MLS Playoffs

[HuskyHawk]

This makes no sense to me. I mean, it never rains in England....

Not a lot of 325 pound guys slamming into each other and trying to get footing on the typical pitch in England. Explains the turf in Seattle and Foxborough. Agreed they could go to grass in an all soccer stadium.

Hoping the Revs can finally win a title after so many frustrating losses in the final. Pulled in 20k+ last match vs Columbus.

 

[upstater]

Also, just read about the controversial tying goal that Ft Lauderdale got in extra time that tied the game in which they later won on PK's. It's at the 6:47 mark. The official explanation was that the ball was deliberately played by a Minnesota defender (Venegas) and thus the 3 Ft. Lauderdale players, including the goal scorer, Nunez, were not offside. I have watched the play in full speed and frame by frame and this looks like a 'Tom Brady Tuck Rule' where the referring body has to make-up a reason while such a clearly wrong call was made. The ball was bouncing around a lot and it went to Venegas who looked to deflect it off of his shin while trying to clear it as the ball bounced (cold surface) right as he tried to kick it. He never had control nor did the ball go in the direction that he swung his foot in. Thus, it was not a deliberate act. It was a deflection and in turn Nunez & company were offside as the linesman called it. Does not help that the referee who overturned the linesman was about 10 meters from the play with maybe a dozen players between him and the ball. I am sue he saw what happened, not.


http://www.nasl.com/article/uuid/17...-minnesota-fort-lauderdale-match#.VGIk89F0y00

This may mor may not be correct, but I don't think you understood the tuck rule and it was in play every year, didn't come into being with Brady.

 

[upstater]

By the way, in Europe they are experimenting with grass/turf hybrids.

 

[businesslawyer]

Honest to god, you need help.

 

[junglehusky]

Honest to god, you need help.

Landycakes : ZooCougar :: Whitmer : Palatine

 

[junglehusky]

Semi-tangent: Have you seen the new NYCFC jerseys? Look exactly the same as MCFC. There's a plethora of fan-made mock-ups you can see on google image search that are more imaginative. I can hear the echoes of HFD on this design.

Back to the playoffs... have to think a ton of pressure is on NYRB as Henry will retire, Cahill could leave and BWP will most likely have a hard time matching his production this year without Henry's service. Plus NYCFC's inaugural year and rumors that Red Bull corporation are becoming disinterested in the club's future (they also run a club in Salzburg) could make for a difficult 2015 in terms of product on the field and fan interest.

 

[ZooCougar]

Semi-tangent: Have you seen the new NYCFC jerseys? Look exactly the same as MCFC. There's a plethora of fan-made mock-ups you can see on google image search that are more imaginative. I can hear the echoes of HFD on this design.

Back to the playoffs... have to think a ton of pressure is on NYRB as Henry will retire, Cahill could leave and BWP will most likely have a hard time matching his production this year without Henry's service. Plus NYCFC's inaugural year and rumors that Red Bull corporation are becoming disinterested in the club's future (they also run a club in Salzburg) could make for a difficult 2015 in terms of product on the field and fan interest.

They run clubs in Salzburg (Austrian Bundesliga) and Leipzig (Bundesliga 2). Terrence Boyd plays striker for RB Leipzig and they have a good shot at getting promoted. Many people have stated that RBNY is 2nd or 3rd fiddle in this group.

I wonder if Henry will play the leg in New England. Other than the All Star game this year, I don't think he has ever played on turf and he has it in his contract that he doesn't have to play on it.

 

[meyers7]

The offsides rule changed recently too. I don't know the specifics, but a lot of coaches didn't even know that it had changed.

The Law itself hasn't changed, but there is some new guidance in the I&G (Instructions and Guidance).

A "deflection" would still be called offside. However an attempt to play the ball, however lame (mis-hit, etc.) would make it so the ball would be considered "played by the defender". Remember the offside position is considered at time the offensive player plays the ball. So if the defender "plays" the ball, there is no offside for the offense.

Now in this instance it's whether the CR and AR determined it to be a deflection or "played" the ball. Really I could not tell from the clip. Initially to me it looked like a deflection, but I can't be sure.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

The Law itself hasn't changed, but there is some new guidance in the I&G (Instructions and Guidance).

A "deflection" would still be called offside. However an attempt to play the ball, however lame (mis-hit, etc.) would make it so the ball would be considered "played by the defender". Remember the offside position is considered at time the offensive player plays the ball. So if the defender "plays" the ball, there is no offside for the offense.

Now in this instance it's whether the CR and AR determined it to be a deflection or "played" the ball. Really I could not tell from the clip. Initially to me it looked like a deflection, but I can't be sure.

