|
Post by Abominable on Jun 10, 2011 9:48:20 GMT -8
Your team is SO close to being amazing. All of those draws are just aggrevating. I really hope you guys start pulling out some more wins in the second half of the season because I really do want them to do well. That's really nice of you Pea, it's good to hear you root for the other NW teams, when some might hate the rivals within close proximity. Go Timbers. That is really nice. I also agree that our record isn't very indicative of the way we have played so far. A little more finish up front or a little tighter marking at the back and we'd have a couple more wins. We've also had some bad luck with players (Hassli) getting sent off on cheap yellows or soft reds.
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Jun 10, 2011 9:54:13 GMT -8
It's only because I'm half Canadian. You know I only said that to imply you would root for the Timbers, which from what I gather, would be like you rooting for a case of gonorrhea.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Jun 10, 2011 10:12:04 GMT -8
Hey now, no reason to give gonorrhea a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Jun 12, 2011 11:10:51 GMT -8
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HASSLI!!!!!!!!!!! > Goal of the fucking year right there. Too bad it had to be against us haha. That game was 80 minutes of the Sounders looking like pure shit, 3 minutes of the Sounders looking like all-stars, 1 split second goal of the year from the Whitecaps, and an end result that wasn't quite what I hoped for, but all around the most electric 10 last minutes of a match I've ever experienced. Hope the Seattle fans treated you well, Abominable. I made a point to greet and welcome any Whitecaps fans I ran into inside the stadium. There was definitely some heckling though that made me embarrassed for my country. Go figure...
|
|
|
Post by emptyfox on Jun 12, 2011 20:54:21 GMT -8
Meh, Canadians would be dicks too, don't worry too much about your country.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Jun 12, 2011 21:31:52 GMT -8
I suppose. Some of it just sounded like the most stereotypical 'merican good-old boy trash talk. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Jun 13, 2011 8:05:45 GMT -8
I hit my first Timbers match (the MLS version) over the weekend. The Timbers Army is crazy, singing the entire match and waving scarfs and flags. Unfortunately, that was only a quarter of the crowd. The rest of the crowd was pretty much what you would see in a movie theater. Although it felt like the Timbers dominated the possessions, and the match in general, they lost in the 90th minute, 1-0. The crowd continued singing and cheering as the Timbers players saluted them after the loss.
I'm still a bit bitter Portland ran their baseball team out of town, and MLS has become the new hip thing to do in Portland, but I did have a blast, and I've always been a soccer fan. I can see why some of you crazies get season tickets. I'm thinking of doing the same next season, really just for the spike in hip points.
|
|
|
Post by Abominable on Jun 13, 2011 10:02:44 GMT -8
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HASSLI!!!!!!!!!!! > Goal of the fucking year right there. Too bad it had to be against us haha. That game was 80 minutes of the Sounders looking like pure shit, 3 minutes of the Sounders looking like all-stars, 1 split second goal of the year from the Whitecaps, and an end result that wasn't quite what I hoped for, but all around the most electric 10 last minutes of a match I've ever experienced. Hope the Seattle fans treated you well, Abominable. I made a point to greet and welcome any Whitecaps fans I ran into inside the stadium. There was definitely some heckling though that made me embarrassed for my country. Go figure... What a goal! Was super choked at the two quick goals we conceded, but Hassli more than made up for it in the end. We went to this Mexican place called Rositas before the game - they were free pouring margaritas with I'm guessing three shots of tequila each. A few of those had me walking into the stadium with a perma-grin on my face. The whole experience was amazing, the staff and fans at QWest were great, especially in putting up with a bunch of drunk Vancouverites. Hope you can make it up here for your away match and that you are treated the same way we all were! Oh, and after Saturday I am seriously considering making the trip to Portland in August.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Jun 13, 2011 10:44:07 GMT -8
I'm trying to talk fox into getting us tickets for that match. If we make it out we should definitely meet for beer!
