Now MLS says Youri's goal was illegal

Discussion in 'New York Red Bulls' started by GIO17, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. stangspritzring

    stangspritzring Member+

    Apr 3, 2006
    NorMD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Stick it to us? If your guys blowing a 2-goal lead for a road tie is the best you can come up with is "sticking it to us", I'm OK with that...All I gotta do is kick back and look at the trophy case, and I'm feelin' fine.

    As for physical play, please, it went both ways and you know it. No, CHICAGO's a bunch of hacks. The stats tell a different story than you seem to believe:

    Total shots: DC:12 NY:8
    Shots on goal: DC:9 NY:4
    Fouls: DC:15 NY:16!
    Offside: DC:3 NY:3 (4, in retrospect)
    Corners: DC:12 NY:2!

    And, to top it off, Danny O'Rourke is #2 in the fouls committed slot league-wide, after the first match, with 5. And Freddy Adu and Ben Olsen are tied with only one NY player in fouls suffered, at 4...So, despite everyone thinking DC's physical play disrupted NY's attack, your main midfield talent suffered fewer fouls than did ours. Team loyalty's fine, but at least be realistic.
     
  2. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    Club:
    --other--
    In retrospect, I am willing to forget the 4th DC Scum offsides when Mr. Adu started about 2 yards offsides before he was stoned 1 v. 1 with Big Tony.
     
  3. stangspritzring

    stangspritzring Member+

    Apr 3, 2006
    NorMD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    You've GOT to be kidding!! From each championship team, DC had to release key players due to salary cap restrictions! Most of who DC gets to sign are young college talent and project 40 players, resulting in younger and younger teams. You guys blew a wad on Djork which demolishes the salary of any United player...In fact, this year I think some of our lads agreed to pay cuts to stick with the team. This old song about DC signing guys without restriction can just die quietly...
     
  4. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    Club:
    --other--
    Seriously, why are you here? Shouldn't you be over in rivalries or the incest pile that is the DC board?
     
  5. stangspritzring

    stangspritzring Member+

    Apr 3, 2006
    NorMD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So, basically, what you're saying is that you'd like to turn your forum into the incest pile "that is the DC board" because a few of your folks like to delude themselves into believing their team is a bunch of perfect saints? :) Heaven forbid I provide factual content that questions some people's emotional interpretations...no, drive THAT guy out...:rolleyes:
     
  6. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So the preferred DCU fanboy remedy for this is to disallow a goal three days after the match; a goal on a set play with a player positioning wrinkle that was reviewed and approved the MLS before it was run. Disallow a goal scored in the first 15 minutes, then assume that everything in the following 75 would've gone exactly as played.

    And Stewart wasn't offside, either, right?
     
  7. Brownswan

    Brownswan New Member

    Jun 30, 1999
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    It may be time to relegate "dialog" between RB and DCU fans to the rivalries board. Frankly, they have no business here, and their intrusive behavior causes any thread to degenerate into noxious bickering and name calling. Personally, I've taken a vow of abstinence, and stay clear of their boards, as I would of any toxic site or carcinogen.

    I leave it to the mods. Each team has its boards. While fans of other teams drop in for a comment or two -- as we do on other boards -- only the DC fans intrude and make nuisances of themselves.

    We hate each other; it makes for intense matches. Well and good, but I don't want to have to wade through their mud and snot on our boards.
     
  8. OriginalAEK

    OriginalAEK New Member

    May 6, 2003
    Syracuse, NY
    So when a play is done and there is a player in an offside position even though he has nothing at all to do with the play, he's offside? Or he wants to be offside. If he has nothing to do with the play or is clearly not involved or interefering with it, then what you are saying he should be called off anyway? That they do that on purpose? I think you are missing the point. And to answer your question about bad spirit, It is not in bad spirit. The players did not move or interefere with the play at all. The ball was clearly in the back of net and past the players when they moved. Playing in bad spirit would be if you are clear away on a break and a player comes off the bench or even on the field and makes a horrible tackle with the sole intent to injure. That is in bad spirit. The goal was completly within the laws of the game. Like I said before, the keepers job is to stop the ball from going into the back of then net, not worry about two defenders near him that dont' interefere with him at all.
     
  9. stangspritzring

    stangspritzring Member+

    Apr 3, 2006
    NorMD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Others may have said that, but not me. In fact, I said you got your point and we won't see this kind of crappy play again. Were I you, I'd be more disappointed by the fact that your guys couldn't keep a 2 goal lead and couldn't score a decent goal in the run of play, only being able to capitalize on a defense/keeper error. I fully realize that the decision on the field stands, as it should...even if I didn't like it.