Thanks for the rule definition. Based on what my old eyes saw, the ball was bouncing in the middle of the pack, the MN defender swung his foot forward and the ball went backward after hitting the defender's shin or calf, likely because the ball bounced up at the last second (cold hard fields are known to call the ball to bounce a lot). Foot swinging one way, ball the other, has to be a deflection. Linesman called it right (offside flag was up), Referee who was on the other side about 20 yards in front of the pack, was wrong to reverse the call. Looked like he was intimidated by the Ft. Lauderdale players chasing him around.

 

[meyers7]

Thanks for the rule definition. Based on what my old eyes saw, the ball was bouncing in the middle of the pack, the MN defender swung his foot forward and the ball went backward after hitting the defender's shin or calf, likely because the ball bounced up at the last second (cold hard fields are known to call the ball to bounce a lot). Foot swinging one way, ball the other, has to be a deflection. Linesman called it right (offside flag was up), Referee who was on the other side about 20 yards in front of the pack, was wrong to reverse the call. Looked like he was intimidated by the Ft. Lauderdale players chasing him around.

If it's as you describe, then the Ref made the correct call. The way it's supposed to be interpreted (now). "Deflection" is basically if the offensive player pings it off the defender. Defender doesn't play or attempt to play it, he/she's just basically in the way and it hits off him/her. If defensive player tried to play it (head it, kick it) no matter how poorly he does it (i.e. it doesn't go where he intended) then that is considered playing the ball and shouldn't be called offside.

Refs in general are just starting to call it like this. So you will probably see a lot of inconsistencies, especially the lower the leagues you go. I know we are training on "Offside" this year at our annual requal.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

If it's as you describe, then the Ref made the correct call. The way it's supposed to be interpreted (now). "Deflection" is basically if the offensive player pings it off the defender. Defender doesn't play or attempt to play it, he/she's just basically in the way and it hits off him/her. If defensive player tried to play it (head it, kick it) no matter how poorly he does it (i.e. it doesn't go where he intended) then that is considered playing the ball and shouldn't be called offside.

Refs in general are just starting to call it like this. So you will probably see a lot of inconsistencies, especially the lower the leagues you go. I know we are training on "Offside" this year at our annual requal.

Interesting, thanks. To me it feels unfair as it rewards offensive players to be lazy about getting on-side while hoping that the balls pops out from a pack to them.

Any thoughts on the non off-side call against Colombia's 2bd goal last week. The Colombia player was clearly off-side and did not touch the ball; but, by standing less than a foot away from it, effectively screen two US defenders from getting to the shooter (who was on-side) in time to impact the shot. Again, that feels against the spirit of off-side and unfair, though technically not illegal.

Worst non-call I saw last week was actually a U8 game that I coached. The ref ignored a player (not the keeper) who literally caught the ball in the and dropped it on her feet allowing her to go in for a break-away goal. I asked the ref and was told they are not really supposed to call anything in U8. Usually, I agree letting most fouls go outside of what may cause an injury go; but, that type of play has to be called as it would be a card in the next level, U10. Need to break any such habits early, unless one is Diego Maradona.

 

[meyers7]

Interesting, thanks. To me it feels unfair as it rewards offensive players to be lazy about getting on-side while hoping that the balls pops out from a pack to them.

There are a lot of people, including refs who aren't all that happy with the change. But it's coming down from FIFA/USSoccer. I would guess it's to allow more scoring. But it's the Law now (or interpretation of the Law now). (I don't like the DH in the American League, but it's the rule. So you gotta adjust and live with it.)

Any thoughts on the non off-side call against Colombia's 2bd goal last week. The Colombia player was clearly off-side and did not touch the ball; but, by standing less than a foot away from it, effectively screen two US defenders from getting to the shooter (who was on-side) in time to impact the shot. Again, that feels against the spirit of off-side and unfair, though technically not illegal.

Yea, there were some big discussions on that one. The CR/AR got it right. Some argued he impeded some of the defenders getting to the ball (which isn't an offside call anyway), but really the only defenders even moving toward the ball was the GK (and he didn't bother him) and Beckerman. Who was actually following James, who came from onside and didn't play the ball either. James may have got in Beckerman's way, but not the player in the offside position. All the other defender where standing there with their hand in the air.

There are 3 items in "being involved in play".

1. Interfering in play. Which means they have to actually play the ball or be the only offensive player who could. That wasn't the case, he never played it.
2. Gaining an advantage. Which has to do with playing the ball off a rebound from a post/crossbar or GK save or a deflection off a defender. That wasn't the case.
3. Interfering with opponent. This one was the only one that could apply. This is by preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision (usually the GK's) or challenging an opponent for the ball. He did neither.

