Post-match: Austin FC - San Jose Earthquakes (Saturday, 9/18) postgame thread [R]

Strawman. I’m not making a blanket statement about bias. I’m talking about this particular incident. I’m saying there’s a reasonable argument for yellow for Espinoza and red for Stuver. We’ve given it.

 

Espinoza did nothing close to warranting a red. Just because the gk went postal on him doesn't mean you then elevate Espinoza's infraction. Just like the before mentioned incident regarding Lenhart heading the ball out of the LA gk's hands. Yes, yellow card. The LA goalie could have and should have done nothing and Lenhart would have looked stupid picking up an unnecessary yellow. But, the gk way overreacted and elbowed Lenhart in the face. Stuver was incredibly lucky not to have been expelled. So, anytime one of your teammates gets pushed you have the right to blindside and deck the one who did the pushing? That's pretty much what Toledo decided.

 

You are correct, but the race to grab the ball out of the goal is a stupid part of the game. I think a sensible way to avoid it would be have a replacement ball sent into the center from the technical area after the goal, while the ball in the goal can be removed from play and sent to the ballkids (if we ever have ballkids again). There's no fundamental reason that the same ball that was scored has to be used for the restart.

 

Good idea!

 

We did that for every goal Wondo scored when he broke the record.

 

I think there is always bias even in this situation. It may not be enough to change your opinion on this situation which is fine. For Espinoza, I certainly over compensate for the bias I know I have with teams I like. I do think that in some situations that becomes a red for him. I've seen the exact thing on the sideline with just as much force where the player hits the boards instead of the net and the red comes out. All that said, I think it would have been harsh here and my original point, I believe, was that given the entire situation it sparked many referees would have looked to be consistent with their cards. Here he went yellow-yellow. He could have gone red-red instead. I'm fine with yellow-yellow. I would have been annoyed with red-red but understood given how stupid Espinoza's move was. I honestly would have been surprised to see yellow-red.

 

At the risk of being pedantic (hey, never stopped me before!), you are using a type of logical / argumentative fallacy here - ad hominen, where instead of focusing on the arguments, you are saying that the argument is not valid because the arguer has trait "x". For example, "Your argument is invalid because you are ignorant, or biased, or conservative, or liberal", etc. So I think it's best if we set that aside and focus on the arguments, not the traits of the arguer.

We know that there were two physical actions taken against an opposing player - one from Espinoza and one from Stuver. One was in retaliation for the other, which does not excuse it. As far as I know there is no "retaliation" clause in the LOTG. We also know that not every set of action / retaliation in soccer is addressed the same way. It is not uncommon for one guy to get a yellow and the other nothing, or one yellow, the other red, etc. It depends on the actions involved.

So let's look at the actions involved. Both of the actions resulted in the receiving player going to ground. But context matters. In the case of Espinoza's push, at least 3 players were recklessly careening torward the back of the net to receive a shared resource. It was not likely to end politely in any case, and it would not take much of a push for the guy not to be able to stop from his full-on sprint and stoop down and get the ball. Most of his momentum was coming from his mad dash to the back of the net. Also, it was not an endangering push because the net, while being an awkward place to land, actually serves to brace the fall.

In the case of Stuver's push, there was no contention for shared resource. There was simply intent to commit physical pain. Stuver took a 10 yard run up and led with his elbow and used the full force of his weight to plow Espinoza to the ground.

So to me, there is no comparison between Espinoza's push and Stuver's body slam. I think the correct call would have been yellow for Espinoza and red for Stuver.

 

But what if the arguer is an evil, cheating, ref-bribing, smog-breathing, water-stealing galactowanker?! Eh! What then?! surely we would have to take some of that into account!!

I still think that it was a dick move for our guys to go after the ball, and pushing the opposing player is crap. BUT, their actions do not begin to rise to the level of Stuver hitting our player. Especially given that we are allowed to pick the balll out of their net. (I think the league should say: NO, don’t do that. It’s rude, it’s unsporting, and just needless. The ref will add thirty seconds of stoppage time for the goal anyway. Let it go!)

A yellow to Espinoza was a bit much in my view, but OK. Stuver should have seen straight red, no doubt about it. And this let’s be even handed and give both guys yellows or both guys reds is horse crap. Not all fouls are equal, not all infractions can be equated.

Go Quakesfans!!

- Mark

 

Again, I'm not arguing for a red to Espinoza. I would not be surprised if the referees had come to that conclusion though. It would have harsh, but we've all seen reds for less. Look at it again though, the defender was not stooping down. Espinoza gave him a two handed shove a yard inside the goal and really didn't need to. He was beaten to the position to get that ball and could have stopped. He chose to cause problems. There's no reason to try to make it sound better or worse than it was. I think in general we're on the same page here. When you do something like that, however, don't be surprised if a red comes out.

Stuver didn't lead with his elbow. He did turn his body making contact with a tucked in elbow, but he certainly didn't lead with it. I think that's one of the only reasons he didn't get a red. I think that yellow was consistent with what we've seen from MLS this year. I don't really agree with where MLS has drawn that line.

Last word from me on how people judge these calls, but I don't believe for a moment that the majority of people here would say that JT deserved a red if things happened exactly the same at the other end. I've seen it too many times on the boards where the tables are flipped in a week or two and people try to justify why the play was different when they really aren't. This isn't a bad thing. It's sports. I also think I over compensate for that sometimes.

 

No yellow for Espinoza? Yeah, but no Quake goggles....

I think the issue is that the punishment for both was the same. Stuver clearly should have been punished more and wasn't. Given Espinoza got the yellow, the additional punishment would have had to be a red for Stuver. If no card for Espinoza, the a yellow to Stuver would have fulfilled that. I think from a game management standpoint the yellow to Espinoza had to happen.

 

OK, now we are in agreement!

Interesting thing about this play. Someone posted the reverse angle on reddit. Stuver was rolling around on the ground and looked up just as Espinoza pushed the guy and went into the net. He didn't see the 3 guys simultaneously making a mad dash to the back of the net, so he lacked context at that point. Then you see him make a full 10 yard mad dash and body slam Espinoza.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SJEarthquakes/comments/pro6lk/another_angle_of_the_scuffle_in_austin/