New England (Home) - Postmatch

  • Welcome to NYCFC Forums 2.0. Since completing our upgrade I've had a number of people request to make a donation. If you'd like to Donate you may do so via this Paypal link below. Thank you all for the support and your willingness to cobtribute.
Consider becoming a 'donor' member to help support the forums! Click Here To Upgrade

Annagram

Junior Member
Jan 30, 2017
173
659
93
33
I think Gaz will break out when the weather gets colder, just like a proper Scot.
What has baffled me a bit is that being so light-weight, he still cut it in the SPL.

Another thing about the NER game: I'm a bit worried about how Buster Keaton seemed to lose focus on a couple of occasions. He can do a lot better than that, I suppose. And Mitri then: he always seems to need to take one touch too many. If he were a bit more straight-forward in his decisions, he'd had scored a lot more so far. And one more thing: this talk about Ring's bad distribution is a worn-out joke. Just look at how he started the equalizer. Granted, some balls go astray, but that's to be expected when you try long, difficult passes.
The biggest surprise however was Ben Sweat. Did he put a foot wrong once? Had he scored that cracker of a shot near the end, everybody would be only talking about him.
 
Last edited:

FootyLovin

No better obsession
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Feb 15, 2015
2,827
7,482
323
46
Sea Cliff NY
Went back and watched the major plays from the telecast. A couple takes.

1. The Rev goal was totally on Chanot. Yes, Ibi got muscled. But Chanot was 50 yards up the pitch for no discernible reason. Your CBs are supposed to pinch a ball that goes straight down the middle of the field like that. But you can't pinch if 1 CB is absent.

2. The red card wasn't a red card. In fact, it wasn't a foul. You have to watch the replay from the Rev goal endline camera. From that angle you see that Taty touches the ball toward the defender, who then swing his leg, knicking the ball and then carrying his leg and body into Taty. He gets a non-negligible touch on the ball. At that point his contact with Taty constitutes a legal tackle.
 

mgarbowski

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
11,532
32,615
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
Torrent recalled that Lionel Messi did the same thing at times, “saying to Luis Suarez and others, ‘you take the kick.'”​
“I say to Maxi, ‘If you decide you’re not sure to shoot the penalty, then Taty’s ready, Mitri’s ready, Jesus is ready, Keaton is ready,” Torrent said, rattling off various NYCFC players.​

 

Ulrich

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 5, 2015
12,846
24,717
353
r
Article linked above also explains that Johnson was available against the Revs and why Torrent didn't select him. Read it.
that makes sense regarding the GK selection. Also wonder if he was throwing a bone to BS if he needed a 5th start to get a roster/performance bonus? Would be the right thing to do.
 

VernonJohn

Newbie
Jul 26, 2019
41
120
33
48
NYC
Went back and watched the major plays from the telecast. A couple takes.

1. The Rev goal was totally on Chanot. Yes, Ibi got muscled. But Chanot was 50 yards up the pitch for no discernible reason. Your CBs are supposed to pinch a ball that goes straight down the middle of the field like that. But you can't pinch if 1 CB is absent.

2. The red card wasn't a red card. In fact, it wasn't a foul. You have to watch the replay from the Rev goal endline camera. From that angle you see that Taty touches the ball toward the defender, who then swing his leg, knicking the ball and then carrying his leg and body into Taty. He gets a non-negligible touch on the ball. At that point his contact with Taty constitutes a legal tackle.
I just looked at it and It does appear the Rev. defender got his foot on the ball. MAYBE THE CR was given a bad angle on review.
Wow, how fortunate are NYCFC that the CR’s biggest mistake went out way...
 

Shwafta

Active Member
Jan 16, 2018
2,212
2,915
273
22
Long Island
I just looked at it and It does appear the Rev. defender got his foot on the ball. MAYBE THE CR was given a bad angle on review.
Wow, how fortunate are NYCFC that the CR’s biggest mistake went out way...
I think in DOGSO if the defender gets the ball, but doesn't do enough to clear it away entirely and the player would then be able to continue back and get the ball, but the defender clears the player out as well, then it's still DOGSO.
I'm not 100% sure about that, but that's my hunch as to why it got called. Yes, he got the ball, but if he doesn't clear our Taty after touching the ball, Taty still gets to that ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Jee

Christopher Jee

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 24, 2014
3,127
8,116
353
36
I just looked at it and It does appear the Rev. defender got his foot on the ball. MAYBE THE CR was given a bad angle on review.
Wow, how fortunate are NYCFC that the CR’s biggest mistake went out way...
To play devil's advocate, contact on the ball doesn't necessarily negate the foul. He touched the ball but only played it towards goal. Taty was still on his feet and therefore still on his way to a "clear goalscoring opportunity". The push on the back to put him on the floor was probably the foul they called him on, not the initial challenge.

Having said that, the push looked light. And knowing Taty it probably was way too light to cause him to fall over. OTOH it was dumb to put hands on the attacker in that position, let alone an attacker known for the kind of histrionics that Taty is capable of.

In some ways it reminded me of Ofori's red card where he accidentally put his foot down on an attacker's Achilles. A harsh but technically defensible call that I personally wouldn't have given a red for.

