The Banning of Clark; The Empowering of "El Peccadillo"

Thursday, the PTB of the MLS spoke, saying: "I have decided that it is necessary to take firm action to reflect the fact that Ricardo Clark's violent kick to Carlos Ruiz in last weekend's game against FC Dallas, while out of character, is unacceptable behavior from an MLS player. In taking this action, Major League Soccer is sending a signal that it will not accept reckless and dangerous behavior on its fields. If there is a repeat of this kind of behavior by any MLS player, even firmer sanctions can be expected in the future. I hope and believe that Ricardo Clark will reflect on and learn from his mistake and become a better professional as a result."

Then he (they?) suspended Clark for 9 games and fined him $10,000.

Oh, here's the voice mail that Don Garber left on Ricardo Clark's machine last Thursday:

...oh, there's the beep. These machines are tricky sometimes. Uh, Rico, Don here. I just wanted to let you know that one sin we cannot abide is a momentary slip into passion -- well, we encourage passion, of course, just certain types of passion. Anyway, it would be better if you wouldn't be so obvious with your violence. Regular violence done subtly is fine; and who cares if it's selfishly motivated? Just none of that "moment of provoked weakness" stuff, okay? Please try to conceal it a bit better, and remember: violence should be a tool to enhance your game and give you an edge. Use it insidiously for the betterment of the game.

Oh, and next time just break his leg in the run of play. Even if you cause a career-ending injury, we'd have suspended you only 2 games -- just ask Hristo. See ya, and good luck in the play-offs -- oops, didn't mean to rub it in.

The Internet boards are lit up with Ruiz-haters defending Clark, pacifists denouncing Clark, and wizened journalists shaking their heads sagely and reprimanding Clark for not being the professional that they are. The only journalist who has taken up a position that I agree with (including even our hometown journalists) is Ives Galarcep, who has had several blog posts about this incident. Here is one that summarizes his viewpoint.

Ives pretty much sums up my thoughts.

I think Clark's punishment was excessive. Throwing an elbow or a series of punches to someone's face is more malicious that a single kick to the arm. As violent as the kick looks (especially in dramatic slow-motion), it's pretty mild despite the histrionic lamentations of many viewers. It certainly doesn't warrant a third of the season. You wouldn't see a baseball player get suspended for 53 games or a basketball player suspended for 26 for something like that.

Maybe I watch too many Die Hard movies and I've become inured; or maybe others are too effete. Probably neither. I just think there is greater violence and greater injustice in the world and in the world of sports. Even in the game of soccer I think there are things that bring greater disrepute to the game.

Clark was definitely foolish though, and his violence should be punished. That's why I thought a 6 match ban would be appropriate punishment, plus a fine. That's what Sala earned for his participation in a post game melee. And for the record, I think brawling is more violent, more dangerous, and more disreputable than a single kick to the arm.

Also, I think that the cause of the violence explains the incident a little, and perhaps attenuates the degree of disgust associated with the violence. When violently victimized, it's natural to lash out. Is it the right thing to do? No, but it's understandable.

And the cause of Clark's violence was a punch to the kidneys administered by Ruiz.

Even with the replay, it is hard to determine Ruiz's wrongdoing. He's good at what he does and has learned how to hide his peccadilloes. You can't see anything from the Internet feeds--or at least I can't. I had to slow down the slow-mo DVR replay on my big screen TV to see the progression. When the ball is kicked, everyone (except Ruiz) is focused on playing the ball. Ruiz is focused on another target, Clark. Ruiz makes an unnatural movement with his harm that looks to be a jab or punch to Clark's side. Clark immediately collapses. Clark wasn't watching Ruiz (he was doing what you're supposed to do: playing the ball), so he wouldn't have known to "dive" then; his fall was caused by the strike. Only after Ruiz had violently dispatched Clark did Ruiz attempt to play the ball.

When Clark's momentary lapse of reason led to a kick to Ruiz's arm, Ruiz must have been elated. This created another opportunity for the Soccer Con Man. The shot to the arm obviously was harmless because Ruiz was able to go to his Plan B (every con man has a back up). He grabbed his head and rolled around in an attempt to exaggerate his own "victimization" by his former punching bag, thus masking his own earlier assault and possibly drawing a PK.

Clark could have kicked Ruiz several more times before others restrained the Dynamo midfielder. Multiple strikes are typical of hooligan activity -- but Clark didn't, because this wasn't hooliganism. It was a one-time momentary lapse of reason brought about by stress.

The major difference between Ruiz's violence and Clark's is that Ruiz's violence was premeditated and with the sole intent of gaining an advantage for himself. Clark's violence was emotional and in reaction to being wronged. Neither action was right, but a moment's weakness after being wronged is much less offensive than a pre-planned assault designed for selfish gain. Ergo, Ruiz deserves equal if not more punishment.

As for the violence itself, people can be easily swayed by the drama of a kick, but it can be argued that a kick to a fleshy arm is less dangerous than a sucker punch to the back/side.

And this has nothing to do with Ruiz's past antics. This is based on the actions and violence of THIS incident. (Although repeat offenders should be punished more harshly.)

Clark's violence should be punished, no doubt; but I find Ruiz's incessant cheating and continual violent conduct (which has, disgustedly, been refined to a subtle art) to bring repeated disrepute to the game. His transgressions go far beyond diving; his nickname should change from "El Pescadito" to "El Peccadillo".

Ruiz should be punished no less than Clark, and his cynical machinations should not give his team any advantage over potential opponents in the post-season. I don't think a Clark-less Dynamo should have to face a Ruiz-led FCD in the playoffs...not that Ruiz brings much to the pitch these days.

I am baffled how teams continue to put up with the stain that is Ruiz. But on the Internet, one can find many Ruiz-apologists to this day. This pleases Ruiz to no end, I'm sure; because without gullible folks, con men can't survive. His shenanigans could not continue without the MLS's, journalists', and even some fans' tacit blessing. They're all being conned, but the true victim is the game.

If the MLS truly wanted to end these incidents, it would go after the instigators. Instead, they let the criminals roam free to create more victims...and then the victims themselves are held to a separate standard when they react to the injustice that the criminals (and, by proxy, the MLS) have unleashed upon them.

So, if 9 games is the new standard for a momentary slip into rash violence, then so be it. Future offenders will have to be held to this ever-changing standard. But if Ruiz doesn’t get more than his standard 1 game suspension (on top of his 1 game for yellow accumulation), then he is giggling at the chaos he is able to sow…and others of his ilk are preparing their own surreptitious jabs and taunts in order to further undermine the game for their own personal gain.