NYRB v SKC [R]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by GlennAA11, Oct 15, 2011.

  1. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    I guess some one might as well start the thread. We can add the video later.

    Henry sent off for being a giant a-hole yet again. I am not sure there has ever been a dirtier player in MLS...and that's saying somethng. His whole innocent act after he does something beyond the pale is really irritating.

    Basically I think he felt like he had been fouled with no call. So with Roger Espinosa on the ground and his back turned to him Henry runs up from behind and knees him in the back/shoulder/upper arm. Total bush league. Good for Kevin Stott for seeing the whole thing and sending him off. He should face further sanction for not leaving the field in a timely manner.

    Here's the video
    http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcente...s-new-york-red-bulls/highlights?videoID=20028
     
  2. iron81

    iron81 Member+

    Jan 6, 2011
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    It looks like he got sent off for the same reason as last time against Portland: a gotcha red for contact to the head that most refs wouldn't otherwise give due to the USSF directive. Someone should tell him about that.
     
  3. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    God I hate Silverlight. Any way to make that stupid program work?
     
  4. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    Any chance you're a little bit biased about this player? :D

    Personally, I see this as a difficult judgment call. Henry was moving directly toward the play, presumably expecting Espinoza to get to his feet more quickly. I respect Stott's decision, but as red card fouls go, I don't see this as a particularly bad one.
     
  5. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think this one has anything to do with any directives. We see 4 different replays, I think, but we never see from the perspective that Stott had. Stott would have seen the actual leg-to-head contact. If you deliberately knee someone in the back of the head, you're getting sent off for violent conduct. As the original poster says, Henry immediately plays the innocence card by claiming he was just running and didn't see the opponent. Looking at the path he took, I don't buy it at all.

    As I said, we don't see the actual contact, so it's hard to say unequivocally that Stott was correct. But, he was right there, with a better view than any replay could give. And he went red straight away. I have very little doubt that it was the correct call and that Henry's level of incredulity stems mostly from the fact that the didn't think he'd get caught.

    The big question is what the length of suspension will be. VC is 3-games almost everywhere now (ask Wayne Rooney). Would MLS actually suspend Henry for playoff matches?
     
  6. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    I'm pretty certain there wasn't any knee-to-head contact.
     
  7. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Where do you think the two points of contact were?
     
  8. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    Club:
    --other--
    Red Bull fan, Henry fan. And a ref.

    Straight red. No doubt. I'm sure Stott has seen video of Henry's little off ball touches.
     
  9. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    "GOTCHA"???
    This is either nothing, a clumsy guy just stumbling around the park.
    Or it is a professional soccer player kicking someone when the ball is 20 yards away.
    Choose.

    Smooth. Couched. Disguised.
    All yes.

    VC. Red.
     
  10. KCbus

    KCbus Moderator
    Staff Member

    United States
    Nov 26, 2000
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's a red card. He had plenty of time to alter his path and not run into the fallen player. And he has a history of being borderline dirty/cheating. It's going to be hard for someone to convince me he didn't know what he was doing.
     
  11. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    I see knee to back. The AP report says the same, and GlennAA said Espinoza's "back/shoulder/upper arm."

    As you say, knee to head would look less careless and more violent.
     
  12. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fair enough. You're probably right. Either way, though, if it was deliberate it's VC. I wouldn't put a knee-to-the-back on a fallen opponent too far down the violence scale from a knee-to-the-head.
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Stott answered a written question after the match.

    http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/10/15/ref-says-henry-intentionally-collided-espinoza

    I suspect that final sentence was included in direct response to the written query because it doesn't seem the sort of thing that he'd include otherwise.
     
  14. Tonkdaddy14

    Tonkdaddy14 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 20, 2008
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My favorite example of Henry getting frustrated and taking it out on other players' well-being:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20If7fnKSyg"]2-foot tackle from Henry vs Everton - YouTube[/ame]

    Like people have said, Henry has a reputation for doing the sort of thing he did today and the referees know that. He's just a step above Joey Barton with regards to his self-discipline. Good call by the referee.
     
  15. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    This whole prejudice/reputation thing is disappointing. Should we really judge Henry's play today based on one bad tackle he made almost ten years ago?

    In the wider soccer world, Henry doesn't have a reputation as a thug. Between the Premiership and the Spanish league he played 334 games and was never sent off.
     
  16. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    No, I think what he did today stands on its own. There was absolutely zero reason for him to contact Espinoza. The ball was nowhere nearby. Espinoza was on the ground with his back to Henry. He went out of his way to run into Espinoza. Totally intentional contact to send a message/intimidate.
     
  17. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    I don't see this as accurate. The ball wasn't far away, and it was in a position where Henry was expected to apply defensive pressure. By hustling towards the ball, Henry was doing his job, and at that moment the ball happened to be directly on the opposite side of Espinoza.

    You can still argue (as Stott did) that Henry should've avoided the contact, but let's not over-state what happened.
     
