superbrad Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I haven't seen anyone talk about it. The Asst R's called more than a few offsides when there should have not been one. Three against Canada and one against PR. One where the PR keeper made an outstanding save against Occean I believe - and then the ball fell to one of our other players. Clearly onside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 That was Ricketts. He was onside and Dero tapped in the rebound. Valid goal ruled out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Agreed, the linesman got it wrong several times and was calling offsides when it wasn't. we did get burned by it twice but so did PR on one occasion, but overall i would have to say that we have had some instances in the games when questionable fouls went in favour of Canada. It wasnt by any means tipping point kind of stuff but you can see that this was one of those rare instances where we got home side officiating. Reminds me of Can-CRC at Swangard in 2004 with Pendergast as ref. Thats one of the reason why that loss still irritates me in that we robbed against Honduras but versus CRC, it was like payback. I really believe that if we could have played the ball into box more effectively last night, we might have gotten a PK or two. This shows the importance of having a respectable sized home crowd as apposed to the large foreign support that we have seen at some Canada home games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcoatsforever Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 That was Ricketts. He was onside and Dero tapped in the rebound. Valid goal ruled out Very frustrated on that play, I was jumping off the couch and losing it at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Honestly, I usually allow the linesmen some leeway. That is one tough job but I'm glad the issue was raised, there was more than one inaccurate judgement made the other night and none too poorly timed at that. Fingers and toes crossed we aren't stung by it next round but yeah, YIKES. Not exactly liking what I'm seeing of late from our officiating crews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I thought the ref was awful last night, he called a foul on Dunfield for simply boxing out a player on a high ball? Then he would let them get away with a foul, we would do the exact same thing and he'd whistle. Also he let them tactically foul us all night without cards?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJames Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Reffing in CONCACAF? to be fair how many of these officials actually ref in above average leagues? Also at least the linesman was consistant....yes he was wrong but erred on the side of caution...(tie only goes to the runner in baseball)....In the past the PR forward would not have been calledand he wouldhave scored and we would be more than a bit upset.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditty Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Reffing in CONCACAF? to be fair how many of these officials actually ref in above average leagues? Also at least the linesman was consistant....yes he was wrong but erred on the side of caution...(tie only goes to the runner in baseball)....In the past the PR forward would not have been calledand he wouldhave scored and we would be more than a bit upset.... In fact, the "tie DOES go to the runner" in that if the attacking player is level with the 2nd last defender, he is onside. This has been the case since the early 90s. Whether they were consistent or not, the ARs simply did not apply this law correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 In fact, the "tie DOES go to the runner" in that if the attacking player is level with the 2nd last defender, he is onside. This has been the case since the early 90s. Whether they were consistent or not, the ARs simply did not apply this law correctly. Correct. the rule was changed for USA 94 WC in order to improved goal scoring. This was because Italia 90 WC produced an all time low for goals score. The linesmen were clearly instructed and on numerous occasions that if IF ITS SO CLOSE THAT THERE IS DOUBT, the advantge must go to the atacking player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbrad Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 Correct. the rule was changed for USA 94 WC in order to improved goal scoring. This was because Italia 90 WC produced an all time low for goals score. The linesmen were clearly instructed and on numerous occasions that if IF ITS SO CLOSE THAT THERE IS DOUBT, the advantge must go to the atacking player. Thanks for that. I do remember that FIFA wants more goals and thats why they changed the way the rule is applied. It is far easier for a Ref to err on the side of caution because the consequences are so low compared to not calling the offside. I've reffed and I know its a tough job - but I always though offsides were easy until you had a crowd in the box and balls were rebounding etc. I don't think those calls were tough - either for or against. Point being - apply to rules as intended and don't be afraid to make a 'non' call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thescottc Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Reffing in CONCACAF? to be fair how many of these officials actually ref in above average leagues? Also at least the linesman was consistant....yes he was wrong but erred on the side of caution...(tie only goes to the runner in baseball)....In the past the PR forward would not have been calledand he wouldhave scored and we would be more than a bit upset.... Interesting note on this when it comes to officiating. You'll rarely ever see this applied in the MLB, because the umpires there believe they can always hear whether the ball gets there before the runner. To them there are no ties - it's one of those old fashioned matter of pride things I guess. Probably much the same in football, the AR will always believe that one player is ahead of another to prove that he is a "world class" official. Personally I think it's BS, especially nowadays when there's 20 slo mo instant replay angles to prove you wrong afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derofan Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 You bring a very interesting topic here but lets face it if its not working change up. Hart in the interview said that the players were still trying to cross the ball in even when PR were stuffing the box. He said that the players should of tried a different strategy. IMO he is the coach hes the one who has developed this crossing strategy and mindset and imo we will not score unless we play build up down the middle. Its as if he tried to blame the players at 100% saying that they didnt change the strategy when it wasnt working also its as if he non chalantley said oh well we tied but there are still two games I dont sense any urgency in him. What kind of msg does that bring to the players??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Interesting note on this when it comes to officiating. You'll rarely ever see this applied in the MLB, because the umpires there believe they can always hear whether the ball gets there before the runner. To them there are no ties - it's one of those old fashioned matter of pride things I guess. Probably much the same in football, the AR will always believe that one player is ahead of another to prove that he is a "world class" official. Personally I think it's BS, especially nowadays when there's 20 slo mo instant replay angles to prove you wrong afterwards. I've seen it in baseball many times but I prob have a few years on you. The base or player must be tagged BEFORE the runner touches the base. Note that the tie goes to the runner only in the first base situation, all other bases the tie goes to the fielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thescottc Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I've seen it in baseball many times but I prob have a few years on you. The base or player must be tagged BEFORE the runner touches the base. Note that the tie goes to the runner only in the first base situation, all other bases the tie goes to the fielder. All I know is when the manager comes out to argue a safe call at first the ump never says "it was a tie", he'll say the runner touched the bag first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Employees rarely do exactly what they are instructed to do. There are any number of reasons for this: lack of trust in the "boss", disagreement with the strategy, their own belief that an alternative strategy is better or a misunderstanding of what was being sked of them are just a few of them. Hart indicated that he had told the players to pursue a different stategy at half time. They didn't. I don't agree that Hart is of the level required to be a national team coach. Perhaps, with time and expereince - something he isn't going to get in Canada unfortunately (excellent series on coaching by Ben Knight on CSN that should be required reading IMO) - but given the nature of the relationship - the players are not employees and he has little control over their economic livlihood and realisitcally he can't dangle a WC - calling out the players may be the only way by which they become accountable. We need corrections fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbrad Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 You bring a very interesting topic here but lets face it if its not working change up. Hart in the interview said that the players were still trying to cross the ball in even when PR were stuffing the box. He said that the players should of tried a different strategy. IMO he is the coach hes the one who has developed this crossing strategy and mindset and imo we will not score unless we play build up down the middle. Its as if he tried to blame the players at 100% saying that they didnt change the strategy when it wasnt working also its as if he non chalantley said oh well we tied but there are still two games I dont sense any urgency in him. What kind of msg does that bring to the players??? Actually Hart said that he instructed players to cross the ball in when the up the middle strategy failed.... The players kept trying to move it through the middle... I tend to agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.