Glad you had a great time man.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Jul 10, 2011 16:20:04 GMT -8
Knowidyuh had a fun day today
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Jul 11, 2011 9:56:15 GMT -8
So yeah, I got kicked down a ticket to the Timbers game yesterday. I didn't even realize it was the Sounders they were playing until a couple hours before the game, so I started heckling Pea via text message. I sent him a pretty funny text right before the game started that didn't go through; I was getting pretty spotty reception where I was sitting. Last time Portland played Seattle, it ended in a tie, and the Sounders coach famously said the wet conditions favored the Timbers (like Seattle never plays in the rain or something?). So I took a picture of the hose guy watering the field, sent it, and said, "They are watering down the field because it suits our style better. Seattle can't play when it's wet."
There was a questionable call with 8 minutes to go and the game tied 2-2 that ended all hopes for the Timbers. A foul was called in the box, and by rule (I think), the player was red carded and ejected, and the Sounders got a penalty kick out of it (which are successful about 85% of the time). Pretty harsh rules in soccer, not only was Seattle given the lead, but Portland had to play the remainder of the match down one player. Portland is an expansion team, and Seattle is one of the better teams in the league, so playing a man short meant they had no chance of moving the ball. It was still an exciting game, those Timbers fans are crazy.
One thing that really irritated me was the amount of flops the Sounders players were doing. I think any average soccer fan would agree that is one of worst parts about the sport, a player trips, then acts like their Achilles ruptured rolling around on the ground in agony, only to get up and run like nothing happened twenty seconds later. MLS could really make a name for themselves as a league if they no longer allowed this. People might actually start watching the sport.
|
|
|
Post by ComesWithASword on Jul 11, 2011 10:31:18 GMT -8
MLS have the WORST refs in pro soccer
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Jul 11, 2011 15:24:40 GMT -8
Not to be belly-aching about the Timbers loss, I still had a blast, but that call got me thinking about how wack the rules of soccer are, especially since a similar type call happened earlier in the day in the USA women's match (definition of instant classic).
In basketball, if you accidentally foul someone, they get two free throws. If you foul them maliciously, they get two free throws and the ball.
In hockey, if you accidentally foul someone, you get a two minute penalty. If you maliciously foul them, you get a five minute major penalty.
In football, when you accidentally foul someone, you get a 15 yard penalty. If you maliciously foul them, you get a 15 yard penalty and a fine.
In soccer, if you accidentally foul someone in the box, you get thrown out of the game, the other team gets a penalty kick which they usually convert, and they get a power play the rest of the game.
There are two goals scored in the average MLS soccer game, combined. Only one MLS team averages more than 1.5 goals per game. Therefore, the concept of awarding a team a penalty shot is pretty mind blowing. You are most likely giving them their average scoring output of an entire game. It just seems like the referees have way too much power in deciding games based on a judgement call in the box, when the defender does nothing malicious.
