Wherein I defend myself re Davies, diving and Jermaine Jones
by Steve Davis on Jun 21, 2011 11:54 AM EDT
Email
Print
En route to Houston today for tomorrow’s big semifinal, which for me means a stop at Buc-ee's, a place that has a curious allure considering its really just a very fancy truck stop.
But first, I must spend a few keyboard strokes defending my honor.
A couple of people have thrown proverbial rotten tomatoes my way for some perceived inconsistency of opinion. It’s about diving, which is quite topical these days. They have called me out for calling out Charlie Davies while not pressing charges against U.S. midfielder Jermaine Jones.
In my mind, there’s quite a bit of difference here.
For one, my bit on Davies was all about establishing a reputation as a con guy. If you read the piece in SI.com, I state very clearly that I was willing to give Davies a pass for a previous, notorious incident against Los Angeles. In Davies’ case, this looks much more like a problematic trend.
As for Jones and the tackle that put his team up a man in the Gold Cup quarterfinal win:
First, Jones doesn’t have a reputation. Not that I know of, anyway. So, again, we can afford to give the benefit of the doubt for a first offense.
Second, I’m not sure there wasn’t contact. I’ve watched it a few times and just can’t say conclusively if there was a nick. If there was, embellishment – a.k.a. “making a meal of it” – is a lesser offense in my mind. More importantly, I believe Jones was actually attempting to drive past the Jamaican defender. As in murder charges (from what I hear) “intent” is important here.
There was no contact in Davies’ case. I think the D.C. United striker pushed his ball past RSL defender Chris Wingert with one thing in mind: tossing himself on the ground and drawing the penalty kick. I mean, the guy had his hand up asking for a card before he ever hit the ground. Seriously. Watch it.
You still may disagree. That’s OK. But that’s where I stand on things.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Davies' dive
As a DC United fan (drove to RFK from Florida for their very first home against LA) I have to 100% agree with the tar-and-feathering of Davies. The problem though is strikers are expected by us U.S. fans to take the moral high ground here. It sickens me that Davies went down without even being touched by Wingert and that he flopped against Gonzalez earlier in the year. But at the same time, why didn’t anybody say, “Hey Omar, that was pretty stupid of you to put your arm on a striker in the box?” Or, “Hey, Wingert, didn’t anybody ever tell you not to go to ground so quick, especially in the box?” Defenders habitually get away with little and big fouls in this league. Strikers like Davies figure they are just playing the same game now. It is what it is. And it sucks.
I agree with you
I agree with you in questioning the defender’s role in the play. This reminds me of the 2006 World Cup game with Italy vs Australia where Fabio Grosso fell to the ground after Luca Neil stupidly decided to slide tackle in the box. In my opinion it wasn’t a penalty but I am still mind-boggled on why Neil would even try to tackle like that. Because of that play Italy ended up winning. sigh
Actually ...
… I did say exactly that about Omar. On the SI.com podcast a couple of days later. I actually said in that case that I didn’t fault the referee. Even if Davies went down a little easily, you’re absolutely correct. When a player puts his arm out in that situation, he’s inviting trouble, at least.
Jones Replay
…clearly shows Jones’s trailing heel getting clipped by the Jamaican defender. Whether it’s enough to send him sprawling might be debateable, but there was contact.
And the defenders’ reactions also tell a lot about whether there was contact. The Jamaican defender barely protested the call. He looked surpised that it was a red instead of a yellow, but he wasn’t hysterical like Wingert because he knew he got a piece of Jones.
Or maybe...
…Taylor is not one of those who routinely gets in referees faces. In which case, good for him. I was discussing this incident with a Jamaican friend I play with, and his acceptance of the incident was similar to Taylor’s (and Wingert’s): “It [diving] is part of the game! What can you do?”
he did get clipped
but it was superficial contact. It didn’t knock him off his stride at all. He took another step and the leg that had minor contact was not impeded in any way. He could have easily continued. Jones just decided that his touch was too heavy and decided to go down.
