Fact: Jones Did Not Dive

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by narko, Jun 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. joelk

    joelk Member

    Mar 1, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The big tell was that Jamaica (and specifically their involved player) didn't complain at all. I think that tells you all you really need to know about the situation.
     
  2. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Member+

    Real Madrid, DC United, anywhere Pulisic plays
    Aug 3, 2000
    Proxima Centauri
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We don't know if Ricketts would have gotten there first if Jones had not been tripped. We do know that no one else would have gotten the ball except those 2. Essentially, then, it is a breakaway situation on goal whose probability of success is unknown. "pretty good chance" is quantifying something you can't quantify without more investigation.

    1. The direction of the play/player is crucial to the Law: it must be heading towards the opponents goal.
    CHECK

    2. The location of the foul/handball needs to be considered. Was it a long way from goal? If so it wasn't necessarily an obvious goal scoring opportunity
    CHECK

    3. The player must have control of the ball/have it within playing distance to have an obvious opportunity to score, or have a clear probability of controlling the ball that has been prevented. If he can't kick it he can't score therefore there isn't an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
    CHECK. The ball was no more than 5 yards from him when the trip occurred. He is running at full speed and the keeper is farther away from the ball than him.

    4. In addition, the location and number of opponents as well as their actions are crucial factors. Just because a player is the last defender doesn't mean it must be a red card. It may do but all criteria need to be considered.
    CHECK

    5. Finally a clear opportunity for an attempt on goal must have been denied.
    CHECK. This is the unknown. It looked like it could be a clear opportunity, and I don't think there is enough information to say this wasn't a clear opportunity. The key factor was the speed of the ball relative to Jones' speed. It looked like the ball was traveling faster than Jones, but how much faster? Also the ball's speed would probably not be constant, while Jones' speed would be close to constant. And the ball was closer to Jones than the GK, so would the differential in speed be enough to overcome the distance differential in the allotted time period? I don't know. The GK looked like he was just starting to run when the trip occurred, so we factor in his speed. It sure looked like it was going to be pretty damn close. Keep in mind in the photo below that Jones has already lost a couple of yards due to deceleration.

    [​IMG]

    The referee has to make a split second decision. He can't do several minutes of analysis. Given that, I don't see how he or anyone else couldn't decide this was a DOGSO.
     
  3. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    I am glad somone actually quoted the advice to the referees because it seems to me the advice makes this situation perfectly clear.

    This is the entire sentence under unsporting behavior:

    "Fakes a foul (dives) or exaggerates the severity of a foul"

    So if you look at that sentence it seems clear to me since they use the word "or" after "fakes a foul", that if a foul occurs you can't "dive". In this case there was no dive, because there was clearly contact so a foul ocurred.

    On the other hand the rest of the sentence "exaggerates the severity of a foul" is clearly what happened in this case. Not so much that Jones went down, because you can argue that your leg being clipped at full speed can cause you to loose your balance, but the way he threw his head back was clearly an attempt to "exaggerate the severity of the foul"

    I think the red was appropriate, but I also thing Jones should have been cautioned, and shown the yellow for unsporting behavior.

    Giving both a foul and a caution for exaggerating the severity of that foul are not mutually exclusive.
     
  4. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    The argument has been made in the past that American players are naive when it comes to the "dark arts" of football. It's partly because we don't accept these things in our youth football, NCAA football, and you can see the backlash by fans when players do it in MLS.

    If that incident occured with Michael Bradley or Maurice Edu, do you think they embellish the play in that same manner? Absolutely no way. I can't see it. I can see Michael Bradley trying to "bulldog" his way through it. But Jones was brought up in a different football tradition. To him that was the only thing to do.

    Of course, when the incident occured I was worried that the ref was going to card Jones for simulation. He was already on a yellow. You've gotta be careful with these things........because they're no doubt that he embellished the minimal contact that was there. The ref doesn't get the angle or the replays that we get.
     
  5. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    Which is sad. Referees should be more willing to both call a foul and card for unsporting behavior for exagerating the foul. They should also give more cautions for exaggerating the seriousness of injuries. At a minimum they should use their ability to deny an injured player the chance to tretun to the field as a way to punish these exaggerations.

