MLS Cup Playoffs - December 11 - Portland (Away)
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
damn you beat me to it but mine was a bit different
He had absolutely no idea what to do in that moment. Looked like he lost all control of his extremities. It was amazing. Honestly, I had a similar experience. Jumping up and down, waving my arms, yelling "Oh my god! Oh my god!"
So which fan group is fooling themselves more: the Timbers army who can’t stop talking about how beautiful, meaningful and important the Mora goal was (“greatest goal in club history”), the Union fans that say the championship deserves an asterisk or the NJRB fans that can’t stop talking about the one random dude who took a picture in front of RBA today?
That Timbers goal was amazing, even if they didn't finish the deal. Full credit to Mora -- that's an incredible moment.
The way we played against Philly, if they're at full strength it's very possible they beat us. We had no legs for that game, we were dead on our feet. You need luck to win MLS Cup, and we sure got lucky to advance.
I don't know the story about the Red Bulls thing, but I'll say that one.
I am 100% happy of our fantastic triumph, but I have a great curiosity: why didn't the referee go to see the VAR after the Timbers goal? It is absurd and scandalous! Now nobody is talking about it because we won, but if...
It is unfair that we only won on penalties and not after 90 minutes.
Forza NYCFC from Napoli (Italia)!
MLS and NYC are blue!!!
It is unfair that we only won on penalties and not after 90 minutes.
Forza NYCFC from Napoli (Italia)!
MLS and NYC are blue!!!
Well people have been taking about it actually. Blue City Radio (biased source) says it definitely was a foul and was embarrassed that it wasn’t checked. Extra Time Radio (biased in a different merit but more neutral) believe the ref called a physical game and let a lot of things play and thought it was the correct call to let them play. I think when the ball went in there was no way the ref was going to call it. There would be an uproar from fans all over the country about how we rigged this game and then with the COVID protocols in Philly we shouldn’t be champions. I see that perspective even if I think that’s a stupid perspective. I’m happy that we won on PKs in a dramatic fashion. I wish we had just cleared that ball and the game be over that much earlier. Or hell, I wish Medina got a shot off on the break away for a chance to ice the game. But hey I’ll take the win any way we can get it.
At any other part of the game or season, I think it's pretty clearly called. But in that moment, I don't think there's any chance we are getting that call.
A number of (non NYCFC affiliated)analysts said it was a clear foul. I started watching the game on ESPN replay (I was at the game) and my observations regarding fouls did not change and were actually solidified. Twellman surprised me cause in the past I’ve felt he’d always like’ “that was soft” but he (and Clattenberg) thought Fochive deserved at least one yellow as two of his fouls were that bad. The ref was clearly afraid to give out yellows to Portland, especially early and terrified to take the goal away.
yup. he reffed the occasion and not the game. referees should not change how call a game no matter what game it is, what minute it is, and who is playing. but refs are human and this kind of influence is expected.
refs were fairly hesitant to give yellows or fouls they would normally call during the regular season, all through the playoffs. why? call the game the same. all anybody wants is consistency.
To be fair, the question that Wiebe asked to the other guys was "did you want a foul to be called there" and almost all of them said they didn't want a foul called there and for any neutral of course you didn't want a foul called there.
Wiebe himself added extra commentary saying that there was basically nothing there at all. Doyle said he didn't want a foul called and wanted the drama but also said that what happened was similar to the foul called against Jamaica in WCQ.
The other two guys only answered the question in the manner of did they want a foul to be called there. Not if there should have been a foul called there
ESPN fc guys were mostly saying it was a foul but they understand why the refs didn't call it. Stevie Nicol was saying it was wrong for a ref to call a game differently just because of the circumstances. And ale Moreno basically just said well refs are human.
I'm with Nicol. But it's pretty clear pro approached the entire playoffs very differently than regular season games. Less yellows and letting more physical play go. All we want is consistency and pro is playing a game of let's make a deal with what kind of game they're gonna call.
Consistency how? Across both teams? Across different refs? Across the playoffs? Across the whole season?
If you want consistency across all of those you want robot referees. The fact that
LionNYC posts the game refs before each match and we dissect their history and style says that there are nuances from match to match and ref to ref.The way I have always taken the consistency argument is to call both teams the same. If a certain play is a yellow for one team, it should be a yellow for the other. If one team gets to play physical, so should the other.
It's even widely recognized that there is no real expectation of consistency from start to finish of a match, as when commentators talk about the need for a ref to tighten things up or get control.
I think the match was called as a pretty physical match from start to finish on both sides. The play in the box was absolutely a foul in a match that was being called tight. This one wasn't. As such it really is a 50/50 call. And a 50/50 call isn't a call the VAR should recommend a check on.
The VAR should be there not to return an end game scenario to some absolute letter of the law, but to help the ref on the field maintain consistency. In this case, the consistent call was to let the physical play on the field stand. No foul. Likewise, had a foul been called (somehow after the goal had been scored), the VAR should not have overruled that either. It was a 50/50 based on the calling of the match to that point.
