Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

College Cup 2018

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    Exactly. Someone in this thread has a real penchant for inventing a bunch of rules that appear nowhere in the LOTG or any other relevant document. Simply put, if the rules are worth enforcing, they are worth enforcing when the championship is on the line. That was a clear DOGSO and the Akron player was properly sent off. Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot and an Akron player had gotten behind the defense, and was just about to slot home the tying goal, when he was fouled from behind by a Maryland defender. Should that be ignored because a championship was on the line?
    Intent is a primary factor in hand ball calls.

    Why should it be different with a high kick? Should a high kick be called if no one is 10 yards from the player? Now how about if the an opposing player comes from behind the 'high kicking' player after the player has begun the kick and can't stop his foot as happened last night? IOW, no intent or even implied intent to kick another player. (not to mention when the 'kicked' player is acting as though he just got shot and gets up after his academy award performance without any sign of BEING KICKED in the face.)

    What the rule is is not in question, it's what should it be and why.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      Exactly. Someone in this thread has a real penchant for inventing a bunch of rules that appear nowhere in the LOTG or any other relevant document. Simply put, if the rules are worth enforcing, they are worth enforcing when the championship is on the line. That was a clear DOGSO and the Akron player was properly sent off. Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot and an Akron player had gotten behind the defense, and was just about to slot home the tying goal, when he was fouled from behind by a Maryland defender. Should that be ignored because a championship was on the line?
      BS - there is not a sport in the world where games are not reffed differently in the championship, meaning borderline calls are not enforced. If it's blatant fine, but the 3 calls that went against Akron - the two PK's and RC, were judgmental IMO. You want to disagree, fine, but I don't like the ref being the show of the game.

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Intent is a primary factor in hand ball calls.

        Why should it be different with a high kick? Should a high kick be called if no one is 10 yards from the player? Now how about if the an opposing player comes from behind the 'high kicking' player after the player has begun the kick and can't stop his foot as happened last night? IOW, no intent or even implied intent to kick another player. (not to mention when the 'kicked' player is acting as though he just got shot and gets up after his academy award performance without any sign of BEING KICKED in the face.)

        What the rule is is not in question, it's what should it be and why.
        not the op but :"Intent is a primary factor in hand ball calls?"

        I thought it was the hand being in an "unnatural position" regardless of intent - so straight down, behind the back is ok but hand raised is generally not ok,

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Egbo didn't play well . The only akron players that stood out for me was Zagac and Mohamed but even they were stunted somewhat by Maryland's smart and fast play
          I've seen Akron play a few times over the past few years, actually since they last win the championship in 2010, and last night was probably the worst that I've seen them play. They had so many new players on the team this season and it took them a long time to gel but once they did come together, I honestly didn't believe that any team would beat them. Last night they seemed to have reverted back to how they were in the early season and that wasn't good. They're very young so I would expect that they'll be better next year.

          Hats off to Maryland. They did what they needed to do to win but I was not impressed with them either. I wasn't impressed with either team. It could have been the result of the long grind - both mentally and physically. Maryland is lucky that Akron wasn't more composed because even when the Terps had a 1-0 lead, they kept pushing things and giving up the ball. Akron actually had chances for the equalizer when playing with 10 guys.

          Anyway, both teams are to be commended for their growth during the season. There was a time during the season that it was questionable if either would even make the tournament.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            I've seen Akron play a few times over the past few years, actually since they last win the championship in 2010, and last night was probably the worst that I've seen them play. They had so many new players on the team this season and it took them a long time to gel but once they did come together, I honestly didn't believe that any team would beat them. Last night they seemed to have reverted back to how they were in the early season and that wasn't good. They're very young so I would expect that they'll be better next year.

            Hats off to Maryland. They did what they needed to do to win but I was not impressed with them either. I wasn't impressed with either team. It could have been the result of the long grind - both mentally and physically. Maryland is lucky that Akron wasn't more composed because even when the Terps had a 1-0 lead, they kept pushing things and giving up the ball. Akron actually had chances for the equalizer when playing with 10 guys.

            Anyway, both teams are to be commended for their growth during the season. There was a time during the season that it was questionable if either would even make the tournament.
            Their passing skills were obvious but just when they were getting to the attacking third they would hit an impatient pass or errant one and give up possession. So unlike them.

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Their passing skills were obvious but just when they were getting to the attacking third they would hit an impatient pass or errant one and give up possession. So unlike them.
              they were also not composed/good in the middle as much as they were in the past

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                they were also not composed/good in the middle as much as they were in the past
                by "past" I mean quarterfinals and semifinals

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Intent is a primary factor in hand ball calls.

                  Why should it be different with a high kick? Should a high kick be called if no one is 10 yards from the player? Now how about if the an opposing player comes from behind the 'high kicking' player after the player has begun the kick and can't stop his foot as happened last night? IOW, no intent or even implied intent to kick another player. (not to mention when the 'kicked' player is acting as though he just got shot and gets up after his academy award performance without any sign of BEING KICKED in the face.)

