MLS - July 9 - New England (Home)

[Gotham Gator]

On the Revs second goal, I was more or less in line with the pass and thought Bou was clearly off by about a yard. After watching the replays, I’m not so sure. The ball had run ahead of the passer and he was stretching forward for it, which means Bou was ahead of the man, but maybe not the ball.

 

[mgarbowski]

On the Revs second goal, I was more or less in line with the pass and thought Bou was clearly off by about a yard. After watching the replays, I’m not so sure. The ball had run ahead of the passer and he was stretching forward for it, which means Bou was ahead of the man, but maybe not the ball. View attachment 12142

Almost didn’t notice the added notations.

 

[GratefulDawg]

On the Revs second goal, I was more or less in line with the pass and thought Bou was clearly off by about a yard. After watching the replays, I’m not so sure. The ball had run ahead of the passer and he was stretching forward for it, which means Bou was ahead of the man, but maybe not the ball. View attachment 12142

Man, how you stayed out in the sun while it was scorching is beyond me. I was in the shade the entire time and even the infamous Choi had to drop back into the shade for the second half.

 

[FootyLovin]

Does anyone have the official language for what constitutes a PK?

PK2 - Definitely looked shoulder to shoulder. So the PK had to be b/c of playing man without attempt at ball or the timing (prior to arrival of ball) or excessive force. But playing man happens all the time. Players have the right to occupy space. Contact before ball arrival happens all the time. The only thing that seems like it could have been is excessive force. Frankly I just don't see that except that it looked worse b/c of how Taty cleared out Maxi. So that brings me back to language. How is excessive force defined?

PK3 - The PK had to be for the push in the back. I'm much more comfortable with this one. There was contact to Taty's back. It could have been soft contact. (It looked like very soft contact.) But as a defender you can just never, ever make contact with someone's back who is in front of you and in on goal. Still, I'm curious if there is language that describes how much contact is necessary to claim a foul?

Anyone got the rules handy?

 

[Gotham Gator]

Does anyone have the official language for what constitutes a PK?

PK2 - Definitely looked shoulder to shoulder. So the PK had to be b/c of playing man without attempt at ball or the timing (prior to arrival of ball) or excessive force. But playing man happens all the time. Players have the right to occupy space. Contact before ball arrival happens all the time. The only thing that seems like it could have been is excessive force. Frankly I just don't see that except that it looked worse b/c of how Taty cleared out Maxi. So that brings me back to language. How is excessive force defined?

PK3 - The PK had to be for the push in the back. I'm much more comfortable with this one. There was contact to Taty's back. It could have been soft contact. (It looked like very soft contact.) But as a defender you can just never, ever make contact with someone's back who is in front of you and in on goal. Still, I'm curious if there is language that describes how much contact is necessary to claim a foul?

Anyone got the rules handy?

I believe that kind of stuff isn’t in the rules but in how the officials are told to interpret the rules. I don’t know whether it’s possible to find that kind of thing on line.

 

[CCMore]

Gabby “Ankle Breaker” Periera’s goal should be goal of the week at least. Not often can you dupe two players in the same move, cut it back and put it into the back of the net.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Anyone know why nobody thought Gustavo Bou was necessary to mark in the box on that first goal. He just sat in acres of space. This is the kind of thing we need to clean up on defense all of a sudden.

 

[LionNYC]

Anyone know why nobody thought Gustavo Bou was necessary to mark in the box on that first goal. He just sat in acres of space. This is the kind of thing we need to clean up on defense all of a sudden.

View attachment 12143

View attachment 12144

Looks identical to Atlanta’s second goal a week ago scored by Dwyer. Missed tackle on the far side, run to the end line, cut back to the middle of the box. Goal.

 

[DeGrozz]

Does anyone have the official language for what constitutes a PK?

PK2 - Definitely looked shoulder to shoulder. So the PK had to be b/c of playing man without attempt at ball or the timing (prior to arrival of ball) or excessive force. But playing man happens all the time. Players have the right to occupy space. Contact before ball arrival happens all the time. The only thing that seems like it could have been is excessive force. Frankly I just don't see that except that it looked worse b/c of how Taty cleared out Maxi. So that brings me back to language. How is excessive force defined?

PK3 - The PK had to be for the push in the back. I'm much more comfortable with this one. There was contact to Taty's back. It could have been soft contact. (It looked like very soft contact.) But as a defender you can just never, ever make contact with someone's back who is in front of you and in on goal. Still, I'm curious if there is language that describes how much contact is necessary to claim a foul?

Anyone got the rules handy?

I love the call on the PK2. Not necessarily because it went our way (though that was nice this time), but elsewhere on the field, dropping a shoulder and playing the player instead of the ball — which is exactly what Kessler did — gets called 90%+ of the time when the ref sees it. Just because the play is in the box doesn’t mean it’s open season on a striker. Maybe a rules expert can correct me if I am wrong on this, but a foul in the rest of the playing field is defined the same as a foul in the box.

A foul is a foul. Giving refs too much judgment on whether or not one is ‘severe’ enough for a penalty creates too much inconsistency from game to game, even with VAR.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Looks identical to Atlanta’s second goal a week ago scored by Dwyer. Missed tackle on the far side, run to the end line, cut back to the middle of the box. Goal.

Too much of that. And I think it's because our guys just don't glance over their shoulders enough. Too focused on the ball. Attackers can just sneak into space, or just stop their run and let everyone fly by, and bang.

 

[moogoo]

Anyone know why nobody thought Gustavo Bou was necessary to mark in the box on that first goal. He just sat in acres of space. This is the kind of thing we need to clean up on defense all of a sudden.

