Man oh man, u crack me up LOL If you want to get technical about it, the card for simulation would have come out for trying to deceive the referee into giving a player a card that was not deserved. The dive is what convinvced the referee that adequate contact had been made to take the player to the ground, when the whole world can see that it hasn't. Tha this is where the simulation comes in; it is not a technical football term. It is related entirely to attempting to deceive the match official by whatever means taken. If Jones is gonna be diving around like that, he'd better get better at it because that attempt was woeful, to be honest but it worked !
Not wanting to use facts to try and back your opinion up then? I am not seeing the link to the law you are using...got it?
Well if we call diving and simulation the same thing it looks like he did neither. Laboring under the imaginary belief that he has to struggle to keep his feet after contact or it is not a valid foul is your mistake. He was fouled, it did deserve a card. That is not debatable.
Never said it did. That was in response to this: Point being, it happens to all and the US is not just some lucky side who gets all the breaks or anything. THEY DESERVED TO WIN THE GAME YESTERDAY. End of story.
You've made the point yourself; he wasn't struggling to keep his feet. He rode the tackle quite well actually and kept his balance admirably from what minimal contact there was. He chose to dive when he realised that the ball had run away from him and he could not retrieve possession of it. I agree that is was a speculative attempt on his part and would have either gotten Jermaine Taylor sent off, yellow carded or Jones yellow carded. That the referee fell for it is no fault of Jones, just poor refeering imho.
here lets see wat espn and sports illustrated have to say about jermaine jones espn "The midfielder was the most influential player on the field, thanks to that strike -- Ricketts dived to his left and appeared to have it covered, but it deflected off Taylor and to the other side of the net -- and to a well-executed dive in the 67th that prompted Mexican referee Marco Rodriguez to dismiss Taylor." sports illustrated " an unnecessary retaliation yellow card in the first half meant that Jones could (and maybe should) have been sent off for a second yellow upon taking a dive in the second half. Instead the call went the U.S.'s way, and Jamaica's Jermaine Taylor was given a red card on the play, even though there was no contact."
Let me reiterate. Simulation cannot occur if the attacking player is fouled in any way. "Embelishment" or "diving" after a foul occurs is NOT defined as simulation in the laws of the game. So if you agree that a foul occurred on the play, then you agree that there was no "simulation" as is defined in the laws of the game.
"Diving" does not equal Simulation. A player can dive (deliberately stop or fall to the ground) after being fouled and it is not defined as simulation by FIFA.
This is exactly what the neutral soccer world has seen happen and how it has been universally judged; Jones was on a yellow already so if justice prevails, he has to go. Now, we can't have the USA down to 10 men against Jamaica, now can we ? That just won't do. What I'm disappointed about is that Jones was already the best player on the pitch, he only devalued his overall performance with that bit of playacting in my opinion.
Exactly.... Simulation is a deliberate attempt to deceive the referee, in which Jones was clearly attempting to do and succeeded in doing.
"attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)" -FIFA Ask a referee, Jones was not pretending to have been fouled. Thus it wasn't simulation. 98% of the soccer media does not understand the intricacies of the game. That's why us referees are subject to days of training every year.
Wrong. Simulation requires two things: 1. Deliberate attempt to deceive the referee WHILE 2. Feigning injury or pretending to be fouled Number 1 happened, but 2 didn't
"In association football, diving (or simulation, the term used by FIFA) is an attempt by a player to gain an unfair advantage by diving to the ground and possibly feigning an injury, to appear as if a foul has been committed" wikipedia.org honestly dood
Hey only the parts of the laws you like apply anyways, they can throw the rest of that crap out, right? I think we see why you won't post the law now...
Wikipedia lol? How about a PRIMARY SOURCE: "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)" My point stands.
didnt feel like going thru the fifa rule book but people already put it up "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)" well here it is and obviously at this point were not gonna agree but my point still stands he dove and it was the same as simulation if youre too blind to see it its not my problem
IMO, Jones was definitely fouled. There was contact, and it was both intentional AND illegal as defined by the laws of the game. Thus if taken literally, it was not simulation. IF you use the "spirit of the game" argument (both plays were against the spirit of the literal laws), then BOTH players should have seen red and it would have been 10 v 10. The outcome probably wouldn't have changed.
so youre saying any contact constitutes a foul? ill give you the fact that the jamaican player touched jermaine jones but it was never enough to bring him down. reminds me a lot of the gillardino dive xept that one was way worse
So you want people to use your definition and your opinion...to be honest I can see why you think we are blind. Would you agree if you had to use my definition and my opinion? If not that would make you blind, right? I do not see why Mexican posters do not want to use the FIFA rules that they state are being broken. If you are sure it was against the rule you should encourage the rule be used. But the people that disagree with you are asking for the actual rule to be used in the discussion... Hmmm, sounds odd.
the rule is right there "pretending to have been fouled" not altered or changed by my opinion........ honestly i ddnt get the second part of ur post