The only bright spot tonight was Carles Gil and I worry that a few more nights like tonight with "Uncle Ted" calling next to nothing are going to frustrate the crap out of him. Ted Unkle's "foulmeter" was set to 12 on a 1 to 10 scale tonight.
It's Ted Unkle, whose next good game will be his first. How does Teal commit a foul on the keeper when he's being punched in the head? It should have been a no-call as the keeper has a right to punch the ball, but in no way could it have been a foul on Teal. There were also two or three tackles where the ball was totally missed and the plant leg was taken out that are pretty much automatically yellows that weren't called (one wasn't even called a foul). Surprisingly he got the no-offside call right.
I still cant believe toronto's 2nd goal didnt get a VAR review. The guy is 10 ft offsides. "But delamea played it last..." yeah, but he was offside on the initial pass and was in an advantaged position as a result. Thats no goal 10/10, and an extra time on sundays. Not to mention that free kick that toronto got to retake because they didnt connect. Just piss poor officiating of the highest degree. All that said, Bye got a free header in the box in the 82' and put it in the 10th row. Too many players (Delamea, Zahibo, Bye, Teal...) are good enough to have good moments, but are so inconsistent play to play that they look like they shouldn't even be on the field. For every sweet longball zahibo played how many cheap give aways did he make? An dhow after failing to close down in columbus did he let Akinola get the ball in the exact same spot? Its maddening
They did VAR review - through the headsets which they said during the post-game. No monitor probably because the center referee said I saw it touch the opponent (Delema), and the booth confirmed it. So no need to go look at a monitor. The law is then no offsides. Not saying I love that law, but that is the law. Agree on your 2nd paragraph 100%. I would add in the almost free kick goal that Caldwell blocked. How did the Revs even fall for that - it was not that much of a "trick play" - the guy was wide open.
I was wondering that myself. It was a pretty mean tackle from behind in the box with the player going in at the keeper, yet no card of any kind.
Teal played well last night. I hate the chippy way this team plays - which is because we are technically inferior to most other teams. Delamea was hardly playing the ball. Most times he would just grab the Toronto player. It's very ugly to watch.
So let me get this straight. The Revs started 3 DMs (L Caicedo, Zahibo, Caldwell) and STILL gave up 3 goals?
Game 1, 1 goal allowed. Game 2, 2 goals allowed. Game 3, 3 goals allowed. Friedel nailed it last year when he said "Good teams don't lose two games in a row." Ergo, we're not a good team. The more things change, the more the Revs suck.
Caldwell – good player, too slow for this level of play Zahibo – for every 1 great pass he has, he has 3 giveaways Bye – Step below Farrell defensively which is scary Teal – good first half , marked out of the game the second half Diego – could not tell he was on the field, he is a not a forward so why play him there? Delemea – not good enough Mancienne – Not good enough Castillo – wants to be a midfielder , gets caught up field too often Agudelo - waste of 600k all day and all night
Wait till text week.... Were going to get blown out. Not only are we not a good team, we stink. How's those signings going Burns? We are now tied in Pts for last in the East. We could own that after the next few games. What the Hell is wrong with the Krafts? This constant cellar dweller standing IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Cant they see its not the coach? That moron thats signing the crappy players is not doing a good job.... fire his ass NOW
So, you know how when a goalie makes a save (intentionally playing the ball) and it deflects to an opponent? How if the opponent is offside on the shot they're still offside after the save? Same rule applies here. Its refereeing 101
Exactly. Chapman was a mile offsides when his teammate passed him the ball. Delamea only hacked at it because Chapman was behind him - therefore Chapman was influencing the play while in an offsides position. If you can be actively offsides simply by being in the goalie's field of vision, then of course Chapman should have been called offsides as well.
Who was that? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I suspect you're referring to me - and if so, you're taking it out of context. I am probably not up-to-date on all the nuances of the current offsides rule, but if that was the correct interpretation, then the rule is #'ed up. So, if the player attempts to play the ball, that nullifies the offsides? What do they want/expect the defender to do? That was such a stupid application of the rule, it makes no sense in terms of the way the game is played and called. Have they NFL'ized the FIFA rulebook, where every fix breaks something else? The Revs never had close to control of the ball and Toronto is rewarded for violating the intent of the offside rule. Ridiculous. --------------------------------------- - it is maddening to see the Revs give up the late goal (and to give up 2 goals with such little resistance), but overall I think this was a much improved performance over games 1 and 2. AFAIC, we played Toronto even-up on their field. - Delamea had a horror game. He couldn't seem to defend 1v1 without holding/grabbing/wrestling and looked like a matador on goal #1 - letting the attacker walk right by him because he had no confidence in defending without fouling. Anibaba, get ready to go in ... - Castillo had some great opportunities to shoot when cutting inside, yet always chose to pass off. - Still waiting to see Castillo play up to his pedigree. Is it Friedel's instructions that are messing him up? - Good to see L. Caicedo back, but I'd rather see him in dmid than wing. - First look at Caicedo-dos, but not enough to see what he can do. Hardly touched the ball, committed one regrettable foul - that refereeing was horrendous, and not just the offsides. His calls were guesses all over the field, letting too much go, then calling too much. Just a travesty. Zahibo's yellow?
I sort of agree with this. I left with the sense that the team demonstrated improvement, and can probably improve further, though probably not fast enough for most of us. It's not going to result in W's unless the defense is fixed, or at least better protected by the CMs.
That offsides goal was pure bs. Terrible interpretation of that rule. Gil is pure class. Whoever made that signing deserves applause. But MLS refs will not protect him. I hope he can get up to speed on the MLS gladiatorial style of play before he winds up on the injured list.
Its too bad he can buy a foul, meanwhile Zahibo got a yellow for following through on a pass he made. Madness
It may in the end have had no bearing on the outcome - ....but, I am still wondering why the Mavinga takedown on Teal wasn't at least a yellow card, if not a red? I watched it many many times on DVR in slo-mo - it's a tackle from behind, no play on the ball, possibly a DOGSO. >> Do the refs just forget, at least partially, how to apply the laws when stuff happens in the box? It is even more mystifying than is the offside non-call (i.e., the applicable rule is much clearer than the offside rule nuance) One could argue it could have had similar impact on the game as the offside goal: the right call would've resulted in - The PK (as given) for the Revs AND - TFC down a man for 80'+
Warshaw gives a detailed explanation of the offside goal here, calling it "the most controversial call of the weekend". Skip ahead to 6:48: Rarely used offside rule comes into play in Week 3 | Instant Replay March 18, 2019, 2:19PM EDT
Stupid rule. FIFA has turned the game into "beat-the-offside-trap". They encourage shenanigans like hanging offsides and getting lost until the play advances past you. If their goal was to require defenders to have eyes in the backs of their heads, they've succeeded. Seriously, what should Delamea have done there?
Well, I'd say he should have played the ball with his left foot instead of his right, so that he could have controlled it and kept it from going past him. Easier said than done, I know. But going to his left, his left foot was deeper, which would have given him a split second longer to get it behind the ball. Plus, he would have had the inside of his left foot, instead of the outside of his right. I agree, the rule is stupid. But just like the tuck rule, you still have to play by it until they change it.
to use his left he has to use his right as his plant foot in stead of his left. That means he cant reach for it as far
If he had just let the pass go it would have been called offside. That is a tough decision to make though.