I don't get it. It is probably because I didn't see the clip? have I to assume it was something different from the simple clip of the incident that we have all seen by now? What was in it? Or, I am sorry, it could be that, since I am not a native-speaker, I missed some cultural cue that I would gladly learn. What's so wrong in writing that "Morgan Weaver is innocent", that could represent "racialization" of the incident? In my eyes it could at max be a way to wrongfully influence the appeal to the disciplinary committee, but I am not sure how race would be involved, except for the fact that one player is white and the other is black. I mean: you all know that my strong opinion was that Weaver had committed an offense that could have well deserved Red Card and she had sneakily triggered Edmonds' reaction, while many others here were of a different opinion, but it seems to me that, at least here, we were all arguing in good faith while debating if Weaver was "innocent" or not. How Portland's statement was different from the discussion we had here?
I think, based mostly on Gordon's reaction to the Tweet, that Portland's lack of nuance in their post combined with the backdrop of racial inequality issues was the big problem here. There was a lack of a discussion in the Thorns Tweet about the incident aside from the claim of innocence, leaving it somewhat unjustified; absent that discussion about an incident that (as you pointed out) could be interpreted several ways, assigning blame to the black player in a somewhat-ambiguous situation thus plays directly into the existing cultural biases about race. The word "innocent" itself also does have the justice-system connotation, which does not help the situation considering the structural and social biases currently baked into that system here.
I can understand you point of view, but, in a vacuum, I'd tend to believe that Portland's un-nuanced statement was more due to a classic (and quite natural, although unfair) "my team's player vs your team's player" bias, than to a racial bias. I mean, I would have naturally interpreted that as Portland defending Weaver "on principle" as a Portland's player, more than as a white player.
Oh, absolutely the "my player vs your player" was the driving force here - I don't think anyone is arguing against that. I don't think anyone is accusing Portland of intentionally invoking the racial aspect of the situation. However, the issue is that the two biases have a significant overlap in this case, so even though the racial one probably wasn't intended, it was nonetheless strongly evoked here, especially with the wording that reflects the criminal justice system. Basically, it's a "your statement encourages X no matter how much you didn't mean X".
Wow, I have to say that I was with blissett. I get the point SiberianThunderT is making, I understand that one must be careful about the words one choses because of how others may interpret them and that it is not a defense that it was not what I meant -- one has to take how others might interpret the words (or actions) into consideration. I still think this one is a stretch ... especially given that the tweet was deleted as soon as the issue was raised. And, I am not sure if that is the reason for the fine. I suspect it was because of public criticism of the refereeing. I should add, I have no issue at all with Sarah Gordon’s asking the Thorns to delete the tweet. She rightly was advising them of how it was received by herself and others, and they responded by deleting it, apologizing, and committing to try to do better.
Here's the way I see if from a very slow motion view of the incident. I don't see anything racial in it. Edmonds, I believe, deserves 90 percent of the blame. 1. A four-person scrum, including Edmonds and Weaver, takes place in the corner with everybody pushing and shoving. 2. The ball comes out of the scrum between Weaver's legs. Weaver turns to go after the ball. Edmonds grabs Weaver and throws her to the ground. Edmonds also falls down. 3. Both players get up and start running for the ball, Weaver slightly ahead. Weaver grabs Edmonds arm, impeding her progress. The pair lock arms and flail around. 4. Edmonds pushes Weaver hard in the face with her right hand and swings at Weaver or tries to push her with her left hand but misses. 5. The pair separate. Weaver backs away with Edmonds following her, both talking. Weaver points at something in the air and says something. 6. Weaver turns her back and walks away and Edmonds follows her still talking 7. Pogarch gets in Edmonds way and puts her hands on Edmonds chest.
So does paramount plus not actually give you access to all the games? Orlando / Gotham is not showing up as me, even though websites list paramount as an option to watch it. Orlando website says cbs sports, which I thought is what moved over to paramount
I found it here. I am a DirecTV subscriber, so maybe that is why I can get it. It is CBS SN, not Paramount+, not that the difference means much to me.
You can tell that none of us active users here are fans of NJY or ORL... Whole game went by with no other comments after trying to sort out streaming! X-D From chatter I've seen, it sounds like ORL controlled much of the game, but NJY came away with the 3pts thanks to a second-half goal - and they also got a penalty earlier in the match against the run of play that Harris managed to save. ORL has now dropped 5pts and is basically out of the running for the final now.
