the biologist Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 http://www.montrealimpact.com/News/News.aspxlanguage=EN&ArticleID=1214 Portland is undefeated (11-0-9) since they lost their season opener @ Vancouver Portland is first in the USL D1 in both GF (32) and GA (11) Montreal is an all-time 3-7-2 vs. Portland 2009 Season: June 4: POR 1-0 MTL; June 28: POR 4-0 MTL Biello only needs 9 minutes of play to reach the 25 000 minutes mark as an Impact player Srdjan Djekanovic (3-1-3) should be in the net again tonight It's gonna be Braz's 100th start with the Impact (9th player to do so) Leighton O'Brien will be in uniform for the first time with the Impact Both Pizzolitto and Brown will play tonight as they're gonna be suspended against Cleveland instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtlfan Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Portland Timbers 1 Montreal Impact 0 FULLTIME LINE-UPS 0 - Steve Cronin (G) 5 - David Hayes (D) 16 - Stephen Keel (D) 6 - Cameron Knowles (D) 17 - Scot Thompson (D) 12 - Tony McManus (M) 22 - Keith Savage (M) 18 - Alex Nimo (M) 4 - Brian Farber (M) (63') 19 - George Josten (F) 30 - Takayuki Suzuki (M) (73') 10 - Mandjou Keita (F) 15 - Kevin Forrest (F) (77') 23 - Ryan Pore (M) 20 - Takuro Nishimura (D) (87') 6 - Cameron Knowles (D) 98 - Mamadou Danso (D) (90') Monteal 22 - Srdjan Djekanovic (G) 3 - Adam Braz (D) 26 - Cédric Joqueviel (D) 5 - Nevio Pizzolitto (D) 18 - Leonardo Di Lorenzo (M) 7 - David Testo (M) 11 - Ciaran O'Brien (M) 14 - Tony Donatelli (M) (63') 9 - Rocco Placentino (M) 17 - Joey Gjertsen (M) (68') 10 - Roberto Brown (F) 12 - Eduardo Sebrango (F) (72') 30 - Pierre-Rudolph Mayard (M) 20 - Mauro Biello (M) (76') 24 - Simon Gatti (D) 2 - Hicham Aaboubou (D) (86') POR: R. Pore (Forrest) 83' DISCIPLINE MON: S. Gatti 47' MON: A. Braz 50' MON: D. Testo 55' POR: K. Forrest 77' ATTENDANCE 11247 WEATHER Sunny, 27C BROKEN LEGS, PORTLAND 1 Knowles 90' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allison A Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 It appears Cameron Knowles suffered a major leg break in the 87th minute, when he and Sebrango collided while going for a 50-50 ball. It appeared to be a serious compound fracture, but will be looking for any information and will post it here if anybody wants to get an update. I have also started a thread over on my Timbers board to follow his status: http://www.soccercityusa.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1250128675 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 That's a big blow for the Timbers. Knowles has been a monster this season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscan Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Geez, that must have been one hell of a collision. I'll have to watch the match on USL Live to see how it went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Once again a typical Impact home game against a stronger USL opponent. We dominate the first half but don't score. Play less well in the 2nd half and give up a goal on a counter. When it happened once or twice one could put it down to bad luck but there is no way we can attribute it to that now. Our record against the top 4 teams (actually 3 of the 4 since we have not played Carolina at all until three games in late August and September) stands at 0 wins 2 ties and 6 losses. One always wonders about the fitness of the team. We always seem to tire out and play poor in the 2nd half. Also very noticeable was that even in victory Portland came out on the field after the game and did a bit of fitness training like most of the teams that are ahead of us in the standings do. Yet the Impact never do this win or lose. When Knowles got injured at first we (UM) thought it was the usual time wasting with a lead at the end of a game and sang the appropriate songs. After a while seeing the faces of some of the players looking at him and the numerous medical personel on the field we realized that it was a serious injury so we stopped singing the songs. They added 8 minutes of extra time which was about right but it sure seemed like they stopped play much earlier (I was timing on my watch and thought there should have been another 2 or 3 minutes of play). The Impact players and coach complained about this at the end of the game. The ref for this match, John Oliva, was very poor not professional level at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Watching the replay, Knowles tried to tackle Aaboubou and broke his leg doing so. Players from both teams and the referee imediately called for the medical personnel seemingly seeing immediately how serious the injury was. One of those injuries where noone was at fault (or if anyone was it was the injured player himself), he went hard into Aaboubou and Aaboubou was running forward and Knowles got the worst of the contact. However, the injury took 6 minutes of time off the clock. 8 minutes of injury time was fairly added, 6 minutes for the injury and 2 minutes for previous time. As I thought when I watched the game and now confirmed by the video, the ref Oliva gave nowhere near 8 minutes of injury time. In fact he gave 5 minutes and 20 seconds not even the time took up by the injury to Knowles. This ref was a disgrace and should never ref another professional game again. Probably the Impact would not have scored in the extra 2 minutes and 40 seconds given their history this year but nevertheless they should protest this result and request that this incomptetent ref be removed as a USL and CSA certified ref. