What he did was an offense that could be carded. What he did was also stupid. Stupidity isn't a cardable offense, but cardable offenses can be and often are stupid.
I'm not dense, the problem is that the referee in a game like that never should have allowed play to restart. I put that on the referee.
Terrible argument. The US loses a key player in the semi when the ball never should have been allowed to be played. Every decision affects the game and the progression of the tournament.
I think that the Wood card can be appealed due to an improper restart. I also agree that this referee crew is on the next flight home. And for those that didn't see the replay: http://www.socceramerica.com/articl...card-was-joke-and-disgrace.html?edition=15721
I will also contend that Jones would not have been shown a card of any color had Valencia not been sent off for 2ct.
Doubtful. He gets red either way in that sort of confrontation. He's a complete moron. The ref in general seemed to have a very laid back/calm disposition, which didn't mesh well with this match. I honestly had no major issues with how he called it. I think he lost control a bit at the start of the 2nd half and had to reign it in with cards. I always wonder how well referee personalities translate between regions and interfere with their ability to manage the game verbally. Not that he seemed to use words to manage Ecuador any more than the US>
Jones was an idiot and I have no real issue with the red though I think the ref could have chosen to ignore it as well. One question about the rule though. That link to Soccer America outed the rule as follows: Could you argue that Jones, since in some angles he didn't even appear to make contact, used negligible force and as such it didn't rise to a red card? I'd also point out that even if the ref doesn't bring out the red there there's a good chance he goes yellow on Jones just to calm things down. That would put Jones over the yellow card limit so the end result is the same. U.S. wins, Jones suspended for the semis. The Wood card bothers me more since it only happened due to the improper restart and general confusion.
Question for you guys: Rumor is US is going to appeal Jones' red card. My understanding is that VC gets an automatic 2 game suspension. Would appeal be able to reduce that to one game, given that it really wasn't that violent?
If that's a red on Jones, why isn't it also a straight red on Valencia for the strike on Jones? Granted, you can't send him off twice, but....
You certainly could, and I imagine the US will. But I think it's entirely ITOOTR as to whether the force was negligible or not; no appeal is going to touch that judgment call. This they can possibly pull off. It's the tournament organizers who would have come up with the 2-game-suspension rule, so it's also withine their competence to deviate from it. It all depends on how firm a stance they want to take on blows to the head/face, and the way those winds are blowing recently, I can see them leaving the suspension in place.
I think you're letting your personal opinion of Jones cloud your judgement here. I think Jones made it very easy for him to even things up. That's something I feel to be common in South America.
Asking here just because I think there's better odds of getting a right answer. If Jones is suspended for 2 games he's done for the tournament. His club team has games tomorrow and next Wednesday. Would he be able to go back to his club team and play in those games?
You can definitely make that argument. I will say that I have not been instructed on the updates to the Laws of the Game, so this is 100% "The opinion of chaoslord", but given the emphasis I feel like FIFA has placed on contact above the shoulders in recent years I personally read the update as trying to make clear that any contact made in an aggressive manner (so during handbags or a flare up) should be a send off, but players touching/patting faces like they sometimes do as a cultural thing would fall under the negligible, and that was the best way they could think to put it in words without outlining "This situation is ok, this is not, this is ok, this is not". I very well could be wrong here, so I will be interested to see how this all shakes out. EDIT: Like, this was definitely red before the June 1 updates, so I have a hard time thinking FIFA would really have wanted that to not be red anymore
Video being in short supply, can anybody describe neutrally and factually (!) the circumstances of the Wood caution/restart/travesty thing? I was well on my way to turning into a pumpkin at that point, and therefore missed the action.
I would have been more inclined to give Brooks a yellow for coming in late with the shove from behind. Maybe he saw the shove and thought it was Jones?
I have a feeling @Boots_McCoy is going to offer me another cookie, but I can't agree with this interpretation. According to the LOTG, striking or attempting to strike starts as a foul. FIFA has given a new interpretation regarding deliberately striking [not attempting to strike] the head or face unless the force used was negligible. Anything else, the laws say consider careless, reckless, or excessive force or possibly an offensive/abusive gesture. When we have these clear guidelines, blanketly saying any attempted strike or striking is VC seems to go against the laws. I also wonder how many more players should have been sent off if any strike or attempted strike is VC. To me, this is further evidence he was trying to even up the situation. Brooks probably had the worst cautionable offense in that scrum and should have been in clear view of at least two of the referees, but there was a lot going both ways. I think he just didn't want to go +1 especially when he was already at 2CT vs VC.
Improper restart in two ways : 1) Jones had not left the field yet; restart should wait. 2) Why was the restart given to Ecu? The match was stopped for the Ecu (Valencia) foul on US(Bedoya), so it should have been a FK for US, correct?
Delayed response on all major matters I can recall and with the stipulation (perhaps thankfully) that I watched without volume so have no idea what the commentators were saying: Roldan was pretty weak in the first half and seemed a bit out of sorts. There was a tackle by a Colombian that was late, obvious and easily a yellow card--just inside the US defensive half. Roldan missed it, play started going the other way, and he had to be bailed out by his AR. When I saw that, I knew he wasn't on his game. Overall, there just needed to be more from him in the first half. Pretty sure the US got away with a stupid foul that would have been a penalty about a minute before the double red cards. Really dumb challenge from behind near the goal line that the referee waved away, but replay seemed to make it look like a clear foul. Valencia should have got a straight red for VC. He just flat-out kicked his opponent in the back of the legs deliberately. Fair enough. Luckily, he was on a yellow. So he's gone. Simple enough. Jones absolutely earned his red card. This stuff about "he didn't actually hit him" or "he didn't hit him too hard" is garbage. Period. That was a red card. Watch again and focus on Bradley as he comes rushing in. Look what he does. He doesn't go to escalate the situation. He goes right to Jones and tries to push him away with a "what the hell are you doing?" Bradley knew the team was about to be up a man and up a goal. Bradley knew that Jones risked that fact with his actions if he was caught. And he was caught. Jones can have no complaints. And anyone that tries to say this is substandard CONMEBOL refereeing or that this would "never happen in Europe" needs to go back and watch the 2008 UCL Final. There have been two red cards ever in UCL Finals. And one of them was to Didier Drogba for an act very similar and perhaps more benign. If you deliberately hit or attempt to hit an opponent in the face at a stoppage with any sort of malice, you're going to get sent off if you're caught in any sort of international match worldwide. Jones let his team down and got what he deserved. Appealing Wood's card is crazy. He committed misconduct. Yes, Roldan and his team restarted play with a sent off player still on the field. That's a no-no at youth regionals, nevermind Copa America. He will, rightly, get reprimanded for that. But Wood still committed a cautionable offence and you are punished for the nature of the offence you commit. Roldan's wrong doesn't excuse Wood's behavior. If a Ecuadorian had punched an American in the face instead of Wood committing a reckless tackle, would people be seriously arguing that the Ecuadorian should stay on the field because play was improperly restarted? Yes, the caution to Paredes for the high kick should have been red in my opinion, based on the one replay I saw. But I had very little expectation that Roldan would go red at that point. Overall, Roldan was a letdown for me as a referee. There were several small mistakes throughout and then some major mistakes, too. But Jones and Wood earned their cards.
The reactions of other players to complicated situations doesn't always tell the story, but in this case watching Michael Bradley tells you a lot. Right after Jones did whatever he did, Bradley stepped between the two looking aghast, staring at Jones and pointing at his own head in the universal "what the hell were you thinking" gesture.