DeRo_Is_King Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said: It further helps Honduras because it prevents FG from gifting Costa Rica with another 3-0 win. Nothing new there. I love how FG also has to pay a fine. Where's the money going? To CONCACRAP, which is to blame for this whole mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, theaub said: They did that in Copa America last year and it seemed the players liked it, so I'm not surprised it made its away across. Doesn't make it any less of a farce though. Realistically it helps the weaker teams so I find it tough to be too mad about it. Hmm, I didn't realize they did it last year. I looked it up and they didn't even have the double header excuse that I presumed was the reason for it. I still hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRo_Is_King Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 37 minutes ago, ob1 said: I'm not worried about us, we'll take care of the bizo Love the optimism. With all the injustices (a suspect ruling, expected Honduran embellishment, poor officiating), a win today will be a great sign that Canada is turning the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaub Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 I went to the Peru/Colombia QF and Peru just bunkered for 90 minutes to force a shootout. It has the NHL-esque effect of causing the weaker team to just sit back and pray for a shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zem Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Gopherbashi said: Hypothetical and irrelevant but kind of relevant question here: If FG were to formally declare independence from France (and became a FIFA country), would Malouda be able to play for them? Or would he still be locked in to France? How has this worked in the past with countries declaring independence? Players who are eligible would be allowed to make a one-time switch to the new country. If FG simply became a FIFA-sanctioned country while remaining a French overseas territory (which would require a change in FFF policy) I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but it'd likely be the same only with the additional eligibility rules regarding overseas territories. 1 hour ago, BrennanFan said: I don't know how FIFA player eligibility rules can prevent Malouda from playing if French Guiana is not a FIFA member. Really, no French Guiana player is eligible under FIFA rules as none of them have a French Guiana passport, etc. Concacaf now has ruled on a fantasy, theoretical basis: IF French Guiana was a FIFA member and was subject to their rules, then Malouda wouldn't be able to play for them, so he can't play for them now. Insane. 1 hour ago, DeRo_Is_King said: Agreed. It makes no sense to issue a suspension. He is either ineligible or eligible - allowed to be on the roster or not. Period. 3 hours ago, dyslexic nam said: Awarding a similar scoreline to the other 3 members of our group, to counter the idea that FG gets to allocate a 3-0 win at their discretion. Letting the on-field result stand since CONCACAF did nothing whatsoever to actually prevent the event from occurring. CONCACAF actually preventing the event from occurring by simply not allowing Malouda on the field (if they have the power to now suspend him for 2 games, why the fuck wouldn't they just ban him before the game?). I am sure there are others, but I can't bother at this point - too annoyed at this outcome. Maybe there is no ideal solution at this point - but there were ways to avoid this in the build up. Bottom line is that FG got to hand out a 3-0 win, at their discretion. The idea that a regional minnow can do this in our regional championship, and that our governing body was unwilling to do anything to prevent it (while knowing well in advance about the possibility) is laughable. That is functionally incorrect- it is not CONCACAF's or FIFA's or any other continental governing body's business to babysit teams with regards to national team eligibility. The rules are available to all teams and it is their job to follow them or face punishment. Governing bodies do not have the legal authority to stop teams from naming any person to a team or to stop those players from taking the field and they can't just arbitrarily suspend players because they might break the rules. FG seems to have been frustrated and/or confused because non-FIFA continentally-sanctioned teams are normally subject to a FIFA rule that allows players who are cap-tied to a FIFA nation to play for a non-santioned nation if they haven't been called up by their FIFA nation in 5 years. Malouda meets the FIFA rule, but the Gold Cup's rules are more strict and apply the same eligibility standard for cap-tied players to all teams in the tournament. They apparently were confusing FIFA's rule, which is a privilege given to teams like FG, for a right to use players like Malouda so long as they fulfill FIFA's requirements, which it is not. CONCACAF cannot break the FIFA rule by allowing cap-tied players who have been selected by FIFA sanctioned teams less then 5 years ago to appear, but they are more than within their rights to make eligibility rules stricter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 I wonder how El Salvador will feel if Canada and Honduras draw tonight and this ultimately knocks them out as one of the top 3rd place teams (following their own draw with Jamaica on the last day). I believe Honduras and El Salvador fought a war over soccer many years back.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 So I haven't seen any mention on whether Alvarado, who would have been suspended for yellow accumulation, is available to play tonight or not. Are we to assume the yellows in the forfeited match stand? Or are they all stricken from the record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Gian-Luca said: It further helps Honduras because it prevents FG from gifting Costa Rica with another 3-0 win. Really makes you wonder what was actually in those brown envelopes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Zem said: Players who are eligible would be allowed to make a one-time switch to the new country. If FG simply became a FIFA-sanctioned country while remaining a French overseas territory (which would require a change in FFF policy) I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but it'd likely be the same only with the additional eligibility rules regarding overseas territories. That is functionally incorrect- it is not CONCACAF's or FIFA's or any other continental governing body's business to babysit teams with regards to national team eligibility. The rules are available to all teams and it is their job to follow them or face punishment. Governing bodies do not have the legal authority to stop teams from naming any person to a team or to stop those players from taking the field and they can't just arbitrarily suspend players because they might break the rules. FG seems to have been frustrated and/or confused because non-FIFA continentally-sanctioned teams are normally subject to a FIFA rule that allows players who are cap-tied to a FIFA nation to play for a non-santioned nation if they haven't been called up by their FIFA nation in 5 years. Malouda meets the FIFA rule, but the Gold Cup's rules are more strict and apply the same eligibility standard for cap-tied players to all teams in the tournament. They apparently were confusing FIFA's rule, which is a privilege given to teams like FG, for a right to use players like Malouda so long as they fulfill FIFA's requirements, which it is not. CONCACAF cannot break the FIFA rule by allowing cap-tied players who have been selected by FIFA sanctioned teams less then 5 years ago to appear, but they are more than within their rights to make eligibility rules stricter. It is CONCACAF's tournament, and it serves as its