US-Costa Rica, the snow (R): FIFA ruling: the result stands!

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by DIMITAR BERBATOV!, Mar 23, 2013.

  1. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    The surface was covered in choppy snow, with line markings covered, and very poor visibility (including for the referee). Soccer is not american football. The ball is played on the surface, just like hockey. A surface like that makes it relatively impossible to pass the ball, just like an Outdoor Classic where the ice is not holding frozen.

    Whether or not the conditions were unplayable is a debatable point, but the notion that you just play soccer regardless of the elements is not true. Soccer is a lot more like baseball than american football in that sense.
     
  2. Chastaen

    Chastaen Member+

    Alavés
    Jul 9, 2004
    Winnipeg
    Club:
    Aston Villa FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Which is a very good point(or several) for people to focus on.

    • Games have been played, and postponed, in the snow.
    • The decision to play, or postpone, is up to the official on the field once the game is started.
    • The issue is visibility and condition of the pitch.
    • The official's job is to, from a neutral standpoint and representative of FIFA, determine if the condition of the pitch and visibility is sufficient in his opinion without impacting his ability to officiate the game.

    Pretty sure he decided to continue the game, as he didnt stop it. Which would satisfy the points.
     
    WrmBrnr repped this.
  3. dwsmith1972

    dwsmith1972 BigSoccer Supporter

    May 11, 2007
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A debate about knowledge of rules and Costa Ricans? Has someone made the requisite Roy Miller joke yet? If not, insert Roy Miller joke here....

    Still upset about that...

    If the US is lucky, Roy Miller was part of the working group that drafted the protest documents.
     
    Berks, billf, Geneva and 1 other person repped this.
  4. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Indeed.

    Agreed. And this is not a court proceeding. We're talking about a freakin' soccer match, and yet people are expecting players and coaches to held to the standards of practicing lawyers. Why? Because a bunch of US fans have a chip on their shoulder about years of "mistreatment" playing at the Azteca and Saprissa and so they're now looking for technicalities over protocols that are fairly irrelevant in practice.

    True enough. At minimum, they're a best practice. But was the US actually harmed if the CR coach complained to the referee and Klinsmann, but the CR captain failed to stand in front of Dempsey and make a complaint? Or if some paperwork wasn't filed in the locker room?

    The US may have the better position on the merits in this instance, but it's bush league for US fans to be hiding behind protocols that have no substantive impact here.

    This whole debate reminds me of the time the MISL made the San Diego Sockers and MN Strikers redo their finals match because SD didn't fill out the form for their PK takers.

    If Klinsmann was informed, then I'd think that eliminates any prejudice.
     
  5. onefineesq

    onefineesq Member+

    Sep 16, 2003
    Laurel, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Just stop. I'm a lawyer who goes out on hearings all the time. And when I go to them, since I can't absolute memorize every minute detail of the voluminous regulations and laws, I (gasp) carry the relevant statutes, rules and regulation with me. That's what a prepared person does. If you choose not to prepare yourself, that's not the fault of someone else. I can't stand up in court and tell a judge I need a continuance because I don't know the relevant wording in the Administrative Procedure Act. I better damn well have it with me, plus the laws relevant to the charges that we are bringing against the defendant. And I guarantee you what I have to bring is much more involved than the FIFA regs. This argument of yours is plain silly. It's simple to have a copy of a document just in case. It's not brain surgery.
     
    WrmBrnr, cnaw, Craig P and 1 other person repped this.
  6. Statman

    Statman Member+

    May 25, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is FIFA so who the hell knows what they are going to do?

    It seems like to me that the Costa Ricas don't have a leg to stand on, but I also thought FIFA would give the US a fair shot at hosting the 2018 or 2022 World Cups.
     
  7. Dr. Gamera

    Dr. Gamera Member+

    Oct 13, 2005
    Wheaton, Maryland
    Watch and learn. This doesn't even show the worst of it.
     
  8. Etienne_72772

    Etienne_72772 Member+

    Oct 14, 1999
    Then why have the procedures? And in the detail that is presented? It seems laughable to me that FIFA institutes these procedures and then ignores them when push comes to shove.

    You are right, this is not a court of law, it is international soccer - much more important. ;)

    And what the hell. What am I doing arguing with nameless people on the internet, when I could be arguing with my opposing counsel or my clients, and getting paid for it!? Back to billing...
     
    WrmBrnr repped this.
  9. FW__

    FW__ Member+

    Jun 23, 2006
    Chattanooga, TN
    Club:
    Manchester City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And pissing on opposing fans and players is what you do best, but I digress. Overall, this might be the funniest post ever. Maybe Obama should send Dennis Rodman to Costa Rica to smooth out the volatile relationship that now exists between the two nations.
     