|
|
|
Post by davers on Jul 11, 2011 18:44:39 GMT -8
Not to be belly-aching about the Timbers loss, I still had a blast, but that call got me thinking about how wack the rules of soccer are, especially since a similar type call happened earlier in the day in the USA women's match (definition of instant classic). In basketball, if you accidentally foul someone, they get two free throws. If you foul them maliciously, they get two free throws and the ball. In hockey, if you accidentally foul someone, you get a two minute penalty. If you maliciously foul them, you get a five minute major penalty. In football, when you accidentally foul someone, you get a 15 yard penalty. If you maliciously foul them, you get a 15 yard penalty and a fine. In soccer, if you accidentally foul someone in the box, you get thrown out of the game, the other team gets a penalty kick which they usually convert, and they get a power play the rest of the game. There are two goals scored in the average MLS soccer game, combined. Only one MLS team averages more than 1.5 goals per game. Therefore, the concept of awarding a team a penalty shot is pretty mind blowing. You are most likely giving them their average scoring output of an entire game. It just seems like the referees have way too much power in deciding games based on a judgement call in the box, when the defender does nothing malicious. Just to clairify, you dont automatically get a red if you foul someone in the box, in rare cases it isnt even a PK (unless the rules have changed recently or are different in the MLS). You get sent off if you deliberatly take away a chance that was pretty much a given. For example, haul down a guy with 2 arms when he has an open net, or use your hands to block a sure goal. In those cases, the goal was all but assured, so a simple PK isnt enough, since it isnt a guarentee. The key words there being 'in the box'. Anywhere else a simple foul is a free kick, which isnt much help most of the time. Basketball is a tough comparison since the scoring system is so different. In hockey, a 2 minute penalty gives the other team about a 20-25% chance of scoring. A 5 minute penalty is roughly 50% and if the other team scores, the penalty continues. That can be a big game changer. In football (a game of inches) 15 yards can mean the game in the right situation. The key is, dont fuck around in the box. That being said, I absolutly hate unjust calls in the box. I realize most soccer fans hate the idea of video replay in the game, but in that case, I think its necessary. I will never forget Italy vs Australia in the quarters of the 2006 world cup. Score 0-0, nearing extra time. Italy lost a man a while ago and they are looking tired. I thought the Aussi's had it, which made me so happy because I hate the way Italy plays and I have so many Italian friends and I like to give them shit. There is an Italian in the box, tries to make a move around an already down Aussi, falls over him and gets a PK, wins the game. In my opinion, that should be reviewable. But, tis what it is. OK rant over.
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Jul 11, 2011 19:23:36 GMT -8
Just to clairify, you dont automatically get a red if you foul someone in the box, in rare cases it isnt even a PK (unless the rules have changed recently or are different in the MLS). You get sent off if you deliberatly take away a chance that was pretty much a given. For example, haul down a guy with 2 arms when he has an open net, or use your hands to block a sure goal. In those cases, the goal was all but assured, so a simple PK isnt enough, since it isnt a guarentee. Here is a really good video of the call. It starts at about 5:07. I was under the impression that if you kick the ball before you, for less of a better word, "tackle" the guy, there is no foul. The Portland defender kicked the ball, which ended up hitting the player in the face, but he didn't kick the player in the face, then they fell down. Since I obviously don't know the rules here, was that a good call, a bad call, or could it have gone either way? www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfRyD2B1el8This one starts at 0:28 seconds, the similar call I watched earlier in the day. Again, bad call, good call, or could it have gone either way? www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU7juegX7yQAs you described above, neither of those calls warranted a red card, ejection, and penalty kick. Thus my confusion over the rules.
|
|
|
Post by davers on Jul 11, 2011 19:58:36 GMT -8
The first one, yeah, thats a foul, usually a red. And since it was in the box, PK as well. It's called a high foot. You arent allowed to kick much higher than your waist. At the discression of the ref, the higher and more dangerous the kick, the more likely a card will be handed out. That was a really high kick and showed a blatant disregard for the other player's safety. I would have made the same call. At the same time, there are low heads (almost never called, but I used to ref soccer so I know all the weird rules) which are when you basically squat to head the ball and make contact when your head is where your waist would normally be. Both of these rules are to prevent people from getting kicked in the head.
The second one, thats iffy. The comment put on the video "the brazilian landed on the american" doesnt mean squat. The american girl did get under her a bit, and had her arm pushing Marta before that. No way that should be a red (IMO) but the PK was somewhat warrented.
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Jul 11, 2011 20:56:15 GMT -8
In the USA women's shoot out, 8 of 9 penalty shots were converted. I read on wiki, that 99% of high penalty kicks are converted, meaning if you can kick a ball high (kicking a ball is your job), you should almost always score.
My gripe with the calls is how important they will always be in the outcome of any match. That is only because scoring in soccer is so rare. To "give" the other team a goal when it wasn't even 50/50 the team would have scored without the foul, is hard to comprehend. I understand awarding a penalty kick when you consciously do something to avoid an obvious goal, but this wasn't the case in either situation. It's like giving a FG kicker in the NFL a 40 yard FG attempt worth 15 points because there was a pass interferance in the end zone. They work so hard for 15 points in the NFL, so awarding a team that opportunity based on what could be a questionable call is really tough to overcome.