Worst non-call I saw last week was actually a U8 game that I coached. The ref ignored a player (not the keeper) who literally caught the ball in the and dropped it on her feet allowing her to go in for a break-away goal. I asked the ref and was told they are not really supposed to call anything in U8. Usually, I agree letting most fouls go outside of what may cause an injury go; but, that type of play has to be called as it would be a card in the next level, U10. Need to break any such habits early, unless one is Diego Maradona.

Yea, I agree, you gotta call that stuff, even at young ages so they learn.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Yea, there were some big discussions on that one. The CR/AR got it right. Some argued he impeded some of the defenders getting to the ball (which isn't an offside call anyway), but really the only defenders even moving toward the ball was the GK (and he didn't bother him) and Beckerman. Who was actually following James, who came from onside and didn't play the ball either. James may have got in Beckerman's way, but not the player in the offside position. All the other defender where standing there with their hand in the air.

Do you think it would have been called offside or obstruction if the US had a competent defense in that game and some one was sliding over to defend the shooter?

 

[ZooCougar]

The Minn U game goal looked to me to be pretty clearly a deflection by a player that was offsides. I think the ref didn't see it. It was a really unfortunate non-call.

 

[ZooCougar]

There are a lot of people, including refs who aren't all that happy with the change. But it's coming down from FIFA/USSoccer. I would guess it's to allow more scoring. But it's the Law now (or interpretation of the Law now). (I don't like the DH in the American League, but it's the rule. So you gotta adjust and live with it.)


Yea, there were some big discussions on that one. The CR/AR got it right. Some argued he impeded some of the defenders getting to the ball (which isn't an offside call anyway), but really the only defenders even moving toward the ball was the GK (and he didn't bother him) and Beckerman. Who was actually following James, who came from onside and didn't play the ball either. James may have got in Beckerman's way, but not the player in the offside position. All the other defender where standing there with their hand in the air.

There are 3 items in "being involved in play".

1. Interfering in play. Which means they have to actually play the ball or be the only offensive player who could. That wasn't the case, he never played it.
2. Gaining an advantage. Which has to do with playing the ball off a rebound from a post/crossbar or GK save or a deflection off a defender. That wasn't the case.
3. Interfering with opponent. This one was the only one that could apply. This is by preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision (usually the GK's) or challenging an opponent for the ball. He did neither.


Yea, I agree, you gotta call that stuff, even at young ages so they learn.

The US has to play to the whistle there. The player that was offsides did not handle the ball, however it was pretty clear that he interfered from our omniscient TV view of the play. Another bad non-call, but that sort of thing you have to play through.

 

[meyers7]

The US has to play to the whistle there. The player that was offsides did not handle the ball, however it was pretty clear that he interfered from our omniscient TV view of the play. Another bad non-call, but that sort of thing you have to play through.

No it was a good call, per the Law, he didn't interfere. People will have to get used to the new interpretation. (Refs themselves will have to get used to it.)

 

[meyers7]

Do you think it would have been called offside or obstruction if the US had a competent defense in that game and some one was sliding over to defend the shooter?

Well technically it's not obstructing it's impeding. (The word obstructing is used in HS.) This is a tough one. Impeding is hardly ever called. Mostly because it's not easy to do. Usually people who get in another's way run into each other. Then it's technically not impeding but either a hold or a charge. So basically you have to willing cut off somebodies path without actual contact. For impeding you really need the intent to get into someone's path. In this case I don't think it would have been called, because he wasn't attempting to block anyone from getting the ball.

The Offside player in this instance moved towards the ball and stopped. Probably realized he was offside or saw his teammate coming from onside. In the old interpretation that "moving toward the ball" would be considered "playing the ball" and that's why so many people see it as offside. BUT, the interpretation is not like that anymore. I mean if he actually looked around and did move into someone's path, then yea, but he didn't do that.

For instance if Player A1 is offside and player A2 is onside and the ball is played in behind the defense, and both players run towards the ball. The flag is supposed to stay down until the AR sees who actually gets the ball. If A1 then flag goes up, if A2 then flag stays down. A1 doesn't even have to pull out of the play.

 

[ZooCougar]

No it was a good call, per the Law, he didn't interfere. People will have to get used to the new interpretation. (Refs themselves will have to get used to it.)

It looked to me like he interfered. That's the gray area. Forget which show it was, ESPN FC or something. They showed pretty clearly how that player knew exactly what he was doing and how it affected the play. But they went on to say that the defense still should have shut it down.