  10. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    As noted above, that's a perfectly reasonable standard to apply to practicing lawyers. You're now imputing this requirement on travelling soccer teams? This is silly. Within the entire global WCQ process, there are probably a hundred native languages at issue, and plenty of teams that are on a shoe-string budget. And now you want to ban appeals if some team fails to follow the exact parameters of some specific procedure buried in a FIFA reg. somewhere?

    As I said earlier, the LOTG are meant to be interpreted with common sense. If CR complained to the referee at the time, then the substantive element that the rule here is designed to address is materially satisfied. If not, then they should be out of luck. The heart of the issue is whether the US is prejudiced by them not following these specific procedural hoops. If not, then FIFA should just rule on the merits.
     
  11. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Alright... peace out. Interesting debate, and back to billing. ;)
     
  12. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    You were watching on TV (I presume). You have no idea what the referee's visibility was, nor do you know what the lines looked like. The surface played surprisingly consistently, in stark contrast to the waterlogged pitches we've played on over the years. It played differently, but pretty consistently and predictably.

    It's only like hockey in that one form of passing involves ground-based passing. The surface isn't as integral to soccer as it is hockey. You can look at literally thousands of matches in probably only the last decade that were played in awful conditions.

    What does "relatively impossible" mean?

    You said it was much like baseball. It's nothing like baseball, and soccer is a LOT more akin to American football in what is considered acceptable field conditions. [Personal attack removed by mod.] Please stop.
     
  13. Reccossu

    Reccossu Member+

    Jan 31, 2005
    Birmingham

    And . . .

    What is the downside to CR for their protest? Even if they aren't expecting to win and doing it more for "next time," they only have upside. As far as I know there is no penalty at all for a bogus protest. They complain for free and, being that FIFA is invovled, who knows, they might get lucky.

    I'd say that the US's best chance of getting FIFA to kill this is to say that accepting the petition puts the WC in Qatar in jeopardy.
     
  14. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    I saw the match live when it happened. Putting aside whether the referee should have allowed it to be played, I don't agree that it's comparable. It's a water logged pitch compared to a game where there's heavy snowfall happening during the match, very poor visibility, and a fairly heave accumulation of snow on the pitch (covering most of the lines).

    However, you're missing the point, which is that adverse weather is not a neutral condition in soccer the way it is in the NFL. It's more like baseball, and by the way, I can show you plenty of MLB games where the outfield and warning tracks were as bad as at that Granada match. The fact that play was once allowed to continue in conditions that were borderline doesn't mean soccer is now meant to be played regardless of the elements.
     
  15. Friedel'sAccent

    Friedel'sAccent Member+

    Jul 7, 2006
    Providence, RI
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Folks, make your points, argue if you must, but please steer clear of personal attacks. Thanks very much.
     
  16. Gilmoy

    Gilmoy Member+

    Jun 14, 2005
    Pullman, Washington
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, as your legal counsel, I advise that you send him a bill for your time.

    Meanwhile, I am sending you a bill for this :D
     
  17. FW__

    FW__ Member+

    Jun 23, 2006
    Chattanooga, TN
    Club:
    Manchester City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    None of the qualifiers that were played on a concrete rug you guys call a field

    Right, and Mississippi State fans don't bring cowbells into their stadiums
     
  18. onefineesq

    onefineesq Member+

    Sep 16, 2003
    Laurel, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes. I am imputing the requirement that a team carry the necessary laws with them, in case they are needed. Silly me for that expectation. It's much smarter to be completely unprepared by CHOICE, and then rely on your own ignorance as a reason why you should prevail. BRILLIANT! How much do you think it costs a team to have a physical copy of the FIFA regulations? One single solitary copy in a binder. Just one. The shoe-string budget argument is nonsensical. Every federation can afford that, bar none. And Costa Rica chose not to be so prepared. That is noones fault but their own. If you aren't even minimally prepared, you should expect negative repurcussions. But honestly, I don't understand why people have their panties in a bunch about this anyway. The game was played in less than ideal conditions. They lost. After losing they decided they wanted a 2nd bite of the apple. Other teams have played in horrendous conditions too. This nonsense from a poster about being unAmerican is just that ... nonsense. That term (un-American) is about the most frivolously and trivially used term there is. Sack up and move on. Trust me, the US will lose games under horrendous conditions again. And we'll have to sack it up too.
     
    WrmBrnr repped this.
  19. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Surprisingly consistent? Yeah, consistently poor with no footwork.

    I don't know exactly what the referee's visibility was. I do know it was poor enough not to see Costa Rica players putting forearm shivers to US defenders, or to call stone cold penalties.

    So now "one form" of passing in soccer is ground-based? That's rich in a sport where you can't use your arms or hands. Should the stationary players just pass the ball around on the volley all match and never let it hit the ground?