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keano Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Agreed. Even before that incident he was giving cards where there was no particular recklessness and then not giving them when it looked pretty bad... for both sides more or less arbitrarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allison A Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I actually thought the eight minutes announced was ridiculous, and the five minutes actually played was more accurate. Up to that point, there couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 minutes to be added, and even though Knowles was down for 6 minutes, there were less than 3 minutes left in the match, so that's another 3 minutes added, not 6. But I have definitely learned now little announced stoppage time means this year, having seen it stretched well beyond announced time a few times, and cut several minutes short a few times. The number the 4th official puts up seems meaningless. But this time, considering Knowles' injury was less than three minutes from time, the amount of time they actually played in stoppage time seemed about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keano Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Allison A I actually thought the eight minutes announced was ridiculous, and the five minutes actually played was more accurate. Up to that point, there couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 minutes to be added, and even though Knowles was down for 6 minutes, there were less than 3 minutes left in the match, so that's another 3 minutes added, not 6. But I have definitely learned now little announced stoppage time means this year, having seen it stretched well beyond announced time a few times, and cut several minutes short a few times. The number the 4th official puts up seems meaningless. But this time, considering Knowles' injury was less than three minutes from time, the amount of time they actually played in stoppage time seemed about right. When did they decide injury time only replaces 50% of the time the game was stopped? I didn't get that memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Keano When did they decide injury time only replaces 50% of the time the game was stopped? I didn't get that memo. From what I understand (didn't see the game) the players was injured at min 87. So, even if the play stops for 60 min that will result in a 3 min added time plus the other added minutes (subs, goals, other injuries, etc.). The reason for that is that only min 87 to 90 were taken away because of the injury. Allison A. post seems correct to me in term of the logic behind the added minute principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 It's so easy to understand... The minutes shown on the panel count from 90:00 Player was injued at 88:00 until 94:00 6 injured minutes + 2 other minutes = 8 minutes in total The 4th ref waited to the game began again after the injury to show the panel, and the total of minutes 8 minutes : the game has to stop at 98:00 As it began again at 94:00, there were still 4 minutes to play, not 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto7 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I was at the game and when the player went down, players from both teams and the ref immediately signaled for help. It must have been pretty nasty looking for them to do so. As far as the game was concerned, the Impact showed great hustle in the 1st half but could not get through Portland's air tight defense. They slowed down considerably in the second half after the 70 minute mark. All the late subs did very little. I was surprised that O'Brien was subbed so early as he was easily the best Montreal player out there. I was with my cousin from Madrid at the game and he was quite surprised to see how close we could get to the players( they walked right by us as we went to our seats). His jaw dropped when he saw that the Portland keeper was wearing number 0 and that they had a player wearing number 98. You won't find that in Spain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Allison A It appears Cameron Knowles suffered a major leg break in the 87th minute, when he and Sebrango collided while going for a 50-50 ball. It appeared to be a serious compound fracture, but will be looking for any information and will post it here if anybody wants to get an update. I have also started a thread over on my Timbers board to follow his status: http://www.soccercityusa.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1250128675 Ouch Hope he makes a complete recovery. Portland has been on a roll this year something fierce! Last year they had a tough defense but not much offense and this year they have both in a big way. With 45 out of 66 points (68%) they are not at the level Seattle was when they had their dream season but with a few more wins they will be. That 83% claim of points available (28G 23W 4L 1D) (if you use the 3 for a win, 1 for a draw) will be hard to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keano Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Alberto7 I was at the game and when the player went down, players from both teams and the ref immediately signaled for help. It must have been pretty nasty looking for them to do so. As far as the game was concerned, the Impact showed great hustle in the 1st half but could not get through Portland's air tight defense. They slowed down considerably in the second half after the 70 minute mark. All the late subs did very little. I was surprised that O'Brien was subbed so early as he was easily the best Montreal player out there. I was with my cousin from Madrid at the game and he was quite surprised to see how close we could get to the players( they walked right by us as we went to our seats). His jaw dropped when he saw that the Portland keeper was wearing number 0 and that they had a player wearing number 98. You won't find that in Spain! And "Tactic" was ok with him??