Post-match: Vancouver Whitecaps FC - San Jose Earthquakes (Sunday, 7/22) postgame thread [R]

I get paid by the word. ;^)

 

Nice job again, hc. I'm a little surprised that you found that the midfield players more or less stuck to their position. What was that analysis based on, out of curiosity?

One of the things I wished the Quakes would more of when a home team comes out flying like Vancouver did is to pull in the reigns a bit. Slow the game down with some possession oriented play. It was the same thing in the game against NY. They came out under siege and I just wanted them to slow the game down with some possession play.

 

They're anything but neutral. Ref apologist are the only ones that could dream up using the euphemism "gutsy" for "stupid" and "courageous" to mean "not only stupid but wrong."

 

Same way as usual. I've watched the game a few times and picked through the stats that OPTA recorded. One thing I've learned in doing this is that camera angles make keeping track of formations and players a difficult task at times. I wish I could just get one wide shot from the middle of the field.

I think Dawkins' tendency to play forward and into the middle meant giving less freedom to players like Baca and Chavez. If you look at their distribution and heat maps, Baca in particular covered much less ground than we've seen him cover in the previous games. Chavez and Dawkins also didn't really swap sides the way Chavez and Salinas often do, and it probably made the team a little more predictable.

I'm with you on this one. They do it a little bit, but the majority of the time they just put the pedal down and go for goal. I think that's been part of the reason the passing in the final third has been less than stellar. I've also noticed, though, that when the Quakes do tone things down and pass the ball around a little bit, they kind of run out of ideas and stop making runs. Then they play it back and try to recreate the breakaway. It's pretty interesting. There's very little setting up around the 18 and passing it around until finding a way through.

 

And I'd be remiss if I didn't say thanks for reading. I definitely appreciate it.

 

I keep seeing people argue that the ball is too far away for Camillo. Just a reminder, that's not a qualification of the Laws of the Game. The ball could've been 100 yards away, as long as it is in play if you trip a player in your own box it's a penalty kick. There is no qualification for the ball being near the play, just that it is in play.

So if this is seen as a foul, but any of the referees and the Center Referee accepts that decision, it is a penalty kick.

 

No, it's merely the standard by which every ref in this league, the EPL, La Liga, Serie A, etc, etc, etc, etc has determined PKs for the last 10 years. But it was a dive anyway.

 

Generally I like the pedal to the metal approach, but when you are losing control of the game, I think slowing down the game with some more conservative possession play is a good way to get your bearings. But, yeah, they are not good at creating chances from that. They don't look like Spain, let's put it that way. Usually it's some passing between midfielders and back line, and it often winds up going all the back to Busch for a long boot :--(. But even in that case it might be OK in these types of situations.

 

I haven't seen an angle to convince me either way, if it's a dive it's a dive.

I've seen it happen on many many occasions were the ball is not within reach or is obviously going out of bounds and the penalty is called. This is because the Laws of the Game do not specify where the ball must be for a foul to occur. Furthermore none of the instructions, or papers, or memos from FIFA or USSF back up what you are saying. So where are you getting the idea that this is the standard? It's certainly not from any FIFA I've refereed with in this country, who are referees in the MLS.

The question about this is why did Marrufo say that this wasn't a foul, and then accept the ARs view of it being a foul. That's a different question than the bottom line of is the call correct or not. If anything it's terrible mechanics and it brings into question if Marrufo simply wasn't sure and it was reacting strongly to try and stifle dissent, or he knows that he was wrong and the AR bailed him out. That's something we'll probably never know but I do know the Assessor of this game definitely took a good 30 minutes going over the tape with both of the referees and hammering them on why this play went the way it did.

You are a Moderator KMJvet so I believe you would be able to critically think about this in a fair way. Can you see yourself getting upset if this call was say against your player and did not get called? Could you see yourself going "It doesn't matter where the ball is, it's a foul, even the Laws of the Game say so" or would you accept the decision?

 

Yes, we did get an off the ball penalty kick on Seattle earlier this year.

 

Errr, that is never Okay and should be fined by the FO...

Everytime a Busch hoofs a ball that ends up in the opposing team's possession, fines should be levied to the outside back(s) who do not show, to Busch if he has an option for a carpet passs to an outside back who shows and to each individual player who connects a pass that ends up to Busch if it started from the our attacking half...

