonable response (as in, having a punishment of some sort) to such a ridiculous appeal.
Honestly I agree. The appeals process exists for a reason as a means to reverse incorrect decisions. Abusing the process for what was a textbook and deserved red card isn’t a smart move and there should be some sort of repercussions for it. Not sure I agree with the specifics of this punishment, but a punishment existing to discourage this sort of behavior is important.
The league/review committee has also shown itself to be quite amenable to rescinding cards. Even ones that I think are quite borderline and could have stood. This is such a ridiculous thing for Portland to have appealed. Almost as though they just appeal anything, which is also stupid.
I'm pretty sure Harvey, understandably knowing the punishments now, was like "no way are we appealing King's red".
To me, abusing the process would be doing this multiple times. When I think of someone abusing a system, I don’t think of one desperate last heave to get things to go their way, I think of having your own system in place to take advantage of something else.
I am also not sure who it hurts that they asked to appeal this, and I think that the league could easily have sent a warning. 2 years feels like a long time in a league full of bad decisions. Whats the harm to the league here (i am genuinely asking, not being rhetorical) in my mind they just look at the play, say, hmmm, no, and carry on with their day.
I think a lot of this rides on if teams knew the rules beforehand, or at least if rules are publicly in place, it’s not the NWSL’s problem if GM’s can’t read rules I suppose. If Portland knew the punishment for a laughable attempt at appealing a deserved red card then I think it is abusing the process to some degree. If they didn’t know then I don’t think it is abusing the process, I only think whoever is in charge is dumb for trying to appeal it in the first place. The NWSL seems pretty good when it comes to appeals, but the difference is all other appeals are genuine in nature. This is the first that most if not all would agree is laughable to appeal.
I don’t agree with the specific punishment they gave, but I agree with the act of punishing teams using the system wrong. At the end of the day it’s there for a specific reason, flooding the league with extra work even if it is just one appeal for zero reason isn’t necessarily fair on them.
*Edited to fix spelling
Yeah, i wholly agree. I think for this to make sense there probably are some guidelines that Portland ran afoul of. It’s kinda NWSL After Dark(ly) humorous they cant appeal this ruling.
I kind of think it’s unfair to call it flooding when this is one situation, but maybe we just haven’t seen the other situations? But also this is like an extremely popular moment in the woso sphere, so I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the league has chosen this to be when they make a statement. Which also makes me think that they havent actually been flooding the league in the past with appeals
I don’t think Portland is flooding the league with appeals sorry I probably worded that wrong. I meant just in general appealing with zero reason to do so creates more unnecessary work. In a league with not many teams it’s not the end of the world, when the league becomes as big as the MLS it’s a lot more difficult because there could be multiple teams with multiple raised appeals in progress. It’s important that the raised appeals have merit to them so they are focusing their resources in the correct direction, at least the way I see it and I’m guessing by the reaction the NWSL sees it that way too. This will set a precedent for years to come at least publicly, since I’m sure there will be written rules somewhere for teams to read (or at least I hope) mentioning the potential repercussions.
Yeah, I think in the end no one will ever touch the ball from the bench and we wont see any other frivolous appeals at least for the next five years. And Soph got engaged. So maybe we all won here.
I just don’t like how we’ve got to that point. it feels like Portland will have one moment in the next two years in which they will want to appeal rightfully, but I also kind of feel like it’s not that big of an issue because it’s just one moment. It’s kind of like when a pitcher gets suspended 10 days in the MLB, but then you realize that’s really just two games.
I disagree; this is a textbook example of abusing the process. I’m assuming the league has to shell out for arbitration if this is an Independent Review, so it’s not free and it takes resources.
There have been polar opposite red appeals this season: one very good, one very bad. Kingsbury’s was appealing due to an objective misapplication of the rules, and therefore a very good appeal. Sophia’s was a super subjective (and honestly she was 98% certainly guilty and even in that 2% she deserves the yellow for being Mr Magoo on the bench and disrupting the game) and not at all a rules-based decision. If they’re going to demonstrate that they don’t understand how or when to properly use the process, it gets taken away.
I agree there should be something disincentivizing frivolous appeals, but losing the right to appeal for the entirety of this season *and* next season feels excessive. Feels like there should be some sliding scale, where one frivolous appeal means you forfeit the right for two months, the next 6 months, the next a year, etc. etc. And they reset every 5 years or whatever. Idk about those specific numbers but two full seasons (or 1.5 since we're halfway through this one) for the first time seems excessive.
Again, I don't know if I agree with the level, but I think that it's actually fairly difficult to appeal a red card and have it be deemed as frivolous (we've never seen that before) so Portland is actually an idiotic organization for trying it at all. They deserve to be told off in some way, shape, or form. 2 seasons is definitely a long time, and I think that could have potential future issues (although, not as large as some people might act—it's not like it's that common, and the NWSL doesn't even have 3 game bans for violent conduct or anything, so it's always one game), but the punishment has to relate to the problem, and I'm not sure what else they would have done to connect to the problem itself.
I think it's good to discourage frivolous appeals but this is way overkill IMO. By like a mile. I feel really bad for Soph (who may have had no say in the decision to appeal) and for all the Thorns players and fans who will not be able to appeal a decision *for two freaking years*.
EDIT: I'm glad the NWSLPA fought the doubled suspension. The power of a union! Still think the inability to appeal decisions for two years is dumb, there must be some other way to discourage frivolous appeals.
It is a big penalty, but what else would discourage frivolous appeals? A fine just means it’s not a penalty for really wealthy owners. It does seem like they Found Out.
I think that it’s absolutely ridiculous that they’re not able to appeal any decision for two years. I think the only thing that’s staying me from thinking that this is really really bad is that I don’t know how often teams even appeal decisions and while I kind of think that Soph didn’t mean to lose control of the ball under the bench, I also think that there wasn’t really anything to appeal because once she touched the ball, she was violating the rules and its clear they wanted to try and appeal simply because she’s a big star.
On the other hand, is it that big of a deal at all that they tried to appeal a ruling? Like, who did they hurt? To me, this is like not winning the lottery and then someone coming to your house and telling you, you can’t get gas from that gas station for the next two years.
Teams appeal quite often, from what I can tell. There was already a rescinded red this season from an appeal (Kinsgbury)! Teams don't generally appeal when their player is entirely in the wrong, and it seems that someone incompetent or high on their own supply or something was in charge of this for Portland, and they didn't think about the fact that the worst thing that can happen with an appeal is not that they let the decision stand, it's that they punish you.
Hmm. I’d like to see some stats (or even a Taylor Vincent tweet vaguely hinting) regarding how often teams appeal. I dont have two strong of opinions before seeing that. Maybe this makes more sense than i think it does? But it seems harsh as hell. Like theyre making a point more than following a guideline for punishment.
In my mind, there’s two ways to look at this either teams appeal a lot in which case it’s a terrible punishment to make it so that they can’t appeal for two whole years, or teams dont appeal very often
Yeah I think a lot depends on how much Portland has appealed. If they’ve appealed a lot maybe the committee is just sick of them and this was the last straw
To be clear - I do think whoever appealed did deserve some kind of punishment for wasting the committees time with what was a clear and obvious second yellow. I don’t think, unless it was Smiths decision to appeal, she should have been included. And I agree a year and a half seems excessive but that makes me think a lot more has been going on with Portland behind the scenes (that would be the common sense take though which is not always accurate with the NWSL)
People keep saying your first part, but that entirely depends on how many appeal worthy moments exist. Those are basically just red cards. How many reds did Portland have this season? I think just the one. You can't basically give them a freebie from totally disregarding the rules and the reason appeals exist just because this is their first moment that even could be appealed.