    If you don't see the difference in the playing field's importance between soccer and a run, throw and tackle game like american football, then we clearly see soccer as two entirely different sports.
     
  20. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    How often does this particular situation arise? This whole issue revolves around the uniqueness of our situation in CONCACAF, and how we intentionally schedule WCQs against Mexico et al in these colder locations. That's perfectly within our rights to do, but in the ordinary course, a team is not going to travel to a WCQ worrying about some obscure protest procedure that gets lodged once every few hundred thousand matches.

    Sure, if I worked for the CR fed, I might do exactly what you suggest, but that's not the point really. It's simply a question of whether the punishment for following some irrelevant procedural hoop should be to be bar a hearing on the merits.

    If the conditions were playable, and the referee was withing his discretion, then there's nothing for the US to worry about. If they weren't, and FIFA says that we should lose on the merits, do we really even want 3 points based on some technicality over a useless protest procedure where we weren't prejudiced? I don't.
     
  21. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    What does "with no footwork" mean?

    Yes, it was consistent. The ball did not stop dead in one location, then run like a scalded dog somewhere else like we see on waterlogged pitches. It was slow going, but footing wasn't bad.

    About 60% or more of set pieces were stopped due to the offensive team fouling in the eyes of the referee. He did not dream those up. He presumably saw them. The linesman got the only major offside call absolutely right in some of the worst snow. The referee, aside from being a bit too happy with the whistle on dead balls didn't blatantly mess up.

    Yes. Contrast with hockey, where having the puck not touch the ice much doesn't happen. In soccer, you can play with minimal contact with the ground, i.e. Wimbledon in the '90s. Contact with the surface is absolutely integral in hockey. There are entire strategies in soccer built around not using the surface much (they tend to be amazingly ugly and boring, but that's of no consequence).

    Acceptable playing conditions in football and soccer are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more similar than acceptable playing conditions in baseball. You either do not know baseball very well, or you are not arguing in good faith if you stick to that position.
     
  22. onefineesq

    onefineesq Member+

    Sep 16, 2003
    Laurel, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Every team in Concacaf INTENTIONALLY schedules WCQ's againt opposition to gain an advantage. So what? Whether it be the playing surface, or altitude, or overly hot places played at a weird time of day, or in places off the beaten path that require excessive travel from main airports. It happens here all the time. So what. If you want to advocate for FIFA coming to Concacaf and deciding that games must be played at night, on grass, in places where the normal mean temperature at that time of the year is no lower than 50, at no higher than "x" altitude, within an hour normal drive time of a major airport and must have an air quality of "y", then so be it. But you're not. You're panning the US for trying to take advantage of altitude in prep for the following game, and running across an unexpected storm ... and you're then for allowing the opposition to get a 2nd bite of the apple when they lost. This is not a grand conspiracy against CR, nor is this the X-Files.
     
  23. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know if there is a fee for filing a protest, but there ought to be if there isn't. Either that, or the possibility to levy a fine for a protest judged to be sufficiently groundless.
     
  24. bofahey

    bofahey Member

    Sep 1, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Players couldn't cut at all. When someone was taking a free kick, they had to move a bunch of snow out of the way so that there was someplace to place the ball (and get traction for their planting foot). The footing was definitely poor, at least towards the final 30 minutes.

    Frankly, I wouldn't read much into the ref calling mysterious fouls on set pieces. Like with Edu in the World Cup, refs dream these up a large chunk of the time because they have no idea what actually happened. I'll agree the linesman got the key offside call correct (whether it was a lucky guess or not we don't know). However, he also missed plenty.

    A long ball strategy may not require the ball to travel on the surface (like it would in hockey), but the vast majority of passes in soccer start from the ball being on the surface, and player planting one foot in the surface to get traction. In American football the ball is being held or throw in the air. The surface is not critical to the game, hence why a game in Lambeau in December may have sporting beauty, as opposed to just beauty as spectacle (which is all we had on Friday).

    Baseball is to a further extreme, granted, mainly due to the need for the pitcher to maintain precise control in throwing. However, the decision of whether to resume after a rain delay is based on the condition of the field (mostly the infield), and the likelihood of players slipping and getting injured. The NFL will pretty much play through anything (until you're talking about lightning, etc.). Soccer is in the middle of the two, but the notion on this forum that soccer is meant to be played in the elements like the NFL is very misguided IMO. In most professional leagues or international tournaments, Friday's match would not have been finished under those conditions.
     
  25. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    El que no llora no mama. Or, in English, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    You create precedent, so that eventually your claims of victimhood resonate true.

    It's been done for centuries, and not just in sports.
     
    WrmBrnr repped this.

Share This Page