 

Well, then there would be many fines levied over the last several years. It's not something that you want to see normally, but in certain conditions - when the opponent has you off balance, and is going high pressure, and you need to get your bearings I don't mind seeing it. I would consider that to be a "special case", and there are only a few times this year that I think it might have been warranted, generally the early parts of a few road games. And really the point is the holding of possession, not the boot back to the keeper.

 

You mean the one where the Seattle defender (if not their fans) admitted the.trip?

If this happened to my team i wouldnt expect a penalty, because if you watch a lot of soccer you see refs' non call based on scoring opp.
But this isnt a penalty worthy of complaint imho.

 

The behavior of other referees at this level. It's exactly why Salazar didn't call the foul when Marquez pile drove Salinas to the ground, broke his collar bone in 3 places, and kicked him in the head for good measure. Nelson Rodriquez asked Salazar why he didn't call it...didn't see it? Salazar's answer was that he saw it and didn't call it because he doesn't want to give a PK for that sort of foul in the box, i.e. because Salinas wouldn't otherwise have a been able to play the ball.

No.

Ten years ago, yes. Now, I've have come around to the fact all but the most clear cut PKs are just not given if the player has no chance to get the ball such as when it's going to be a red card for deliberate elbow.

 

I think everyone's aware of that. The thing is, every call requires judgement from the official and it's sometimes difficult to determine to tell who, if anyone, created illegal contact. Thus the referee has to look at context for help. If an attacker (and defender) are aware that the ball is unreachable that changes the math on the probability of simulation.

In this case, it's clear from the replay that Cronin pulled back both of his feet (his studs are visible from the back), and the only remaining possible point of contact is the left knee. Furthermore, Camillo's right leg clearly ends up in an unnatural position given the play. It seems clear who, once the ball was gone, sought the contact.

 

Yes, the one where Burch stuck his leg out and gave Lenny a little push. 98% of the time stuff like that isn't called.

 

I think if that hadn't been called, exactly 0 posters on this board would have complained that we didn't get the pen.

 

If Maruffo had called it immediately, I wouldn't have had a problem with the call. Cronin lunging with a player moving forward, doesn't get the ball, and appears to make contact. Similar to the PK in Colorado on Gordan which went our way, it could have gone either way. I have seen similar plays be no calls and some which were PKs.

My problem was the delay in the call and the apparent change in mind based upon the linesman who wasn't in position to make the call. The linesman should have kept the flag down and the center shouldn't have changed his mind.

 

I just re-watched Cronin dive in, miss the ball, & make contact with Camilo.

 

Just re-watched the highlight .. Cronin needs to trust his team mates! If Camillo takes a bad 2nd touch then Busch and/or Jason could make the play.

slightly off topic .. why was Jason playing so far back i.e., keeping Mattocks on side? There was a (poor) clearance but the back line did not push up. IMO, Jason is way too deep on that play.

 

Camilo doesn't fall on his knee. He protects them by turning his body & falling on his left hip.

 

There's no angle that shows definitively whether Cronin touched him or not.

What is clear is that neither foot touches him. Cronin's left foot is tucked under his body, and he clearly plants his right foot to abort the sweep of his leg. He then loses his balance due to the harsh stop and falls forward and to the left. The only possible point of contact is the knee.

Camillo keeps his right foot planted on the ground, even though there is no possible contact with his foot that would trap it on the ground. The only possible contact is with his upper leg (from the knee), contact that would have sent his right leg spinning outward and upward. If Camillo were actually trying to protect his right knee, he would allow (and ecourage) his right foot to fly into the air.

Thus Camillo is at the very least embellishing if not simulating, and certainly not protecting himself.

Btw, if you watch the full game on mlssoccer, they show a slow motion replay from behind the goal. You still can't tell if there's contact, but you can very clearly see Cronin trying to avoid him.

 

He doesn't know it's going to be a bad touch until he starts his slide. When he sees it's unreachable he tries to pull out of the tackle.

That's a good point. It certainly seems possible Camillo would have been offside had Jason maintained the line. Mattocks was still well offside regardless, so it wasn't a blunder in that sense.