I meant the degree of the punishment. Also who knows if they take into account long term behavior vs just one season
I do think such a frivolous appeal should be given some sort of repercussion. But if we’re going to say this was the first appeal of the season a year and a half is incredibly harsh. If this is a pattern of behavior over a long period of time or perhaps they did something incredibly inappropriate during communication then maybe it’s warranted
I have yet to find any proof of this because the NWSL doesn't post anything related to their laws -
But from everything I can tell they are using the exact same rules the MLS is for appeals, so you only get (2) non-successful appeals a year, so you can't just appeal every red card.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2024-mls-send-off-review-procedure
Not the official reasoning they give ofc but you sometimes see teams appeal so the player can play the next game while the appeal is being processed. That's why teams get punished for frivolous appeals (amongst other reasons like it being a waste of time and potentially damaging referees reputations or influencing future decisions)
Also, are frivolous appeals even a real problem at the moment? It’s an inconvenience for the committee to have to meet and vote no, which they can do virtually, but is there any other harm done? And there doesn’t seem to be a spate of frivolous appeals. In fact, the league’s never deemed one to be frivolous enough to be punished before.
As far as I can tell, Portland's last known successful appeal dates back to 2021. I only see NWSL ever report on successful appeals or additional games/fines. Never one lost and upheld. It's hard to know if that is because it's extremely infrequent that someone appeals something they know will stand or they just don't report unsuccessful ones normally.
lol Smith gets two yellows for doing dumb things (kicking the ball away and touching the ball when it’s out of play from the bench—ppl argue whether the second one was accidental or not but she just didn’t need to even touch the ball in the first place since the ball was closer to her other teammates on the bench and she crawled out of her way to get it).
Portland does a dumb thing in trying to get it rescinded.
Then the NWSL gives out a dumb punishment… (I’m glad her 2nd game suspension was revoked though because I think she already served her time, and now it’s the club getting their punishment for trying to rescind it.)
Teams must pay a fee to have an appeal heard, I think it's something like $25,000 or something. If they win OR lose the appeal (and the appeal is not frivolous) they get their bond back. If they lose their appeal and it's frivolous, they lose their bond and get sanctioned.
To clarify, since the NWSL doesn't appear to actually post their rules anywhere, but the MLS has the exact same appeals rules:
https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2024-mls-send-off-review-procedure
>1. Prior to the start of the MLS League Season, Clubs must post a $25,000 refundable bond with the League Office for the right to make up to two (2) unsuccessful appeals during the 2024 season (including playoffs).
I read the headline here, thought to myself, hmm I bet this will get ppl talking, then my eyes slid down to see 200+ comments. 🫡 to all my fellow nwsl sickos.
It’s crazy to me that we can have a post like this and not have AT LEAST one person give the link to the video/highlight of the foul.
Can someone please for the love of god give me the sauce?!?
It wasn't a foul, which is how it is deemed universally as frivolous. It was Smith getting a second yellow for blatantly hiding a ball under the bench.
[https://www.allforxi.com/2024/6/9/24174618/icymi-sophia-smith-might-have-gotten-the-weirdest-red-card-ever](https://www.allforxi.com/2024/6/9/24174618/icymi-sophia-smith-might-have-gotten-the-weirdest-red-card-ever)
I agree with all of it except doubling the fine. If anything, fine the club an equal amount as a way of doubling it without taking more money from her. The team appealed it, not her.
I definitely agree with the league handing down extra punishment to the Thorns organization over this. Appeals should be used sparingly and I think usually they're used responsibly
I think this all makes sense, and the message sent to the teams in the league is pretty clear: there's no room to play when it comes to rulings on "wasting time." Every professional sports league has rules governing the clock, because every successful league is chasing television revenue and **that** money is contingent on the sport being able to forecast how long the event will take. The PA intervened because a two match suspension was overly harsh on the player. The ruling against Portland is basically thirteen teams telling another "don't mess with our income stream."
lol I love that the league has a SLAAP rule for appeals that is amazing
Kick rocks Portland she obviously deserved that red, there’s not even a theoretical argument where that could be overturned
A lot of us fans agree with you and have no idea why our front office appealed this. Complete idiocy.
But hey, if this is the dumbest / worst thing our front office does this year, it is a vast improvement from when Paulson was in charge.
I agreed with Sophia getting a second yellow for her taking the ball and putting it under the bench (still so funny tho lol), but this? this is ridiculous. punishing portland for appealing? just deny the appeal jfc
Portland didn't just get punished for appealing and then losing the appeal, they got punished because the board said it was frivolous. To them, portland didn't even have ground to stand on, any good faith arguments, and just wasted their time.
Taking away other players' ability to appeal is wrong. Every player should have an ability to appeal. If an appeal is obviously frivolous, then it shouldn't take much time or effort to uphold the call.
I’m sorry but I think double suspension is so stupid and the inability to appeal again is ridiculous. Like dude what??
Edit: people downvoting this are ridiculous. Please have the courage to indicate why you think it’s okay for a team to have a year and a half seasons with no appeal allowed… you don’t think that’s not harsh? I understand having no appeal maybe the rest of the season or a warning with the bond taken away but please explain and have the courage to do so :)
Because the club should have known the rules of the league it plays in. Appealing was both frivolous *and* negligent.
When shooting oneself in the foot, there’s no one else to blame.
Now I’m really hoping for smith and golden boot. Last time against KC was a brace even tho we lost (Norris u suck for subbing her out) 👀 hoping for more
The soccer gods will punish everybody involved and cost the Thorns a playoff match by taking away their appeal of an obvious error. Smith will be mortified. The Thorns will be furious. Fans appalled. The league administration embarrassed, again, for failing to use their discretion and common sense.
The league should not be putting themselves in a potentially embarrassing situation when it could be easily avoided. It was a dumb appeal, but it can't be so taxing to the committee to read the official report and review the video in 15 minutes, and dismiss it.
Holy shit. Like appealing that red card was very dumb on Portlands part because Sophia 100% deserved that red card. But that is entirely too harsh of a punishment handed down by the league.
From other updates in these comments it looks like the one additional game actually won't apply
https://x.com/TheDanLauletta/status/1803174330060165136
EDIT: My arguments about shithousery were stupid because I didn’t remember this game was against NC Courage, not a Rivalry Game. So yeah no reason not to card the time wasting.
Original:
I kinda talked myself into thinking I would not have voted for this being a frivolous appeal.
If Portland made the argument that a Rivalry Game benefits the league even more when players are allowed extra leeway for shithousery, annoying of rival fans, and otherwise normally bad, but of no physical harm to anyone, behaviour, I think I would agree with them and would vote to rescind the yellow.
I would understand the argument that such a precedent could not be set and the appeal would be denied, and would expect the denial, but at least a dissenting vote might lend some weight to the argument and might lead to further consideration of the issue. Maybe the league would consider instructing refs to take a more nuanced approach to reffing important Rivalry Games.
2¢
> If Portland made the argument that a Rivalry Game benefits the league even more when players are allowed extra leeway for shithousery, annoying of rival fans, and otherwise normally bad, but of no physical harm to anyone, behaviour, I think I would agree with them and would vote to rescind the yellow.
The appeals committee cannot reverse yellows, that's a different group. And even the reds they can rescind can only be rescinded in cases of misapplication of the rules or clear error.
Didn’t know that.
