Revs News (?) 7/26

Discussion in 'New England Revolution' started by John Lewis, Jul 26, 2002.

  1. John Lewis

    John Lewis New Member

    Mar 15, 2000
    <a href="">Revolution: Notes from the Front</a> by Marcus Kwesi O'Mard - CyberSoccerNews

    <a href="">Revs-Rapids Breakdown</a> by Emlyn Lewis - CyberSoccerNews
  2. rkupp

    rkupp Member+

    Jan 3, 2001
    Neither writer seemed willing to report the failure of the refereeing crew to notice a clear offside on the first goal. Instead both praise the Rapids for a quality play.

    Objective reporting should call it as it happened. The Revs weren't the only party (of the three) that made HUGE mistakes! As much as the Revs have struggled, it seemed a particularly cruel twist to have the linesman allow a bad goal when the Revs had started reasonably well.
  3. Soccer Doc

    Soccer Doc Member+

    Nov 30, 2001
    Keene, NH
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sounds a bit like the PK may have been a make-up call by the Ref.
  4. John Lewis

    John Lewis New Member

    Mar 15, 2000
    In our defense (the writers I mean), we were both sitting at midfield throughout the match, and I for one filed my report about an hour after the match, so I didn't have the benefit of either a replay or vantage point from which to assess an offside call.

    Thanks for reading though. It lets me know you care...sigh...
  5. Jon Martin

    Jon Martin Member+

    Apr 25, 2000
    SE Mass

    As the ball was handled on a long, non-deflected, non-contested cross into the area, and fell to the feet of the offending player, it was a no-brainer, despite the howls of righteous indignation from the Rapids players. There had been a previous Rapids hand ball ruled inadvertent (which would, I believe, have been called in EPL as it knocked down a shot on goal.)
  6. rkupp

    rkupp Member+

    Jan 3, 2001
    Actually, I appreciate your articles quite a bit, John, despite the criticism.

    I've wondered whether the reports are written based up live viewing or the telecast. I think each one is deficient in it's own way.

    The PK call and the offsides were two good examples of situations that would be tough to evaluate without a good close-up replay.

    On the other hand, on TV you don't see the whole field and can't get a sense of the positioning or overall flow of the game. A good example of that was the KC game where Hernandez was picking up the ball carrier and knew he was helpless as the overlapping midfielder came charging down the right wing. I doubt TV viewers got a good sense the breakdown on that play.
  7. John Lewis

    John Lewis New Member

    Mar 15, 2000
    As you say, it's difficult to always get the right view. For the record, I have never written a Revolution match report while watching on television. In fact, I seldom sit in the press box, which at CMGi affords a fairly terrible view of the goings on AND fails to give you any sense for the emotion of the game. I sit pretty close to midfield about 20 rows back, because I hate to watch a game without being able to hear the crowd. Having said that, it's nice to be able to see the replays, something I often curse about when sitting in the stands, where they edit the broadcast on the big screens in order to keep from inflaming the assembled hordes.

    So I win some and I lose some...what I think is important about a match report is not really the details of the game. Most of the people who end up reading it know what happened already because they watched (as you did). What they don't know about is what the players and coaches said afterward and how they acted. Those are the things I try to capture. Again, sometimes I succeed. Sometimes I fail.

    Also, I try never to make too much of refereeing decisions. The truth is, until we invent all-knowing, all-seeing robots to call matches for us, human referees are the best we've got. I think we owe it to them to forgive them their mistakes and to behave, even when TV prooves them wrong, as if they were right all the time.

    Also, also...regardless of Henderson being offside on the opening goal, the Revs gave up two absolute howlers and didn't deserve to win (did I just say that?). You can't win if you give up goals like a banquet waitress handing out pigs in a blanket at the kickoff party for an insurance convention, no matter how many times Stevie Ralston and Taylor Twellman fly in to try and save the day. me the story was about poor defense, not about poor linesmen.

    At any rate, thanks for reading and keeping my dog in kibble.
  8. soccertim

    soccertim Member

    Mar 29, 2001
    Re: Re: Revs News (?) 7/26

    That one really annoyed me. In almost any league (that I've seen) that would have been a pk, and probably a red card. While the handball is inadvertant (the ball is kicked and immediately hits the hand, no time to move out of the way), you can't stand directly in front of a shooter with your hand in his path and away from your body. This is a lot like Wright's ejection against SJ last year, when he slid in front of the shooter with his hands in the air and "inadvertantly" blocked the shot, an obvious non-call for this crew. After seeing Twellman cross-checked or wrestled to the ground or Fuller clotheslined or taken down from behind without getting calls, I guess I'm a little sensitive to the subject.

    Also, on the pk, what was the point of the linesman coming out to confer with the referee? That just added to the bufoonery. Unless, maybe, he was asking for a good explanation of the offside rule..
  9. Bruce S

    Bruce S Member+

    Sep 10, 1999
    I am a huge Revs fan and was at the game Wednesday, but Rapids were the better team- without a doubt.
  10. Tony Biscaia

    Tony Biscaia Member

    Feb 17, 1999
    FWIT, I was right behind the net and it looked to me like that ball hit Twellman's arm first, then Hart's. It happened so fast that even after I've watched the tape a few times now, it's tough to say - only Taylor knows for sure.

    Now on that previous handball that blocked a certain goal... if I'm the ref, it gets called for at least an indirect free kick in the area.

    Not that it would have mattered in the end, we surely still would have found a way to lose it.
  11. Rodan

    Rodan New Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Wow, now that's a simile worth remembering .... ;)

Share This Page