                  What the rule is is not in question, it's what should it be and why.
                  Again, you're making up rules. Intent matters with respect to handling because the rules say it matters. According to the LOTG, handling must be "deliberate." OTOH, the LOTG contains no such limitation regardings dangerous plays. Therefore, they're fouls, regardless of whether they're intentional.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    BS - there is not a sport in the world where games are not reffed differently in the championship, meaning borderline calls are not enforced. If it's blatant fine, but the 3 calls that went against Akron - the two PK's and RC, were judgmental IMO. You want to disagree, fine, but I don't like the ref being the show of the game.
                    And if the ref were to refuse to enforce the rules, as in the hypothetical example I provided, he also would have been a central figure in the game. That's what happens when rules are broken.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Again, you're making up rules. Intent matters with respect to handling because the rules say it matters. According to the LOTG, handling must be "deliberate." OTOH, the LOTG contains no such limitation regardings dangerous plays. Therefore, they're fouls, regardless of whether they're intentional.
                      Captain Obvious returns to the Forum. Let me guess you've never done anything but the missionary position have you? We know what the rules say. I was just pointing out that it's okay to think out-of-the-box and ponder whether or not the rule make sense. There's certainly a point of no return when someone is attempting to kick the ball and if another player comes out of nowhere and jumps into the path of the kicker's leg then it doesn't seem to make sense that the kicker should then be penalized.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Captain Obvious returns to the Forum. Let me guess you've never done anything but the missionary position have you? We know what the rules say. I was just pointing out that it's okay to think out-of-the-box and ponder whether or not the rule make sense. There's certainly a point of no return when someone is attempting to kick the ball and if another player comes out of nowhere and jumps into the path of the kicker's leg then it doesn't seem to make sense that the kicker should then be penalized.
                        You're seriously arguing that the Maryland player hit the Akron player's foot with his face? I guess you get credit for originality, but here's a pro tip: feet move farther and faster than faces.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Captain Obvious returns to the Forum. Let me guess you've never done anything but the missionary position have you? We know what the rules say. I was just pointing out that it's okay to think out-of-the-box and ponder whether or not the rule make sense. There's certainly a point of no return when someone is attempting to kick the ball and if another player comes out of nowhere and jumps into the path of the kicker's leg then it doesn't seem to make sense that the kicker should then be penalized.
                          The high kick play Sunday night reminded me of an incident my son was involved in during a club game a couple of years ago. My son is a defender and was attempting to clear the ball that had bounced towards him about 3' or 4' in the air. The attacking player crossed from my son's left side towards the bounding ball and my son's kick (he was clearing with his right foot). Unfortunately for the player, he was drilled right in the face during the follow through and lost a couple of teeth, blood everywhere and left the game never to return. Much to the chagrin of the opposing club's parents no foul was called. It was just one of those unfortunate situations. I saw Sunday night's play in a similar vein. The defender didn't deliberately commit a dangerous act. It was just bad timing. I guess like many things in referring, it can be subjective what a ref considers a foul and/or a dangerous act and what is not.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            The high kick play Sunday night reminded me of an incident my son was involved in during a club game a couple of years ago. My son is a defender and was attempting to clear the ball that had bounced towards him about 3' or 4' in the air. The attacking player crossed from my son's left side towards the bounding ball and my son's kick (he was clearing with his right foot). Unfortunately for the player, he was drilled right in the face during the follow through and lost a couple of teeth, blood everywhere and left the game never to return. Much to the chagrin of the opposing club's parents no foul was called. It was just one of those unfortunate situations. I saw Sunday night's play in a similar vein. The defender didn't deliberately commit a dangerous act. It was just bad timing. I guess like many things in referring, it can be subjective what a ref considers a foul and/or a dangerous act and what is not.
                            I'd probably give that a red. While no intent, sounds like it was wreckless having his foot that high and there is a reasonable expectation to not get kicked in the face in that situation.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              You're seriously arguing that the Maryland player hit the Akron player's foot with his face? I guess you get credit for originality, but here's a pro tip: feet move farther and faster than faces.
                              I watched the play again. While anyone knows that a foot in an upward kicking motion will travel faster than a face being moved by a bend at the waist and neck, it does appear that the Maryland attacker moved his face toward the defender's foot. While I don't think it would matter in the call, the defender also did not know that the attacker was coming around and did not see him when he started his kick. Once a kick is started it can't be stopped. Maybe in a few thousand years evolution have gotten to the point that human reflexes are that fast but it's impossible now.

                              Also, I am not 100% sure that contact was made. In what I watched it looks like it but there is a small hint of doubt. The Maryland player looked as if he was hit by his actions but he may have just been selling it. Regardless, it worked.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                I'd probably give that a red. While no intent, sounds like it was wreckless having his foot that high and there is a reasonable expectation to not get kicked in the face in that situation.
                                I take your point. Just surmising, I think in the ref's eyes my son was in the best position to make a play on the ball and that the attacking player put himself in harm's way crossing into the path of a volley kick.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X