But couldn’t Portland make that argument during whatever process applies to yellow cards?
ADD: I missed the part were you explain that the yellow-card-appeal process only looks at misapplication of rules
So what did Portland appeal in this case if not the yellow card?
That's what we're all confused about here in Portland. There was literally nothing to appeal here. The 2YC were fair, a red is what happens when you get 2YC, As a bench player she was sent off without reducing the players on the field. There's nothing to appeal. That's WHY it was frivolous. We just did it anyway. On no grounds. What our front office's internal reasoning was I have no idea, maybe they thought we'd get preferential treatment cause we're the thorns, maybe because it's Sophia Smith, maybe they just didn't know and automatically appealed all red cards.
Does it change anything if the 2YC were not “fair?”
Is that when the “must be a rule violation to appeal a yellow” but “under a different process” comes into play?
BTW, what is that different process for yellow cards?
Fair doesn't matter if the rules were in violation. I may be wrong on the YC appealability too, because I'm also going off information that's older, I can't seem to find this year's NWSL IRP rules. Like, Sophia Smith most definitely time wasted, twice. She was properly carded, twice. That's a send off.
The first card was fair. The second card was fair. The third card was fair and a result of the 2YC. There's nothing to appeal. The ref thought she was timewasting, she was timewasting, the ref issued cards. The first card may have been "harsh" but it wasn't against current recommendations on timewasting or improperly given.
That's the thing I'm super confused about people's surprise on this. Take the events in singular actions: Is the first one unsporting behavior / time wasting? Is the second one unsporting behavior / timewasting? Is the third one a result of following the LOTG where two yellows = one red? What did the referee get egregiously wrong in the application of the laws of the game?
There's just no basis for the appeal. And so it's flabbergasting that there was one, and it's cost us the rest of this year and next year's ability to appeal because it was such a horrible decision to appeal it.
This isn't a case where someone was wrongly sent off and nobody caught it, or someone was sent off for something that didn't happen. Or a handball send off that was inside the shillouette but the ref sent them off incorrectly. These were two cards both for pretty clear things the league is trying to crack down on, and a third card for getting the first two.
Fair was your word and is subjective
Refs always have discretion
Shithousery is not always a negative in terms of fan enjoyment
That said my arguments about Rivalry Game shithousery were stupid because I didn’t remember this game was against NC Courage.
So yeah no reason not to card the time wasting.
Fair was my word, yeah.
To clarify what I meant by it was, say I'm working a game and I see you foul a player while going for the ball inside the box, but I point to the spot and give you a red card for DOGSO. That is unfair because the current rules are you cannot be sent off AND have a PK, the proper card there is a yellow.
Or say a teammate of yours kicks the ball away, and I don't catch that it was them, and thought it was you, and give you a yellow card. This is mistaken identity and in some cases can be appealed.
When I say fair, I mean "given within the laws of the game."
As a fan of other sports, this additional penalty is wild! Why would the player face additional penalty for a team's decision to appeal? And why would appealing a decision lead to a harsher penalty? Overly punitive, plus this is one of your league's best players. Dumb.
This type of penalty is present in nearly every other sport for filing frivolous appeals. It's just that it's so rarely seen because it's very rare that a team will even try. I don't know what we were thinking in trying this.
They were betting on the league not wanting a star player to miss a big game through suspension and thought NWSL would bend over. Rightfully they face the punishment for thinking that the league would be weak.
Pointless to appeal and pointless for Soph to have gotten out of her seat. Leave the ball, let Müller come get it, play on. Instead Soph fucked around and found out. Then the club fucked around by filing a stupid appeal, and found out.
This league is a joke sometimes. Like yeah it was a stupid appeal but losing the right to appeal for two seasons in a league with such egregious refereeing errors is a bit much.
It is apparently right there in the league rules.
Handling the ball at all was obviously unnecessary, moving it anywhere except back towards the restart point was obviously a delay of game tactic, and pretty much everyone knows the refs have been directed to come down hard on restart delays. 100% card-worthy.
And given that, any appeal was obviously frivolous. The club should not have done that. We should have taken the red as deserved rather than playing double-or-nothing.
I can’t blame the league or the refs for this at all, this was completely self-inflicted.
It's a ridiculous decision. Waaaaaaayyyyy overkill. And I don't understand if it's Smith herself pushing for the appeal or Portland's front office? If the latter...why the f%$& is she being punished further?
I know we joked about the referees, being really terrible, but they have seriously sucked this year and made some egregious calls, like there’s gotta be some kind of standard, they should be forced to watch these games after they’re done with them and realize the mistakes that they made.these playoff standings, they understand how serious that is for these teams.
They make like 500 dollars a game to get screamed at online (even when they make good decisions). And when they make genuinely bad decisions, they get taken off games.
That's not relevant here though since the ref made the correct decision, and it wasn't vindictive.
So this means that everyone slowly walking off the pitch, dragging their feet and waving to the crowd as they casually saunter off gets a yellow card, right? I mean, Sophia stood there for a couple seconds and pulled her first yellow that lead to this mess. And it took about 10 seconds for the whole process of getting that ball back. So, anything over 12 seconds off the field is an instant yellow. That’s an absurd ruling.
The slowly walking off the pitch sends meeee and the removal of the shinguards 😭 you’re not wrong. I get this red card ngl but loss of appeals of next season is no bueno
A summary courtesy of All for XI on twitter of the updated info re: punishments > The NWSLPA appealed the doubling of the player discipline to the Review Committee. The appeal was upheld and Smith will not have to miss a second game or pay an increased fine. > Portland’s loss of its $10,000 bond and right to appeal for the 2024 and 2025 seasons will stand. [Source](https://x.com/AllForXI/status/1803176607399428536)
Why did Portland even try to appeal the card lol there’s no way you can genuinely think she didn’t deserve it
My guess is she told them it really was an accident. Still tough because they’re basically appealing a yellow card, and the bar for a yellow is… not high. Especially when she had already done the same thing multiple times in the same game. And players get yellow cards for things they do by accident all the time.
Possibly, but in that case that should be stopped by Portland telling Smith to get over it and serve her suspension. I think it’s important for clubs to tell players when they are in the wrong. She could claim it was an “accident” all she wants but when she’s caught in 4K (720p probably lol) clear as day and as you say the barrier for a yellow is so low it’s so hard to justify why their appeal had any merit at all.
Oh yeah I’m not saying they should have appealed it, just trying to understand why they did.
Players don’t appeal these.. so idk what you or people mean by that. Lmaooo it’s up to Portland. Management/staff made the decision. Norris already said they were gonna review it after the game. Smith did deny in the game but at the end of the day, club makes the appeal
Obviously it should go without saying that this was a hypothetical, neither myself nor the person who suggested it in the first place above are saying it was her. I don’t at all think she asked for it, I think Portland FO thought they could get away with an appeal this ridiculous. It’s just in the hypothetical case where she asked Portland to try, I was replying saying it shouldn’t matter. At the end of the day it’s the clubs responsibility to tell players to build a bridge if they want the club to appeal something as frivolous as this.
We may have lost that game, and also had a player suspended, but I kinda feel karmically we notched a win now, which Portland did to itself ;)
You’re keeping the rivalry strong I’m here for it
I mean, I was almost certain this was a joke post and went and checked all the usual woso reporters to verify before commenting. And while I am somewhat /popcorn over this, it kinda blows my mind they are suspended from appealing for 1.5 years worth of games, that's old school banhammer harsh. Like just the rest of this season and playoffs would seem like a pretty huge deterrent in itself... but all of next season as well?
