Fact: Jones Did Not Dive

Referee forum guy here. Not much new perspective to add. My initial thought in live action: no contact, complete dive/simulation.

My 2 cents after watching the replays 15-20 times:

* yes, the Jamaican player's leg made contact with Jones' trailing heel

* yes, calling the foul against the Jamaican defender was the proper decision

* 50/50 whether Jones could have kept running. None of us watching can really say for sure. Sure, getting clipped in the heel can throw you off stride and make you fall down. But on the replays, the contact does not *appear* to throw Jones off his stride. Whether a player can stay up depends on so many factors.

* Jones knew his touch was REALLY heavy and he went down to sell the call. Call it diving, simulation, embellishment, whatever you want. Should the referee have cautioned Jones for simulation and NOT given the USA the free kick? No. What Jones did is a smart play, unsavory for sure but very common at the professional level and I can't really hold it against him for doing it.

* It would be basically impossible for the referee to know in live action whether Jones embellished / went to ground on purpose. Even after umpteen replays, posters here still cannot agree on it. The referee has to go with what he sees in a split second, which is a player coming in, seeming to get there a bit late, and clipping the attacker who has a clear path to goal. He's gotta call a foul.

* Personally, I rarely caution for simulation if contact has occurred and prefer to caution when it looks to have been a blatant attempt to draw a foul when no contact has occurred.

* Jones starts throwing his arms up and pretending to have been shot BEFORE his clipped foot comes back down and touches the ground. So I think he made up his mind very quickly to go to ground, i.e. he opted not to try and keep going.

* Jamaica should thank the referee for spotting the free kick a good 8 yards closer to goal than where the foul occurred...this enticed Kljestan to try a shot he had no business attempting!

* The Jamaican players didn't complain because, like most players, their understanding of DOGSO is too simplistic. Too often, players see it as a 'last man' thing but it's not that simple. There was a pretty good chance that Ricketts would have gotten there first and cleared the ball, or at least arrived at the same time as Jones and tried to stick him, or pushed Jones out wide into/toward the Jamaican defender who was tracking back at the bottom of the TV screen. To me, it was NOT an obvious goalscoring opportunity. But Marco Rodriguez is somewhat of a stickler, and I was expecting to see his red card come out. This was exactly the type of big-time decision and severe punishment he likes to take.

 

if we're ok with this dive, then I don't want to hear any complaining when our opposition dives after they were 'technically fouled' and they take a 'professional dive', after flopping when touched.

 

there is no technically fouled or attempted foul, it's either a foul or not a foul. This was a foul.

 

How about you actually look at the video which is the premise for the whole damn thread?

 

Folks, I hope everybody understands and accepts that not all contact is a foul! The referee must decide it is enough to warrant being called as a foul. Lots of contact is trifling, i.e. does not affect the play and no need to call. This incident was difficult because it is basically impossible to determine at full speed if the contact actually brought Jones down.

On the flip side, a foul can occur sometimes without contact -- "attempting to trip" can be a foul. So if you come in late on a slide tackle, try to get ball and/or man but get neither one, and the attacker jumps over you to avoid getting whacked but he legitimately falls when he lands...this can be a foul.

 

Forgot to mention...the first 2-3 times I saw the replays, I still thought there was no contact -- because I was focused on the defender's front leg that was challenging for the ball. It took me a while to realize his trailing leg caught Jones' trailing heel.

 

I saw the match, the replay and the video...and I believe this was a dive. I've seen Jones pull this shit before with Schalke 04.

Have you?

 

Let's face it. As long as FIFA chooses to ignore utilizing video replay, embellishment is rewarded. While it is frustrating honest play is not better rewarded, the system encourages players to make the most of an opportunity to go down. So one goes down, or he risks losing an opportunity because the infringement was not clear enough.

Jones is, from what I have seen, a cynical players and a nuisance to play against. In other words, exactly the kind of a$$hole you want as a teammate. We finally have a player who is sneaky like Marquez. Jones will be a serious asset against Mexico, I am sure.

Much of the game I saw Jones getting forearms to the face, and selling them as much as possible. Now, he gives as good as he gets, so I don't feel sorry for Jones. But there is not much sympathy for Jamaica trying to wind him up thinking he will implode. Jones is savvy and knows how to work within the system.

As for the play itself, it looked to me the attempted tackle threw him off stride. Contact was light to non-existent; only Jones knows for sure. But the attempt did impede his progress with no play on the ball. Jones then sold it excessively.

In CONCACAF where refs can be frustratingly inconsistent, that's the right play. Jones is going to be a favorite player soon.

 

So, an attempted foul is a foul? That means every time a player raises an elbow with an attempt to get the opposition off their back, it should be a foul?


Sorry, I'm not buying this logic...

 

Why would I have to have seen him "pull this shit before" to judge this case? The past has no relevance except in cementing prejudices - which you seem to be expressing. There was enough contact to push his foot visibly to the side when in full stride. Lest you forget because of the slow-mo, he was barreling through there at full speed. Could he have stayed up? Maybe, but it's definitely debatable. Is it a foul? 100% yes.

 

The most successful players (and teams) are masters at embellishing fouls and playing to the referees. Look at the last two World Cup and Champions League champions. Spain (and Barcelona) are the best in the world at this. For all the talk (their results speak for themselves) of the beautiful style in which they play, they can drive you nuts with the amount of time they spend on the ground. Iniesta is the worst/best (depending on your perspective) at this. It must be maddening to play against a guy that is so good that you can hardly get near him, but when you do and you think you've won the ball from him, he goes down and a foul is called on you. Before Spain, there was Italy in 2006. Infuriating for rival players and fans, but successful.

