Look at the gif posted above again. Jones did no such thing, I think you saw it wrong (as did the 4O).
Well, if you deduce that this is what I meant from my post, I cannot help you anymore. In any event dismissal of a coach does not have the same impact as a player being sent off. Also you conveniently ignore the main thrust of my post, and go off on a tangent. That was why I responded with the contemptuous one-word response the first time. What do you mean, if? Of course I was referring to him. Why would the US coach lose control if he was up 11 to 10 and winning? He was not the one who called the referee a whore even though the sides were even. PH
As opposed to all your other contemptuous responses? The operative word in that statement was head not Ecuadorian. Could have been an Ecuadorian assistant coach you were referring to since I didn't see the incident in question.
I think sm's argument that Jones wasn't trying to make physical contact with Valencia is a little hard to buy, but did you see the gif? From that, it does not look like Jones attempted to strike anyone in the face - rather, he was just pushing out towards Valencia generally, didn't particularly get close, and did not have a closed fist as he reached. Silly, and yes Jones has a hothead reputation, but there's nothing there but a bit of an optical illusion that makes it appear Jones is closer to the face than he was.
No just this one. Anyway, are you counting them? When something deserves contempt as your response did, it gets it. Conflating players' behavior with that of coaches? How you deduced that I was condoning coaches' poor behavior is a mystery to me. Perhaps your devotion to Colorado players clouds your judgment. Let me educate you. When someone says "the coach" it refers to the main or head coach. This is usage by the entire soccer/football world. If someone talks about another member of the coaching staff, they will specify which one, by saying, for example, "assistant coach." Got it now? Sorry if this was contemptuous. PH
I mean, he has a closed fist that makes contact with the other player's face. Whether he was meaning to do that or not, I can't tell you.
Do you understand that if I make a .gif, it will delete part of the video? You understand that not all the frames are there, right? A quick slap on my television and a .gif are going to look different. If you're letting that doubt come into your mind now, then I can't help you. Try 1:31 of this video and say it's an optical illusion. I saw a better video earlier, but I can't find it now. http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/sto...ine-jones-red-card-a-joke-and-disgrace-061616 Or this: https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...g-the-jermaine-jones-red-card-in-10-easy.html Separately, I originally thought the 4th caught the RC for Jones, but the more I watch it, I feel otherwise. Watch Roldan's eyes and mannerisms, and also consider the fact that he didn't say anything prior to issuing Jones the RC. Consider that he never looked at the 4th or pushed his earpiece in deeper to hear something better (both would be instinctive if the 4th was saying "Red Card, white 13"). Think about what we would do if during a mass confrontation someone on our crew declared that a player was getting a Red Card - we'd be a little surprised, right? Part of most pregames I've ever heard is "if you have a red, I'll come over and we'll talk for a second." I mean, when he dismissed the coach, we all saw his mannerisms and raised eyebrows to the 4th. His body language clearly said "This guy, right?", in a confirming manner. None of that was there with Jones. He knew. Roldan had no doubt. When he first talks to Ecuador #10 (0:21), he points to where Jones has moved to on the field and says something to the Ecuadorian that satisfies him. "I'm sending off their guy and your guy", maybe. The more I watch this, the more it seems as though this was totally Roldan's decision. Maybe the 4th had a RC, maybe the 4th had a YC, maybe the 4th had nothing and lost his optical focus because Brooks came in with the big shove, I don't know.
Didn't need to see the gif. Saw it live. And replayed. Jones is a moron. Anytime you get close to an altercation you have a chance to be viewed as doing something stupid. The best place for Jones there was 25 yards from another player. I liken it to a u16 boys coach playing an offside trap with one fat old ref in the middle. You are going to get burned. Get away and stay away. Bradley did the right thing, and his reaction tells me the referee was correct in sending him off.