I understand a high kick is dangerous, and should be illegal for the safety of players, but bicycle kicks are not illegal, therefore a high kick is only worthy of a red card/penalty kick/opposing team power play for the rest of the game, if it occurs by a defender in the box? And what about the fact that he hit the ball first? The USA women's foul was more of a tackle, because she didn't hit the ball. Is hitting the ball before the tackle a novice definition of what is and isn't a foul?
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Jul 11, 2011 21:07:33 GMT -8
Being a soccer player must be like being a horny high school kid who only has friends because of their Dungeons and Dragons after school club. You want to score so badly, but since it never happens, you get just as much excitement if your friend scores.
|
|
|
Post by davers on Jul 11, 2011 22:44:58 GMT -8
In the USA women's shoot out, 8 of 9 penalty shots were converted. I read on wiki, that 99% of high penalty kicks are converted, meaning if you can kick a ball high (kicking a ball is your job), you should almost always score. My gripe with the calls is how important they will always be in the outcome of any match. That is only because scoring in soccer is so rare. To "give" the other team a goal when it wasn't even 50/50 the team would have scored without the foul, is hard to comprehend. I understand awarding a penalty kick when you consciously do something to avoid an obvious goal, but this wasn't the case in either situation. It's like giving a FG kicker in the NFL a 40 yard FG attempt worth 15 points because there was a pass interferance in the end zone. They work so hard for 15 points in the NFL, so awarding a team that opportunity based on what could be a questionable call is really tough to overcome. I understand a high kick is dangerous, and should be illegal for the safety of players, but bicycle kicks are not illegal, therefore a high kick is only worthy of a red card/penalty kick/opposing team power play for the rest of the game, if it occurs by a defender in the box? And what about the fact that he hit the ball first? The USA women's foul was more of a tackle, because she didn't hit the ball. Is hitting the ball before the tackle a novice definition of what is and isn't a foul? 99% seems really high. I suppose it depends on the league, but I would guess its around 90%, but thats a total guess. Regardless, its a very likely chance of a goal. I know the PK rule is pretty dumb sometimes, but everyone knows the rules. If the defender is going to be careless in the box, thats what happens. I still maintain that almost any ref would have made the same call on the high foot though. To be honest upon first watch, it looked like he nailed the guy in the head. That play is illegal even in the middle of the field with no one around (in this case, it would just be a free kick). There really wasnt any interpretation in that play at all. He kicked right by the guys head, in the box. That was just a dumb play by a player that got too excited. Bicycle kicks are allowed because the players foot doesn't go much higher than where their waist would be if they were standing (most of the time). There is lots of subtle rules and discretion involved in soccer. I agree that the refs play a much bigger part in soccer than in many other sports, but thats the nature of the game. It's also a huge shame that some players dive so well (cough ITALY cough) that they can win games in certain situations. I really wish they would hand out suspensions after the game for terrible dives. It really ruins the game. I dont really watch a lot of soccer, so there are probably people out there who could explain some of this better. I watch euro and world cup matches, and the odd Whitecaps game that I go to. It's not my favourite sport to watch, but I think it's pretty entertaining when you pick up on all the little things, which was a lot easier for me to do since I played from such a young age.
|
|
|
Post by wolfhat on Jul 11, 2011 23:25:10 GMT -8
there are probably people out there who could explain some of this better. I think you did a fine job explaining, davers, and I agree with your judgement on the calls. I never reffed, but I did play for years as a defender. You're right when you say that everyone knows the rules, and that these rules are in place 1) to protect the players and 2) to prevent defenders from taking away a legit scoring chance in an unsportsmanlike manner. I was always aware of what I could and couldn't get away with inside the box, and if I were to ever attempt a similar play it would be because a striker beat me and they were basically assured a goal.
|
|