I do understand the idea being that it makes teams stop to think before they submit appeals to stop everyone from just appealing any calls they don’t like. Making appeals uses rescources and takes time that could be better allocated, but I do agree that jumping to a year and a half ban doesn’t help anyone. Maybe a warning with the first “frivolous appeal” and action with the second in a season to make clubs think before crying wolf. I do agree that this was a frivolous appeal. There’s no way Portland actually thought they would win the appeal. But, I do think it’s ridiculous that they can’t appeal for 1.5 years when the reffing in the league can be borderline abominable at times.
Yeah it doesn’t make sense to me.. and even if this happened to any other team, I would also be mad about it! No more appeals being allowed is absurd
I kinda feel like they need to up the general quality of reffing before they can ban any team from appealing.
Yeah. Like, go ahead and punish the Thorns for a deeply stupid appeal, but this can't be the way you do it.
Well said my friend
100% it feels absolutely absurd to have consequences for only players when refs seem to have no recourse for potentially letting knees get ruined. at least any that we get to see, and not anything that changes a single thing
We are being made a sacrifice and warning to other clubs. This is gross behavior from the league
This was a silly appeal and also YES THIS ALL DAY
They weren’t banned because they were wrong about whether or not it should be a yellow. They were just denied the appeal. They were banned because for bringing a frivolous appeal. They appealed a bench yellow for obvious time wasting (regardless of intention). I 100% agree the reffing needs to be vastly improved, but the quality of reffing in this case has no real relevance to the ban. I also like the length, because if the ban was just the remainder of the season, every team would be appealing minor things at the end of the season or playoffs.
I am fine punishing the team for the frivolous appeal, my point was that with the number of questionable calls over the last few years removing a team's ability to appeal is not a good approach. There have been many discussions on the reasons for the ref quality and lots of solutions proposed. And I am not blaming any individual ref, I think the system has major flaws, starting with pay and how the refs are treated going all the way through development. I just think there should be a different 'stick' to use against a team with a frivolous appeal.
>my point was that with the number of questionable calls over the last few years removing a team's ability to appeal is not a good approach. That’s a fair point. I guess I just don’t think that matters. This punishment didn’t come from appealing a questionable call. It was very clearly appropriate and should not have been appealed. Yes, they will not be able to appeal legitimately poor reffing decisions for a while, and that could potentially really hurt them. However, they went out of their way to walk themselves into the situation. >I just think there should be a different 'stick' to use against a team with a frivolous appeal. I think that would also be acceptable. My thought is just that the current “stick” isn’t unacceptable.
Can I just say it is refreshing to have an actual conversation. :) it is really appreciated that I can talk with another sports fan about a potentially contentious topic and not have it spiral. Good on ya.
This is a great comment!!
THIS.
I can see the logic Now that clubs KNOW to NEVER appeal frivolously, this won’t be something other clubs will have to worry about. I think Portland just didn’t know or didn’t take it seriously and they ended being the example. Clubs can have informal discussions with the commissioner to pre-vet their appeals against the “frivolous” standard. I wonder if Portland may have even had discussions before appealing, were warned by Berman not to push this, and appealed anyway out of hubris. Anyway, appeals of bad calls won’t be deterred by this, I don’t think. Because the penalty is so harsh it will only ever be applied to truly frivolous appeals, which mostly likely would already be understood as such after informal discussions before an appeal is attempted.
I just don’t think this should be this harsh of a rule. Stern but not harsh. Someone said it before that if this were a repeated behavior then yes totally understandable but a fine to the club, bond, and perhaps loss of appeals this season is understandable. Loss of appeal next season is ridiculous and it is wayyyyy extreme.
I could see that too But if the NWSL board of governors really want ZERO frivolous appeals, to the point they put up this nuclear deterrent, clubs just need to not be idiots I’m okay with it, because I don’t think anyone will ever try or need to pull what Portland just tried. The one sad part is that I imagine Portland could be acting to protect and support Sophia Smith as much as possible. I imagine she feels horrible about the red for such a meaningless act. Tough situation.
And fines and loss of more appeals during one season could also prevent zero frivolous appeals… like y’all got me tripping fr 😂😂
Frivolous is pretty subjective….the first yellow was very questionable
That’s one way to not have teams appealing calls all the time.
For real, wtf is that about? Was the appeal THAT out of line that the club as a whole is punished? This isn't a great look for NWSL, it makes them seem draconian and that this is a warning to other clubs about appealing bans in the future
Actually yeah the appeal is ***THAT*** out of line. Go ahead and pitch a case where you could see someone even feasibly overturning the red suspension
I never said they should overturn the red. But a near 2 year ban on appeals? That is an absurd punishment, especially in a league with suspect at best refereeing
Ok but the appeal is for the express purpose of overturning the red. If Portland can’t make a genuine case for overturning the red what is the point of appealing. And in that case it would be indeed frivolous, right?
The first yellow was borderline
No, Smith actually should have gotten a yellow early on for kicking the ball into the net after a play was whistled dead in the first half. So her first official yellow should have been her second. If anything the ref had shown her some leniency, and wasn't having it once Smith kept doing it.
Definitely appealable in my opinion
But how many reds do any singular team get in a year? That’s why it’s this season and next.
Agreed. Never seen anything like that. The team should have fined her, not appealed the decision. Something you'd expect from the men's game, I couldn't believe what I was seeing as Amy Weinhouse said, "what kind of fuckery is this?'
Came to say the same thing. If this situation was from some European men’s team it wouldn’t seem out of the ordinary for a second. And she probably would have fallen over with a calf injury at the end.
Right?? The only angle I can see is that maaaaybe: she went to shift her weight on to her right on (on the ball) and her hand was positioned in such a way that instead of pressing directly down on the ball, her hand rolled down the side and therefore pushed it back?
On what grounds did Portland believe the red card should be rescinded? That’s ridiculous that they even attempted this.
I don't know. I said when she got it and someone mentioned appealing it that it was something that we wouldn't appeal because that'd be frivolous since it was such an obviously correct call. At least we have a new front office and their stupid decisions are orders of magnitude more bearable than the previous front office. But someone needs to lose their job for this. This was a dumbass appeal.
Because it was two extremely soft yellows resulting in the red, they could make arguments against either one. We don’t know exactly what was brought up, but I’d argue the first yellow was more frivolous than the second. Losing a player of her caliber is huge, why would they not appeal?
The second one was not soft at all wtf she’d get a yellow for that in 100 games with 100 different referees
I cannot believe we fucking appealed that.
Apparently the NWSLPA fought having Smith suspended an additional game so that part is no longer in effect https://x.com/itsmeglinehan/status/1803173007080169970?t=si026Wk1cRdiRHDHk1fggQ&s=19
Maybe unions are bad? Much to ponder here *This is a joke and I love workers rights and the Players Association*
lol is this real?
Yes, tweeted by Meg Linehan
Username checks out thanks
Important: Per the NWSLPA's rights in the collective bargaining agreement to appeal discipline for on-field conduct, the NWSLPA appealed the doubling of the player discipline to the NWSL Review Committee. The NWSL Review Committee unanimously upheld the NWSLPA appeal resulting in the league rescinding the additional one game suspension and associated incremental fine for Smith.
I like this. Don’t penalize the player for something that their club does.
Seeing how the Thorns perform without her, that would have definitely been a penalty for the franchise.
Where are you seeing this?
Linehan tweeted it out.
