2007 BC Womens Open Provincial Cup Discussion & Banter

[Fat Bastard]

I heard about the call. And I have not got confirmation but I have heard from a few people that Coquitlam is strongly considering the protest. They have 48 hours to submit the protest, so basically deadline is 1pm Tuesday.

Coquitlam is not so much upset with the call, but the fact that (a) the referee indicated to the Coquitlam players that the call was for obstruction, which should have been an indirect free kick, and (b) that Surrey took the free kick while the referee was pacing off the 10 yards they asked for. (I am sure Surrey will dispute this, but I am taking a Coquitlam account of the story at this point.)

As a former referee, my initial reaction was in the case of (a) Coquitlam clearly has grounds for protest, because awarding a direct free kick for obstruction is clearly a 'misinterpretation of the Laws,' however the referee quickly changed his story and claimed the call was for pulling the shirt. So despite having grounds for the protest, it will be hard to win.

As for (b), this one perplexes me a little on a few levels. (1) The referee should have clearly indicated to both teams that once Surrey asked for the 10 yards, the play would restart on his signal - bad refereeing; (2) While the coach in me appreciates the surprise of a quickly taken free kick, the fact Surrey allegedly asked for ten yards, means this was a rather unsporting tactic - as convention would dictate that once you ask for 10 yards you then wait for the wall to re-set.

I researched this, and there was an article written by Graham Poll (an English referee of some note, but most famous for a match in which he gave one player three yellow, but prior to that considered one of the better officials in Europe). His article was written after Ryan Giggs quickly taken free kick to defeat Lille 1-0 in Champions League play. In this case, says Poll, Giggs was clearly in the right since he did not ask the referee to ensure ten yards. It was his right to take the quick kick, but in doing so he also sacrifices the right to ensure the ten yard space. So if his kick had hit a player two yards away, then it would have been Giggs' fault and play would continue.

While the Laws of the Game do not state that the referee must indicate when play is to restart on a free kick situation, convention dictates that when 10 yards is asked for, the referee will then hold up play until he deems it proper to restart and thus give the appropriate signal (a blow of the whistle).

So, in short, Coquitlam should protest on two counts: (1) the indirect/direct mix up, which they have ample grounds for, but will be hard to prove unless referee admits error, and (2) the legitimacy of a quick free kick in this instance, which is not a misinterpretation of any particular Law, but clearly violates the spirit of the game.

Yet, in the end, I don't think Coquitlam would have this protest upheld. But clearly, in this instance, this referee lost control of the situation, and in an effort to gain control simply allowed it to snowball on him, to the point that the Jimmy Holiday was sent off.

All he needed to do was blow the whistle and order a retake of the free kick. To be quite honest, the fact that the kick should have been indirect means the play should have been re-started with a goal kick for Coquitlam.

Yet another wild and crazy chapter in the Surrey / Coquitlam-Burnaby rivalry. Someone should write a book about this. These two teams have had some really terrific matches over the years. This one takes the cake for drama though.

 

[nutmegs]

Coquitlam is not so much upset with the call, but the fact that (a) the referee indicated to the Coquitlam players that the call was for obstruction, which should have been an indirect free kick, and (b) that Surrey took the free kick while the referee was pacing off the 10 yards they asked for. (I am sure Surrey will dispute this, but I am taking a Coquitlam account of the story at this point.)

As a former referee, my initial reaction was in the case of (a) Coquitlam clearly has grounds for protest, because awarding a direct free kick for obstruction is clearly a 'misinterpretation of the Laws,' however the referee quickly changed his story and claimed the call was for pulling the shirt. So despite having grounds for the protest, it will be hard to win.

As for (b), this one perplexes me a little on a few levels. (1) The referee should have clearly indicated to both teams that once Surrey asked for the 10 yards, the play would restart on his signal - bad refereeing; (2) While the coach in me appreciates the surprise of a quickly taken free kick, the fact Surrey allegedly asked for ten yards, means this was a rather unsporting tactic - as convention would dictate that once you ask for 10 yards you then wait for the wall to re-set.

