Leagues Cup - July 23 - Atlas (Home)

[mgarbowski]

Can someone link me to where and how Red Bull cheated? Just have yet to see it.

Red Bull cost cap drama continues: Confrontation beckons for accused team and Formula 1 rivals at US GP

Sky Sports News Craig Slater provides fresh insight and analysis on F1s cost cap saga ahead of what is sure to be a dramatic weekend in Texas; Watch the whole US GP weekend live on Sky Sports F1, with drivers press conferences at 9pm on Thursday

www.skysports.com

It's kind of like Man City and FFP. They exceeded a hard cost cap but the accounting is opaque and the penalty minimal.

It's also true that Red Bull have the best team of Aerodynamic engineers which gives them a significant and completely fair advantage in every race. A few years ago they hired a very talented aero engineer away from Mercedes (plus other new hires from elsewhere). But this switch had a huge impact. Mercedes won best driver and team 7 years in a row, and 2 years after this guy switched Red Bull started winning and Mercedes fell back and their performance got notably worse. It's not all him, and there were major design regulation changes mixed in that Mercedes has had trouble adjusting to, but the aero design is massive.

Ultimately, F1 is somewhat like both pro soccer and college football, in that the best keep getting richer and the richer keep getting better and it's hard to discern the difference between accusations born of petty jealousy and the real thing. But the stakes are so high and almost everyone at the top of the sport is a borderline psychopath obsessed with winning and self-regard that I pretty much assume they're all cheating, and since Red Bull is winning by margins that should not be possible they're likely cheating the most, by a lot.

 

[LIexpat]

Red Bull cost cap drama continues: Confrontation beckons for accused team and Formula 1 rivals at US GP

Sky Sports News Craig Slater provides fresh insight and analysis on F1s cost cap saga ahead of what is sure to be a dramatic weekend in Texas; Watch the whole US GP weekend live on Sky Sports F1, with drivers press conferences at 9pm on Thursday

www.skysports.com

It's kind of like Man City and FFP. They exceeded a hard cost cap but the accounting is opaque and the penalty minimal.

It's also true that Red Bull have the best team of Aerodynamic engineers which gives them a significant and completely fair advantage in every race. A few years ago they hired a very talented aero engineer away from Mercedes (plus other new hires from elsewhere). But this switch had a huge impact. Mercedes won best driver and team 7 years in a row, and 2 years after this guy switched Red Bull started winning and Mercedes fell back and their performance got notably worse. It's not all him, and there were major design regulation changes mixed in that Mercedes has had trouble adjusting to, but the aero design is massive.

Ultimately, F1 is somewhat like both pro soccer and college football, in that the best keep getting richer and the richer keep getting better and it's hard to discern the difference between accusations born of petty jealousy and the real thing. But the stakes are so high and almost everyone at the top of the sport is a borderline psychopath obsessed with winning and self-regard that I pretty much assume they're all cheating, and since Red Bull is winning by margins that should not be possible they're likely cheating the most, by a lot.

They have also found a loophole in their wind tunnel punishment

Red Bull's wind tunnel time under public scrutiny after unveiling new sidepods

F1TV's tech man Sam Collins has billed Red Bull's Hungarian GP update as a "free upgrade" as they work around their cost cap penalty.

www.planetf1.com

 

[Kenny]

Can someone link me to where and how Red Bull cheated? Just have yet to see it.

In addition to the above, I feel like their whole identity and style of play includes aggressive pressing and hard tackling that flirts with, and often crosses, the boundary of what is a foul, and because they do it consistently and relentlessly from the starting whistle the ref becomes acclimated to it, and that's part of the strategy. The ref is like "well I can't call a foul on every damn play" so they let some of them go.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[SoupInNYC]

The only possible interpretation on the offside call is that it hit the defender and not Sands, and the defender was not making a "deliberate play" on the ball.

The deliberate play standard is meant to differentiate between the following situations: (a) a player intending to do something specific with the ball and (b) the ball deflecting off a player. The dividing line rests on a vague concept of "control" - did the player have enough control over the ball to be able to play it as opposed to just stabbing at it.

But, all of this is thought of in the context of the ball coming off the foot of the defender. I have never seen a situation where a player jumped up to attempt a header, met the ball, and yet it is considered not a deliberate play on the ball. The closest I can think of is that weird play against New England where a cross deflected off Ilenic's head and into the goal and Bou was called offside as he was in the keeper's line of sight. If Ilenic had been deliberately playing the ball, it would not have been offside.

That makes sense to me (other than the clear and obvious, 5+ min review, etc) but i guess i have an issue with the rule then - if Sands was offsides when he challenged it, even though he doesn't play the ball, it would be ruled offsides - imo, that should reset the offsides at that moment - i understand why the deflection rule exists, and its not for situations like this, but like a deflected shot, etc. - not for a challenged, 50/50 ball

 

[Gene]

For, as they say, FWIW.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683563050375184386

 

[moogoo]

also fwiw - weibe agrees the goal should have stood in instant replay episode

 

[Revfugee]

ifab website clarifies that heading to clear the ball constitutes a deliberate play on the ball. the question of control is also pretty nebulous. even based on the example videos ifab provides (link below), it's not always clear why the play is not deliberate. For example, video 4 is deemed not deliberate, but the defender clear moves toward the ball and misplays it, resulting in the ball going through. Video 5 seems closest to the situation we had in our game with two players contesting for the ball. the defender is able to make the play and it's deemed deliberate, but there's no way godin had full control over where he was playing the ball. he simply intended to poke it away. this video is meant to show a deliberate play. 11 however, shows a free kick situation. defender jumps to head the ball and it is deemed not deliberate. none of it really makes sense to me.

ifab deliberate play

Even if they decided it came off Sands, haak was already in an onside position by then. Then it's a question of whether they thought he was offsides even with all the angles given. An explanation would be nice, but we'll never get it.