View attachment 12143

View attachment 12144

i mentioned this in the chat when it happened. we never mark the pull back space when there's a guy attacking the end line. yes. the guy attacking the end line is the danger man, but I would much rather make him continue to dribble on the end line and take a shit angle shot. if he makes it, bravo to him.

it's not just us. this is fairly normal defensive behavior for a LOT of teams. It's why pullbacks like that are a thing and have been since forever.

but as a defense, we need to be more aware. In this case, morales or acevedo should have tracked back enough to mark him. it's asking a lot physically, yes. but that's part of a midfielder's job and shows why we need a true box to box midfielder.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Does anyone have the official language for what constitutes a PK?

PK2 - Definitely looked shoulder to shoulder. So the PK had to be b/c of playing man without attempt at ball or the timing (prior to arrival of ball) or excessive force. But playing man happens all the time. Players have the right to occupy space. Contact before ball arrival happens all the time. The only thing that seems like it could have been is excessive force. Frankly I just don't see that except that it looked worse b/c of how Taty cleared out Maxi. So that brings me back to language. How is excessive force defined?

PK3 - The PK had to be for the push in the back. I'm much more comfortable with this one. There was contact to Taty's back. It could have been soft contact. (It looked like very soft contact.) But as a defender you can just never, ever make contact with someone's back who is in front of you and in on goal. Still, I'm curious if there is language that describes how much contact is necessary to claim a foul?

Anyone got the rules handy?

A PK is awarded when a player commits "a direct free kick offence" in the penalty area as defined in Law 12 (see below), and "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force":

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

There's a bit more in the referee's handbook, but for our purposes that's it in a nutshell. The first penalty was obvious. In the second Kessler got beat and took Taty (and Maxi) out to prevent a play the ball. in the third Farrell was beat and shoved Taty enough to throw him off-balance -- Castellanos didn't actually have to go down for it to be an offence, but it helps to sell it -- and denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the bargain.

Edit: Oh, and there was a fourth when Tommy Mac took out Pereira, which could have been a straight red, and probably would have had Gaby not just popped right up and run off, no harm done. And there was arguably a potential fifth for a handball, which Ford clearly just let slide. The Revs were just bad. Behind the mark all day.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Just checked in on Hudson River Blue and Oliver Strand has a good piece on this today. (I'm totally on board.)

New England deserved another red card

Bruce Arena complained about the ref in New York City FC’s 4-2 win, but his undisciplined players were simply held accountable for their actions

www.hudsonriverblue.com

 

[SoupInNYC]

Anyone know why nobody thought Gustavo Bou was necessary to mark in the box on that first goal. He just sat in acres of space. This is the kind of thing we need to clean up on defense all of a sudden.

View attachment 12143

View attachment 12144

Honestly, this was phenomenal movement from Bou. Martins was marking him but he couldn't peel off that much after Bou just dropped into that acre of space.

What I'm assuming should have happened, is one of the DMs is coming back and can at least challenge Bou and not allow that much space there in that spot. But I'd need a better angle (tactical cam ideally) or a longer clip to see what happened here. Callens maybe should have seen the move and cut back inside instead of trailing Lletget perhaps. But again, I'm more inclined to give credit to Bou here for his awareness and movement than blame (aside from the lack of cover from the DMs).

 

[CCMore]

Just checked in on Hudson River Blue and Oliver Strand has a good piece on this today. (I'm totally on board.)

New England deserved another red card

Bruce Arena complained about the ref in New York City FC’s 4-2 win, but his undisciplined players were simply held accountable for their actions

www.hudsonriverblue.com

Just thinking out loud, if the ball goes over the line for a goal and then TMac performs the foul, since it’s now a dead ball situation does that mean he can’t earn the red? But if Gabby missed would TMac been penalized (potential red) and then another PK? I feel like regardless of the goal there should and could have been red. But it seems like the referee took the “no harm no foul” approach, quite literally. I’m curious if VAR could have checked it and dismissed it because there was a goal. Looked to me like some serious foul play

 

[mgarbowski]

Just thinking out loud, if the ball goes over the line for a goal and then TMac performs the foul, since it’s now a dead ball situation does that mean he can’t earn the red? But if Gabby missed would TMac been penalized (potential red) and then another PK? I feel like regardless of the goal there should and could have been red. But it seems like the referee took the “no harm no foul” approach, quite literally. I’m curious if VAR could have checked it and dismissed it because there was a goal. Looked to me like some serious foul play

You can definitely get red cards during dead balls, for obvious reasons of not wanting to have Purge conditions of anything goes. That said, I think the ref has discretion as you imply to consider context and decide enough is enough in terms of discipline.

 

[moogoo]

Just thinking out loud, if the ball goes over the line for a goal and then TMac performs the foul, since it’s now a dead ball situation does that mean he can’t earn the red? But if Gabby missed would TMac been penalized (potential red) and then another PK? I feel like regardless of the goal there should and could have been red. But it seems like the referee took the “no harm no foul” approach, quite literally. I’m curious if VAR could have checked it and dismissed it because there was a goal. Looked to me like some serious foul play

i think if GP had stayed on the ground and rolled around in agony, a card would have been issued. but he bounced up and ran to celebrate. in this case, no harm, no foul.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Live look in at Gustavo Bou still camping out in the middle of the NYC penalty area.

 

[KevinJRogers]

i think if GP had stayed on the ground and rolled around in agony, a card would have been issued. but he bounced up and ran to celebrate. in this case, no harm, no foul.

That's how I saw it (see above): Gaby just blew it off and popped up to celebrate so the ref just let it go.

By the way, our Deuce hammered the Revs II 4-0 yesterday, and it could have been worse. All the goals came in the first half, Denis had a hat trick -- and two of them were PKs.

Wonder if Arena had anything to say about that.

 

[moogoo]

Front row smiles...
Back row stares... lol.