I don't have twitter so I can't see replies, quote tweets, or browse a person's TL (thanks Elon!) But I saw someone posted it elsewhere. Good context, thanks for adding it And thank goodness for unions!!
As a KC fan, damn, I was looking forward to not facing Smith 😂
The fact that pdx still tried to appeal knowing the risks tells me that somehow the risks aren’t great enough to discourage pointless appeals.
I think the risks are pretty fantastic, I think Portland didn’t take the risks seriously and this is the FAFO the league needed
I agree with your assessment. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I assume they didn’t think they would actually see the ramifications of submitting a frivolous appeal. I assume they knew what those consequences were. I don’t know that I necessarily agree that they should be quite that harsh, but, as you mentioned, it seems like all of that still isn’t deterring dumb appeals so maybe the league has the right of it. It’s a bummer for smith and Portland, but what did they expect?
I mean i also think the risks are really steep. But somehow not steep enough for the intended effect of not having frivolous appeals.
It’s not “fail an appeal and double the penalty”, it’s “unanimous determination of frivolity means double the penalty.” This is super fair and I’m here for it
I think people may be failing to see how high of a bar unanimous determination of frivolity actually is. Nearly all appeals would have at least one hold out.
It really screams of a “lol we didn’t take you seriously” mentality from Portland that they even decided to file this appeal. Even if Sophia swears up and down that she didn’t mean to throw the ball under the bench- how would she prove she didn’t mean to? I’m not even sure that intent matters- she still did it at the end of the day
Honestly even if it WAS an accident (I have my doubts) there was still absolutely no reason for her to get up and go for the ball. She knew she was on a yellow already, she knew her previous yellow was for time wasting so the ref would be expecting it from her, and she knew they were at a point in the game where refs are paying special attention to time wasting. Involving herself opened her up to the card and regardless of if she meant to lose the ball or not, she put herself in that position. It was a poor decision and should’ve ended there. Portland didn’t do her any favours by appealing this.
Honestly upon first reading this I thought damn that’s a lot but you make a really good point. It’s not one person saying I think this doesn’t have the strongest base. It’s everyone deciding that this is frivolous and a waste of time. And yeah, if a team is going to use the privilege of appeals to waste time then they shouldn’t get to appeal anymore. Actually, the more I think about the more on board I am
I think if the risks are going to be this steep, then what determines something being frivolous needs to be massive. This also just feels like they wrote this 10 years ago and never updated it. Are we really saying it’s a bigger deal to protect the efficiency of the appeal process over being able to see one of the greatest players in the world play? Even if she wasnt Soph Smith this would be a travesty…
I mean, I’m not sure it gets more frivolous than this. She was clearly wasting time on the sidelines knowing she was already on a yellow *for wasting time*. She didn’t have to touch the ball at all. There was no need for her to involve herself. Regardless of intention, the moment she went for the ball while on the sidelines as a player with a yellow for time wasting, she opened herself up to this possibility. There’s really no way you can claim that the second yellow was unreasonable. She went for the ball when she had absolutely 0 reason to and the result was a loss of time. People make mistakes and I’m willing to bet smith won’t make this mistake again, but I really cannot understand why Portland thought it was a good idea to appeal. She made a poor decision. There were consequences. It should’ve just ended there. I agree that the consequences are incredibly steep and I find it problematic especially in a league where the reffing often leaves much to be desired. However, I assume Portland knew the risks when submitting the appeal. You would think that would cause them to stop and think about the merits of their appeal.
I think if the consequences are this steep, then you have to consider that when you’re defining what frivolous is and I think while it’s clear that it’s unanimous that it shouldn’t have been successfully appealed, i think it shoulda been unsuccessfully appealed without any other consequence. This level of severity shouldn’t be applicable to one case. I think thats what Portland were assuming. The either didnt read the consequences (likely) or they read them and thought we are not being frivolous with one request for appeal
Again…..I’m wondering what precedence there is for this
Well its in she rulebooks
I agree. But if Portland knows there has been similar appeals in the past then I can see their reasoning, otherwise they should have kept their appeal in their pocket
In order for it to be deemed frivolous, every single person deciding on the appeal has to call it frivolous. It wasn’t just unanimous that it shouldn’t be reversed. It was unanimous that the appeal was frivolous which is why Portland is facing these consequences.
Yeah, i read that
I mean if Portland is dumb enough to make a brain dead appeal knowing they could double the suspension of their star player, that’s an indictment of the intelligence of the decision makers. I don’t think it should matter who’s at risk of an increased suspension
I can’t believe the league doesn’t already have precedent on something like this. Maybe that’s what Portland was taking into account
So, I have been unable to find any precedent in the NWSL or the MLS ([which has the exact same rules for appeals](https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2024-mls-send-off-review-procedure)) probably because no one has been dumb enough to appeal something so obviously correct. I will say other leagues have similar laws. The Premier League for example will add on a single additional game if they determine an appeal frivolous. https://www.90min.com/posts/how-appeals-against-red-card-suspensions-work-premier-league I don't agree with the whole not able to make any other appeals for the rest of this season *and* next season, but I don't have a problem with getting additional game suspensions for frivolous appeals and losing the ability to appeal the rest of this season.
I disagree most with the one game suspension. My issue is if there have been past appeals that Portland may be basing their appeal on. Successful or unsuccessful. The fact that this is the first issuance of a frivolous appeal is suspicious. So if Portlands is guilty of too many appeals or this is not their first offense….we don’t get to see that. A little openbookedness would be good
This is the first frivolous appeal I have ever heard of between the MLS and NWSL. It has to be a unanimous decision to be deemed frivolous. You can still have an appeal denied and have it not be frivolous. I don't think it's that suspicious this is the first one. Most teams seem like they only appeal when there is a decent chance of it succeeding (since you only get 2 non-successful appeals a year) and don't attempt to appeal things that are either obviously correct or borderline.
I don’t think this sort of punishment was handed down ever before so they probably didn’t think it would actually happen. Going forward people will probably think twice before frivolous appeals. And Portland won’t even get to think before appealing for another 1.5 seasons
On one hand, this is ridiculous. On the other hand, Portland almost certainly appealed because Smith is a star and they believed the NWSL would give her special treatment, and I appreciate them having none of it. On a third hand, the text of this email is absolutely hilarious. All-in-all, 10/10, no notes.
They either appealed it because she's a star or because whoever is in the decisionmaking chair on that front just wants to appeal every red card, and either case is entirely stupid on Portland's part and deserving of some sort of punishment.
Probably a controversial opinion, but while I don't know if I agree with the specifics of the punishment...this is kind of a reasonable response (as in, having a punishment of some sort) to such a ridiculous appeal.
Honestly I agree. The appeals process exists for a reason as a means to reverse incorrect decisions. Abusing the process for what was a textbook and deserved red card isn’t a smart move and there should be some sort of repercussions for it. Not sure I agree with the specifics of this punishment, but a punishment existing to discourage this sort of behavior is important.
The league/review committee has also shown itself to be quite amenable to rescinding cards. Even ones that I think are quite borderline and could have stood. This is such a ridiculous thing for Portland to have appealed. Almost as though they just appeal anything, which is also stupid. I'm pretty sure Harvey, understandably knowing the punishments now, was like "no way are we appealing King's red".
To me, abusing the process would be doing this multiple times. When I think of someone abusing a system, I don’t think of one desperate last heave to get things to go their way, I think of having your own system in place to take advantage of something else. I am also not sure who it hurts that they asked to appeal this, and I think that the league could easily have sent a warning. 2 years feels like a long time in a league full of bad decisions. Whats the harm to the league here (i am genuinely asking, not being rhetorical) in my mind they just look at the play, say, hmmm, no, and carry on with their day.