Apparently the disciplinary committee disagrees with me, so I'll drop it after this replay, but what I don't agree with are the following points: 2. I guess it's not Edmonds shoving down Weaver but quite the opposite: Since the ball was by then away, Weaver deliberately falls on Edmonds (after having blocked her, pushed her with her elbow and such during the corner-flag scrum) to prevent her from trying to reach the ball. 3. although it wasn't as much blatant as the subsequent reaction, I guess Weaver slightly hit Edmonds' face whlle grabbing her arm/shoulder (and this is probably what mostly triggered Edmons' reaction). Also: the ball was quite far and Weaver blatantly targeted the player; definition on Red-Card worthy foul to me.
If you and I disagree after a minute examination in slow-motion of the events, we can hardly blame the ref for making a call. However, I still don't like VAR. I doubt that it would have changed what the ref called. Better, in my opinion, is to accept the occasional lousy call from a ref than to use VAR. There is always, in every play, a foul than could be called -- and I would rather rely on a ref's judgement than VAR -- because as we have just seen two apparently rational and objective people can disagree on the video evidence.
Well, in sympathy with the orphan team of Sky Blue or Gotham or whatever, Paige Monaghan has been one my favorite players since her first game. I noticed her because she energized a sluggish Sky Blue team. I don't think she's quite up to National Team standards (yet) but she is a very likeable player, or at least likeable on the field.
I've focused during Orlando's first 2 games on Taylor Kornieck. She's hard to miss on the field, towering over other players at 6'1" (185 cm.) Nor is she a bean pole. I would guess her weight at about 170 pounds On several occasions other players just bounced off her as she proceeded her merry way. Is she any good? Well, she got a goal with her head and to my observation won 100 percent of the headers she competed for -- and there were a lot of them. She's also not reluctant to shoot: 7 shots with 3 on target in those two games. She also committed a lot of fouls, which I put down to clumsiness more than malice. She's so big refs are likely to believe she's at fault, when she's not really. She seems to have moderate speed, but it takes awhile for her to get into motion. She's pretty good with the ball at her feet. She went down with minor injuries in both games. My opinion is that she's pretty good.
There is lots of room for agreement or disagreement, as we have said. On this particular point: I am a former high school and college wrestler. When both players are on their feet, there is a takedown move called a standing whizzer. It involves hooking your arm over the opposing wrestler’s arm (high up), leaning you hip into your opponent, and dropping that hip to the ground hard. If you do right, you have lots of leverage, your hip hits the ground first, and your opponent does a face plant into the ground. This is a well known move in my family, as one day at the beach I was talking about my college wrestling days with my wife and volunteered to demo a standing whizzer with her. She was game, so I did the demo. Unfortunately, I performed the move perfectly, she unexpectedly (to me) put up no resistance, and she ended up with a face plant in the sand. Whe was not happy! As soon as I saw the replay of Edmonds and Weaver going down, I thought of the standing whizzer. Edmonds executed it perfectly.
Somebody. Score. A Goal. Please. Both games still 0-0 after a 1-0 game last night. Trinity Rodman has real promise. When she gets the ball you feel something can happen. Unfortunately her teammates are not matching her level. Edit: both games answered my request. Rodman to Sanchez for a late winner! And, controversially, the suspended-turned-not-suspended Morgan Weaver scores vs. Chicago. The Red Stars have too many similar players. An excess of possession minded, pass first midfielders. As a result they are playing DiBernardo out wide, and Gautrat as a false 9. They already had too many mids and then acquired Woldmoe. Could stand to trade a few of them and get one or two quality strikers. The 2016 Ohai could have filled this role but she doesn't have the same explosiveness now. At this point they may as well play Ertz up there and just serve crosses in to her head. What are these horseshoe shaped antenna things some Thorns are wearing around their necks?
Portland is annoying. They seem to be held to a different standard than other teams. See special treatment of Weaver. And at the end of this Chicago game, two Thorns defenders collide, injuring each other, Chicago proceeds to head the ball in for an equalizer, but the referee calls it back for a phantom foul. And their overall behavior just grates. The constant taking the ball to corner to waste time, appealing for calls. I know other teams do this too. But Portland does it more often than most. Sorry, that's just my opinion.
Agreed, Portland seems to get away with lots of things more than other teams do. Many fans outside of Portland have been pointing this out ever since the first year in the league. It's definitely frustrating.