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTL_4_LIFE Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Allison A It appears Cameron Knowles suffered a major leg break in the 87th minute, when he and Sebrango collided while going for a 50-50 ball. It appeared to be a serious compound fracture, but will be looking for any information and will post it here if anybody wants to get an update. I have also started a thread over on my Timbers board to follow his status: http://www.soccercityusa.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1250128675 It was Hicham Aaboubou not Sebrango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allison A Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The Timbers announcer said it was Sebrango and I haven't had the courage yet to go back and watch the replay, but you could be right that it was Aaboubou. I haven't seen the play since the original live feed. And to Axl Boy's comment about Cameron being down from 88:00 to 94:00 so you should add six minutes, you don't add stoppage time twice. So he was down for 2-3 minutes of actual time (which stops at 90:00), plus whatever stoppage time was going to be added before it happened, so the 5-6 minutes they played seems right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Allison A The Timbers announcer said it was Sebrango and I haven't had the courage yet to go back and watch the replay, but you could be right that it was Aaboubou. I haven't seen the play since the original live feed. And to Axl Boy's comment about Cameron being down from 88:00 to 94:00 so you should add six minutes, you don't add stoppage time twice. So he was down for 2-3 minutes of actual time (which stops at 90:00), plus whatever stoppage time was going to be added before it happened, so the 5-6 minutes they played seems right to me. Aaboubou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Allison A The Timbers announcer said it was Sebrango and I haven't had the courage yet to go back and watch the replay, but you could be right that it was Aaboubou. I haven't seen the play since the original live feed. And to Axl Boy's comment about Cameron being down from 88:00 to 94:00 so you should add six minutes, you don't add stoppage time twice. So he was down for 2-3 minutes of actual time (which stops at 90:00), plus whatever stoppage time was going to be added before it happened, so the 5-6 minutes they played seems right to me. Sorry to hear about Knowles, tough luck. By the way you are incorrect in your interpretation of extra time, completely in fact. I don´t know how people can make up such baseless interpretations. There is only one watch that matters, the one on the refs wrist. The sign that comes up at 90 is only an orientation for players, coaches and fans. Time can be added on during stoppage time and regularly is. The referee should add on time for all injuries that involve physios or team doctors coming onto the field, and for all subs. All time lost should be made up. If a player falls injured in stoppage time that time lost should also be added, regardless of anything the ref said to the fourth official. The general calculation is that if there are 3 subs a side at different times that should be half a minute each, a minimum 3 minutes. Meaning the ref clearly screwed up and more time should have been added on. Not even the shock of a serious injury should change that, as no sporting advantage should come either way from time lost through injuries, subs or force majeur during a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Jeffrey S. Let say we have a second half where nothing to justify adding time happens and at min 80th player X is injured and required on-field medical assistance for 10 min, now we are at min 90, shouldn't we just play 10 more minutes of added time (and adding time for any delay that could happen during that 10 min)? Now, if player X was instead injured at min 89 and required on-field medical assitance for 10 min, shouldn't we just add 1 min of extra time when the play restart? It seems to me that this was Allison A. point. Only the part of the injury that delay the game between min 45 and min 90 should be added at the end of the game. Maybe it's a baseless interpretation but that's how it was explained to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allison A Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I just watched the replay, which was difficult to watch, but you all are right, it was Aaboubou. And yes loyola, that was my point, but I still think some people are going to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I agree Loyola, but the 4th ref has to show 10' on the board Because added time begins at 90:00 and not when the play begins again That was what happened yesterday So, it seems we all say in different words that what happened at the game was right, we all agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Bxl Boy I agree Loyola, but the 4th ref has to show 10' on the board Because added time begins at 90:00 and not when the play begins again That was what happened yesterday So, it seems we all say in different words that what happened at the game was right, we all agree Good, I wasn't sure if I understand what you meant but you are right for the mechanic since added time indeed start at min 90 even if a players is down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.