    If a guy rolls around on the field like he was shot and then as soon as you motion for a trainer, he has a miraculous recovery so he doesn't need to leave the pitch, immediately pull out the yellow and show it to him for Unsporting behavior.

    And if the player decides to take the act all the way to extreme of going off of the field so that he can get a little water and a short break, when he beckons to come back on to the field, you say "by your reaction on the field it appears you might have a serious injury, and I am concerned for your safety. I want to make sure your edrenaline level comes down a bit so the real extent of your injury is not being masked, so I think you should wait a little while before returning, and then make the guy stew on the sidelines for a couple minutes.

    If all referees did that I think you would see the disgrace that is the exaggeration of fouls and injuries be removed from the game.
     
  6. nowherenova

    nowherenova Member+

    Jul 20, 2003
    Formerly Terminus
    Wow. A defender commits a slide tackle from behind with no attempt to play the ball on a partial breakaway and somehow the tackled player is labeled "cheat".

    The cynical play was made by the defender and that seems to be completely lost here...
     
  7. FirstStar

    FirstStar Hustlin' for the USA

    Fulham Football Club
    Feb 1, 2005
    Time's Arrow
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, not completely lost. Quite a few posters have hit on the fact that Taylor made NO effort to argue and just walked off the field. He knew the red was coming and that he deserved it.

    The rest of this thread is just an exercise in how much American soccer fans hate diving. We hate it so much that we hate even the hint that our players do it.

    [Personally, I've always thought that a player would be more likely to get a call if he/she makes an "effort" to keep their feet- taking one or two more stumbling steps before biting the dirt. The swan dive has gotten such a bad rep in soccer, but the gritty "I'm trying REALLY HARD to keep my feet but I just got fouled a little too hard" approach has real potential, IMO. lol]
     
  8. Ryantherusskie

    Mar 17, 2006
    Where it's kept Real
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The split-second delay between contact and dive was Jones thinking to himself "S#it, I lost the ball... Better go to ground and hope I get the call."
     
  9. Heist

    Heist Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Virginia
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The split second delay was between when he was running normally and when he was fouled from behind. That split second was the only one that matters.
     
  10. nowherenova

    nowherenova Member+

    Jul 20, 2003
    Formerly Terminus
    Perhaps those Yank fans who hate diving so much should focus on Bedoya before worrying about Jones.
     
  11. lmorin

    lmorin Member+

    Mar 29, 2000
    New Hampshire
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is good analysis, but the conclusion of point 3 is just wrong. Please re-watch the the full speed video version. There is no way whatsoever that Jones could have reached the ball before the keeper. He knew that and that is why he dived. It was a dive because Jones did not believe a foul would be called and he continued his run for a brief moment until he realized that the ball was lost. Then and only then did he go down. HOWEVER, there was a foul and the ref MAY have blown his whistle because of the knee clip. Nevertheless, IMHO, this should not have been a red card because it was not a DOGSO--the shot could never have been taken.
     
  12. Chastaen

    Chastaen Member+

    Alavés
    Jul 9, 2004
    Winnipeg
    Club:
    Aston Villa FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USA vs. Jamaica Post Game Thread [R]

    Stop frame establishes that contact was made, now if you want to put the issues to rest what the slow replay but focus on the defenders knee...when the contact was made watch his thigh muscle and knee move from the impact. He doesn't need to take the player off of his feet to impeded the play, simply slowing the attacker down is an advantage to his team.
     
  13. FirstStar

    FirstStar Hustlin' for the USA

    Fulham Football Club
    Feb 1, 2005
    Time's Arrow
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Where was the ref and what did he see? He was behind the play and, from his angle, the race between Jones and Ricketts was in 2-D. He had no ability to judge this (and, I'm sure, was watching the foul and not the positioning of the keeper). It was a very reasonable call by the ref and Taylor knew it. Besides, if it was was screamingly obvious that Ricketts was going to get the ball, Taylor should have never, never gone to ground to make a play on the ball. Anytime a defender makes that play, he knows that he's risking a red card.
     
  14. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Member+

    Real Madrid, DC United, anywhere Pulisic plays
    Aug 3, 2000
    Proxima Centauri
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I did watch the video, many times, over and over. That's how I got my picture.