  18. socref79

    socref79 Member

    Apr 10, 2007
    I interpreted Henry's actions as retaliatory, with no concern for the safety of the opponent. Stott's intuition causes him to stay with Henry rather than follow play. He knows what's coming, and he catches it.

    To me this is what separates Stott from the rest of the pack.
     
  19. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    This was a punk move by Henry as this was the easiest decision Kevin Stott had to make all game.

    As a Red Bulls fan, it is dissapointing to watch him pull this kind of crap for the last two years and his slapping of the back of opponents heads to play mind-games has gotten old. It's a case of a guy who feels he's too big for the league and how dare a lowly MLS player push him off the ball. He never thought he'd be ejected for his pre-planned retaliatory move because he's the great Thierry Henry, the same attitude other big name players like Beckham have showed.

    I like how Stott quickly jumps in, is assertive and is confident in his decision, holds his ground and doesn't want to hear Henry's explanation (or his teammates) and points for him to leave.


    Are you trying to watch it from a work computer where it won't allow you to download it?

    Here is a link on YouTube to the play:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUZrFEq2F_c"]RED Card Thierry Henry : Sporting KC vs NY Red Bulls - YouTube[/ame]
     
  20. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    Would anyone who believes that this is worthy of a red card like to discuss whether Stott should have allowed advantage to SKC instead of stopping play immediately?
     
    1 person likes this.
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think FIFA is crystal clear on this:

    Only way you can argue in favor of applying advantage is if you think SKC had a "clear opportunity to score a goal." That language is pretty close, for me, to "obvious goal-scoring opportunity." Even if it's not exactly the same, SKC had an attacking opportunity, not a clear goal-scoring one. That would be my book answer.

    My practical answer would be that applying advantage here would make it infinitely more difficult to sell the call. Part of why this works for Stott is because he was so decisive and so certain that it was a send off (even NYRB's coach made that point). Applying advantage and coming back later to send Henry off would sacrifice those elements of the decision. Moreover, if you did apply advantage you'd have to wait to the next stoppage to send him off. Why risk a NYRB goal with the nightmare situation being Henry scoring that goal?
     
  22. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    All meritorious points. I simply thought that it would be a good discussion topic as there was clear possession and a positive attacking chance at the time.

    For example, I have never been a big proponent of the need to "sell" a call. It doesn't certainly doesn't make a decision any more correct. However, that is not to discount the value of displaying strength and decisiveness in rendering any decision. I just don't think that some of the showmanship that we sometimes see from the guys on TV adds any credibility. To me, the best part of how Stott handled this was that he didn't engage in theatrics. He simply was calm, crisp, and firm.
     
  23. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    I also dislike "peacock" referees.


    Yes. Which is precisely how he "sold" the call.
    I am genuinely NOT trying to start a semantics fight.
    But I think his actions convinced everyone (even those who disagreed on the facts) that HE THOUGHT TH's action was VC.

    I hope that's all "sell" ever means.
     
  24. wguynes

    wguynes Member

    Dec 10, 2010
    Altoona, IA
    I find it more likely he is like me and doesn't use Windows as an operating system. I use Linux and am completely excluded from all these MLS videos as a result of their choice of tools. I am unsure if Mac users are able to view them.

    William
     
  25. refmedic

    refmedic Member

    Sep 22, 2008
    Yes, we should. We can't take all of these situations in a vacuum. Read Collina's book. He devotes an entire chapter to preparing for a match. I'm pretty sure that Dr. Evans' book also talks about it. Once you get to this level and above as a referee, preparation is key. These referees spend hours upon hours reading information and watching video tape of these players. They need to know the ins and outs of the players, their style, attitude, and yes, reputation. Henry has a reputation for being a cheat and a thug. No doubt, a referee with the experience that Stott possesses would be well aware and prepared. One of the things that separates the Professionals and the Amateurs in the referee ranks.

    Although I agree with your sentiment, especially at this level, where everything is under a microscope, selling the call is sometimes just as important as getting it right. We teach Intermediate level clinics on selling the call. Unfortunately, in this day and age, you can be 100% correct, and fail to sell the call, and the rest of your match can be nearly impossible to control. Massref is correct about not playing advantage. If Stott plays advantage here, the reception of the red card, and IMO the match, goes entirely differently. You can also be 100% incorrect, and sell the call hook, line, and sinker, and be completely fine. Professional soccer is different from Sunday morning park soccer. It is a product that is sold. It is entertainment just as much as it is a game. Part of USSF's teaching is the need for referees to "rise to the occasion". Part of that is putting on a show for the players and fans. There is a way to do it tactfully and professionally, and I think Stott does that here. He gets his point across emphatically, leaves no room for doubt, sticks to his guns, and as a result, aside from Henry's gamesmanship, receives relatively little dissent over a game/season changing decision. Stott has always rose to the occasion, and has never been much of a showboat. I think Stott's reputation and rapport with the players goes a long way here. In the infancy of MLS, there was a FIFA referee who would make the players face a certain direction so that he could face the camera when he issued a card; partly to make himself feel good, and partly to show up the player. Thank God things like that don't happen anymore.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page