None of that will happen because a reporter quoted on a newspaper what a player said. It's EJ's word Vs. SD and the league is not going down that road. Relax. What this brings to light that EJ needs to be more careful what he says to whom... and SD has been down the block enough times to know what to print... It will be difficult for SD to get a "genuine" quote from EJ again. Get used to... "It was tough out there" "RSL was a worthy oponent" "one game at a time" "I just want to do what is best for the club" etc.... Nothing will come out of this. (Publicly)
I watched the replays of the Pope foul very carefully and couldn't see the kind of contact that would cause EJ to be injured like he was pertending. Pope did come in from behind, but it was more like EJ fell backwards on to Pope then EJ having his legs cut out from under him. I think the red card that was given to Pope should be revoked and given to EJ instead. Pope is not the type of player to deliberately try and hurt a someone, and that play was not reckless enough to deserve a red card. Faking an injury for 2 minutes on the other hand is.
Except for the fact that he was up and running at full speed a few minutes later making backheel passes on the run. I guess if you ignore all of that then there really isn't any evidence at all. And I don't really buy the fact that he had a pained expression on his face. It doesn't take much to fake that. It also doesn't take a lot to loaf it for a few seconds when you do come back on the field in order to make it seem as if you were injured. The real proof is how he finished the game. If you had started watching the game after the whole thing, you would have never been able to guess that he had been lying around in total agony a few minutes earlier. That's pretty good evidence that he was faking it to me. ------------------------------------ Yes, we're still an expansion team. At least against FC Dallas. Add us to the list of teams branded "Property of FC Dallas," along with Chicago.
Actually he was sidelined for several minutes and even after taking the field he was taking it easy, by sticking to the sideline. But I guess if you ignore all that then you have no point. Have you ever heard of RECOVERING? Happens all the time. Guys limp around for a few minutes....the muscles relax...and then they are ready to go again. You see....athletes at the peak of the physical performance can do that sort of thing. Lard asses like yourself can't.
After seeing the incident and reading what Johnson said, I have a few points: 1. As others have stated, the red card came out rather quickly. Because of that, any statement to the effect of "Johnson tricked the ref into wrongly sending Pope off" is not supported by the facts. 2. That being said, the red card was certainly rather weak by historical MLS standards. Not all tackles from behind are automatic send offs--a tackle from behind must "endanger the safety of the opponent" to be a red card. 3. Now comes the tricky part. This year, FIFA has emphasized that ALL tackles that endanger an opponent's safety (from behind or not) are red cards. This is not, technically, a rule change (in the past, any foul with "excessive force" was a red card), but it marks a strong emphasis from FIFA. Because of that, you're going to see a lot more red cards in instances where you probably wouldn't have in past years (the tackle earlier this year in the NE/SJ match is a good example) and I think this tackle falls into that category. You can pretty much see the moment where the referee pauses, after having whistled for the foul, where he thinks 'this is the kind of foul they've been saying needs to be a red', before reaching into his right pocket for the red card. A "soft" red card? Maybe, and certainly 'yes' by past standards. But, if this sort of foul is called this way with some consistency the rest of the year (and it seems to have been so far this year), should fans really be complaining? Especially after all the past moaning about referees letting MLS matches degenerate into violent slugfests? There will certainly be some controversial--and perhaps even "incorrect"--red cards, but if, overall, it leads to more attacking play and less brutal challenges, it's only good for the game and the league. 4. This statement, however, isn't true. "Simulation" encompases both diving and injury faking, and this is made explicitly clear by USSF in the "7+7" misconduct document (it's a paper that lists all the sub-categories, codes and discipline points for the 7 cautionable offences plus the 7 send off offences). "Diving" is one sort of simulation but "exagerrating the severity of an injury" is also listed as a second form of simulation. Of course, it's much, much more difficult for referees to discern when someone is exagerrating an injury. Furthermore, the idea of calling a foul but then cautioning the fouled player for simulation is also much less palatable to a referee, for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, exaggerating an injury, when it can be proved, is a cautionable offence. 5. In my opinion, Johnson should be fined for his remarks, solely because they unnecessarily undermine the credibility of a referee who was trying to do his job. Assessing caution points would similarly undermine the referee and suspending Johnson is too severe.
True, but it's up to the referee to judge whether or not it was serious foul play, which is a straight red. He went to his pocket pretty quickly so in his mind it was serious foul play.
True....the quote I gave wasn't 100% accurate as I've looked it up now. However, it is still only a cardable offense of simulation if the person is exagerrating injury in order to get another player ejected. As you have stated, the red was already given. Nothing EJ did could have made Pope's punishment more severe....he was already out of the game. Feigning injury to get a few moments of rest is not cardable....afaik. Thanks for your clarifications.....I hope that everyone should realize that any action against EJ beyond a fine would be too aggressive. And any retraction of Pope's card would be a dangerous precedent.
Well, as dumb as he was for saying what he did, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you can't run right back on the field at full speed. Even he is smart enough to realize that. It certainly didn't slow him down for the rest of the game. The point is that the evidence is there that he wasn't as hurt as he seemed to be. I guess it all comes down to how you interpret that evidence. You see it one way and I see it another. But to simply make the claim that the evidence didn't exist, especially when coupled with his stupid statement after the game, is ridiculous. When you add up all the pieces, instead of looking at each one individually, it becomes more and more clear that he was faking. There is plenty of evidence that he faked it.