    Also, elsewhere, I did say Earnie was offside, but his goal wasn't the deciding goal in the match, either, IIRC...it just compounded the suffering of the Metro fans at the swamp. And DC fans are crybabies...That was two seasons ago! Let it go, man...
     
  10. stangspritzring

    stangspritzring Member+

    Apr 3, 2006
    NorMD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're missing the point your fellow RBNY fan is trying to make. But I'll leave it to him to reiterate for you. If you can't see that by their position alone they interfered with the play (physical obstruction, visual obstruction of the path of the ball while in an offside position), I can't convince you of anything else. The goal counted, and now MLS says it should not be repeated, rightly so. End of story. I think the only offense some of you take now is the fact that it's an item from a fairly shallow repertoire that your lads can't use anymore.
     
  11. stangspritzring

    stangspritzring Member+

    Apr 3, 2006
    NorMD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I don't have the consuming hatred for you guys that some express, or that gets expressed in turn; rather, I like the rivalry. I still have copies of all the DC United hate page stuff Michael Mejido came up with in the first couple of season, because it was so funny. The obviously horrid photoshop of Bruce Arena in the NAMBLA parade was priceless, as was the photo of the klan around the bonfire, with the caption of "The Screaming Eagles at a DC United" rally...Great stuff! No need for any animosity.

    Personally, I've seen more than a few comments about how some people are so bothered by the DC United board not being open to everyone, or some such. It's odd that others want to make your board the same sort of ivory tower. Unfortunately, all one gets reading your own team's board is either a reinforcement of your own ideas, or degeneration into a bunch of whining. It seems other team's boards are no different. But hey, if my discussion's a nuisance, I'll drop it, and you guys can go back to commiserating over your lads performance, or The Unfairness Of It All(tm).
     
  12. Kelly Hrdina

    Kelly Hrdina Member

    RBNY
    United States
    Oct 22, 2001
    New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ...but they don't own Red Bull...
     
  13. SavannahFan

    SavannahFan New Member

    Nov 8, 2005
    RFK Section 135
    Club:
    DC United
    Look, if I ask any question in a certain way, I will get the answer I am looking for.

    RBNY did not ask if what they did was kosher ahead of time. That's the point.

    Sure, they "asked" about player positioning to get a clarification on what was considered offsides, but that is not what they actually attempted to do.

    Face it, your people asked the question because they knew in Carolina that our First String GK might be out on injury for the upcoming season match. meaning they knew there was a good chance there be an inexperienced GK playing for DC.

    And in knowing that, you people took advantage of both the situation by having offensive players line up EXACTLY where they did to distract, not block Perkins movement or view (which would have been called as offsides right away.)

    Those players were where they were for a reason. They influenced the game by their placement, and thus were actively participating. Period.

    Is distraction normally enough to make a difference, is it normally worth taking the chance that a call might be made against you team in a near goal free kick...? Probably not, but I do not get to stand right next to an opponent taking a penalty or free kick for the same reason, so trying to make it out like your team did not know what they were trying to get away with is BS. We had a newbie goalkeeper in, RBNY thought it was worth playing fast and loose with a rule as a result.

    You folks will never admit fault. I expect that. But I do not have to prove that you were worng, it has already been decided by MLS that you were. No argument there.

    My point is that it is just sad that your team ruined what would have been a memorable score by doing what you did. And for that...

    You only have yourself to blame.


    Bored Now.
     
  14. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Ruined?

    What a whiny bitch you are.
     
  15. DJNaco

    DJNaco New Member

    Jun 23, 1999
    North Florida
    Funny, I had the same reaction after reading your diatribe....
     
  16. SlowFox

    SlowFox Member

    Aug 16, 1999
    People seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the statements "should not have counted" and "didn't count".

    It counted: Brian Hall said it counted. Referees make decisions (good and bad) like this ALL THE TIME. That goal was just as legitimate as any other goal scored that day or any other day. Players whine to referees all the time; so now DCU fans have taken adulation to a new level. They're trying to do the United players' whining FOR them.

    Old news and kind of sad, actually.

    =NLK=
     
  17. Brownswan

    Brownswan New Member

    Jun 30, 1999
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    The only answer is to spank them like the brats they are on the 22nd, and send them home to suck their thumbs.
     
