Match included my favorite offside call, when the keeper is not the last defender. Donovan got caught on that one. It's always fun to see offending player point to an opponent on the goal line and complain about that call, until you explain to them that there was no 2nd defender between them and the goal.
Yep - I brought my kids in to watch the replay on that one and showed them how the AR got it completely right.
It's a tough call to make in youth games, when two attackers are on a break-away, with only the keeper to beat, and the player with the ball passes it to a team-mate who is ahead of him. As AR, you want to scream "Don't pass that ball".
I watched it again in slow-mo. The defender did clip Jones, barely. Jones made a meal of it, but the defender did clip him.
Even if he did clip him, was is DOGSO? I'd have to watch it again, but I seem to remember that there were a couple of other defenders nearby, who might have caught Jones.
Yea I thought it was DOGSO. IMO, he was in on goal and would have gotten a shot off. Or at least had the "opportunity" to do so. The only question I think you could raise might be distance to ball, was his last touch too heavy?
Considering none of you can run as fast as JJ, none of you can realize how easy it is to topple so clumsily at the slightest touch. When you are sprinting full speed and you are as fast as he is, it doesn't take much to knock you off balance and send you flying. If you don't understand this concept, please don't officiate high level games with fast players. And if you disagree, when is the last time you saw a player at this level walk off the field after getting a red card with absolutely no complaint. This barely ever happens, especially if the defender felt like it was a dive. The defender knew he clipped him ever so slightly, and he knew he was gone. The other two defenders had no chance of catching him, and his touch was actually perfect I thought. It gave him enough space to run on to the ball, the GK had no chance at it, and the defenders were just catching up to speed and JJ was already at full speed and gone. Good call.
I watched the replay of the DOGSO several times. I don't see any contact whatsoever. Simulation in my view.
Just realized there's a separate thread on this. My re-worked answer from the CONCACAF thread: There is definitely some contact, which explains why the Jamaican walked with no fuss. Of course, that doesn't explain the theatrical fall, though. Also, that was contact which might have been impossible for Rodriguez to see at real-time, so he might have just got lucky with the foul call! Like bluedevils said in another thread, I did question the DOGSO components initially. The last touch looked very heavy and part of me wondered if Jones went to ground because he knew he wouldn't get the ball. That said, this goes back to the situation where the spirit of the law should trump, in my opinion, the stringent ticking of the four boxes for DOGSO. It's quite clear that the Jamaican was deliberately trying to take Jones down and stop a breakaway. He had almost no chance of winning the ball and, though the contact didn't end up being substantial, ran a very high risk of bringing Jones down in spectacular fashion. Plus, Jones is in the middle of the park, heading straight at goal, with no one but the goalkeeper to beat (sorry but the players to the right and left of him don't matter, in my opinion; he's away with a head of steam and they are 7-10 yards to the right and left of him). The only question, from a 4 D's perspective, is whether or not he'd get to the ball before Ricketts. Is it "obvious" that he will? Absolutely not. Is it possible that he might? Definitely. At the moment the foul actually occurs, the ball is still only a couple yards in front of Jones--if he had stayed on his feet and pursued the ball at full speed, we'd have had a very interesting situation. So you end up with 3 D's checked and 1 in question. But you balance that with a defender who was committing the sort of tackle that this law was instituted to combat. Do we let him off on a dubious technicality or do we do what everyone expects and sends him off? I fall in the latter camp. I also was certain, by the way, that Rodriguez would take the same approach (no surprise there!). If this was a careless charging foul on a 60/40 ball, I likely would come down with a different opinion. Is that technically correct? Probably not. But it certainly encapsulated what the DOGSO law was designed to do. I'd also ask, if you don't buy the DOGSO argument... was the nature of the foul SFP? Granted, there's no violent contact or true excessive force. But that's a tackle from behind and it certainly could have endangered the safety of the opponent. I don't think that's what was called, but it's another avenue to consider.
There 100% was contact with Jones' left heel as it was about 12-16 inches off the ground. Re-watch the slow motion.
There was also a good replay of the following exchange (paraphrasing; I can't read lips, but there were hand motions): Donovan: "How can I be offside? There was a defender on the goal line!" Rodríguez: "Yes, that's one player, but you need two to keep you onside!"
defenders were not gonna catch him once Richards went to ground...it was 3 on the keeper there was definitely contact, maybe not on the last sweep of the leg...what was the incentive for him to go down when it was 3 attacking players clear of the defense?
Its never used, but is this one of those situations where we have a foul + simulation? Would have been interesting because both players would have been sent off, one for DOGSO and one for 2YC.