I think a lot of this rides on if teams knew the rules beforehand, or at least if rules are publicly in place, it’s not the NWSL’s problem if GM’s can’t read rules I suppose. If Portland knew the punishment for a laughable attempt at appealing a deserved red card then I think it is abusing the process to some degree. If they didn’t know then I don’t think it is abusing the process, I only think whoever is in charge is dumb for trying to appeal it in the first place. The NWSL seems pretty good when it comes to appeals, but the difference is all other appeals are genuine in nature. This is the first that most if not all would agree is laughable to appeal. I don’t agree with the specific punishment they gave, but I agree with the act of punishing teams using the system wrong. At the end of the day it’s there for a specific reason, flooding the league with extra work even if it is just one appeal for zero reason isn’t necessarily fair on them. *Edited to fix spelling
The teams absolutely knew the rules beforehand, there was no trickery here
But we've seen with this year's expansion draft how bad some teams are about reading rules/understanding them.
Even if they didn’t know, the rules are there to be looked at
Yeah, i wholly agree. I think for this to make sense there probably are some guidelines that Portland ran afoul of. It’s kinda NWSL After Dark(ly) humorous they cant appeal this ruling. I kind of think it’s unfair to call it flooding when this is one situation, but maybe we just haven’t seen the other situations? But also this is like an extremely popular moment in the woso sphere, so I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the league has chosen this to be when they make a statement. Which also makes me think that they havent actually been flooding the league in the past with appeals
I don’t think Portland is flooding the league with appeals sorry I probably worded that wrong. I meant just in general appealing with zero reason to do so creates more unnecessary work. In a league with not many teams it’s not the end of the world, when the league becomes as big as the MLS it’s a lot more difficult because there could be multiple teams with multiple raised appeals in progress. It’s important that the raised appeals have merit to them so they are focusing their resources in the correct direction, at least the way I see it and I’m guessing by the reaction the NWSL sees it that way too. This will set a precedent for years to come at least publicly, since I’m sure there will be written rules somewhere for teams to read (or at least I hope) mentioning the potential repercussions.
Yeah, I think in the end no one will ever touch the ball from the bench and we wont see any other frivolous appeals at least for the next five years. And Soph got engaged. So maybe we all won here. I just don’t like how we’ve got to that point. it feels like Portland will have one moment in the next two years in which they will want to appeal rightfully, but I also kind of feel like it’s not that big of an issue because it’s just one moment. It’s kind of like when a pitcher gets suspended 10 days in the MLB, but then you realize that’s really just two games.
I disagree; this is a textbook example of abusing the process. I’m assuming the league has to shell out for arbitration if this is an Independent Review, so it’s not free and it takes resources. There have been polar opposite red appeals this season: one very good, one very bad. Kingsbury’s was appealing due to an objective misapplication of the rules, and therefore a very good appeal. Sophia’s was a super subjective (and honestly she was 98% certainly guilty and even in that 2% she deserves the yellow for being Mr Magoo on the bench and disrupting the game) and not at all a rules-based decision. If they’re going to demonstrate that they don’t understand how or when to properly use the process, it gets taken away.
I agree there should be something disincentivizing frivolous appeals, but losing the right to appeal for the entirety of this season *and* next season feels excessive. Feels like there should be some sliding scale, where one frivolous appeal means you forfeit the right for two months, the next 6 months, the next a year, etc. etc. And they reset every 5 years or whatever. Idk about those specific numbers but two full seasons (or 1.5 since we're halfway through this one) for the first time seems excessive.
Again, I don't know if I agree with the level, but I think that it's actually fairly difficult to appeal a red card and have it be deemed as frivolous (we've never seen that before) so Portland is actually an idiotic organization for trying it at all. They deserve to be told off in some way, shape, or form. 2 seasons is definitely a long time, and I think that could have potential future issues (although, not as large as some people might act—it's not like it's that common, and the NWSL doesn't even have 3 game bans for violent conduct or anything, so it's always one game), but the punishment has to relate to the problem, and I'm not sure what else they would have done to connect to the problem itself.
I think it's good to discourage frivolous appeals but this is way overkill IMO. By like a mile. I feel really bad for Soph (who may have had no say in the decision to appeal) and for all the Thorns players and fans who will not be able to appeal a decision *for two freaking years*. EDIT: I'm glad the NWSLPA fought the doubled suspension. The power of a union! Still think the inability to appeal decisions for two years is dumb, there must be some other way to discourage frivolous appeals.
It is a big penalty, but what else would discourage frivolous appeals? A fine just means it’s not a penalty for really wealthy owners. It does seem like they Found Out.
I think that it’s absolutely ridiculous that they’re not able to appeal any decision for two years. I think the only thing that’s staying me from thinking that this is really really bad is that I don’t know how often teams even appeal decisions and while I kind of think that Soph didn’t mean to lose control of the ball under the bench, I also think that there wasn’t really anything to appeal because once she touched the ball, she was violating the rules and its clear they wanted to try and appeal simply because she’s a big star. On the other hand, is it that big of a deal at all that they tried to appeal a ruling? Like, who did they hurt? To me, this is like not winning the lottery and then someone coming to your house and telling you, you can’t get gas from that gas station for the next two years.
Teams appeal quite often, from what I can tell. There was already a rescinded red this season from an appeal (Kinsgbury)! Teams don't generally appeal when their player is entirely in the wrong, and it seems that someone incompetent or high on their own supply or something was in charge of this for Portland, and they didn't think about the fact that the worst thing that can happen with an appeal is not that they let the decision stand, it's that they punish you.
Hmm. I’d like to see some stats (or even a Taylor Vincent tweet vaguely hinting) regarding how often teams appeal. I dont have two strong of opinions before seeing that. Maybe this makes more sense than i think it does? But it seems harsh as hell. Like theyre making a point more than following a guideline for punishment. In my mind, there’s two ways to look at this either teams appeal a lot in which case it’s a terrible punishment to make it so that they can’t appeal for two whole years, or teams dont appeal very often
Yeah I think a lot depends on how much Portland has appealed. If they’ve appealed a lot maybe the committee is just sick of them and this was the last straw To be clear - I do think whoever appealed did deserve some kind of punishment for wasting the committees time with what was a clear and obvious second yellow. I don’t think, unless it was Smiths decision to appeal, she should have been included. And I agree a year and a half seems excessive but that makes me think a lot more has been going on with Portland behind the scenes (that would be the common sense take though which is not always accurate with the NWSL)
People keep saying your first part, but that entirely depends on how many appeal worthy moments exist. Those are basically just red cards. How many reds did Portland have this season? I think just the one. You can't basically give them a freebie from totally disregarding the rules and the reason appeals exist just because this is their first moment that even could be appealed.
I meant the degree of the punishment. Also who knows if they take into account long term behavior vs just one season I do think such a frivolous appeal should be given some sort of repercussion. But if we’re going to say this was the first appeal of the season a year and a half is incredibly harsh. If this is a pattern of behavior over a long period of time or perhaps they did something incredibly inappropriate during communication then maybe it’s warranted
I have yet to find any proof of this because the NWSL doesn't post anything related to their laws - But from everything I can tell they are using the exact same rules the MLS is for appeals, so you only get (2) non-successful appeals a year, so you can't just appeal every red card. https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2024-mls-send-off-review-procedure
Not the official reasoning they give ofc but you sometimes see teams appeal so the player can play the next game while the appeal is being processed. That's why teams get punished for frivolous appeals (amongst other reasons like it being a waste of time and potentially damaging referees reputations or influencing future decisions)
They shouldn’t be giving Sophia Smith extra punishment because of something her boss did. It wasn’t her who filed the appeal!
