P/I/P: Match 3, Revs @ TOR, 3/17, 7:30PM (ET) [R]

Discussion in 'New England Revolution' started by NFLPatriot, Mar 14, 2019.

  1. tsb11

    tsb11 Member+

    United States
    May 31, 2018
    especially in the .2s it takes for the ball to hit him. The offside player is farther from delamea than delamea is from the initial spot of the ball
     
  2. Revs In First :)

    Aug 15, 2001
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So I think we all agree the rule is stupid. But this element is dealt with in the rule.

    “A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.”

    The Revs have benefited from the rule in the past:
    https://matchcenter.sportingkc.com/...-vs-sporting-kansas-city/details/video/151094
    https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...-revolution-vs-toronto-fc/details/video/28330

    The rule even reared its ugly head in the Premier League recently
    https://sports.yahoo.com/man-city-awarded-controversial-goal-183719269.html

    So the rule is dumb, but the real issue is the fact that we're not good enough right now.
     
  3. rkupp

    rkupp Member+

    Jan 3, 2001
    The requirements to determine whether a defender is "playing the ball" just show how over-engineered and ridiculous the rule is.

    This is a game that owed a lot of it's beauty to the common-sense and simple rules, 'advantage' rule and allowing referees to apply judgement. They are legislating all that out of the game, making it like basketball, which, not only allows, but encourages intentionally fouling to prevent scoring.

    If we allowed the referee to use his judgement about whether that was a fair play, I don't think we'd be discussing this now. Once he had to consult the fine print of the rules, his hands were tied.
     
    swedust, a517dogg and A Casual Fan repped this.
  4. Jon Martin

    Jon Martin Member+

    Apr 25, 2000
    SE Mass
    I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Delamea may have attempted to play the ball, but he was unsuccessful in doing so. The ball clearly deflected off his leg.
     
    swedust repped this.
  5. A Casual Fan

    A Casual Fan Member+

    Mar 22, 2000
    I admit I have lost track of how much weight the concept of "involved in the play" still holds in this neo-offsides landscape. Is it at least as large a consideration as is the defender's "intent to play the ball"?

    >> It seems cut-and-dry to me that in this case, Chapman was "involved" in the play, as the pass from Akinola was intended for him and him only - and he and TFC gained a large benefit from being in the offside position. ​

    In fact, the presence of a TFC player behind him was possibly the only reason Tony even tried to stop the pass

    >> Tony instead may have let the pass run, and instead relied on Knighton to scoop up the ball if there was no TFC player behind him.​

    It seems that in this case the whole point that Chapman being very much "involved in the play" as the sole cause of the defender needing to make play on the ball - well, that whole part of the equation seems to have been overlooked/ignored/discarded from consideration by Unkel and subsequently was not even referenced by the recent followup comments from PRO.

    Maybe my understanding hasn't kept up with the times. This seems a major change - the fact that the involvement in the play is no longer(?) a factor, or has at least become a far secondary consideration in applying the law correctly.

    (Revs need to be better. This call isn't on its own enough to hang the loss on.)
     
  6. NFLPatriot

    NFLPatriot Member+

    Jun 25, 2002
    Foxboro, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ask the Ref with Peter Walton
    "They got it absolutely right."

    Stay to the end, where Steve Nicol rants about how stupid the rule is.
     
  7. rkupp

    rkupp Member+

    Jan 3, 2001
    I'll nitpick on that - yes, they need to be better, but I think they deserved at least a point from this one.
    To me, it's just poor refereeing. He should have considered intent/advantage, etc. and just blown the whistle. It's akin to giving a penalty to someone inches into the area in a non-scoring situation.

    By becoming so by-the-book, the game is going down a bad road, that it won't be able to return from. Rules lead to more rules. The NFL and NBA and MLB should be cautionary tales. Every year the NFL revises "what is a catch" and strays further and further from the spectator view and common sense.
     
  8. A Casual Fan

    A Casual Fan Member+

    Mar 22, 2000
    Optical sensors and AI algorithms analyzing every millisecond of play and making all violation/no violation determinations on each play seems like one possible direction this could go.

    The referees will be replaced by system architects who analyze each game only after it is over to determine where to tighten or loosen the nanoprecision settings of Skyref.
     
  9. swedust

    swedust Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    Ha ha ^^^^ "Skyref" -- very good!

    Also want to second the point of how dangerous rule-making can get, as w/NFL catch rule or NBA foul calls.

    I have long been arguing with my hoop friends that what the NBA needs is to empower its refs to use judgement (as with soccer) rather than trying to maintain the illusion that they are neutral arbiters of black-and-white decisions (like who is fouling whom on a drive to the lane). But that's an argument for a different forum....
     
    rkupp and A Casual Fan repped this.

Share This Page