I think it’s sad that the biggest defense I have heard was that Taylor didn’t whine and complain. That tells you something about how bad things have gotten in regards to players complaining. What would complaining have accomplished?
"If my hips had pockets, I wouldn't wear pants at all." @NotBurtReynolds
How's this for a defense?
Take off running as fast as you can and let someone kick your heel. Let’s see how well you can keep your balance and momentum going.
He was clipped, from behind. It was a STUPID play by the defender, contact or not. That there WAS contact – which can NOT be argued – makes it a simple call to make for the referee. Not sure it should have been red, but it definitely WAS a foul, and probably did stop a clear goal scoring opportunity.
It was an effective play by the defender.
The defender was already beat, the defender saved a goal unless Rickets came up with some magic, Jones would have had the ball at the top of the penalty arc dead center and an excellent angle to send it to either corner of the net. Or he could have made a pass to one of the three other US players on the break.
It certainly was effective in ending his day.
While it did deny that particular opportunity, as others pointed out, it probably led directly to the Dempsey goal later on.
Hmmm...
I wonder what the academies of Real Madrid or Barca are instructing their top protoges to do when faced with close or light contact in and around the 18?
The selective use of claims of "contact" is part of the problem
In the Davies cases there clearly was contact in the first case, and it is not at all clear that there wasn’t any in Wingert’s case as well (if there was it was perfectly legit: Wingert appeared to get the ball first). In the Jones case some are alleging minimal contact (which apparently requires a powerful microscope to see). I didn’t see it even on HD and if it did occur it was so minimal that it is hard to see how it could bring down an athlete in his prime. But for the sake of argument let’s allow that minimal contact occurred.
Now, in Davies’ cases this contact (which indisputably occurred at least in the first case) is not being used to excuse his actions—which is proper. In Jones’ case it is being used to excuse his blatant dive. In short, “contact” is inconsistently being used as an extenuating circumstance in one case but not the other. Can you not see the problem here?
So I think it’s legit to ask: Why the inconsistency? Is it Charlie Davies? Is it because of USA goggles? Because it’s clear the incidents are being treated differently.
Some video
Just for fun, here’s an animated GIF of the incident w/ Wingert
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/640773/325756517_medium.gif
There’s no contact. Davies fell so early, Wingert was able to pull his foot completely out of the way before Davies fell on him.
This GIF also shows that his next natural stride would have been his left foot right on the defenders balls.
Also he just kicked the ball to the right with his right foot, so that takes some of your control off your planted foot, so conceivably he could have been off balance and just didn’t want to land on the defender.
But as the pattern of intent suggests . . .
The correct call was proabably obstruction by the defender which is I believe is an indirect free kick. Any way I look at it the defender did something stupid and Davies took advantage.
Regardless of whether Jones was fouled,
and it appears that he was (albeit, a foul which often would not draw a whistle, because it had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the play), what is absolutely, 100% obvious is that the post-contact gyrations were entirely an invention of Jones. That fall was about as natural as a Twinkie.
I think the red card was correct, though you could make a case that since Jones had already mis-hit the ball, there was no longer any goal-scoring opportunity. The play was bang-bang, so the referee probably has to get a pass on that one. But it is pretty much impossible to reasonably deny the fact that Jones simulated a trip based on a tiny bump of his back heel.
As others have pointed out, it’s impossible to argue that “any contact at all by the defender justifies any response, no matter how fraudulent, from the attacker.” Given that, and given that this was about the most minimal contact in the history of the sport, there is no way to rationalize it as anything other than what it was— a dive that should have been carded, which would have left the USA (and Jamaica if the red was still given) with 10 men.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
No Impact on the outcome of the play?
I’m pretty sure not being able to maintain full speed and having the keeper collect the ball instead of having the ball at the penalty arc with no defenders save the keeper in front of you is a pretty big difference.