There was contact as others have pointed out. The back of Jones's left heel gets clipped on it's way up by the trailing leg of the defender. If he tried, he probably could have stayed on his feet, but the stumble would have probably cost him the chance to score, and since we all know the ref would not likely call a foul in that case, he went down like he'd been shot to make sure a call was made. Very theatrically, but if not for the contact he wouldn't have gone down.
simulation [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYbzscypa4Y&feature=relmfu[/ame] not enough contact to warrant a straight red, Jones takes two steps before the dramatic fall (looks like he was shot by a sniper). It looks like Taylor actually touches the ball forward perhaps out of Jones' stride so Jones fakes a foul.
Thanks for the video. Once you see the contact between the defender's trailing knee and the back of Jones' trailing foot, I don't see how you can fault Jones for anything. Running at that speed, he is going down every time. And I suppose you can get to "two" steps if that is of some significance to you by counting the one that had already been made with his right foot and then his left (clipped) foot coming down following the contact as required by gravity and physics, but the contact clearly brought him down immediately. Jones may have added a little extra to the fall with his arms on his way down, but nothing extraordinary in my view. the only issues on the DOGSO by my thinking were (a) how strong Jones' touch was and whether he really had any chance to get to the ball before the Jamaican goalkeeper came out and (b) whether the left defender in a deeper position has any chance of getting into the play and should be part of the discussion. i'm big enough to admit USA bias, but this play - taking down an opponent taking off on a breakaway right up the middle of the field - strikes me as the classic example of what the Law is intending to stop.
I still dont see the contact in slow motion..... http://youtu.be/rvV46-kqpAU ... even looked at it in 720P HD, full screen. But... in real time... I yelled.. 'Red Card!'
IIRC, the announcer actually got it right. I think that might be the first time I've ever heard that. As a side note, I get to, once again, argue that the rule should be changed to 1 field player rather than 2 defenders. The purpose of the rule is to avoid cherry picking and to avoid the kinds of "in front of goal" scrums you see in hockey. Once you're behind the keeper as in that play, you've fulfilled the purpose of the rule. And it probably would make it easier for ARs.
Even after rewatching the replay, my opinion remains the same: The Jamaican defender grazes Jermaine Jones leg. During the slide tackle, the ball is poked forward away from Jones and probably onto an unrushing Donovan Ricketts. After a step (or two), Jones decides to go down and attempts to draw a red, which he did. I think some of you will say I'm giving Jones too much credit for planning this out, but as pointed out, the player never argued the sendoff. He sold it real well as most refs would have made the call as well. If Wesley Sneijder does the same thing in the World Cup when Carlos Puyol grabs his jersey, instead of fighting through it, who knows what the final result would have been. The play you are referring to is when the referee had his flag up to signal that the ball had gone out of bounds (while in the air) to signal a throw in. As a result, JP Dellacamera misunderstood and took it as an offside. Interesting to note that when the quick throw in took place, he didn't even correct himself. What I like that the Mexican referee did is he immediately went to Donovan once he had the confused look and showed him two fingers to let him know that there had to be two opposing players because Ricketts had moved up. He could have taken the view of not having to explain the call and have Landon berate the AR. An example of how to avoid an unnecessary situation and great player management. I wish Koman Coulibaly did the same when he asked for an explanation on his whistle in the World Cup.
I've never been a fan of how stringent the 4 Ds are and having to 'check all 4 boxes' in order to decide for a sendoff. And I'm not trying to hide behind them here. To me, it's NOT an obvious goalscoring opportunity because the touch was so far in front and the player was still 40+ yards from goal. We can't see as much on TV as being in the stadium or on the pitch, but it seems like the GK had a decent chance of getting to the ball first, or getting there at the same time. The defender nearest to Jones looks to be 5 yards away and could have come into consideration. Maybe I'm being too strict on what an obvious goalscoring opportunity is, but I see a defensive midfielder who already has made a 60 yard run and still has some work to do before the play turns into a good goalscoring opportunity. In my opinion, it didn't look OBVIOUS. Sure, the Jamaican defender was trying to stop Jones' run. That 'intent' or negative play or cynicism or whatever you wanna call it...it doesn't make this a red card all by itself. What if the defender didn't see his teammate screaming across from the right corner to provide cover? Then it's not a red card. So you have to evaluate where all the players are, not just say 'he took him down on purpose and was trying to prevent a breakaway.' My 2 cents on the challenge...it was an honest attempt to play the ball, he had a very decent chance of winning it, it was most definitely NOT a tackle from behind. Jones was coming thru at HIGH speed and the defender was basically alongside and slightly behind him when he started the sliding challenge, and caught the back of Jones' heel because he didn't quite execute the challenge perfectly. I do not see a high risk of injury here. Legit attempt to play the ball, he caught the man instead which was probably intended, very minor contact, look how Jones was able to go to ground without any danger at all.
I think he might have had a few choice words for the nation's best attacking talent not having the cojones to dribble past a keeper, too. Has LD taken on a single player 1v1 in this tournament? Not all of the games were the day after his sister's wedding reception. The look on his face when he saw the flag was precious.