regional championship. They should be able to prevent teams from compromising the integrity of the competition by fielding players that they have been told are ineligible, thereby intentionally and knowingly forfeiting games that differentially advantage certain teams. In a regional championship tournament, giving a specific country (especially pseudo nations that are there in essentially an invitational capacity) the functional ability to award points to competing nations in your regional championship is ludicrous. And for the record, a suspension (or preventative ban) wouldn't have been "arbitrary" - it would be directly related to the player's intelligibility, which CONCACAF had informed FG about prior to the game. Maybe that doesn't make sense from a rule book perspective, but to be honest I sincerely don't give a shit. The actions of FG, and the inaction of CONCACAF, have made our region's top tournament a joke. At some point, the rule book needs to be signal checked with common sense, and in this case, it fails that very basic test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unnamed Trialist Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 2 hours ago, killgod said: May have been posted in this thread, haven't been following. Did anyone else know this? Knockout stage In the quarter-finals and semi-finals, if a match is tied after 90 minutes extra time is not played, and the match is decided by a penalty shoot-out. In the final, if a match is tied after 90 minutes extra time is played, where each team is allowed to make a fourth substitution. If still tied after extra time, the match is decided by a penalty shoot-out. Did not know about this. I believe the rule was also to only have three shooters, in one version of this rule to abbreviate games. And then go to the same system as after 5 traditionally. Fourth substitution is actually a good rule, IMO, it can help make those extra periods more interesting. Otherwise teams bunker because they have guys playing hurt or physically not at 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaub Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Just go all out, wheel out the temp nets and have them play half field sixes in extra time IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 4 hours ago, theaub said: I went to the Peru/Colombia QF and Peru just bunkered for 90 minutes to force a shootout. It has the NHL-esque effect of causing the weaker team to just sit back and pray for a shootout. In a Canada-Mexico elimination match, that would be us parking the bus. And I would be all for it too if we won a shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimliJetsMan Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 It seems like most soccer fans are ok with allowing a country to field an ineligible roster and then retroactively punishing that team. I don't get that. It's fine if that's the policy you want, I just disagree. I'm definitely on the side of: If he's ineligible, and you know he's ineligible, don't let him play. If the team refuses to take the field because of that, then have them forfeit. I really don't blame French Guinea for trying to put together the best roster they can. CONCACAF should have prevented them from playing the ineligible player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolbertos Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 5 hours ago, theaub said: I went to the Peru/Colombia QF and Peru just bunkered for 90 minutes to force a shootout. It has the NHL-esque effect of causing the weaker team to just sit back and pray for a shootout. That was Gold Cup 2000. Were you that Canadian fan in the Mexico semifinal that got clobbered by Mexicans? Still remember that moment vividly. Peru had a bad coach at that time and players sucked. Nowadays Peru rarely bunkers and tried to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaub Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 What Peru and Colombia played in the Copa America QF's last year. It was awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolbertos Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 minute ago, theaub said: What Peru and Colombia played in the Copa America QF's last year. It was awful. Ah sorry thought you wer referring to the Gold Cup. Peru played against Colombia then too. The last Copa America was rushed though. Alot of teams brought there B teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 I have the feeling a lot of neutrals are hoping we win for the sake of making this whole issue of the three point, three goal gift to Honduras moot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimliJetsMan Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Also I hate penalty shootouts, so whatever Extra time policy reduces those, I'd be in favour of. Whatever policy increases them, I'd be against. It's the world cup. The biggest and most important footie competition in the world. To have it end on penalties seems so cheap. Lets do a whole lot of extra time, but drastically increase the number of subs allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 2 hours ago, GimliJetsMan said: It seems like most soccer fans are ok with allowing a country to field an ineligible roster and then retroactively punishing that team. I don't get that. It's fine if that's the policy you want, I just disagree. I'm definitely on the side of: If he's ineligible, and you know he's ineligible, don't let him play. If the team refuses to take the field because of that, then have them forfeit. I really don't blame French Guinea for trying to put together the best roster they can. CONCACAF should have prevented them from playing the ineligible player. I ref a youth soccer tournament every year where every team had to show up the day before, present their players' books, and give each player a paper wristband to show that they could play. No wristband = no entering the field. I have faith that one day CONCACAF will discover this incredible technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddoouugg Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 5 hours ago, Kent said: So I haven't seen any mention on whether Alvarado, who would have been suspended for yellow accumulation, is available to play tonight or not. Are we to assume the yellows in the forfeited match stand? Or are they all stricken from the record? the concacaf website has him as having 2 yellows in the stats page right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimliJetsMan Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, GimliJetsMan said: Also I hate penalty shootouts, so whatever Extra time policy reduces those, I'd be in favour of. Whatever policy increases them, I'd be against. It's the world cup. Lets do a whole lot of extra time, but drastically increase the number of subs allowed. The yellow has to stand, under the same principals as if a penalty is committed after a goal is scored, but missed by the ref in hockey, the penalty counts. If you don't give out a yellow, then teams could just murder other players on the pitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpg_29 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 and...Costa Rica up 1-0 three mins in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaub Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 lmao French Guiana are such shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razcal Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 11 minutes ago, theaub said: lmao French Guiana are such shit Tied Honduras though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpg_29 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 9 minutes ago, Razcal said: Tied Honduras though. Hard to know how much effort Honduras put in when they knew it was likely to be ruled a forfeit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.