MLS - October 3 - Nashville (RBA)

[gbservis]

bright spots - we looked like we wanted to play, though we were still hesitant to play those line breaking passes from the back. But, for a 4th game in 2 weeks, we played pretty well. unlucky on shots and willis made some good saves.

bad spots - tinnerholm's likely season ending injury and no goals.

The other bright spot I thought was Gray, nothing spectacular but he came in and held his own. Was solid on D and made some good runs going forward. Overall he looked confident and comfortable which is good because he's likely starting for the remainder of the season and if it's as bad as it looked for Tinnerholm on TV maybe parts of next season as well.

 

[sabertooth36]

I’ve kept my mouth shut about the officiating, for the most part, but today I started to think there is a conspiracy against NYCFC. It’s the lack of consistency. Nashville didn’t get a single yellow?
Thought the Greyellow was bullshit (have not reviewed it) but looked like the Nashville player actually put his body into grey on first look.
Another tough match. Thought we had at least four great chances. Need to be able to bury those once in awhile. Early in the match also. Damn.

I've been saying for a while that MLS really, really doesn't want a playoff game at YS.

That said, while the reffing wasn't good, it wasn't the reason we lost the game. Our guys had the yips, plain and simple. Taty will likely be suspended for the next couple of games, so we'll have to rely on Talles to lead the line with Heber maybe getting 30 minutes here and there.

 

[FootyLovin]

and of course, the offsides call on callens goal. what happened to not raising the flag if there it's a tight call? i

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule.

Side judges are instructed in tight call situations to keep their flags down until the attacking play has played out. In this case the end of the attacking play was the goal. At that point the side judge is instructed to call the play. They are not instructed not to call offsides in close situations but merely to delay the offsides call so the attack can play out and then go to VAR if necessary. That is exactly what was done.

 

[SoupInNYC]

The other bright spot I thought was Gray, nothing spectacular but he came in and held his own. Was solid on D and made some good runs going forward. Overall he looked confident and comfortable which is good because he's likely starting for the remainder of the season and if it's as bad as it looked for Tinnerholm on TV maybe parts of next season as well.

Gray has looked very nice every time he's played this season. I'm excited to see how he continues to develop.

 

[moogoo]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule.

Side judges are instructed in tight call situations to keep their flags down until the attacking play has played out. In this case the end of the attacking play was the goal. At that point the side judge is instructed to call the play. They are not instructed not to call offsides in close situations but merely to delay the offsides call so the attack can play out and then go to VAR if necessary. That is exactly what was done.

Yes. that is done so that VAR has the ability to review the play since they can't review an offsides call without the goal. but since we have VAR, from my understanding, the general consensus is that linesman should keep the flag down and let VAR overturn the goal if they are not absolutely sure. I don't think there's any way the linesman was absolutely sure. benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker cause more goals are more fun.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Yes. that is done so that VAR has the ability to review the play since they can't review an offsides call without the goal. but since we have VAR, from my understanding, the general consensus is that linesman should keep the flag down and let VAR overturn the goal if they are not absolutely sure. I don't think there's any way the linesman was absolutely sure. benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker cause more goals are more fun.

The general consensus is the linesman should keep the flag down until the attacking play is finished AND THEN make their decision, offsides or not.

The general consensus IS NOT they shouldn't call offsides at all. It's just they shouldn't call it right away.

 

[moogoo]

The general consensus is the linesman should keep the flag down until the attacking play is finished AND THEN make their decision, offsides or not.

The general consensus IS NOT they shouldn't call offsides at all. It's just they shouldn't call it right away.

I don't think I am being very clear. I understand the flag goes up after the goal/attacking play is finished. Especially in cases where there is a chance at goal. The occurrence of the goal allows VAR to do the review.

I've always thought that refs were giving the benefit of the doubt to attackers on close calls cause VAR can overturn it if necessary. But I guess that isn't the case. I can accept that.

 

[FootyLovin]

I've always thought that refs were giving the benefit of the doubt to attackers on close calls cause VAR can overturn it if necessary. But I guess that isn't the case. I can accept that.

The end of what you say here is accurate. They are supposed to call them like they sees them. The only change has been about timing the call.

The certainty principle that I think might have led to confusion is the level of certainty (clear and obvious) VAR is supposed to have to overturn. However that has turned into 100% nitpicking razor thin calls in some cases and giving wide latitude to clear and obvious in others.

 

[moogoo]

The end of what you say here is accurate. They are supposed to call them like they sees them. The only change has been about timing the call.

The certainty principle that I think might have led to confusion is the level of certainty (clear and obvious) VAR is supposed to have to overturn. However that has turned into 100% nitpicking razor thin calls in some cases and giving wide latitude to clear and obvious in others.

You said it. Clear and obvious is not so clear and obvious. What makes it even more difficult is the lack of standard camera angles in every stadium.

 

[Gotham Gator]

According to 538, we led on shot-based expected goals by 2.3-1.1 and non-shot based expected goals by 2.3-1.0.

Overall, I was pleased to see that after a bad few games, we've returned to our normal level of playing pretty football, setting up chances, and ultimately not scoring.

 

[canchon]

According to 538, we led on shot-based expected goals by 2.3-1.1 and non-shot based expected goals by 2.3-1.0.

Overall, I was pleased to see that after a bad few games, we've returned to our normal level of playing pretty football, setting up chances, and ultimately not scoring.

I think LAFC’s xGD for the year is something like +24 and their actual GD is -3. As bad as NYCFC underperforms it’s expected goals, that stat is simply jaw dropping.

 

[mgarbowski]

I think LAFC’s xGD for the year is something like +24 and their actual GD is -3. As bad as NYCFC underperforms it’s expected goals, that stat is simply jaw dropping.

Pretty close: xGD +21.7, and actual -3 for difference of -24.70. If it holds, it will be the worst team performance relative to xGD in 9 years of ASA data. Current full season worst is 2019 SKC at -23.76. Then there's a huge gap to 2014 Chivas in third at -17.94.

2021 NYC currently sits in the 55th worst position at -6.19. Bad, but far from extraordinary. As I've previously noted, the real under-performance by NYCFC comes from poor goal allocation across games. Average GD in wins is 2.30. Average GD in losses is -1.20.

Fun fact: NYCFC has won 6 games by a margin of 2 goals or more.
New England has won 5.

 

[Marito]

Pretty close: xGD +21.7, and actual -3 for difference of -24.70. If it holds, it will be the worst team performance relative to xGD in 9 years of ASA data. Current full season worst is 2019 SKC at -23.76. Then there's a huge gap to 2014 Chivas in third at -17.94.

2021 NYC currently sits in the 55th worst position at -6.19. Bad, but far from extraordinary. As I've previously noted, the real under-performance by NYCFC comes from poor goal allocation across games. Average GD in wins is 2.30. Average GD in losses is -1.20.

Fun fact: NYCFC has won 6 games by a margin of 2 goals or more.
New England has won 5.

Based on what comes out in the mlssoccer highlights, LAFC also seems to concede a lot of goals because of laughable brain farts rather than opponents' merit. What I mean is that, unlike Miami or Cincy, they are not super permeable or unathletic in defense, and they don´t concede tons of chances every match, but a high percentage of those they concede seem to be high xG chances that come out of miscommunication and inexplicable mistakes. We´ve had a few of those but LAFC seems to have had a lot.

 

[Gotham Gator]

LA should have kept Walker Zimmerman.

Nashville has a great D, and he is a big reason. Dude was a stud against us.