It's important to prepare, but the purpose of preparation is still to get the calls right on their own merits, ie, if you judge them in a vacuum. I'm reminded of an incident where Diego Serna was sent off for nothing during an MLS playoff game. He was one of the biggest thugs I've ever seen play, but that call (not similar to yesterday's) was a travesty. As for declaring Henry a thug based on a single incident from ten years ago, it's only fair to judge our own officiating by the same standard. What's your worst moment in the past ten years? Seriously, the guy went 334 first-division games without a single red card. Perhaps his attitude has changed since coming to MLS, but that's clearly not what some people are saying.
If you watch the YouTube version of this (many thanks, as I can't stand they way Silverlight plays on my PC) at about 1:07 is an angle that to me most represents what Stott would've seen, from the opposite side. There's no advantage to be played there IMO, and stopping play and issuing an immediate red card is perfect. Frankly the other crap to me is noise. If Don Garber himself does this on the field, it's a straight red. Thank goodness Stott was in position to see it.
Thanks for for posting the video. It was deliberate by Henry. Excellent decision and location by Stott. Subtle play by Henry like the two handballs in the World Cup Qualifier against Ireland. Here Henry could have changed direction. Instead he makes it appear he accidentally ran into the back of the opponent. Such a dishonest play on his part.
I'm not sure if this is a different angle or it's just zoomed in better, but 0:13-0:17 in this clip shows it really well. You can see it's a deliberate action. Henry changes his final stride and lowers his knee before there is any contact. He had plenty of time to run around him. And even if you bought an argument that he didn't see him until the last second, the natural reaction is to try to hurdle someone--not lower your knee into them. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JTPzmmEc_U"]Thierry Henry Red Card: Backe, Bunbury, Espinoza react to the call. - YouTube[/ame] I'm absolutely convinced Stott got it right. Now I'm interested to see what MLS will do.
He's changed. When he was with Arsenal I never recall his being as passive aggressive as he is today. Seems as he's gotten older he has become more aggressive and devious.
Yeah, 10 years ago is a long time, but you don't have to look that far back. Go back to his game at Portland this year. He kneed two Portland defenders in the back going up for headers (one was hard to tell if it was intentional, the other I'm convinced was intentional) and slapped another player's back of the head. The latter incident got him a red card, which one could argue as being unjustified, but you can't deny that his actions were intentional and trying to intimidate. On the first kneeing incident, Henry jumps mostly straight up, but throws out his knee as he's going up. On the second, Henry led his jump with his knee extended and drove it right into the defender's back. Leading with his knee was completely unnecessary and resulted in a player getting injured. So you don't have to look back 10 years - just 4 months.
IMO, it is definitely VC and advantage should have been played. SKC was in on goal and the player was not severely injured by the VC.
Agree, I think he had the mistaken belief that everyone thought he was a "nice guy" when he was with Arsenal. Then, he got caught flat out cheating against Ireland and became a villain. From that point on, I think he decided there was no need to fake the "nice guy" appearance anymore as no one was buying it.
I thought it was a great call by Stott and I agree with his stopping playing to issue the red card. If a player with the talent and experience that Henry has can't see and can't avoid Espinoza with that much time and distance to adjust then he needs to stop playing. Now a rec player "might" by able to use that arguement but not a pro like Henry; it was cynical misconduct pure and simple.
The villifying of Henry is absurd. Guy has been in the league for less than two years and he is labeled a thug. Beckham has been cutting players in half and abusing referees for 5 years know, yet he is labeled a gentleman. Beckham has been geting slack from refs for 5 years now yet Henry can't get away with anything. By the LOTG, it is a red card, but MLS refs let way more go. What he did was probably intentional, but here we are debating and nobody can definitively say that it was. Henry is a crafty pro, but his eyes never go down to target Espindola. I think it's a harsh decision.
Nonsense. Henry has a bit of a vindictive / gamesmenship dark side to him. I posted an observation about Henry back in February when I went to the RBNY vs Ft. Lauderdale Strikers during preseason: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1659709 It was interesting to see how strong Henry is when posted up on a defender. They can't get near the ball when its on his foot. He also took out two players claiming 'accident.' He needs to watch that stuff after Hartmann last season.
Yes and no. I think the term "thug" is a bit much here. "Petulant" is probably the better word. Earlier in the thread, someone summed this up nicely when they talked about how he has likely lost a step and thought he'd be able to get away with a lot in MLS. As far as Beckham goes, I don't know who here has labeled him a "gentleman." He's just as petulant, though his displeasure is usually expressed in a more overt manner (either visual dissent OR a retaliatory on-the-ball tackle). He has gotten away with a lot, but he's also been sent off in MLS, too. For off-the-ball stuff, I disagree completely. Look at Shalrie Joseph's red card for a light slap, Henry's own red card for the pat on the back of a head, and the red card Jasen Anno gave a year or two ago for dropping the ball lightly on a fallen opponent. VC is punished at a lower threshold in MLS than many, many leagues around the world. Well, this statement can probably be applied to around half of all off-the-ball incidents. Referees are paid to make judgment calls like this. Interestingly enough, I view the fact that his eyes never went down as support for the red card decision and a reinforcement of just how crafty he is. I don't know anyone who would run like that, seemingly focused on the ball 15+ yards away from him, who would not notice a fallen player in between him and the ball when said player is at least 5 yards away. You run at something 15 yards away, focused on it, and a giant roadblock is 5 yards in front of you, you will notice because it has to be in your peripheral vision at minimum. Your eyes will momentarily divert downward so you can leap or avoid the roadblock... unless, of course, you have no intention or desire to avoid it. Everyone's welcome to their opinion, but this seems to be one of those rare situations where a perceived controversial decision has near-unanimity on this board. I hope that counts for something with the fans that visit this board.
I'm not sure how you can make statements 1 & 2 and then conclude that it was "harsh". You admit he intentionally did something that the LotG deem a send-off and then conclude that sending him off is harsh?
Honestly, I never followed the guy until he came to MLS so I was not aware of anything he has done before he came to the league. But since he has been in MLS I have seen him do enough to earn a reputation as a dirty player. It was really the Hartman incident that made me focus in and watch him more closely. Seen him stick is foot in studs up to catch people's feet on their follow through on passes/crosses. Specifically twice in a game against the Galaxy. Saw the incidents in the Portland game and I agree that his "pat" on the back of Moffat's head wasn't friendly but designed to be incite/intimidate. Then I also read about this incident while looking for more incidents http://www.thedenimkit.com/2011/09/22/petulant-throat-grab-now-de-rigueur-for-foreign-footballers/ Where he grabbed Borchers by the throat. I would think MLS refs have learned to keep an eye out for his trickery.
I give you credit for being willing to lay it all out there, and Henry gets a sly smile from me for attempting a defense. Nods as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh? For me to buy that's not intentional (it's VC no matter how you cut it), I would have to believe that a pro player who (dirty or not) has always had a remarkable eye for the field, his position and that of others (youtube backs this up) suddenly went completely deaf and blind.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, which I feel supports both the VC and intentional, is the guy that Henry eventually knees, is the guy who just before, stole the ball from Henry and came close to knocking Henry down. the "run into" is simple pay back.
I have no idea if this is accurate or not, but... Last night, on the Fox soccer channel news, the anchor says Henry appealed his suspension, and the ref responded, in writing: "Dude, you knee'd the guy in the spine!" I laughed myself off the chair.
They could have just asked us. Do the people who write the WiR realize if they came here first, their job would be done for them?