So, in short, Coquitlam should protest on two counts: (1) the indirect/direct mix up, which they have ample grounds for, but will be hard to prove unless referee admits error, and (2) the legitimacy of a quick free kick in this instance, which is not a misinterpretation of any particular Law, but clearly violates the spirit of the game.

All he needed to do was blow the whistle and order a retake of the free kick. To be quite honest, the fact that the kick should have been indirect means the play should have been re-started with a goal kick for Coquitlam.

Wow - that is quite the explanation FB. I was going to stay out of this but I just want to clarify a few things.

1. It was not a quickly taken free kick. Surrey asked for the ten yards, the ref paced it off and then blew his whistle. As a matter of fact, Geri even waited about 15 seconds before she hit it (I think as a ploy to make the keeper uncomfortable).

2. The Coquitlam keeper touched the ball before it entered the net so if it was indeed an indirect free kick, her touching it makes it a good goal.

Not being one of the players that took the kick I didn't see if the ref had his hand up or not. So I will stay out of the debate on what happened on the field.

I can understand Coquitlam being upset - if things were reversed I would definitely be unhappy. But I would also be unhappy with the fact that my team didn't put the ball in the back of the net on some clear-cut opportunities.

The game was a battle and I am very proud of our backline and overall team defense. We knew that with the small line-up we had we needed to have a shut-out or a very low scoring game and we did that.

Now on to Gorge this weekend. I'm sure WW probably doesn't want to help us out but a few hints on what to watch out for with Goroge would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Fat Bastard]

If Michele actually touched the ball, the indirect kick argument is moot. And as for the quick kick argument, clearly the stories from both sides differ greatly, and rest assured that the ref's will be different as well. Thus, any protest would likely be very difficult to win.

What I will add is that I have been told Jimmy H was pretty upset about how it all transpired, and that's out of character for him. He's usually pretty good about accepting the fact his team is responsible for their own fate, win or lose. Of course, Coquitlam did get a PK last weekend in the dying seconds of extra time. The soccer gods have a funny way of evening things up when they feel so inclined.

As for Gorge, I had the chance to watch them earlier this year. This is probably the best Island team in a while. Alot of UVic players, and the majority of this group goes year-round with Gorge and then the Stars in the PCSL. Plus, with Dewey at the helm, you know they're well coached.

Surrey seems to be the team of destiny this year, despite the injuries, missing players and stacked odds. Something tells me the ability to win big games, and the 'having been there before' factor, are going to be the difference this weekend.

I pick Surrey in a tight one. Possibly OT or PK's.

 

[Welcome Wagon]

Now on to Gorge this weekend. I'm sure WW probably doesn't want to help us out but a few hints on what to watch out for with Goroge would be greatly appreciated.

Nutmegs, I will do my yearly good samaritan duties and will help you out a little .

1) They have a very very fast left mid and forward who played on their left side. The report as to how they scored on BC soccer was wrong. There was no cross, it was a single player who did all the work and scored. It should not have happened.

2) Their goalie comes out quite a bit and was caught many times. We just were unable to score as they crowded the front of the net so many of our shots were blocked.

3) I don't know if they did it on purpose, but every single punt was sent either to our right side of the field and also the center, but not to the left side. Maybe they didn't like me .

4) If you guys run at them it will give them lots of trouble. We only started to run at them in the last 15-20 (after they scored) and it gave them so much trouble. We generated a lot of scoring chances but were unable to score. Had we played like that for even 45 minutes it would have been our victory

5) They gave me a lot of freedom to run up with the ball and take shots. I was unfortunate enough to hit the cross bar in the first half. I had a few other chances as well so your defence or mids should take advantage of the space.

Ok, that is all the help you are going to get. You owe me, perhaps a keg of beer . Anyway, good luck.

WW

 

[Fat Bastard]

I have it on good authority that Coquitlam submitted their protest this morning to the BCSA office. Probably a case of flushing money down the proverbial BCSA drain, but this should at the very least be interesting.

Given BC Soccer often moves at the same pace as a glacier, we may not see an answer to this until the weekend. Should make travel arrangements interesting.

