Daniel Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 We saw what can happen last night when a team needs to run up the score against an alread-eliminated squad. The Impact's play was shameful and embarrassing for Montreal and Vancouver fans alike. In the future, this could be avoided (somewhat) by changing the tiebreakers from overall GD to direct GD. If TFC and Vancouver are tied on points, it's only logical that Vancouver proved to be the better team in direct play, 2-1 on aggregate. I hope that the CSA will institute something like this next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 It won't help because you still have the possibility to see something similar happening. Have the same situation as yesterday but with TFC winning 2-0 against Vancouver at BMO instewad of 1-0. MTL has still nothing to gain from the game and the next tie-breaker would be overall goal differential. Anyways you look at it there's always a possibility of a similar situation with a 3 team tournament like that. Even adding a final would see the possibility of a similar situation happening for the 2nd place but the final should be clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morbital Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 the rules need to be changed, this game was not played with fair competition in mind, a team that had nothing to play for, showed it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter S Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Having stood through that disgrace last night, I don't think what is needed is so much a rule change (although, if a new tie-breaking format can eliminate this possibility, then it should be implemented) as for all three clubs to take this competition as seriously as their supporters do. This season, one club (mine) did not. Last season, Montréal fans were (rightly) annoyed the very few Toronto fans who claimed that the tournament wasnt' serious. Likewise, Vancouver's two strong performance v Toronto were decisive. I am less annoyed by the Impact line-up of last night (some, if certainly not all of the changes were for solid reasons) than by the idea that the management could possibly describe a derby against Toronto as 'meaningless.' I was very excited for the friendlies this summer, but now ... should I be more insulted if the Impact treat them as well as 'meaningless' exhibitions ... or if the club take them seriously and play well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Peter S I was very excited for the (Montreal) friendlies this summer, but now ... should I be more insulted if the Impact treat them as well as 'meaningless' exhibitions ... or if the club take them seriously and play well? Very well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The best solution would be a championship final game between the top two sides in the table with the home team being the top finisher after applying all the existing tie breaker format. The challenge would of course be finding a place in the calendar for the final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 ^ Yeah but then everybody is still whining because now TFC would host the final and win 1-0 instead of losing 2-0 away to the Caps. Granted, the Caps would still have a shot on the field, but everybody here will still be whining. I guess a neutral site game could be played. The only 100% way to make sure it's "fair" is a knockout format where other games have zero impact on other teams. But then people would whine about the draw. Now supposedly a knockout tournament is not acceptable to Concacaf. The fact of Concacaf setting standards is a whole other highly hilarious issue. Any league/round robin system will leave it open to situations like last night. The most amusing part of all the whining is had the TFC-Caps situation been reversed, all the TFC fans would be up in arms crying about USL conspiracies, and the left coasters would all be skipping happily shrugging, "that's football". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Elias ^ Yeah but then everybody is still whining because now TFC would host the final and win 1-0 instead of losing 2-0 away to the Caps. Granted, the Caps would still have a shot on the field, but everybody here will still be whining. I guess a neutral site game could be played ... in front of no one. If there's a one-off on the field, people might complain about the location (like last year's USL1 final), but one team would have to win it ON THE FIELD against the other. Count me as a fan of a one-off final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Elias ^ Yeah but then everybody is still whining because now TFC would host the final and win 1-0 instead of losing 2-0 away to the Caps. Granted, the Caps would still have a shot on the field, but everybody here will still be whining. I guess a neutral site game could be played. The only 100% way to make sure it's "fair" is a knockout format where other games have zero impact on other teams. But then people would whine about the draw. Now supposedly a knockout tournament is not acceptable to Concacaf. The fact of Concacaf setting standards is a whole other highly hilarious issue. Any league/round robin system will leave it open to situations like last night. The most amusing part of all the whining is had the TFC-Caps situation been reversed, all the TFC fans would be up in arms crying about USL conspiracies, and the left coasters would all be skipping happily shrugging, "that's football". No, they wouldn't, because no one likes losing 6-1 at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolbertos Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Like I said in other threads. Adopt UEFA or CONMEBOL rules in place..doesn't matter if a 4th, 5th or 6th team joins the round-robin. There has to be a rule for