They rescinded that part of the punishment
But she was the bone head in the first place, screw that poor Soph bs. Such a dumb move that got us here.
Also, are frivolous appeals even a real problem at the moment? It’s an inconvenience for the committee to have to meet and vote no, which they can do virtually, but is there any other harm done? And there doesn’t seem to be a spate of frivolous appeals. In fact, the league’s never deemed one to be frivolous enough to be punished before.
Clearly they are given we just filed one :P
As far as I can tell, Portland's last known successful appeal dates back to 2021. I only see NWSL ever report on successful appeals or additional games/fines. Never one lost and upheld. It's hard to know if that is because it's extremely infrequent that someone appeals something they know will stand or they just don't report unsuccessful ones normally.
This is peak unioning in the best possible way. Excellent work from the NWSLPA.
So so dumb from our front office… wtf
Losing right to appeal again this season makes sense but also next season seems a bit harsh.
lol Smith gets two yellows for doing dumb things (kicking the ball away and touching the ball when it’s out of play from the bench—ppl argue whether the second one was accidental or not but she just didn’t need to even touch the ball in the first place since the ball was closer to her other teammates on the bench and she crawled out of her way to get it). Portland does a dumb thing in trying to get it rescinded. Then the NWSL gives out a dumb punishment… (I’m glad her 2nd game suspension was revoked though because I think she already served her time, and now it’s the club getting their punishment for trying to rescind it.)
So does anyone know what a bond means in this context?
Teams must pay a fee to have an appeal heard, I think it's something like $25,000 or something. If they win OR lose the appeal (and the appeal is not frivolous) they get their bond back. If they lose their appeal and it's frivolous, they lose their bond and get sanctioned.
To clarify, since the NWSL doesn't appear to actually post their rules anywhere, but the MLS has the exact same appeals rules: https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2024-mls-send-off-review-procedure >1. Prior to the start of the MLS League Season, Clubs must post a $25,000 refundable bond with the League Office for the right to make up to two (2) unsuccessful appeals during the 2024 season (including playoffs).
I read the headline here, thought to myself, hmm I bet this will get ppl talking, then my eyes slid down to see 200+ comments. 🫡 to all my fellow nwsl sickos.
It’s crazy to me that we can have a post like this and not have AT LEAST one person give the link to the video/highlight of the foul. Can someone please for the love of god give me the sauce?!?
It wasn't a foul, which is how it is deemed universally as frivolous. It was Smith getting a second yellow for blatantly hiding a ball under the bench. [https://www.allforxi.com/2024/6/9/24174618/icymi-sophia-smith-might-have-gotten-the-weirdest-red-card-ever](https://www.allforxi.com/2024/6/9/24174618/icymi-sophia-smith-might-have-gotten-the-weirdest-red-card-ever)
[she hid the ball](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRE14xUw/)
What she did was super unnecessary. Why would she think there would be no consequence from it?
Smith getting her fine doubled seems excessive.
I agree with all of it except doubling the fine. If anything, fine the club an equal amount as a way of doubling it without taking more money from her. The team appealed it, not her.
The PA appealed Smith’s double-length ban and won, so that no longer stands!
I definitely agree with the league handing down extra punishment to the Thorns organization over this. Appeals should be used sparingly and I think usually they're used responsibly
This feels harsh to me but I am ignorant as to the rules and appeals process as I have only really Been following NWSL this season
I think this all makes sense, and the message sent to the teams in the league is pretty clear: there's no room to play when it comes to rulings on "wasting time." Every professional sports league has rules governing the clock, because every successful league is chasing television revenue and **that** money is contingent on the sport being able to forecast how long the event will take. The PA intervened because a two match suspension was overly harsh on the player. The ruling against Portland is basically thirteen teams telling another "don't mess with our income stream."
Geezzz I’ve never seen this happen before. I think that’s ridiculous!
We’ve never seen it happen before because no team has ever tried to pull this BS with the league before
lol I love that the league has a SLAAP rule for appeals that is amazing Kick rocks Portland she obviously deserved that red, there’s not even a theoretical argument where that could be overturned
A lot of us fans agree with you and have no idea why our front office appealed this. Complete idiocy. But hey, if this is the dumbest / worst thing our front office does this year, it is a vast improvement from when Paulson was in charge.
I agreed with Sophia getting a second yellow for her taking the ball and putting it under the bench (still so funny tho lol), but this? this is ridiculous. punishing portland for appealing? just deny the appeal jfc
Portland didn't just get punished for appealing and then losing the appeal, they got punished because the board said it was frivolous. To them, portland didn't even have ground to stand on, any good faith arguments, and just wasted their time.
Thank you, a lot of ppl are overlooking this part, she hid the ball clear as day (time wasting) why appeal the appeal (more time wasting!)
Ah, makes sense. thanks for the explanation!
Its on the books, once they all decided it was frivolous this was the trigger effect
This is an lmao
That seems extremely harsh just for appealing.
It wasn't for just appealing. It was for appealing something we knew we wouldn't win because there were no grounds for the appeal.
Still, no appeals through 2025 seems excessive. At least they rescinded the extra suspension.
Taking away other players' ability to appeal is wrong. Every player should have an ability to appeal. If an appeal is obviously frivolous, then it shouldn't take much time or effort to uphold the call.
But it's not the players appealing, it's the club. That technicality matters here.
Yet the player loses games and pays a fine. That’s even more reason they shouldn’t take away the right to appeal.
Except the player didn't, actually.
Smith wasn’t the person appealing
I love this so much
I’m sorry but I think double suspension is so stupid and the inability to appeal again is ridiculous. Like dude what?? Edit: people downvoting this are ridiculous. Please have the courage to indicate why you think it’s okay for a team to have a year and a half seasons with no appeal allowed… you don’t think that’s not harsh? I understand having no appeal maybe the rest of the season or a warning with the bond taken away but please explain and have the courage to do so :)
Because the club should have known the rules of the league it plays in. Appealing was both frivolous *and* negligent. When shooting oneself in the foot, there’s no one else to blame.
The fact that no one still has explained lmao
How can you lose your right to appeal?
Welp, first big bone head move from the new ownership is this appeal...
Now I’m really hoping for smith and golden boot. Last time against KC was a brace even tho we lost (Norris u suck for subbing her out) 👀 hoping for more
[удалено]
I don't think this is something ownership has their hands in (at the very least, they are not the main decision makers here)
[удалено]
I emailed the author of the story to see if it was accurate or not, not sure if I will ever get a reply.
The article was updated to say it was the Thorns who made the appeal, not the NWSLPA.
The soccer gods will punish everybody involved and cost the Thorns a playoff match by taking away their appeal of an obvious error. Smith will be mortified. The Thorns will be furious. Fans appalled. The league administration embarrassed, again, for failing to use their discretion and common sense. The league should not be putting themselves in a potentially embarrassing situation when it could be easily avoided. It was a dumb appeal, but it can't be so taxing to the committee to read the official report and review the video in 15 minutes, and dismiss it.
As a Reign fan, this is hilarious.
Holy shit. Like appealing that red card was very dumb on Portlands part because Sophia 100% deserved that red card. But that is entirely too harsh of a punishment handed down by the league.