I thought it was a foul, but not an especially obvious one, and letting it go wasn't that egregious. Clattenberg said on the broadcast that it was a foul but that MLS has a high standard for the VAR to call a review and it didn't meet that standard. That sounds about right to me, and I like that we have a high standard - it is in keeping with the actual rule.
As for consistency - what I want is consistency between the two teams and consistency in calls throughout the game - an action that is a foul in the first half should be a foul in the second half and in stoppage time.Consistency how? Across both teams? Across different refs? Across the playoffs? Across the whole season?
If you want consistency across all of those you want robot referees. The fact that
The way I have always taken the consistency argument is to call both teams the same. If a certain play is a yellow for one team, it should be a yellow for the other. If one team gets to play physical, so should the other.
It's even widely recognized that there is no real expectation of consistency from start to finish of a match, as when commentators talk about the need for a ref to tighten things up or get control.
I think the match was called as a pretty physical match from start to finish on both sides. The play in the box was absolutely a foul in a match that was being called tight. This one wasn't. As such it really is a 50/50 call. And a 50/50 call isn't a call the VAR should recommend a check on.
The VAR should be there not to return an end game scenario to some absolute letter of the law, but to help the ref on the field maintain consistency. In this case, the consistent call was to let the physical play on the field stand. No foul. Likewise, had a foul been called (somehow after the goal had been scored), the VAR should not have overruled that either. It was a 50/50 based on the calling of the match to that point.
I think Villareal passed that test, even if he doesn't get an A+. He called a loose game and was consistent in that from start to finish. He let a lot go and was hesitant to hand out cards. I think letting that foul go in the tying minute was basically consistent, even if I disagree with the call.
Not an A and not an F grade. I imagine that If we lost then I would have a big problem that no foul was called and that Villarreal clearly called the game favoring the home team. Fochive should definitely have had a yellow, Santi got a yellow (as I recall) not too long after being fouled in a card worthy manner that did not result in a booking. I haven’t finished rewatching the match but through the first 40’ it seems to me he was very lenient with regards to the home team. Luckily the game didn’t “get out of hand” which often happens when persistent hard fouls don’t result in a booking.
Santi's yellow was for time wasting, and completely deserved. He was leaving the game and stopped about 4 feet from the sideline to take his shin pads out. It was kind of funny.
Boy do fans love to go on about officiating.
For the love of whatever you hold holy, WE WON MLS CUP and not only that,
IF WE WON IT DUE TO THE REF WAVING OF THAT GOAL WITH 5 SECONDS LEFT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS SATISFYING IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY. ESPECIALLY IF AFTER VAR BUT EVEN IN REAL TIME. And yes, he chose not to give many yellows which allowed Portland to be physical.
STOP
JUST BE HAPPY
Or, dissect every slight and potential unfairness in the light of hypothetical events that didn't happen because the ref error could have led to us losing which it didn't and convince yourself you have cause to feel poorly done. Your choice.
Last edited:
The key question is, would any of you folks that went to Portland have waited until Monday to bail
LionNYC out if we ended up losing?
Here are a couple of my random thoughts:
Their keeper could have done better with two of our shots. Taty's PK, and another one id have to go back again to look at, were certainly saveable.
Also the Timbers Army did their PT FC chant during the penalties. I suspect that maybe that was the worst chant to use. It was a consistent, rhythmic beat that may have allowed our players to remain calm, focused and ease the distraction of all the enemy fans. Had they sang a song or had just been super loud, maybe SJ and our takers would have been less comfortable and more prone to mistakes.
Personally, I'm still annoyed by the official in the NER match. When he did not give a yellow to Buchanon but moments later gave a yellow to Maxi for a less severe foul, I was pissed. In fact Buchanon probably should have had two yellows and the match would never have been equalised.
But yes, we won and it was fantastic the way it all went down! Doesn't mean I wont still play the woulda coulda shoulda game!
LionNYC out if we ended up losing?But to be serious, this was the biggest game in our history. We can revel in the joy of victory, but specifics of the game will prompt thought all off-season. It could have gone differently.
Here are a couple of my random thoughts:
Their keeper could have done better with two of our shots. Taty's PK, and another one id have to go back again to look at, were certainly saveable.
Also the Timbers Army did their PT FC chant during the penalties. I suspect that maybe that was the worst chant to use. It was a consistent, rhythmic beat that may have allowed our players to remain calm, focused and ease the distraction of all the enemy fans. Had they sang a song or had just been super loud, maybe SJ and our takers would have been less comfortable and more prone to mistakes.
Personally, I'm still annoyed by the official in the NER match. When he did not give a yellow to Buchanon but moments later gave a yellow to Maxi for a less severe foul, I was pissed. In fact Buchanon probably should have had two yellows and the match would never have been equalised.
But yes, we won and it was fantastic the way it all went down! Doesn't mean I wont still play the woulda coulda shoulda game!
Last edited:
'Twas Magno, it was a very savable penalty