It's tough, because if Taty didn't think he could have squeezed a red out of that challenge, in a world where refs don't make calls like that and he just stays on his feet, there's a pretty solid chance he actually scores. Ironically, it ends up being DOGSO because of the way DOGSO is officiated.
 

Gotham Gator

Senior Member
Donor
Feb 9, 2015
9,604
19,632
353
53
Bronxville, NY
I saw the NER camera angle on Twitter, and it is hardly a great angle - at field level and pretty far away. It's not an angle that the VAR would have had, but I would expect the VAR had multiple camera angles that were better.

We should know more on Friday when PRO will publish it's two web reports on this week's VAR rulings.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Kjbert and Shwafta

FredMertz

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
2,424
4,990
323
37
To play devil's advocate, contact on the ball doesn't necessarily negate the foul. He touched the ball but only played it towards goal. Taty was still on his feet and therefore still on his way to a "clear goalscoring opportunity". The push on the back to put him on the floor was probably the foul they called him on, not the initial challenge.

Having said that, the push looked light. And knowing Taty it probably was way too light to cause him to fall over. OTOH it was dumb to put hands on the attacker in that position, let alone an attacker known for the kind of histrionics that Taty is capable of.

In some ways it reminded me of Ofori's red card where he accidentally put his foot down on an attacker's Achilles. A harsh but technically defensible call that I personally wouldn't have given a red for.

It's tough, because if Taty didn't think he could have squeezed a red out of that challenge, in a world where refs don't make calls like that and he just stays on his feet, there's a pretty solid chance he actually scores. Ironically, it ends up being DOGSO because of the way DOGSO is officiated.
Isn't any foul, regardless of severity, a red if it's outside of the box in a DOGSO?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin

Gotham Gator

Senior Member
Donor
Feb 9, 2015
9,604
19,632
353
53
Bronxville, NY
Isn't any foul, regardless of severity, a red if it's outside of the box in a DOGSO?
One of the "Four Ds" of DOGSO is distance - as in distance from the goal. In this case, they were about 27-30 yards off the end line, which is far enough out to create a little doubt about DOGSO, but not, as in this case, when the two players in question are so much farther downfield than anyone else and the ball was easily playable.

The real question is whether it was a foul. We have the one angle MLS has provided on replay and the one from New England, and neither are really very helpful. I am sure there are more that were available to the VAR, and we get to see them on Friday, hopefully.

Finally, I will point out that when Caicedo received his throughball and Ibby was a half-step behind, he chose not to foul him. Ibby did shoulder up and bump him to slow him down, but he didn't kick out at the ball, and the reason is he didn't want a DOGSO red. Delamea was in the same situation and decided differently and got the bad result. He took the risk that Ibby didn't, and both paid in different ways.
 

Gotham Gator

Senior Member
Donor
Feb 9, 2015
9,604
19,632
353
53
Bronxville, NY
We haven't discussed yet the yellow awarded to and then taken back from Tinnerholm for the supposed handball in the first half. Among all the clown show moments from the ref, this one most deserved the red nose and big shoes.

It was a terrible call. The question is why it was overturned. It was clear from the video board that it was the wrong call, but of course the ref isn't supposed to look at that. It's also not reviewable.

So, why did it get overturned? I think it's possible one of the assistant refs told the referee he saw it clearly as a header, and the ref changed things. I don't think the referee was looking at the video board when the replay showed - I looked down right after the replay, and he was engaged in discussion with the players and not looking up.
 

SoupInNYC

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Mar 9, 2015
4,744
10,777
303
32
UES
We haven't discussed yet the yellow awarded to and then taken back from Tinnerholm for the supposed handball in the first half. Among all the clown show moments from the ref, this one most deserved the red nose and big shoes.

It was a terrible call. The question is why it was overturned. It was clear from the video board that it was the wrong call, but of course the ref isn't supposed to look at that. It's also not reviewable.

So, why did it get overturned? I think it's possible one of the assistant refs told the referee he saw it clearly as a header, and the ref changed things. I don't think the referee was looking at the video board when the replay showed - I looked down right after the replay, and he was engaged in discussion with the players and not looking up.
He wasn't looking at the video board even though the players were insistent that he do so. He did have his hand to his ear for a bit, so he was communicating with someone. Whether that be the 4th official, or someone else, I'm not sure. We know that this was not reviewable by VAR.

My honest guess is that the 4th official saw the replay on the jumbotron and saw it wasn't even close to being a handball, and then advised the ref as such, overturning the call. I understand that that shouldn't happen, but that's the only thing I can think of as to what happened.
 

LionNYC

Senior Member
Staff member
Elite Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
15,129
26,299
303
New York, NY
We haven't discussed yet the yellow awarded to and then taken back from Tinnerholm for the supposed handball in the first half. Among all the clown show moments from the ref, this one most deserved the red nose and big shoes.

It was a terrible call. The question is why it was overturned. It was clear from the video board that it was the wrong call, but of course the ref isn't supposed to look at that. It's also not reviewable.