    Your argument for this is "because I say so", i.e. no argument. You merely state the conclusion. My position is that it's not clear from a casual analysis. It might become clear with deep investigation, measuring acceleration, distance, and speed of all parties involved.

    Also, you don't know what Jones was thinking.
     
  15. matabala

    matabala Member+

    Sep 25, 2002
    Be careful what you wish for. Like bags of FIFA cash being passed under the table...
     
  16. matabala

    matabala Member+

    Sep 25, 2002
    What it tells me is that the "take a dive/win red card" tactic has become so preponderant that EVEN defenders have become cynical. The beautiful game blah blah blah...
     
  17. KluivertsBoots

    Jun 16, 2009
    Houston, TX
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Jones deserved it after the way he's been officiated in this tournament.
     
  18. Metrogo

    Metrogo Member

    Apr 6, 1999
    Washington Hghts NY
    Jones' dive was a disgrace. I wouldn't be upset if he was suspended for the rest of the tournament. Bedoya, Agudelo, Jones. We're divers now.
     
  19. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    The whole ball running away from him argument also has to consider that he was slowed by the foul making the ball look further ahead in relative terms...and also the poorer than normal final touch he made on the ball as he was altering his body position as a guy was sliding in at his ankles. He was being fouled, made a poor touch as the player was sliding in and the ball ran ahead of him is the way it looked to me. And yeah, he went down to ensure the call after he was fouled, was off-balance and wasn't going to subsequently be able to play the ball. Sure, he was no longer able to possess the ball. But if the foul causes this situation, it does not mean it wasn't a scoring chance.

    I still hold the difference between falling when not touched and not struggling to keep your feet when thrown off balance is immense...and this one looked like that latter to me. If he hadn't been fouled, you would have seen at least a slight bit of whining from Jamaica. But the guy turned and trotted off the field without a word and none of his teammates seemed surprised or acted upset. This would be really, really unusual if there wasn't a foul committed.
     
  20. Heist

    Heist Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Virginia
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    deserved what?
     
  21. Heist

    Heist Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Virginia
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ?
    Well, Bedoya did dive.

    I would be unbelievably surprised if they took any action with Jones. Even for CONCACAF, I would be floored if they did given the replay you can see at the beginning of this thread. I guess you didn't watch it.
     
  22. MJ-inBRITAIN

    MJ-inBRITAIN Member

    Feb 19, 2006
    Nottingham, UK
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Coming from a country that is known for not diving much, that was NOT a dive. A overcooked flamboyant fall maybe, but the defender definitely caught his back heel. It would have been hard for him to keep his balance and he certainly wouldn't have kept his speed. The defender impeded him. It was a foul, not a dive. Get over it.

    Don't fake contact when there isn't any, but if there is contact that is a foul then don't be sucker. Is that what you want our team to be? A bunch of naive fools that don't go down when they're kicked or dropped?
     
  23. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My slightly re-worked post from the Referee forum (which was originally in response to bluedevils) is below. For reference, in referee-speak, the "4 D's" are the four components of a denial of obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) foul that we, as referees, have to confirm (USSF) or consider (FIFA) depending on who you ask. They are:

    1) Distance to goal
    2) Number of Defenders
    3) Direction of play
    4) Distance to the ball

    -------------

    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 above, I also questioned 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 (serious foul play, the term for a run-of-the-mill red card tackle)? 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.
     
  24. GoBigBlue88

    GoBigBlue88 Member+

    Feb 11, 2009
    Club:
    AC Milan
    For me, it was as simple as the Jamaican player not arguing the call at all. This was a win-or-go-home game and the Jamaican player was just like "yup...my bad."
     
  25. Metrogo

    Metrogo Member

    Apr 6, 1999
    Washington Hghts NY
    Like Messi or Rooney? I can live with that.

    He dove, he was untouched, the contortions that people are putting themselves through to justify it is ridiculous.

    And no, for me it's not really a moral issue. It's an issue of desperation. This team is playing very poorly. And there's no excuses. It's our first team, not many injuries. We're diving against teams we should easily beat at home out of desperation. It's more pathetic than immoral.

    When Rooney takes a pathetic dive at Wembley against Licthenstein, let me know how you'll feel about it.
     

Share This Page