Nope. This is a terrible angle. I saw what I saw. There are other angles which clearly show Jones form his hand (loosely) into a fist as he hits the chin. And all these slow-mo replays take away from the action. I can absolutely see how with one take and real time, this was a reasonable call. There is the main TV angle here: http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2016...-card-suspension-copa-america-centenario-2016 Hell, it's even better on MLS's website: http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/...n-straight-red-card-copa-america-quarterfinal
I haven't had a chance to ready every single post to this thread; so you'll have to forgive me. But why is there so much discussion about Jermaine Jones' send off? This is an example of VIOLENT CONDUCT and it REQUIRES that he be sent off. There's no wiggle room on this one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
US Soccer is appealing the Jones and Wood suspensions. An official protest has been filed against the cards issued to Jermaine Jones and Bobby Wood in #USAvECU— U.S. Soccer Men's National Team (@USMNT) June 17, 2016
Respectfully, that angle shows nothing due to the lack of depth. Hence, what I called an optical illusion. But since multiple people are trying to talk to me like I have a learning disability, maybe my own eyes deceive me, and I will cede to everyone's convincement.
Unless USSC can convince the organizers that Wood got caught off guard by the premature restart, that appeal has no chance. That's the only plausible argument, with proximate causation between the refs error and the caution. I think some have overstated the counterargument by comparing it to VC. The difference would be a yellow being considered for a foul that was offsides, with the offsides noted by the CD after the foul. If the yellow would not be issued then, Wood has a plausible ish argument. if it would, then no shot. I won't comment on the Jones appeal.
Doubt it given there is absolutely no argument one could make to convince me this wasn't Violent Conduct. I would expect a Grade 8 Referee to get this one correct. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Valencia should absolutely have gotten a red for VC...the 2YC was a weak approach to it. Regarding Jones, I can see why he'd get a red for VC from the CRs perspective, BUT Jones' initial action is to separate players,, and he only reacts in response to getting shoved himself. Was it Valencia who shoved Jones? If it was, since he's already being sent off, is the only real further penalty an extended federation suspension for another action -after- the ejection? If so, I think in terms of game management (I know, a term you guys hate to talk about) a caution to Jones and Brooks for USB is warranted, and doesn't unduly punish the US team for actions incited by the ejected player after he is ejected. I'd have to re-watch the exchange to see if it was Valencia who strikes out at Jones. If it wasn't, well, then there should have been a few more cards handed out at that exchange, and instead the CR issues Wood a caution to cover his own mismanagement. The high boot later in the game should absolutely have been a straight red, but I think the CR got a tad card-shy by that point. (pesky game management).
Maybe when a player goes in to playfully pay the cheek of another player and the receiving player drops to the ground like he was punched. Sure the pat is unsporting, but not violent. And it happens frequent enough that an exception is carved out. Thx, Jay!
I think this is the sort of thing IFAB was thinking about when they added "unless the force is negligible": Putting a fist in an opponent's face is VC all day, every day.
Quite honestly, the way I see it is any player who intentionally touches an opponent's face with his hands - even if it was a playful pat on the cheek - has committed Violent Conduct. There is absolutely no reason for this except to try and provoke somebody. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am having a hard time seeing how Brooks doesn't get a red for the violent shove and several other players don't also get card for physical contact with opponents. Ilhaving watched the replay I'm far from com in Ed there was either a strike or even an attempt since the ecuadoria. Player had his arms raised inside and on jones who which it mostly appears jones raised his arms in response to. Ring mandhandled there. I'll be interested to see how the appeal goes but not expecting anything getting overturned
I generally enjoy y'all's insight on refereeing, but I can't see how anyone thinks that's a cut and dry red. Players do way more provocative, violent and extreme things in pretty much every single EPL game without getting even a yellow. Mayyyyyybe it's a red in a high school game, but not at this level
But the negligible force caveat includes the face, too. One could argue there was no force behind Jones's fist. I've certainly been punched in the face harder than that before when playing sports; once was called, once it wasn't.
This has been drilled into the head of every serious referee: http://www.wareferees.org/Instruction/SDIDocs/Directives/1.03-Contact_Above_the_Shoulderpdf.pdf