tie-breakers or like they in Brasil 1950 WC. The winner of the round-robin awaits the battle between the 2nd or 3rd team and they battle in a one game play-off for the title. That would work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 It's a national CHAMPIONSHIP, f.ck the play-offs Just do a test-match between 1st and 2nd if they are tied And the CSA should forbid any match of the teams 3 days before and after each game in the national championship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Bxl Boy .... And the CSA should forbid any match of the teams 3 days before and after each game in the national championship Absolutely. If not the full 72 hours 60 at least (which would allow for an afternoon fixture on a weekend). Playing a league fixture within 40 hours of a Cup match (or the mirror of that) is beyond ridicules, it's insane, and assists in facilitating the rubbish Montreal put forward yesterday. Tight summer schedule or no, the CSA needs to correct this for next year. No if, ands, or buts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadianfoot Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 add another team(here we go CSL, PDL, PSCL...how it's decided...bla bla bla) well we need a 4th team. Keep the roundrobin format that way we have 6games thus creating more oportunities for everyone. And at last the last pair of games should be schedule at the same time. That way less chances of foul play. Maybe some sort of petition to the CSA in regards to the Vcup from the Voyageurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Daniel, could you change the title to make it more specific, just because I think it is important? Thanks. This is what I wrote on the game thread: ...... The problem then is the format, which is all wrong and unfair. Possible solutions are: -payments to teams for points in the competition, with the understanding that they should be worked into a bonus structure. -eliminate goal difference as a factor. put head to head results first, goal's scored head to head away next, total goals vs the direct rival next, always a factor related to the direct rival in case of a tie in points. -failing this tie-breaking system only based on head-to-head, a format whereby the two best teams at the end of the group stage play a single final match after to determine the champ. A single final match as the championship match, an attractive idea. Start the competition a bit earlier to give time for the extra game, and for visiting fans to get organized. MLS and USL make these decisions at short notice for playoffs and in USL's case for the final venue, and it is no problem, it can be done. Location decided by a coin toss, or rotated (this year first choice venue will be Toronto then Vancouver, next year first Vancouver then Montreal, after that first Mtl then TFC). Could you imagine a final like that vs. TFC and Vancouver, with time for visiting fans to get out and make a noise as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAS Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Once there are more than three teams (and that will take awhile as nobody below USL1 should be involved - sorry CSL/PCSL), then a better format is easy to devise. In the meantime, this one might be the best. I understand the idea of head-to-head goal difference taking precedence, but there would still be problems. I think that a "NEUTRAL FAN" would be quite happy with the fact that in both years it came down to the final minutes of the final game of the tournament. Is it fair? Maybe not entirely, but it is definitely entertaining. I think Jeffrey is correct with the idea of adding a financial incentive. Here is how I would do it: Have the CSA collect a large prize pool from sponsorship, team entry fees, and/or ticket sales to be dispersed after the tournament based on points. Each team would get a percentage of the pool based on the percentage of total points that they earned. This might have the added benefit of encouraging teams to go for wins instead of playing for draws. This year, TFC and Whitecaps would have split the pool 50/50 with nine points each of the eighteen total, while Montreal would have got nothing. To make it even more interesting, make it so that any points that a team earns in the tournament after it has already been eliminated count as double when distributing pool money. This would only be for handing out money, not determining tournament ranking. In this scenario, had Montreal beaten Toronto, then both clubs would have received the same amount of money as they would both be credited with six points. In this system, Vancouver would have recieved less than 50% of the cash for their 9 points because it would be out of 21 total points instead of 18, but they would have watched an incentivised Montreal help them win the V Cup. If the money involved is of a significant size, then you can bet that the Impact would have started their best available players. If the cash is split 50/50 between the club and players, then the Montreal players would have been more interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Easy enough to solve (as I argued before Thursday's game in another thread) with a rule that teams must field their strongest teams in all games. A one season suspension would maybe be a good penalty for that offence. Scheduling fixtures 72 hours away from any MLS or USL-D1 game involving one of the teams should definitely be in there as well, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard Easy enough to solve (as I argued before Thursday's game in another thread) with a rule that teams must field their strongest teams in all games. A one season suspension would maybe be a good penalty for that offence. Scheduling fixtures 72 hours away from any MLS or USL-D1 game involving one of the teams