In the end, it's still all bullshit and i stand by my statement that 5 plus minutes is not clear and obvious.

Not only was Haak back in an onside position, He was never off. He was onsodeas the free kick was taken, so even when he looked off because he was behind the last defender, he never actually was offside. He timed his intital run perfectly. Infuriating.

ETA: correcting myself, I guess he was positionally off on the second ball, but it came off the defender after he had come back on. Still infuriating

 

[Shwafta]

If you want a good laugh, check out reddit.con/r/ligamx for some great atlas shitposts. Excellent stuff.

 

[ZYanksRule]

Nick had a comment postgame last night that this is a great competition, and it was spoiled last night. I've come around to agreeing with him on that. This decision was a sham, and it destroyed what was a pretty fun spectacle.

 

[Gotham Gator]

That makes sense to me (other than the clear and obvious, 5+ min review, etc) but i guess i have an issue with the rule then - if Sands was offsides when he challenged it, even though he doesn't play the ball, it would be ruled offsides - imo, that should reset the offsides at that moment - i understand why the deflection rule exists, and its not for situations like this, but like a deflected shot, etc. - not for a challenged, 50/50 ball

FWIW, I showed the play to the eldest GG son, who is a licensed official. He thought the VAR call was correct, assuming Sands didn't touch it. He said a header only resets offside if you have some control over where it goes. He mentioned there was a similar play in the World Cup this past year (might have been the one in the Qatari opener).

 

[SoupInNYC]

FWIW, I showed the play to the eldest GG son, who is a licensed official. He thought the VAR call was correct, assuming Sands didn't touch it. He said a header only resets offside if you have some control over where it goes. He mentioned there was a similar play in the World Cup this past year (might have been the one in the Qatari opener).

Yeah I understand that part of it and it being the correct call (although clear and obvious I take issue with) if Sands didn't touch it. My qualm above was with that part of the rule since it was a contested header. If Sands had been offsides himself, that play would have been ruled offside because of his involvement in it, even though he didn't actually touch the ball. That, IMO, should reset the offside to when the contested header occurs.

 

[ALBNYfan]

Yeah I understand that part of it and it being the correct call (although clear and obvious I take issue with) if Sands didn't touch it. My qualm above was with that part of the rule since it was a contested header. If Sands had been offsides himself, that play would have been ruled offside because of his involvement in it, even though he didn't actually touch the ball. That, IMO, should reset the offside to when the contested header occurs.

Does the clip you posted on twitter clear things up? The close up of the contested header shows the defender heads the ball which then deflects of Sands and goes to Haak, who we've seen in another clip was onsides at the time of deflection which means it should have been a goal. Or am I missing something else?

 

[SoupInNYC]

Does the clip you posted on twitter clear things up? The close up of the contested header shows the defender heads the ball which then deflects of Sands and goes to Haak, who we've seen in another clip was onsides at the time of deflection which means it should have been a goal. Or am I missing something else?

Now I won't pretend to be a rules expert, so I can't say with 100% certainty, but IMO and how I'm interpreting the rule, it should not have been ruled offside because it goes off of Sands' head.

 

[ZYanksRule]

Now I won't pretend to be a rules expert, so I can't say with 100% certainty, but IMO and how I'm interpreting the rule, it should not have been ruled offside because it goes off of Sands' head.

I agree with you -- but could they have ruled the play "over" when the Atlas defender touched it? Like does that moment overrule the moment Sands touches it? Or do we think they ruled that Sands didn't touch it?

 

[SoupInNYC]

I agree with you -- but could they have ruled the play "over" when the Atlas defender touched it? Like does that moment overrule the moment Sands touches it? Or do we think they ruled that Sands didn't touch it?

I don't see how they could have ruled the play over then, because they didn't rule it that way on the field.

If the ball had been played back towards the NYCFC goal, the play certainly would have continued as well, so just because it hit the Atlas player's head wouldn't end the play

 

[ZYanksRule]

I don't see how they could have ruled the play over then, because they didn't rule it that way on the field.

If the ball had been played back towards the NYCFC goal, the play certainly would have continued as well, so just because it hit the Atlas player's head wouldn't end the play

Right -- so the ruling was basically that the ball hit the Atlas player and was not touched by Sands. Even though, it turns out, it was. So bad.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Right -- so the ruling was basically that the ball CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY hit the Atlas player and was not CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY touched by Sands. Even though, it turns out, it was. So bad.

 

[FootyLovin]

Right -- so the ruling was basically that the ball hit the Atlas player and was not touched by Sands. Even though, it turns out, it was. So bad.

I assume the reason it took 5+ minutes was for them to look up all this obscure case law.

 

[moogoo]

 

[FootyLovin]

In all the VAR / Nazi controversy, I totally forgot to post my favorite moment from this match, one that actually got me really enthusiastic.

After Haak scored and all our players started running to the corner to celebrate a game tying goal in our home stadium, one player sprinted to the net. One player went to grab the ball. One player has a winning, not a tying mentality.

Our new #9. Sight for sore eyes. Welcome Bakrar.