The backline was disorganized but I thought Keaton and Sands started very poorly. Keaton was in his full casual Keaton mode where he drifts toward the the attacking player but doesn't put in a tackle or attempt to win the ball in any way once he gets there. Sands saw the backline get beat and started playing deeper and deeper so he could be ready to help. Once the Crew broke through the press of our attackers it was a clear path right to the backline.
MLS - June 14 - Columbus (Home - YS)
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
The backline was disorganized but I thought Keaton and Sands started very poorly. Keaton was in his full casual Keaton mode where he drifts toward the the attacking player but doesn't put in a tackle or attempt to win the ball in any way once he gets there. Sands saw the backline get beat and started playing deeper and deeper so he could be ready to help. Once the Crew broke through the press of our attackers it was a clear path right to the backline.
i've not been a fan of casual keaton lately. he's always played like he's just doing things nonchalant but he used to execute much better. he used to be one of our best ball progressers with the pass and the dribble. just seems like he's trying to do things that are too fancy or forcing things and just ends up giving the ball away cheaply. I am a big fan of his, but i want to see less frustration and silly fouls and more focus and execution. I know he has it in him.
with pressing, he is one of basically 95% of the team who needs to learn how to press and defend. it's pointless to exert energy in a press if you don't do it the right way both as the person pressing the ball and as supporting press to limit passing options. a good team, like the crew, will find the weak points and exploit them and that's exactly what they did. luckily, there aren't a lot of teams like the crew in MLS.
With how well the team played overall, I think a glaring difference was to watch the masterful ball security of Nagbe (and how he positioned his body to draw fouls) and the lack of said qualities from Keaton. Watching that I really thought that was the upgrade that would take the team from good to great.
Keaton doesn't draw many fouls but he can shield the ball and carry it through traffic when he's being aggressive. I think over the winning streak Keaton has played more assertively and was looking like his best self. There are just times like at the start of the Columbus game where he plays passively and doesn't look like he wants to mix it up on defense at all and when that version of Keaton shows up it hurts us.
I went back and watched the timeline on this.
57:30 Contact occurs in the box.
57:37 Maxi is fouled and Cheberko gets a yellow card.
57:50 The free kick is held up for Stoica's VAR check.
58:45 Di Silva makes VAR signal and heads to the video screen.
59:45 Di Silva's video screen finally starts to work.
62:00 Di Silva stops review and steps away from the monitor.
62:15 Di Silva announces the decision.
They need to do a better job inside the stadium explaining what's being looked at. The entire time I thought they were reviewing for a red card on Cheberko. It made the eventual call even more confusing.
yeah. they need to limit these reviews to 30 seconds. If VAR can't present video clips and angles for the ref to decide without any doubt in 30 seconds, the call on the field stands. this may help or not help depending on the call on the field, but i'd feel better about the "clear and obvious" standard being used.
All that would do is make the refs try to come to a conclusion within 30 seconds, not admitting that they couldn't figure it out in 30 seconds. So i think it might end up with worse calls too.
oh for sure. but at least it would give the illusion of "clear and obvious" ha. and better than wasting 3 minutes watching 500 replays of the same camera angle making the ref look like a complete buffoon.
i don't quite understand? if anything it should motivate keaton to perform better so as to not lose his starting position.
With the theme of this thread, it makes it “clear and obvious” to switch Parks for Maxi.
There is a lot of great analysis, insight and observation in this thread, and I for one really appreciate it. There were certainly flaws in our performance (there always are) and a lot of good things as well, and I think it all has been covered thoroughly. Great stuff.
Personally, my big takeaway from this game is confidence. We went up against the defending Cup holders down two key starters from our normal XI and then went down to 10 men in the first half and still managed to go toe-to-toe with them. Arguably, we could have won the match. We were certainly the better side late in the game.
No loss is a good loss, but if you're going to lose, going down fighting all the way is the way to do it. I'm now more sure than ever: come the tail end of this season, no one is going to want to play us. And we're going to be a formidable side in the playoffs. My guess is everything will really be clicking by then.
Hang on to your hats.
Personally, my big takeaway from this game is confidence. We went up against the defending Cup holders down two key starters from our normal XI and then went down to 10 men in the first half and still managed to go toe-to-toe with them. Arguably, we could have won the match. We were certainly the better side late in the game.
No loss is a good loss, but if you're going to lose, going down fighting all the way is the way to do it. I'm now more sure than ever: come the tail end of this season, no one is going to want to play us. And we're going to be a formidable side in the playoffs. My guess is everything will really be clicking by then.
Hang on to your hats.
I initially thought it was for a red card too. Then, I pulled out my phone, fired up AppleTV and saw what they were really reviewing. I said "Oh man, if they call this a penalty, people are going to lose their fucking minds." Apologies to my 8-YO.
I also saw the push in the back live (I sit right on the side of that penalty area). I was worried it would be whistled live, but then never imagined it would be sent for review.
Fans can't help but keep score, and when one team (1) is given a red, (2) sees an opponent offsides reversed in favor of a goal, and (3) called for a penalty in the box after review, it does not even matter if the calls were right. Those fans will feel hard done. In contrast, whenever I read or hear sports officials discuss make-up calls, they always scoff a the idea. They don't just say it's wrong, or never done, you can tell they have absolute contempt even for the suggestion. They have goldfish memory and just wants to get the next call right. And I think they're right to do so. But, "correct" does not mean objectively the right call if you had an omniscient official with perfect lines of sight and judgment. "Correct" after review means was the original call was clearly and obviously wrong with the replays we have.
The offside was borderline. But I've seen too many poor angle offside videos that seemed obvious turn out to be wrong after the perfect angle is shown. We had one just a few games ago, though I can't remember the specifics. Unless he was shown something we did not see, I don't think we had a reliable angle.
Meanwhile the PK push was a judgment call. Nothing about the original call was wrong. It legitimately could have gone either way. People like to say that if you take too much time it's not clear and obvious, but that's only sometimes true depending on the nature of the call. If you reverse based on objective fact, such as whether the defender got ball or not, or it can take a bit to find the right camera and for your mind to pick out the sequence and elements and see through a tangle of bodies. But judgment calls are different. If you look at a judgment type replay and don't immediately go, wow, that's a lot worse or less egregious than I thought, it will never become clear and obvious no matter how many times you look at it. There arguably is not even an objective right or wrong answer.
Best justification for the ref's handling was he did not see the push at all, so the video showed him a fact he missed, but he obviously struggled with the sufficiency judgment call aspect.
The most consistent and frustrating problem with VAR is inconsistent application of the standard. Maybe that was objectively a PK, and maybe not. It doesn't matter. He misapplied the standard while trying to be perfect.
The broadcast viewing was equally perplexing in its own way. The ref didn't spend all that time checking angles. He just stood there staring at the same replay loop for the entire time. It was just bizarre. If you have to watch it that many times there is no way it's clear and obvious.
On another note, I really enjoyed hearing Lift Every Voice before the game on Friday.
I wasn't familiar with the song until about a year ago when the choir at my church sang it at the retirement of a clergy member who is African American. It's a terrific song musically - much better than the National Anthem - although that's a low bar.
I wasn't familiar with the song until about a year ago when the choir at my church sang it at the retirement of a clergy member who is African American. It's a terrific song musically - much better than the National Anthem - although that's a low bar.
That’s the most reasonable explanation I’ve heard. Especially in combination with the fact that the on field ref was a “rookie” And the VAR was a veteran. VAR was like “you missed this” and the ref deferred.
PRO says video review should not have been used in the penalty call as it’s a subjective decision and not a clear and obvious error. Screwed over again.