Advantage Gorge.

 

[choker]

Ok, that is all the help you are going to get.

what about that blonde girl at the back? the one that plays for Whitecaps? She caused problems when we played them last year WW...doesn't she play on that team?

PS WW - is it Hallowe'en yet

 

[Welcome Wagon]

what about that blonde girl at the back? the one that plays for Whitecaps? She caused problems when we played them last year WW...doesn't she play on that team?

Choker, she played on the team. A very good player but not the reason we lost.

 

[Conductor]

WW, rumour has it that this was part of the Gorge's plan in their stragety to beat you guy's!

 They gave me a lot of freedom to run up with the ball and take shots.ODE]

I have to agree with Nutmegs on both of her points that A) Geri didn't take a quick free kick, as the ref was done pacing out the 10yds and had already moved away from the wall and B) the keeper did well to get her hand on the free kick but unfortunately not well enough to keep the ball out of the net!

In all honesty I think Coquitlam just wasted there money, heck they should have just put it toward their year end wrap up party!:D

 

[under dog]

Wow - that is quite the explanation FB. I was going to stay out of this but I just want to clarify a few things.

1. It was not a quickly taken free kick. Surrey asked for the ten yards, the ref paced it off and then blew his whistle. As a matter of fact, Geri even waited about 15 seconds before she hit it (I think as a ploy to make the keeper uncomfortable).

2. The Coquitlam keeper touched the ball before it entered the net so if it was indeed an indirect free kick, her touching it makes it a good goal.

Not being one of the players that took the kick I didn't see if the ref had his hand up or not. So I will stay out of the debate on what happened on the field.

I can understand Coquitlam being upset - if things were reversed I would definitely be unhappy. But I would also be unhappy with the fact that my team didn't put the ball in the back of the net on some clear-cut opportunities.

The game was a battle and I am very proud of our backline and overall team defense. We knew that with the small line-up we had we needed to have a shut-out or a very low scoring game and we did that.

Now on to Gorge this weekend. I'm sure WW probably doesn't want to help us out but a few hints on what to watch out for with Goroge would be greatly appreciated.

The TRUTH is that the Coquitlam keeper did not touch the ball until after it crossed the goal line and was in the net. Surrey scored on a direct kick when the foul- called "obstruction" in the words of the referee- warranted an indirect free kick. It was a misinterpretation of the FIFA Laws and therefore absolutely protestable. Coquitlam has a slim chance of winning a protest (if they did in fact protest) but the incident is definitely worth bringing to BC Soccer's attention. If anything, it makes a statement about the types of referees that should be allowed to ref women's Provincial A Cup games.

 

[cleats]

does anyone know the referee's name?

 

[Conductor]

Under dog, seriously where you actually on the goal line to see this?

The TRUTH is that the Coquitlam keeper did not touch the ball until after it crossed the goal line and was in the net.HP]

If you were a player on the field than maybe you have a point, but from the lineswomans point of view it was at least a foot in front of the goal line, and the ref never even asked her for her opinion on it!!:rolleyes: 

Maybe they should have video review in soccer?

 

[k-vale7]

I was pretty darn close, and to be honest I couldn't tell you with any clarity whether or not she touched it before or after. I get like, tunnel vision in those situations. All I know is it went in. But I guess it's a moot point as it sounds like that is not necessarily what they are protesting, I mean you can't protest that he didn't give a direct kick cause it's pretty obvious he did. But I guess, from what I'm gathering here, that they are protesting the reason as to WHY he gave it direct not indirect. Fair enough I guess.

Well, um, good luck with that! ; )

 

[Captain Shamrock]

First of all.....there is no 'obstruction' in the rule book anymore. The only way it could have been an indirect kick would be for 'impeding', meaning that there was no contact made between the two players but the ref deemed the defending player 'interfered/impeded' the attackers progress. It is rarely called but if you look in the rule book, there is no 'obstruction' so the ref bottled it and that's what some refs do when it gets to critical situations, like our ref yesterday in our school game who despite the obvious call, moved a potential penalty kick for us, just outside the 18 yard box when it was obvious to everyone the infraction took place in the box.