 

[meyers7]

It looked to me like he interfered.

How so?

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Well technically it's not obstructing it's impeding. (The word obstructing is used in HS.) This is a tough one. Impeding is hardly ever called. Mostly because it's not easy to do. Usually people who get in another's way run into each other. Then it's technically not impeding but either a hold or a charge. So basically you have to willing cut off somebodies path without actual contact. For impeding you really need the intent to get into someone's path. In this case I don't think it would have been called, because he wasn't attempting to block anyone from getting the ball.

The Offside player in this instance moved towards the ball and stopped. Probably realized he was offside or saw his teammate coming from onside. In the old interpretation that "moving toward the ball" would be considered "playing the ball" and that's why so many people see it as offside. BUT, the interpretation is not like that anymore. I mean if he actually looked around and did move into someone's path, then yea, but he didn't do that.

For instance if Player A1 is offside and player A2 is onside and the ball is played in behind the defense, and both players run towards the ball. The flag is supposed to stay down until the AR sees who actually gets the ball. If A1 then flag goes up, if A2 then flag stays down. A1 doesn't even have to pull out of the play.

Interesting, I still prefer the 'old' offside call as its cleaner and easier by all to interpret, i.e. if some one is offsides, then it's offside. For example, attacker 1 is offside and attacker 2 is onsides. A through ball sets both up for a one-on-one with the keeper. A1 is closer to the ball forcing the keeper to commit to him. A1 lets the ball go past him without a touch with the keeper on top of him allowing A2 to tap it into an empty net from 2 yards out. Legal, Yes. Wrong, Yes.

On the US/Colombia play, I likely would not have called it myself simply because the off-side Colombian player did effectively screen the ball; but, there was no defender to screen. As for the Minnesota/Ft Lauderdale game, what I really poor form was the linesman who had a clear view of the play called it off-sides only to be overruled by the referee who was behind the play had had the entire scrum between him and the ball. No way he saw what actually happened. The linesman's call should have stood.

 

[meyers7]

Interesting, I still prefer the 'old' offside call as its cleaner and easier by all to interpret, i.e. if some one is offsides, then it's offside. For example, attacker 1 is offside and attacker 2 is onsides. A through ball sets both up for a one-on-one with the keeper. A1 is closer to the ball forcing the keeper to commit to him. A1 lets the ball go past him without a touch with the keeper on top of him allowing A2 to tap it into an empty net from 2 yards out. Legal, Yes. Wrong, Yes.

A lot of people agree with you. You bring up another point. Even dummying the ball is not to be considered "playing the ball" now.

On the US/Colombia play, I likely would not have called it myself simply because the off-side Colombian player did effectively screen the ball; but, there was no defender to screen. As for the Minnesota/Ft Lauderdale game, what I really poor form was the linesman who had a clear view of the play called it off-sides only to be overruled by the referee who was behind the play had had the entire scrum between him and the ball. No way he saw what actually happened. The linesman's call should have stood.

No one can be for sure what each ref saw. I believe they did discuss the call before they finalized it though. About the best you can expect.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

A lot of people agree with you. You bring up another point. Even dummying the ball is not to be considered "playing the ball" now.


No one can be for sure what each ref saw. I believe they did discuss the call before they finalized it though. About the best you can expect.

Looked at the replay again. No way the referee could see what happened from behind and to the left of what took place. That and it appears that he told the linesman that it was onside and the linesman shook his head negatively and then overruled him. All well.

Anyway, whose going to win the Revs v. Bulls series this weekend? I do not think the Revs will be able to handle Wright-Phillips.

 

[ZooCougar]

How so?

I have to watch the clip again. I agreed with you before I saw that. I can't recall now.

 

[ZooCougar]

Looked at the replay again. No way the referee could see what happened from behind and to the left of what took place. That and it appears that he told the linesman that it was onside and the linesman shook his head negatively and then overruled him. All well.

Anyway, whose going to win the Revs v. Bulls series this weekend? I do not think the Revs will be able to handle Wright-Phillips.

Probably the Revs. They have a stout defense and the second leg at home.

 

[meyers7]

Looked at the replay again. No way the referee could see what happened from behind and to the left of what took place. That and it appears that he told the linesman that it was onside and the linesman shook his head negatively and then overruled him. All well.

Anyway, whose going to win the Revs v. Bulls series this weekend? I do not think the Revs will be able to handle Wright-Phillips.

I'm hoping the Revs.

Who knows what the refs discussed. I would think the CR was telling the AR that he saw it come off the defender. About the only thing that would make sense with the call he made, but ????