Unfortunately I can't show a replay of the view I had which, as I remember it, was studs up and Caught Evens. I was behind the South goal which is the end the tackle happened. Again, it was another straight legged studs up challenge for the ball. Johnson actually got to the ball first it appears on the replay, but he is still going in studs up with a straight leg lunge. Regarding the screen capture you have. It doesn't show how the two players lead into it and contact has already been made. Evan's foot will not stay locked with the toe pointing down once he gets kicked. Evans comes in with his toe pointing down/away from his knee, go watch the replay. Johnson is simply coming in with a straight leg and his studs straight up and goes through Evan's foot/ankle/leg. Evans is trying to keep the ball in. He isn't going to go in with his studs showing to accomplish that.
You both are within your right to feel this way. To me, this is a matter of timing. Johnson went in at the ball, not at Evans' foot. He started his challenge before Evans' foot was in the way, and Evans' foot replaced the ball. This is far different from, for example, the ridiculous challenge by Nyassi late against Kansas City. If Johnson gets the ball first with the bottom of his foot, Evans is going to cleat him in the side of the foot instead. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. You're right that in that there are plenty of examples of challenges such as this one that have resulted in the sending off the guy who cleats the other. I disagree with such a decision, but certainly there is precedent to suggest I am wrong. But alas, I don't do first division professional matches and thus probably am not qualified to render any kind of criticism of this decision, one way or another.
Here is a picture of the result. http://twitter.com/#!/brad_evans3/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com/DpIEonvm
He just posted the picture, no comment with it. I am no doctor, so I hesitate even to comment. But, having experience my own ankle trauma of similar outward appearance, it would seem likely that last incident caused the majority of the damage. I certainly wasn't able be active after the events that caused that amount of swelling. Again, I am no doctor. And, while I was at the game, I was at the opposite end and have had no clear look at any of the incidents. I was very concerned that Jair had really set the tone for an ugly ugly affair in the 1st 20 minutes. And am frankly impressed that he kept the game together like he did. Overall, I would commend him for his performance, with the exception of the 1st 20. My only real beef would be the amount of time wasting that happened throughout the game, starting very early. An appropriate amount of time was added in my opinion, but the impact it has during the run of play is not simply corrected through added time. I am not a ref, but it really seems to me that there must be some way of managing it better.
I only asked because you quoted my comments about the second challenge. Evans stayed in the game after that challenge, and that's the only one I stated I did not see something that I considered misconduct on. That challenge appeared to hit his foot, not high on the ankle, where the picture shows the swelling. I don't recall the nature of the first challenge, only that Evans was shaken up on it. I withdrew my claim that the third challenge (the one that knocked Evans out of the game) was innocuous. TV did not give a particularly good replay angle. From distance, I think it looked bad, but I have to refrain from saying for sure it was evil because TV did not show a good replay of it. The 3rd challenge also happened directly in front of the AR, and he did not indicate to Marrufo that any card should be given. Not that this means they were correct; I'm a big believer that when a guy gets injured on a tackle, the referee crew should be sniffing around for the challenge being unsporting or serious foul play (as the definition of SFP includes "any tackle which can cause serious injury"). Please folks, understand that I thought Johnson deserved a caution at some point, if anything for PI. The only thing I persist in saying was that the second challenge in my opinion did not warrant, by itself, a caution for UB or a send-off for SFP.
On that 3rd tackle Johnson clearly got the ball first but he was clearly studs up in the air while Evans was attempting to cross the ball in with the side of his foot/laces. Like I said earlier, there is a reason why studs up tackles are not allowed. And one more comment regarding that pic posted. Look at the angle of Evan's foot and then look at the motion of his leg. He is attempting to keep the ball in play. His studs are not coming at the player in that situation. He is swinging his leg not lunging in with a straight leg and studs showing. And he wasn't trying to toe poke it, he was trying to actually have some control on how he was playing the ball, hence why his toe was pointed down away from his knee and he was trying to hit the ball with the top of his foot.
But isn't that the catch in soccer. The guy that's late gets called the guy that got the ball goes free. Again, I still wonder why we don't see foul on Johnson, caution to both.