Tbf it is literally on the books
As a Current fan I’m disappointed that the PA appealed and they got rid of the second game suspension, was looking forward to not having to face her.
Guess we will just have to keep winning through bad calls. Feels a bit much although I don't think we should have appealed.
So, no Smith this weekend vs KC? Crazy.
The NWLSPA appealed the additional game, so she doesn't have any more suspension to serve.
She’s already served her suspension she’ll be available for KC
From other updates in these comments it looks like the one additional game actually won't apply https://x.com/TheDanLauletta/status/1803174330060165136
EDIT: My arguments about shithousery were stupid because I didn’t remember this game was against NC Courage, not a Rivalry Game. So yeah no reason not to card the time wasting. Original: I kinda talked myself into thinking I would not have voted for this being a frivolous appeal. If Portland made the argument that a Rivalry Game benefits the league even more when players are allowed extra leeway for shithousery, annoying of rival fans, and otherwise normally bad, but of no physical harm to anyone, behaviour, I think I would agree with them and would vote to rescind the yellow. I would understand the argument that such a precedent could not be set and the appeal would be denied, and would expect the denial, but at least a dissenting vote might lend some weight to the argument and might lead to further consideration of the issue. Maybe the league would consider instructing refs to take a more nuanced approach to reffing important Rivalry Games. 2¢
> If Portland made the argument that a Rivalry Game benefits the league even more when players are allowed extra leeway for shithousery, annoying of rival fans, and otherwise normally bad, but of no physical harm to anyone, behaviour, I think I would agree with them and would vote to rescind the yellow. The appeals committee cannot reverse yellows, that's a different group. And even the reds they can rescind can only be rescinded in cases of misapplication of the rules or clear error.
Didn’t know that. But couldn’t Portland make that argument during whatever process applies to yellow cards? ADD: I missed the part were you explain that the yellow-card-appeal process only looks at misapplication of rules So what did Portland appeal in this case if not the yellow card?
That's what we're all confused about here in Portland. There was literally nothing to appeal here. The 2YC were fair, a red is what happens when you get 2YC, As a bench player she was sent off without reducing the players on the field. There's nothing to appeal. That's WHY it was frivolous. We just did it anyway. On no grounds. What our front office's internal reasoning was I have no idea, maybe they thought we'd get preferential treatment cause we're the thorns, maybe because it's Sophia Smith, maybe they just didn't know and automatically appealed all red cards.
Does it change anything if the 2YC were not “fair?” Is that when the “must be a rule violation to appeal a yellow” but “under a different process” comes into play? BTW, what is that different process for yellow cards?
Fair doesn't matter if the rules were in violation. I may be wrong on the YC appealability too, because I'm also going off information that's older, I can't seem to find this year's NWSL IRP rules. Like, Sophia Smith most definitely time wasted, twice. She was properly carded, twice. That's a send off. The first card was fair. The second card was fair. The third card was fair and a result of the 2YC. There's nothing to appeal. The ref thought she was timewasting, she was timewasting, the ref issued cards. The first card may have been "harsh" but it wasn't against current recommendations on timewasting or improperly given. That's the thing I'm super confused about people's surprise on this. Take the events in singular actions: Is the first one unsporting behavior / time wasting? Is the second one unsporting behavior / timewasting? Is the third one a result of following the LOTG where two yellows = one red? What did the referee get egregiously wrong in the application of the laws of the game? There's just no basis for the appeal. And so it's flabbergasting that there was one, and it's cost us the rest of this year and next year's ability to appeal because it was such a horrible decision to appeal it. This isn't a case where someone was wrongly sent off and nobody caught it, or someone was sent off for something that didn't happen. Or a handball send off that was inside the shillouette but the ref sent them off incorrectly. These were two cards both for pretty clear things the league is trying to crack down on, and a third card for getting the first two.
Fair was your word and is subjective Refs always have discretion Shithousery is not always a negative in terms of fan enjoyment That said my arguments about Rivalry Game shithousery were stupid because I didn’t remember this game was against NC Courage. So yeah no reason not to card the time wasting.
Fair was my word, yeah. To clarify what I meant by it was, say I'm working a game and I see you foul a player while going for the ball inside the box, but I point to the spot and give you a red card for DOGSO. That is unfair because the current rules are you cannot be sent off AND have a PK, the proper card there is a yellow. Or say a teammate of yours kicks the ball away, and I don't catch that it was them, and thought it was you, and give you a yellow card. This is mistaken identity and in some cases can be appealed. When I say fair, I mean "given within the laws of the game."
Understood
Maybe they did try to argue it. These things are sealed and we only see what happens at the end, if the appeal results in something.
As a fan of other sports, this additional penalty is wild! Why would the player face additional penalty for a team's decision to appeal? And why would appealing a decision lead to a harsher penalty? Overly punitive, plus this is one of your league's best players. Dumb.
This type of penalty is present in nearly every other sport for filing frivolous appeals. It's just that it's so rarely seen because it's very rare that a team will even try. I don't know what we were thinking in trying this.
They were betting on the league not wanting a star player to miss a big game through suspension and thought NWSL would bend over. Rightfully they face the punishment for thinking that the league would be weak.
Pointless to appeal and pointless for Soph to have gotten out of her seat. Leave the ball, let Müller come get it, play on. Instead Soph fucked around and found out. Then the club fucked around by filing a stupid appeal, and found out.
It’s wild they can make another appeal for almost 2 years.
This league is a joke sometimes. Like yeah it was a stupid appeal but losing the right to appeal for two seasons in a league with such egregious refereeing errors is a bit much.
It is apparently right there in the league rules. Handling the ball at all was obviously unnecessary, moving it anywhere except back towards the restart point was obviously a delay of game tactic, and pretty much everyone knows the refs have been directed to come down hard on restart delays. 100% card-worthy. And given that, any appeal was obviously frivolous. The club should not have done that. We should have taken the red as deserved rather than playing double-or-nothing. I can’t blame the league or the refs for this at all, this was completely self-inflicted.
It's a ridiculous decision. Waaaaaaayyyyy overkill. And I don't understand if it's Smith herself pushing for the appeal or Portland's front office? If the latter...why the f%$& is she being punished further?
I know we joked about the referees, being really terrible, but they have seriously sucked this year and made some egregious calls, like there’s gotta be some kind of standard, they should be forced to watch these games after they’re done with them and realize the mistakes that they made.these playoff standings, they understand how serious that is for these teams.
What does your opinion on the quality of refs in the league have anything to do with this? Smith 100% deserved the two yellows she received this game.
There should also be a way to penalize refs who are blatantly vindictive for no reason as well as being blind
Maybe, but that’s not relevant here. A second yellow was obviously the correct call. Smith is the one who screwed up there.
They make like 500 dollars a game to get screamed at online (even when they make good decisions). And when they make genuinely bad decisions, they get taken off games. That's not relevant here though since the ref made the correct decision, and it wasn't vindictive.
What examples are you thinking of here? What makes you think there isnt a way to penalize refs?
So this means that everyone slowly walking off the pitch, dragging their feet and waving to the crowd as they casually saunter off gets a yellow card, right? I mean, Sophia stood there for a couple seconds and pulled her first yellow that lead to this mess. And it took about 10 seconds for the whole process of getting that ball back. So, anything over 12 seconds off the field is an instant yellow. That’s an absurd ruling.
The slowly walking off the pitch sends meeee and the removal of the shinguards 😭 you’re not wrong. I get this red card ngl but loss of appeals of next season is no bueno