Post-match: San Jose Earthquakes - Minnesota United FC (Saturday, 3/3) postgame thread [R]

By that logic, any decision the ref or VAR makes doubt creep for corruption.

 

Huh?

What does that have to do with whether a goal was scored or not, the first of circumstances of potential clear error?

 

That's the trouble with corruption, isn't it.

 

Yeah, goalie criticism always seems to be greater when they give up a goal near post. A goal to the far post is nearly always called, "a well-placed shot", and the keeper, "didn't have a chance".

 

David Bingham gave up his goal right between his legs on the near post last Sunday. Stuff happens.

 

One last thought on Tarbell - at least I don't think I've said this in this thread...His decisions on crosses in his box were scary. He was especially at fault in giving up the corner late in the game on a ball that was already inches from the goal line with slight pressure but no angle to threaten. I love him coming off the line, he stays big and almost always gets a piece of the ball, and his reflexes and diving saves are great aspects of his game. But it's just a matter of time before other teams see enough gaffes and change their tactics accordingly. Overall, in a series of drills, that worked on a variety of skills, (again I really like the new goalkeeping coach) even though it was a small sample size, I really liked what I saw in Marcinkowski. Parts of Andrew's game impress, but I see too many flaws to be the long term solution for us...

 

This is the problem the Quakes seem to be having right now on defense. They are setting up in a "two lines of 4" bunker and guys are just sitting in-between the lines, in the cat-bird seat, and getting free looks. Here is Molino moments before he scored the 2nd goal. This is actually a line of 3 and a line of 5 because Lima is pushed up. But the point is that Molino is just parked between the lines. He receives the ball and just turns and shoots with little to no pressure.

The first goal was similar, except that Molino made a move in and to the right after receiving the ball in the "soft space". And there was another one that was a miracle it wasn't a goal where he was again sitting in the same spot, in front of the back line, which was very deep, and hit a one-time volley off of a cross from the right. That was extremely close to being the 1st goal, which would have made Minnesota's last goal the tying one.

 

That still image shows that there are three opposing players in front of the ball and three Quakes defenders "marking" them. The problem is that Ockford allows for Molina to occupy the "soft space", receive, the ball, then being allowed to turn with the ball, take a few steps east and get off a shot. If Ockford (and to a lesser extent a gassed Godoy) does his job right and sticks tightly to Molina then the Most likely scenario you have is Molina is forced to play the ball back to one of the mids behind him.

I blame this most on a lack of communication in this instance. Cummings as the central defender has to tell Ockford to sick tighter on Molina while Lima is moving into the 16-yard box to occupy the space where Ockford was and Thompson sticking with the left full back along the left flank like he is doing.

Also, when you watch the whole play and pay attention to Godoy in particular, you'll see that he is just ball watching and not making any effort to track back as he is gassed by this point. Stahre should have subbed him off earlier instead of Vako.

 

Yeah, and if you watch the other goal, and the other great chance I mentioned, it is the same pattern. Guys sitting in that in-between space essentially unmarked. Having watched how those other plays develop I think the biggest problem is the CM's not tracking runners from the midfield, Godoy in particular.

But you bring up a good point about communication. With Flo no longer on the back line, who is organizing? I guess it would have to be Cummings since he is the most experienced, even when Quintana is in there.

 

Which of these does it fall under?

"VAR’s job is to check for a potential clear error or a serious missed incident in four (4) match-changing situations: (1) goals, (2) penalty kicks, (3) straight red cards and (4) cases of mistaken identity. These are the only reviewable plays in a match.

 

If Mr. Soria improves his writing I will read his articles. Until then, I won't.

 

Unless you read them how will you know if it improves or not?

 

Ned forwards them to me, and I promptly delete after attempting to read the first, unintelligible sentence.

 

But it's good that he's doing it. If he improves his writing, his audience will grow.

 

(2) penalty kicks

 

Re: Molino

Godoy's lack of awareness creates the initial problem for Ockford.

Ockford played Molino way too conservative, possibly from being new to the level of play and lacking enough confidence to quickly race to close the shot. Every defender knows you have to close a shot near the box if you're the closest defender with an angle on the shooter...you don't need an invitation. Imo, it wasn't a lack of awareness...he just looked a little timid...for fear of putting himself in a vulnerable position to get beat and look bad in his MLS debut. Imo, he played it safe and it backfired.

 

Thing is, Molino was open in that gap between mids and defenders 3 times, 2 of them goals and one a very near goal. I'd have to watch again but I think the biggest recurring problem was lack of tracking from midfield.

 

There was no foul called therefore no determination if it deserved a PK or not. i.e. was it inside or outside of the box.

 

And arguably the no foul call was clear error, which warranted reconsideration.

The Velo play disclosed a defect in the VAR system. Velo was right to gesticulate for VAR, should have obtained a review, and arguably LAFC should have received a PK as a result. There is no getting around this.

The ref may or may not have botched the initial no-call, but he sure as heck botched the review. It would be a much bigger deal if it had ultimately impacted the outcome of the match.

 

I am pretty sure that during the Quakes game Toledo twice received info from the VAR crew when Minnesota players made shouts for a penalty. One was on a potential handball by the Quakes, and I think the other was on a challenge for the ball in the box. Toledo did not call a foul on either, yet it appeared he was waiting, (with his hand to his ear) for confirmation from the VAR crew that he made the right (non)call. How was that different from a player taken down on the edge of the box, with shouts for a penalty?

 

Thought I would post this here, because it provides a really good view of the play in question (which to me, is a clear foul, and either in the area or on the line (which is part of the penalty area):

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018...r-offside-velas-pk-shout-valid-instant-replay

FYI, video review is NOT supposed to override the referee's judgement. Let's not make it like NHL, where the "war room" has the power to do so. It would slow the game down and is not necessary. We have to realize that referees are humans and WILL make mistakes. It is part of the game, and all of those up in arms tell me this: How many players have a "perfect" game where every touch is golden, every pass connects, and every shot scores? If we accept that players make mistakes, why is it so impossible to accept the fact that referees do, too?

 

No way! F@#$ el-lay! They never, ever deserve penalty kicks!!

It's arguable, for sure. Looks to me like contact initiated outside the box. The defender was entirely outside the box the whole time, so how could the foul have occurred inside the box? (On a fourth or fifth look, yeah, I could see that being a penalty. But F@#$ el-lay anyway.) Also, from that angle, could the foul (it was clearly a foul) have prevented a goal scoring opportunity? Did Vela have open dudes in the box he could have passed to? (I'm not clear on this point, I'd have to watch it again.)

In any case, it should have been called a foul and then possibly reviewed for a possible PK.

Go Quakes!!
F@#$ el-lay!!

- Mark

 

I think because life is generally unfair, sports have referees specifically to make them fair. It's the one place that we can and should expect fairness, so many of us get our undies in a twist when we think the refs are not being fair.

Yeah, the refs are human. It's a brutally hard job, especially given that the pros try to cheat. We should be more tolerant. But we aren't.

Go Quakes!!
F@#$ el-lay!!

- Mark

 

What is VAR supposed to do if not potentially override the referee's judgment? If we are not going to potentially override the referee's on-field judgment, we should do away with video review altogether.

If we are going to have video review, then we need diffused responsibility. If the judicial system made a ruling appealable only to the judge who made it, and only on that judge's own say so, the system would collapse under its own weight or under insurrection from the masses.

As for accepting the fallibility of human judgment, I return to my initial point about doing away with video review altogether.