The red-card ejection of Crew SC captain Michael Parkhurst near the conclusion of a 3-2 win over New York City FC was a clear-cut case of mistaken identity, according to a member of the game's officiating crew.

As such, it seems highly likely that Parkhurst will not be forced to serve the accompanying one-game suspension that accompanied that red card on Saturday against visiting Houston.

But this case isn't so cut and dried. This is MLS, remember, and this was a bizarre sequence with a few possible outcomes.

Let's sort through it. Pack a lunch.

The call

In the 85 thminute...

The red-card ejection of Crew SC captain Michael Parkhurst near the conclusion of a 3-2 win over New York City FC was a clear-cut case of mistaken identity, according to a member of the game�s officiating crew.

As such, it seems highly likely that Parkhurst will not be forced to serve the accompanying one-game suspension that accompanied that red card on Saturday against visiting Houston.

But this case isn�t so cut and dried. This is MLS, remember, and this was a bizarre sequence with a few possible outcomes.

Let�s sort through it. Pack a lunch.

The call

In the 85 th minute, center referee Ted Unkel called a foul on Crew defender Tyson Wahl for contact with New York�s Kwadwo Poku in the penalty area and awarded New York a penalty kick. In the aftermath of the call, Unkel presented a red card to Parkhurst, who Unkel mistakenly identified as the player who committed the foul.

Players from both teams approached Unkel after the card, as they are wont to do in such situations, including Parkhurst.

�He said it was a foul on me,� Parkhurst said. �There was nothing I could do. I thought he was just giving it to me because I was standing there. I wasn�t that upset. I talked to him and I was pretty calm about it. I tried to tell what had happened, but he thought otherwise.�

Parkhurst walked off to the tunnel. Villa converted the ensuing spot kick.

The explanation

MLS allows a designated pool reporter or an alternate to pose written questions to the referee after games. In this case, The Dispatch submitted a hand-written question to Unkel that simply asked why Parkhurst was sent off.

About 20 minutes after the game ended, fourth official Jorge Gonzalez met with me outside the official�s locker room. He read a hand-written answer, presumably penned by Unkel.

�Michael Parkhurst was sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)as the referee crew mistakenly identified him as the player who committed the foul,� Gonzalez read. �The player who should have been sent off was Tyson Wahl, as the player who committed the foul.�

Dispatch: �So this was a case of mistaken identity?�

Gonzalez: �Yeah. It was a mistake. (We watched) the video. At the moment of play, we thought it was Michael Parkhurst.�

The reaction

Crew SC coach Gregg Berhalter declined to comment on the penalty itself, but said the Crew will � clear up� the red card situation when asked if he expected Parkhurst to be in the lineup against Houston.

�Obviously, (Unkel) can�t give the wrong guy a red card and expect him to be suspended,� Berhalter said. �So there will be some phone calls this week to the league and we�ll work through it. But things happen in games.�

The process

This is where it gets a bit tricky, though it might not be as complicated as it seems.

Before 2012, the only red-card situations that were able to be appealed by teams were those of mistaken identity. The Parkhurst case is clearly one of mistaken identity, so there is no question the Crew can and has appealed the suspension.

Beginning in 2012, the league instituted a red-card appeals process for cases that don�t include mistaken identity.

This list of MLS Disciplinary Committee principles and parameters contains outdated language indicating that only mistaken identity cases can be appealed, though it also contains a reference and a link to a separate list of procedures relating to red-card appeals that were instituted in 2012.

Because Parkhurst�s case is one of mistaken identity, it is unclear as of tonight if the Crew�s appeal will simply be ruled on by the league�s anonymous, five-man disciplinary committee or if it will be ruled on by the independent, three-person review board (again anonymous) that handles other red-card appeals.

In essence, the independent panel process is in place to remedy an egregious mistake by a referee. The panel can uphold a red card or rescind a red card. It also makes sure teams do not make �frivolous� appeals (they are fined $25,000 and an extra game is added to the suspension of the player in question if the panel determines as such).

According to appeals procedures, the panel will reveal the appeal and:

Determine, based on all available evidence (e.g., video, testimony, etc.):

Did the referee correctly identify the offense in accordance with the Laws of the Game?

Is the disciplinary sanction applied appropriate for the offense?

If the answers to questions 1 and/or 2 are YES, then the appeal is NOT upheld (i.e., unsuccessful) and the Ruling Body will determine whether the appeal was frivolous in line with the definition below:

A frivolous appeal is one that does not contain any objective rational basis. In other words, an appeal is not frivolous if a reasonable observer with knowledge of the Laws of the Game would find that there is a rational basis for arguing that the discipline applied was not appropriate for the offense.