As for the protest, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Just an incompetent ref I supppose.........

 

[Fat Bastard]

Alikira is right. "Impeding" has replaced "obstruction" but the two terms are interchanged, mostly out of habit by all involved.

(1) Referee made a call. He called obstruction, and confirmed that to the players. We can only assume he met 'impeding', but that's a logical assumption. Otherwise, the required 'misinterpretation of the Laws' is right there.

(2) Referee should have awarded indirect free kick. As his hand was not up, it's safe to assume he actually thought this should be direct. Here is another 'misinterpretation of the Law.'

(3) Whether Michele touched the ball or not is moot. Referee's hand was not up, players had no choice but to proceed as if kick was direct. Further, the argument as to whether the kick should have been taken when it was is not relevant, because it's not protestable. It's bad officiating, but not a misinterpretation of any Law, since the Laws do not stipulate how or when a free kick may be taken. It's a discretionary call by the official.

Free kick should have been indirect. A valid protest requires a 'misinterpretation of the Laws'. This meets that requirement. However, proving it will be difficult. I don't know how protests are handled, but if it's like discipline hearings, the referee's report will be taken as gospel truth. Few officials are going to admit an error, especially of this magnitude. The wild card in all this is going to be the report from the referee assessor.

As I said before, I don't think BCSA will uphold protest, and Jimmy H is out some money. But this is the most excitement we've had with women's soccer on TTP all year.

 

[under dog]

Under dog, seriously where you actually on the goal line to see this?

The TRUTH is that the Coquitlam keeper did not touch the ball until after it crossed the goal line and was in the net.HP]
 
If you were a player on the field than maybe you have a point, but from the lineswomans point of view it was at least a foot in front of the goal line, and the ref never even asked her for her opinion on it!!:rolleyes: 
 
Maybe they should have video review in soccer?[/quote]
 
Any player in that defending zone would have had a much better view of what happened than some linesgirl out at the corner flag.

 

[nutmegs]

As I said before, I don't think BCSA will uphold protest, and Jimmy H is out some money. But this is the most excitement we've had with women's soccer on TTP all year.

Not that I want the banter about this to stop because I'm sure Regs is loving that the women's threads actually have some action but enough is enough. Plus as you say above FB, I highly doubt anything will be done by the BCSA.

No matter what the ref did or didn't do with his hand, or did or didn't say to players, Coquitlam didn't finish their chances and Surrey's defense and goalkeeper played a solid game. End of story.

Coquitlam had a great scoring chance on a blatanly offside play just 20 minutes into the game and the lino called nothing.

If Coquitlam scores and wins the game based on that play, is Surrey upset about it? Yes.

Do we protest the game and pull out the rule book to see if it was a "Misinterpretation of the Law"? No.

Anyways, I'm sure FB will have something to say about it but I'm done. I've got a provincial final on Sunday to focus on.

 

[nutmegs]

Any player in that defending zone would have had a much better view of what happened than some linesgirl out at the corner flag.

And just one more thing, besides Welcome to TTP, underdog!!

I was a player in that defending zone just a few feet in front of the keeper and I couldn't tell if she touched before or after it crossed the line. I'm thinking someone at a 90 degree angle like the linesgirl would probably have a better view than me. Of course, she was crap and looked like she'd never done a high-level match before.

 

[Welcome Wagon]

Now on to Gorge this weekend. I'm sure WW probably doesn't want to help us out but a few hints on what to watch out for with Goroge would be greatly appreciated.

Nutmegs, you're welcome

WW

 

[nutmegs]

Nutmegs, you're welcome

WW

Sorry WW! Thank you very much. We have a few people that have also been able to give us the inside info and their reports were very similar to yours. So there's no way I'm paying you back with a keg. Maybe a beer after a coed game this summer.

 

[Captain Shamrock]

Whatever.......SU qualified on a tremendously controversial play......it is only fitting in a league where controversy occurs on a weekly basis..........

Unlucky, Coquitlam, and good luck to the finalists this weekend.