In the opinion of this referee,
NO.
For those that haven't seen the situation,
here is a video of the incident, and my explanation below.
Minnesota had a ceremonial restart for a free kick about 19 yards from goal (that is, the ref was setting the wall and the players had to wait for his whistle to restart).
The ref sets wall and walks back to get in position. As he walks back, Minnesota positions one player over the ball and one about 2 yards away. A Thunder player standing over the ball plants his foot firmly on the ball and leaves it there, touching the ball.
The ref takes up his position and blows the whistle. The Thunder player doesn't move but their player's foot is still firmly planted on the ball. The confusion here comes from the fact that the Laws of the Game state that a ball is in play when it is "kicked" and "moves". However, no one is quite sure what constitutes "kicking" and "moving". It is a well known fact that the ball does not have move from the spot to be in play. Simply flicking a foot at it or touching a foot onto it has been interpreted by many referees to be "movement". Is the Minnesota player trying some trickery here? Or is he legitimately trying not to move and not to start play? I was confused watching on USL Live and it was clear that our wall was confused as well.
Not sure what to do, Fusilier, Curfman, and Nuñez , believing that Minnesota has just put the ball in play, hesitantly break the wall, then stop confused (the ref must be yelling at them to stay in the wall), then they rush the ball and try to take it way to break up the free kick. Ref blows the play dead and sends off Nuñez, who he had just been booked 60 seconds earlier for dissent, with a second yellow, apparently for delay of restart or failure to retire the appropriate distance.
This is a harsh decision, in my opinion, and I believe my position is supported by the 2006 US Soccer Federation's Advice to Referees where they state:
The last line is the important part: "referees should not unfairly punish...when an opponent was clearly confused by a touch and a movement..."
Even if the ref was absolutely insistent on booking a player here, why not do the wise thing and book one of the OTHER players who actually started the infringement in this case. Fusilier nor Curfman had been booked and a yellow to one of them gets the ref's point across, that he believes the RailHawks failed to retire, yet keeps 11 men on the pitch for the remainder of the match.
Instead, he sends off Nuñez and gifts Minnesota 25+ minutes of advantage, which they used to equalize the game.
A good ref is one that you don't notice. Not one whose decision making influences the outcome of the game.