Steve Davis here I've resisted posting here for years. I have a forum, and I think this should be the fans' forum. Some defense could certainly have been justified before, because, frankly, people sometimes carry fairly misguided notions about what a newspaper does and how a reporter works. On this one, I certainly should defend myself and the newspaper. After the game, Eddie asked me if he could grab a shower before talking. Due to tough deadline -- my stories are generally due at 10:15 -- I couldn't wait. So I said, "I just wanted to check real quick to make sure you're OK." He said he was fine. That he wasn't hurt. I aksed if it was his knee or ankle? What he said: "It wasn't either. There was never anything wrong. I was faking." From here, I proceeded very cautiously. I understood immediately that this was serious. Not earth-shaking, but serious in the context. I also wanted to proceed carefully to be fair to Eddie. (I've talked to him before, hoping to educate him a little about the way the press works. I've told him, remember, what you say to a reporter is on the record, always, unless you asked clearly otherwise.) So I asked, very clearly: Are you joking here, Eddie? He said again, there was nothing wrong. My first thought: Is he being macho, not wishing to admit he was hurt? So I asked a third time: something like, "So, you were never hurt, at all?" "No, I was faking. He didn't even foul me. I was just trying to draw the foul." Then, he pointed toward Carlos, walking toward him from the shower, and said, "I still can't do it as well as him." As for you guys who want to say I "twisted" it or intentionally misreprestented what he said by pulling quotes out of context, I can only guess that these are the people who never read this newspaper. Reporters who play fast and loose with facts and quotes don't last. And such suggestions are quite insulting to someone who has spent a long time reporting as professionally and honestly as possible about a game that I've loved and played since I was kid. As for it being a silly thing to put in the newspaper: when reporters start deleting relevant statements for fear of losing access, readers become the big losers. Thanks Steve
Thanks, Steve, for the clarification. I think you can see how only having part of the conversation in print could cause some to second guess the entire incident. Of course that sort of thing shold be printed, you have that responsibility as a journalist. Now having read your post I have to say I am quite dissapointed with Eddie. This is not the kind of thing I want to see from our players. I hope you don't take offense to me, and others, wanting to see the entire quote/conversation. This is a serious issue to many of us, and personally I wanted to have all the info before making a judgement. I know we all appreciate the coverage the team gets in the DMN, and are lucky to have you, ToLo and Buzz in town.
Wait a minute. Are you seriously saying that you are going to take the word of some random person on the internet who got himself an account called DMNReporter? Sure it could be Steve Davis but I hope he would be smart enough to realise that there is zero way anyone could verify this was him.
I had said since the beginning that I wanted to see the whole conversation before making a judgement. If you had waited for a full minute before posting you could have read my reaction before bashing me. But, please, continue to act like a jackass....it's quite funny.
Powers that be can verify with the email address he registered with. They can also check the IP address he used to register (remember the Joe Cannon posting on the Quake board fiasco?). That and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I welcome the new standard for red cards MassachussettsRef describes in his point #3 to minimize injury? it's a good thing and penalize destructive play? it's a good thing A rash of 10 × 10 and 8 x 8 finishes is an OK price to pay 'til people get the picture and I can hope it's interpreted that way all over the world yes, defenders will have to play some situations differently. it's a good thing
Sounds pretty legit, Jonno. I am willing to believe it based on the amount of detail in the post. Maybe I'm just naive.
WHOA... okay this redcard might not be as harsh as we once thought. Go back and watch the replay, but not just of EJ going down. At the 1:33:00 mark of the video watch the way Eddie Pope comes in. The ball goes to EJ's RIGHT foot, Eddie Pope comes in from the left and gets down low and clips him at the knees. Totally not necessary, he could've easily come in from the right and marked him that way. I'm sure Eddie Pope didn't mean for it to be so vicious, but I can see how a tackle like that would look really suspicious to a referee. Faking or no faking, it was a pretty awkward challenge. As much as I hate to say this, I think we've gotta trust the ref on this call. The red is not as harsh as you think... I mean it probably should've just been a yellow but I can see where the ref (especially from his angle) would consider it redcard worthy. EJ faking it? The more I watch the tape the more I think its Steve Davis twisting Eddie's words. There is definite pain in Eddie's face. Granted, he walks better the more he gets off the field but it was a hard hit to the back of the knees. That definitely stings at first.
Yes, I know. The amount of evidence wasn't enough for you. I wouldn't call it bashing. I was just pointing out that I was right and you were wrong. Pretty simple actually. There was plenty of evidence that he was faking even before this was posted. And for you to ignore it all completely and say that NO evidence existed was a dumb comment. Ahhh, the proverbial insult from the person that has just been proven wrong. How original. I guess I'd just rather be right than have a clever insult to hurl. I guess you have to go with what you got.
Maybe I'm too cynical. I do get this Beckham vibe about Eddie. Massively talented but basically they are both just not very smart. Remember Beckham boasting in the press about how smart he was for deliberately getting a yellow card so he could serve his suspension early. Same sort of thing as Eddie. Was roasted in the press for being stupid which put pressure on the authorities to discipline him (don't remember if they ever did).
Beckham is an idiot. Time as provided proof positive on that on. EJ is still young. Still getting used to dealing with the press. Maybe he just speaks before he thinks. This is how you learn. If he's still doing it when he's 28, then call him another 'Beckham.
Aero, I think you misuderstand the difference between supposition and actual evidence. You made an assumption that he was faking injury based on him getting up and playing quickly. That is NOT evidence...that is, at best, a guess....and quite possibly a wrong one. Yes, it appears that EJ was faking....and now that we have a direct quote from him in which he does NOT appear to be joking I can say that there is evidence and not just suggestive information. Goodbye...the RSL boards are calling you now.