ThiKu Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I've watched the replay twice. You are wrong, dead wrong. Hassli jumps and turns his back trying to block the clearance. The follow through kicks him in the hamstring or buttocks. Yet Valdez rolled around on the ground like he had been hit with a crowbar from kicking someone in the butt! That is as big an embellishment as I've seen. If MLS wants to be taken seriously as a league it needs to clamp down on the diving. The refs make calls based on what they see or think they see at full speed. They can't use replays but the league can and should. MLS needs to decide if it wants to be a league of diving wankers or professional players. Sorry Murph - we are gonna have to agree to disagree. Hassli had no business jumping in front of Valdes. The Valdes follow-through was obviously going to catch Hassli and Hassli knew it. Re: Diving!? Well that is true of every league and international match throughout the world isn't it???? Not exactly an MLS-only issue is it? Re: Valdes rolling around: erm....what else would you expect??? It's an unfortunate truth until FIFA takes solving the diving issue the world-over (ie, video review and subsequent punishment for deceit). Hassli should know better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Bob Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Hassli made it far, far too easy for an erratic referee to send him off. You shouldn't even be considering getting physical in that situation. Of course Valdes sold it; so did Califf on Hassli's first yellow. I don't think either one was a yellow card offense, but then Hassli also got away with a bit too. It's interesting how the referee's poor discipline clearly frustrated the players and caused them to play more recklessly: they knew they'd either completely get away with it or get booked and went balls-to-the-wall. Bad refereeing impacts a game in more ways than just the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Worst part of the game for me? Martin Nash. I don't know how much he's been in a broadcasting booth, so I'll give him a mulligan (a big one, nonetheless). I haven't seen the whole match yet but what were your (and others') thoughts about the pbp guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThiKu Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 PBP was poor in comparison to other products Canadian broadcasters have done - Dobson/Forrest are superior, and there have been other combos. Then again, Dobson was atrocious when he started!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 ^Like I say, I haven't seen the whole match so I didn't get much of a read. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SthMelbRed Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 The Ruiz goal was NOT offside. The Union guy who struck it was shooting not passing. Had the ball gone through and Ruiz interfered then yes he would have been offside. The Union player who received it wide was in an offside position, BUT, the ball was not played to him so under current offside rules he wasn't. Ruiz was level or behind when the ball was crossed. The goal stands. It is irrelevant if the initial ball through was meant as a shot or a pass. If the Union attacker (Le Toux, I think) was in an offside position when his teammate played the ball forward (before the deflection from Janicki) than he should have been flagged for offside as he was gaining an unfair advantage from being in an offside position. As soon as he played the ball, the play should have been stopped and a free kick awarded to the 'Caps. I suspect that Ruiz was also more advanced than Le Toux when he received the ball in front of the open net, but that would have been an extremely tight call to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThiKu Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Sorry, no. The Whitecaps player "played" it to Le Toux, not the Union player that struck it attempting it on goal. Look at it like this - a shot going 5 yards wide that is deflected in for a goal is not awarded as a goal to the player who shot it, but rather it is an OG. I think Ruiz was level when the ball was crossed, but someone has suggested Ruiz' left leg was in front of the ball when it was crossed to him. The goal was a good one - as much as it sucks and pains me to say! Hell, I'd have rather it was Valdes who scored!...anyone but Ruiz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SthMelbRed Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 ^I'm sorry, but you seem to have a poor understanding of the offside rule. In order to negate the offside, the 'Caps defender would have to deliberately play the ball. A deflection off the defender's leg to the player in an offside position is still an offside by the laws of the game. It was a poor call by a poor officiating crew on the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Is there a link for the highlights? I'd like to check out this offside call... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolando Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/thegoalkeeper/Take-Two-Why-Carlos-Ruizs-goal-was-onside.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 ^I'm sorry, but you seem to have a poor understanding of the offside rule. In order to negate the offside, the 'Caps defender would have to deliberately play the ball. A deflection off the defender's leg to the player in an offside position is still an offside by the laws of the game. It was a poor call by a poor officiating crew on the day. It looks to me like the defender did deliberately play the ball. Also you can not see the whole field on the video when the shot is first taken but it looks like Khalfan may have kept the Union players onside like the Philly blog says. I think it is a good goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smartlikefox Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Hassli deserved to be sent off. He had a couple of warnings before the 2nd yellow. He was just too reckless and aggresive and it was just a matter of time before he was going to get the red. That being said, the 2 'tackles' on Harris were both far worse than anything Hassli did. How neither of those weren't bookings... On the team as a whole, they really lacked creatively offensively. You could tell they missed Chiumiento. The backend really stepped up without DeMerit. Rochat was a rock back there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Hassli deserved to be sent off. He had a couple of warnings before the 2nd yellow. He was just too reckless and aggresive and it was just a matter of time before he was going to get the red. That being said, the 2 'tackles' on Harris were both far worse than anything Hassli did. How neither of those weren't bookings... On the team as a whole, they really lacked creatively offensively. You could tell they missed Chiumiento. The backend really stepped up without DeMerit. Rochat was a rock back there. Yea we missed DC and hopefully he is back next week. The whole back played like aces especially Janicki who was target # 1 for their attacks. Didn't give them anything. The ref missing 2 on Harris was bad but kudos to Harris for toughing it out and working his ass off. Hell of a performance by the forward. Now if he can just release the shots a bit quicker and get them on net! Hassli? Well I guess if you are on a yellow and the ref is that tool then don't attempt to block anything where the wanker can dive when he kicks you in the ass on the follow through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.