That's what I saw out of it, though I was at the game and saw no replay (even if they had shown it, the sun was too bright to see the jumbo screen at any point during the game from my seats). Was it a dive? Yes, absolutely. Was a foul committed, regardless of that? Perhaps. I'd say 50/50 at best. Here's the thing, though: Mark Williams made a stupid play by putting a hand on Stoitchkov and playing it physical. Everyone at RFK had to know at that moment that Stoitchkov was going to fall, and that (from Okulaja's angle), all he'd see was a hand on Hristo's back and Hristo falling. That'll get called in MLS very often. So, while the dive was certainly blatant and leaves a bad taste in the mouth, someone somewhere should explain to Mark Williams how these things work. If I, having played defense on occasion at such high levels as Univ. of MD's intramural men's A and the MIAA B conference, know what will happen here, Mark Williams sure as hell better know.
The thing is that Williams did it twice in that same sequence (in the box no less!). I say he got what he deserved. You don't go tugging on someone on a 50-50 ball in the box. It was a stupid play and got called on it. Stoichkov took advantage of the situation. He knew he had a good op to draw the pk so he went down after the second tug. Wynalda made a big mess out of it, but I think he would have done the same thing given his team's situation.
Arms up - that's your first clue that this is a dive. If you're really going down hard, your first instinct is to put your arms in front of you to block the fall. This is literally textbook stuff that any ref should look for.
The crew played was fouled. Whether your opponent is going to score not, you're not allowed to take him down. It's not enough to say you were going after the ball and figured bowling over him was okay because of it. I think the game did turn out to be fair. DC cheated; DC lost. As much as I like DC to win, I'd prefer not to win by cheating.
But is anything that happens on the field of play under the purvey of referees "cheating"? There's a disconnect between the standard American sporting philosophy and that of the rest of the world. In America, traditionally anything you can "get away with" is all just "part of the game". American sports are full of subterfuge and guile. If the refs or opponents fall for it, then so what? Get caught corking a bat, cutting a fastball with a razor - then you pay the price. Get caught diving in the box, then you take your yellow or red card like a man. But if the ref buys the dives, or your opponents fall for the old hidden ball trick, that's their problem, not yours. ---- I remember the issue was debated during the 2000 Olympics when the US twice successfully pulled off a "trick" corner kick - except for the fact that both times the referee blew the play dead. It was assumed the second time because the play wasn't "sporting" - in other words, the US was "cheating". Hey, if the other team doesn't pay attention that the first guy in the corner actually "played" the ball forward two feet, then is caught flat footed as his replacement charges into the box with the ball instead of kicking it, that's their problem. ---- I don't completely stand by my above statements. I'm personally conflicted by the whole "diving" thing, but I see the issue in shades of gray instead of black and white.
I don't agree. I think the concept in America is that's its alright if its in the rules or a commonly accepted practice. I think the beliefs in most of the world are much worse. I think it most countries they would be proud to win a game by diving because they got away with it where many American would be ashamed of winning by cheating. (I don't think Americans would celebrate like Argentinians over the hand of God.) In fact, I think the diving that has become common practice in soccer is part of the reason the sport has had trouble catching on with Americans. (I think the corner-kick trick is accepted because it's clever and in the rules. It wouldn't be accepted if it was just because they got away with something the ref failed to notice.)
I suspect that true. In fact, I've heard non-soccer fans cite precisely this issue when talking about why they don't like soccer. My brother-in-law for one.
Odd. I have the same dislike for basketball and football because they have too many rules and as a casual fan, even though I played both, I have trouble understanding what the hell the officials are calling. I would say soccer is easier to follow because the rules are usually common-sense. And I still have trouble understanding the cries of "Dive! Dive!" Ruiz is the worst in the league and Stoichkov has nothing on him. Dramaticizing the event, especially when there's contact, doesn't make for a dive IMO. If he goes down without a hand on him, then, yeah, I'd be upset too. But he was tugged and he was pulled. People seem upset at his acting and that's fine. Just don't get pissy because he knows how to work the system in his favor and knows when enough contact has been made on him to draw the call.
I'm reminded of a limerick: Obnoxious Bulgarian Stoitchkov. Skills diminished, but world-class as a jerk-off. Whining and diving. Cheating, conniving. Without him the league would be better off.
Completely agree with this analysis. In other countries, it's more accepted (and even celebrated) when someone has pulled one over on the authorities. If a guy tricks a ref into allowing something he shouldn't have or calling something he shouldn't have, that's considered a cunning coup. In the U.S., it's considered cheating. Americans will celebrate it if the action was within the rules of the game and intended to fool the opponent (e.g. taking a two-foot corner kick and then walking away) but not if it's against the rules of the game and intended to fool the ref (e.g. hand of God goal). There's a difference, and it has to do with our general belief in observing the rule of law. Not all societies share that belief, though.
Only Yankees fans would be proud of that. And not all New Yorkers are Yankees fans. And not all Yankees fans are New Yorkers. (For example, Jeffrey Maier, like a huge number of Yankees fans, is from Bergen County.)
Some certainly did, but I don't think most people would approve of something like that. The fact that it was a child probably made it okay in most people's minds. Whereas something like the snowplow game (an adult plowing the field so that the patriots can kick a fieldgoal in the snow) is usually condemned.
Re: Stoichkov Dive It should have been his second yellow, I think...but I'm glad it wasn't, not that the outcome changed.
From today's Columbus Dispatch... You can read the rest of the article (tho you probably won't want to - it's mostly about how far the Crew have fallen since winning the USOC 365 days ago) at http://www.1460thefan.com/tf.php?story=dispatch/2003/10/24/20031024-C10-02.html Thought you guys might like to know that this is seemingly becoming a fairly common perception of United outside of the Beltway.
I'm trying to think of things I care less about than the perceptions of United outside the Beltway but I'm having trouble coming up with a thing.
You know, in general I think it's best that Freddy Adu play for DC United next year. But the thought of that duo coaching him does give me very serious misgivings about the idea...