should definitely be in there as well, however. I guess you'll tell me you have better things to do than answering my questions but who would be in charge of deciding if a team field a "full strenght" squad? Can a team rest his best players who have minor injuries? Will the CSA have it's own doctor who'll make the call if a player is fit to play or not? Is a team playing it's back up keeper is respecting the rule? Who will be in charge of the substitutions during the game??? Will the CSA have to approve of any subs during the game because a team could avoid the rule by subbing in 3 16 yrs old at halftime? Sorry to be annoying but I think those are valid questions because it's seems tough to apply this rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfitz Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I don't get it. 3 games in 120 hours. Obviously some players are going to be rested. Montreal's choice was obvious, and the 2 other coaches would have done the same in the same position. It's that games were so close together is the issue. Why wasn't this game played on the Tuesday or Wednesday? Both teams were available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 quote:Originally posted by loyola Sorry to be annoying but I think those are valid questions because it's seems tough to apply this rule. This isn't old ground from my standpoint so I have no problem responding as there is no repetition involved. What is maybe worth bearing in mind is that a lot of disciplinary matters in soccer are very much based on a qualitative judgment either by the referee or a soccer association committee. A yellow card for unsporting behaviour (or "ungentlemanly conduct" as it used to be called ) is an example of that. All of the limits on that are not explicitly spelled out even if they are sometimes mandated to refs (e.g. shirt removal in goal celebrations). It is often something that is purely at the referee's discretion. The idea of having a "strongest team" rule is to give a disciplinary committee the ability to do something if a team (based on a qualitative judgment by a committee) is viewed as having taken the "resting" of players to extremes that damage the integrity of the competition. The hope would be that the knowledge that it could happen would be a sufficient deterrent for it to never actually have to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFCRegina Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 There is no grounds for changing the rules and we're playing the way the rest of the world plays. Stop whining. The rules were going to benefit Whitecaps FC as it was. Next year, bury Toronto FC at BMO or put them away by more at Swangard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard This isn't old ground from my standpoint so I have no problem responding as there is no repetition involved. What is maybe worth bearing in mind is that a lot of disciplinary matters in soccer are very much based on a qualitative judgment either by the referee or a soccer association committee. A yellow card for unsporting behaviour (or "ungentlemanly conduct" as it used to be called ) is an example of that. All of the limits on that are not explicitly spelled out even if they are sometimes mandated to refs (e.g. shirt removal in goal celebrations). It is often something that is purely at the referee's discretion. The idea of having a "strongest team" rule is to give a disciplinary committee the ability to do something if a team (based on a qualitative judgment by a committee) is viewed as having taken the "resting" of players to extremes that damage the integrity of the competition. The hope would be that the knowledge that it could happen would be a sufficient deterrent for it to never actually have to be used. Even if your committee argument holds, the Impact played a number of regulars like Brilliant, Di Lorenzo and Testo and substituted for Placentino, so even if a subjective "qualitative" decision was made, where do you draw the line on this one? Do you base your judgment on the fact that Matt Jordon didn't play? Thats sort of weak, TFC played Greg Sutton against against Vancouver. Do we accuse TFC of throwing the game? Should the line be drawn if the Impact played their entire Reserve team? In all, 8 regulars played for the Impact that game, so I'm not sure, even a committee will take steps to punish the Impact. Brilliant and Testo certainly looked like they was out to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbailey62 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Cheeta Absolutely. If not the full 72 hours 60 at least (which would allow for an afternoon fixture on a weekend). Playing a league fixture within 40 hours of a Cup match (or the mirror of that) is beyond ridicules, it's insane, and assists in facilitating the rubbish Montreal put forward yesterday. Tight summer schedule or no, the CSA needs to correct this for next year. No if, ands, or buts. Well, in that regard, one really has to blame Rogers Sportsnet. When the dates for the tournament were originally announced, this match was scheduled for Wednesday night, not Thursday. Obviously, the teams agreed to the changes in order to accommodate television (and this game did absolutely have to be televised) as with Sportsnet showing the Jays and with no way in the world a Rogers television network is going to preempt a Rogers owned sports team, the options were limited. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 quote:Originally posted by TFCRegina There is no grounds for changing the rules and we're playing the way the rest of the world plays. This is true, as the USA and Italy found out on the weekend. The US advanced on total GD, despite having lost the game to Italy earlier in the round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.