If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are NO, then the appeal will be upheld (i.e., successful).

The decision must be unanimous (including if determining frivolous); where there is any discrepancy on the answer to the first two questions the Ruling Body will review the game tape together and come to a decision. If no unanimity can be achieved then the decision automatically defaults to YES. Remember the Ruling Body is not re-refereeing the game; it is rectifying obvious errors in the referee�s disciplinary decisions. Therefore if it is not OBVIOUS it does not need to be rectified.

The questions to be answered

In the Parkhurst case, it seems likely a panel would determine that the answers to questions 1 and 2 are YES, as applied to Tyson Wahl.

So if Parkhurst is cleared of wrongdoing, would Wahl retroactively get the red card and the suspension?

Precedent says no, sort of.

In April 2011, Kansas City�s Aurelien Collin was shown a red card by referee Edvin Jurisevic during a game against New England for an altercation near the net of Revolution goalkeeper Matt Reis.

According to the Kansas City Star,

Collin committed a hard but legal challenge on Reis. Several Revolution players surrounded Collin and Reis who were lying on the ground. As Collin stood up his teammate, Birahim Diop, reached across his shoulder to push New England's Benny Feilhaber away; Feilhaber crumpled to the ground.

Jurisevic issued the card to Collin, who had already been shown a yellow card in the game.

The league�s disciplinary committee reviewed Kansas City�s appeal, rescinded Collin�s red card and suspension and did not discipline Diop.

Worth noting, however, is that this was in 2011 (prior to the independent panel process) and that this was not a straight red shown because of a pre-penalty DOGSO.

The wrinkle

There is also the issue of Parkhurst�s attempted tackle of Poku after the New York forward intercepted a bad pass from Mohammed Saeid meant for Parkhurst, just before the New York forward broke free into the box and made contact with Wahl.

Parkhurst slid to his hip and leg-whipped at Poku, who stumbled but did not go down and did not lose possession. It was a hard challenge, no doubt, and it might have helped lead to the confusion that followed. (And it certainly seemed odd that it was Gonzalez, who had radio communication with Unkel during the match, who was the one who dealt with the pool reporter and referenced a mistake by �the crew�).

Did the fourth official or the assistant referees assume the card was meant for Parkhurst because of that challenge? If so, is that why none of them attempted to correct Unkel?

It seems unlikely, but the disciplinary committee could also deem that Parkhurst�s attempted tackle worthy of a fine or suspension its own.

The importance

Center back Gaston Sauro suffered a hamstring strain at Montreal on April 9 and was expected to miss 2 to 4 weeks, so losing Parkhurst or Wahl to suspension against visiting Houston on Saturday could be a big blow to the Crew.

Losing both would be a haymaker.

The only other center back on the roster is Egyptian Amro Tarek, who made his MLS debut when he replaced Federico Higuain in the 88 th minute on Saturday.

Rookie Rodrigo Saravia was once projected to be a central defender by the Guatemalan federation and he has some experience playing on the back line as an amateur. Others, including Chad Barson, could also play center back in a pinch, though the defense could be further thinned by injuries. Right back Harrison Afful exited Saturday's game in the 79th minute after taking a knock and left back Corey Ashe has been limited by a thigh strain for several weeks.

Free kicks

--Got all that? Congrats for making it through. No free haircuts here, though. Great Clips might be taking a bath on this promotion today. Blame Justin Meram. He scored the barbershop goal. And always tip your stylist.

--Still stunned at how the Parkhurst ejcetion happened. Referees have a thankless and difficult job, no doubt. But, seriouslly, how does this crew blow this?

--The MLS disciplinary committee is reportedly maded up of three ex-players, one ex-referee and one ex-coach. Their identities are kept private, reportedly to protect them from overzealous critics. That's bush league, as is the practice of issuing undsiclosed fines (was it $5? $500 $50,000? Who knows?) Ditto for the red-card review panel, made up three anonymous and "independent" representatives: one from the U.S. federation, one from the Canadian federation and one from PRO (the Professional Referees Organization, which was the creation of MLS and the U.S. federation).

--The Crew is off on Monday. The Crew reserves scrimmaged Ohio State this morning in Obetz.

--The disciplinary committee generally releases its decisions between Wednesday and Friday each week. So an official ruling on the Parkhurst situation might not be known for a few days.

--Shawn Mitchell

smitchell@dispatch.com

@smitchcd