  18. GIO17

    GIO17 Member

    Nov 29, 1998
    No the point is that they did ask the proper questions. Tony Meola made sure and asked Machnik all types of questions to double check that A. It was a legal play for his club & B. If that happened against RBNY he knew what to expect. Meola spent the time to properly ask about the rules. He never knew this and when RBNY made their first attempt on this rule, they scored

    What RBNY attempted to do was to score a goal off a free kick from 35yds out. Which is what they did, if DC failed to know that particular rule, then you have to ask Original AEK to give you a class on how the rule book works. Make sure you pay him after you learn something since he is a official credentialed USSF Referee.

    And you are a delusional troll if you assume that RBNY would take advantage of this because they thought Rimando might not play because he has been injured and they would take advantage of Perkins. Give me a break I'll tell you right now and to be fair, Rimando would have had his butt kicked by that goal from Djorkaeff and in that exact legal formation. What Rimando wouldn't have done is dropped that cross by Seth Stammler and Edson Buddle smacks it in for the free gift, that's what I think

    Obviously you failed to read the section about the goalkeeper substitution rule. I said the spirit of the rule was broken by Bob and by every other coach in MLS in the 2003 season. So yes that was wrong, but once again questions were asked by the players and coaching staff of RBNY. They actually wanted to make sure that what they were gonna do if that situation ever presented it's self which it did to put two players on the edge or just outside the 6yd box. They just stood there that's it. Did they physically interfere? No. Did they Visually interfere? No, and once again your own keeper admitted they didn't interfere with his visabillity of the ball. It looked like to me that your players weren't ready for the free kick when Youri blasted it. So once again your side failed to know the rules. Once again your side wasn't ready for the free kick, once again your keeper admitted he wasn't screened. That was a saveable shot which is what your keeper regardless if it was Nick Rimando or Troy Perkins, failed to do.

    Blame for what? For taking advantage of a legal rule in the rule book. Yes it was a great legal goal and a good match


    Then why even post here. Go back home troll.
     
  19. GIO17

    GIO17 Member

    Nov 29, 1998
    And Brian Hall is one of the best Referee's in the MLS
     
  20. Mr. Bee

    Mr. Bee New Member

    Feb 2, 2005
    Buzzing Around
    Club:
    Wolverhampton Wanderers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I love how DC's own crap keeper admitted he saw the ball but the fans are like "no you didn't, you were screened by the other guys, you would have gotten it!"
     
  21. SavannahFan

    SavannahFan New Member

    Nov 8, 2005
    RFK Section 135
    Club:
    DC United
    I never said he was screened by the two players, you people are the ones that keep bringing that up. What I said is that those players lined up on either side of the Keeper to draw his attention towards them on his periphery... ON Purpose.

    Just like I cannot walk up and stand next to a player about to take a penalty kick, even if I am off to the side a little and not "screening" the goal or blocking him in anyway... My very presense is meant to, and causes distraction, thus it is illegal.

    Same thing.

    Stop trying to muddle it up, just accept the fact that MLS has determined your team was wrong.

    If you really think otherwise..., If you guys still think you were right, then feel free to have Mo try it all over again on the 22nd if you get another free kick near our goal.

    Or better yet, try it again this Sunday against NE's Goalkeeper. He'll end this discussion in his own unique and unforgettable way...[​IMG]
     
  22. Mr. Bee

    Mr. Bee New Member

    Feb 2, 2005
    Buzzing Around
    Club:
    Wolverhampton Wanderers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually, USSF and MLS determined that the MLS Ref boss' interpretation of passive offsides was wrong :rolleyes:
     
  23. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Holy crap. I hate the Metros as much as you do, but you're really an idiot. Your reading comprehension is awful.

    the USSF has determined that the ruling was wrong - not the Red Bulls.

    If you can't understand the subtleties at play, then you should stick to simpler fare.
     
  24. SavannahFan

    SavannahFan New Member

    Nov 8, 2005
    RFK Section 135
    Club:
    DC United
    The one your team used to justify it's actions

    No justification = you are wrong too

    Like I said, feel free to keep doing it from now on.
     
  25. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    The Metros - at a meeting where DC players were present - asked if a specific scenario was onside or off - they were told it was onside. DC - of all MLS teams - should've seen it coming. The refs and linesmen at the game followed the advice from the meetings in Charleston.

    It's only - after the fact - whining by DC types that has gotten the USSF to revisit the decision and change it.

    At the time of the play, the official stance of USSF refs was that such a play was onside.
     

Share This Page