So, why did it get overturned? I think it's possible one of the assistant refs told the referee he saw it clearly as a header, and the ref changed things. I don't think the referee was looking at the video board when the replay showed - I looked down right after the replay, and he was engaged in discussion with the players and not looking up.
I brought that up on the 2nd page. I was so confused.

Referee Inquiry of the Day: The referee blows the whistle and awards a free kick to New England after Anton Tinnerholm allegedly used his arm to deflect the ball out of bounds towards the endline after a New England cross. The players protest. The referee waits, he then cancels out the yellow card and awards New England a corner kick.

This wasn't a Goal, Red Card Incident (maybe?), Mistaken Identity, or Penalty (couldn't have been since the referee awarded a free kick based on the placement, not penalty kick). So video review couldn't have been used.

The referee may have been able to consult with the 4th official, ARs, to overturn the call. Quite odd. But it was clearly, not a handball by Tinnerholm.
It's good the center ref got the call right, but the method he did to do so may have been improper.
 

moogoo

Junior Member
Nov 8, 2017
434
796
93
NYC
Finally, I will point out that when Caicedo received his throughball and Ibby was a half-step behind, he chose not to foul him. Ibby did shoulder up and bump him to slow him down, but he didn't kick out at the ball, and the reason is he didn't want a DOGSO red. Delamea was in the same situation and decided differently and got the bad result. He took the risk that Ibby didn't, and both paid in different ways.
i would argue Ibby tried to foul Caicedo but was bullied off like a rag doll cause his legs are thinner than my arms. Caicedo is not one to flop and plays strong whereas Taty is one to flop if he sees the opportunity and Delamea picked the wrong guy to body up in a potential DOGSO situation.

Based on location of the field, I think DOGSO is very subjective. There was definitely a push on the back, which probably looked a lot worse based on Taty's overreactions. With regard to Delamea getting the ball, as was said above, it was a very slight touch that did not clear away the ball. it went TOWARD the goal and Taty was still on his feet and going toward goal as well. Delamea even says he was trying to play it back to Turner. So, the touch on the ball does not negate the foul since the ball was technically still IN PLAY. Compare this to a situation on the sideline. Let's say taty has the ball and is attempting to shield it, Delamea somehow gets a touch on the ball and knocks it 2 feet away but well within Taty's sphere of control and possession. But before Taty can place is foot on the ball again, Delamea shoves him hard and knocks him over. Foul or no foul? Definitely a foul. The situation in the Revs game is similar except that they were alone going toward the revs goal.

Again, I think whether to call it DOGSO or not was still subjective. The refs made a call and we got the benefit. That's all there is to it. We've gotten the short end of the stick many a time so to catch a break, it's nice. I'm sure when we go up against Atlanta, we aren't going to be getting those benefits.
 

FootyLovin

No better obsession
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Feb 15, 2015
2,827
7,482
323
46
Sea Cliff NY
We've gotten the short end of the stick many a time so to catch a break, it's nice.
Agree it's nice to catch a break. Not sure I agree about frequency we've gotten the short end. I think we've played a grand total of like 5 minutes shorthanded this season. And I'm not convinced we've lost more PK calls than we've gained on. Overall I think this year as a whole we've gotten the better of the calls.

I know this is an unpopular view for 100% of team fan bases. But if every parent thinks their kid is above average and every fan thinks they were unduly wronged by the refs, half of each have to be wrong.
 

Ulrich

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 5, 2015
12,846
24,717
353
Agree it's nice to catch a break. Not sure I agree about frequency we've gotten the short end. I think we've played a grand total of like 5 minutes shorthanded this season. And I'm not convinced we've lost more PK calls than we've gained on. Overall I think this year as a whole we've gotten the better of the calls.

I know this is an unpopular view for 100% of team fan bases. But if every parent thinks their kid is above average and every fan thinks they were unduly wronged by the refs, half of each have to be wrong.
No. You’re wrong. Case in point, the NYJets.

Give you credit for trying, but some things are an absolute and nobody thinks the Jets are above average, especially their fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin and adam

moogoo

Junior Member
Nov 8, 2017
434
796
93
NYC
Agree it's nice to catch a break. Not sure I agree about frequency we've gotten the short end. I think we've played a grand total of like 5 minutes shorthanded this season. And I'm not convinced we've lost more PK calls than we've gained on. Overall I think this year as a whole we've gotten the better of the calls.

I know this is an unpopular view for 100% of team fan bases. But if every parent thinks their kid is above average and every fan thinks they were unduly wronged by the refs, half of each have to be wrong.
i just meant over the years, not just this season alone. Last year especially, we got some calls against us which were pretty influential and some were probably flat out wrong in the end. Last year's dual red card in the home derby, villa's attempted bicycle turned into foul call, ATL's free kicked moved 15 yards closer to the net, which resulted in a goal... this year I think the only major bad call against us was ThrowInGate and a long list of fouls gone uncalled against our smaller guys.
 

Christopher Jee

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 24, 2014
3,127
8,116
353
36
Isn't any foul, regardless of severity, a red if it's outside of the box in a DOGSO?
I ... think so (mentally constructing a Venn diagram). But as said below by others, I think it's not super obvious it was DOGSO, and not super obvious that it was a foul to me.