It's a part of the game, but soccer is not the only sport that has this "cynical" element in it. If you've watched basketball lately, you'll notice that flopping has become a common occurrence. One could argue that NBA fans have Vlade Divac (and the European and South American players that have joined the league since the late 80s) to thank for that development. But American players have picked up on it and it's a decisive part of the game now.

This "diving/embellishing is un-American" stoicism is not practical and is not helping. Knowing when to pick your spots to embellish is actually a key part in being a successful player/program. Things happen in the run of play so quickly that it is foolish and quite amateur to not use embellishment to your advantage.

If a coach doesn't use his third substitution, he's an idiot. If he uses it in injury time, when leading, it's a smart tactical move. I'm glad that American soccer is growing up. I wish some posters here would as well.

 

That's not exactly what I said. And it's not my logic, it's in the Laws of the Game. "Attempts to trip" is one of the fouls that is punishable by a direct free kick.

'Attempts to trip' is not an ATTEMPT to foul, it IS a foul.

 

Well, that and the fact that Jones heel was clipped. That contact will break anyone's stride enough to deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

It was certainly no 10. Certainly there was some silly embellishment, but the sad thing is that the referee may not have called the foul had Jones staggered to stay on his feet.

Willst du eine richtige "10/10" Schwalbe sehen?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvJ0PaxtUtE&feature=related"]YouTube - ‪andy möllers schutzschwalbe‬‏[/ame]

 

You can believe whatever you want about this play or Jones. That doesn't change the irrefutable video evidence.

 

Can't the ref give a card purely for a tackle from behind. I know that was the directive even if it isn't always called.

 

And one further comment on clipping at full speed. There is as reason why in American football players often tackle low. Even a slight clip can knock a running back at full speed off balance and bring him down. A corner back aiming for his center of mass usually just bounces off the runner.

Same physics here, folks. Shoulder charges can be dealt with by physically fit players. If someone takes out your feet, you are going to lose possession. This is from personal experience. If I'm running at full speed, a shoulder charge is a nuisance, but my low center of gravity usually wins out. An ankle clip will stop me in my tracks.

While it appears Jones was barely clipped if at all, a missed tackle from behind did prevent him from a fair opportunity at the ball. Does it makes sense the defense is rewarded because an attacking player dodges an ankle breaker on a mistimed tackle from behind? Not really. Jones avoided injury, then made sure he got the call. Cynical, but this is what FIFA encourages. Smart play.

 

Re: USA vs. Jamaica Post Game Thread [R]

I refuse to use others cheating to justify cheating. We are and should be above that. Stop diving Americans!

 

This is bullshit. Gonzo did not foul Davies, but he did not argue because he knew it wouldn't make a difference. That's the kind of player he is. You are deliberately conflating "making contact" with "fouling".

This is also bullshit. As I said earlier, it looks like there was a foul, and I agree with the call, but the evidence is not "irrefutable". You find it convincing, others don't.

 

Precedence.

An attempt to trip could also be an attempt to clear the ball...or no?

Lol...yeah, my boy Andy Moeller loved making a meal of these situations, but you won't find me coloring his dives as anything else other than a "dive".

 

Re: USA vs. Jamaica Post Game Thread [R]

I'm so tired of this attitude. As long as the enforcement of rules gives a material advantage to things like professional fouls and embellishment, players should utilize these tactics. If they do not, thy are stupidly allowing opponents to have an advantage.

I do not pretend this is the most ethical approach. But in any sport one must utilize tactics that the rules favor. The Suarez handball at the WC was a perfect example. He denied a goal knowing the cost was his red card then a PK. The rules gave a clear advantage to his tactic, thus he employed it. If FIFA want to end professional fouls or professional embellishments, the punishment mus be harsher.

Now, I am 100% opposed to flat out dives and attempts to injure. But this self-righteous attitude the US should play a different game is ridiculous. If we didn't wrestle opponents on corner kicks because the rules say no shirt tugs or use of arms, then we'd concede several goals per game on corners.

 

Well, you are wrong. The laws specifically state "trip or attempt to trip". But by the lotg every foul need not be called. Also, raising elbows is not a foul - striking or attempting to strike or pushing or charging. Simply raising an elbow is not.

If the back had no play at the ball - if the ref decided he was trying to trip Jones rather than make a tackle, he is right to make the call. Simply because a player fails in their attempt to foul, does not mean it does not affect play.

 

I'm guessing there aren't alot of NFL fans posting who agree with you.

An NFL player has ZERO incentive to go down after contact like that, but you see it happen all the damn time. Give it a rest, people, when you're running full speed and someone clips you like that you do down. Unless your top speed is 7 miles an hour or something.

 

Yes, it could be one, or the other, or both, or neither. What matters is the result of the action, not the player's intent. Referees are not to judge a player's intent when evaluating a challenge. But we are getting way off track here and should probably stick to the discussion about the USA:JAM match.

I'm very surprised there hasn't really been any discussion of this incident in the Referee forum.

 

He got the ball, and the the back of jones' heel. No dive, red card correct.

 

Re: USA vs. Jamaica Post Game Thread [R]

Americans never cheat? Uh, ok.