PDA

View Full Version : TFC being taken Serious!!!



TFCinVANCOUVER
05-15-2009, 03:30 AM
It's nice to see even though they talk a lot of crap about us they know we are a serious threat!!:scarf:
sorry about the second thread boys!






Originally posted by Moe Lester (Vancouver Southsiders)

You can bet that the powers that be will do anything to get TFC to win the Nutrilite cup, including calling good goals offside.


I argee!! They are totally favouring the (Big brother city as they say!)

But all in all we have to tighten up in the back because after seing yesterday's highlights, they should have been up 4-0 by the end of the match and the game we played against them they could have had another 2 gimmies easily! We have a squad that can run with them we just have to put a 100 percent effort for 90 mins or else it seems Dero and Barret are going to continuily(totaly spelled wrong) school our defenders!
James can go at any of their defender anytime of the day!
But Fukking Dero!! The deaking balls through raindrops in a thunderstorm on our defenders is pissing me off!! We have to be more reliable in the back end!!
P.S Anybody know about this O'Brien White kid they have that's is going to be off injured reserve for the June 2nd game??

Anywho I'm new to this so cut me some slack PLEASE!! hahahttp://forum.vancouversouthsiders.com/smileys/smiley32.gif
long live The southsiders and Whitcaps!


Edited by johnmattis - Today at 04:21

Brooker
05-15-2009, 03:50 AM
wheres that from?

(just a heads up dude, you double posted this thread.)

TFCinVANCOUVER
05-15-2009, 04:01 AM
a buddy showed it to me from my class! he's a southside memeber but a really classy lad! sorry about the second thread! I don't know how I did that!( feel like an idiot):confused:

Brooker
05-15-2009, 04:04 AM
no need to apologise i was just givin' ya a friendly heads up. i've done that before, too.

but it's nice to see that DeRo is frustrating their fans. he would piss the HELL out of me, too.

i love it. :D

TFCinVANCOUVER
05-15-2009, 04:09 AM
I love the
"But Fukking Dero!! The deaking balls through raindrops in a thunderstorm on our defenders is pissing me off!! "

do u know how to delete a thread??

Cashcleaner
05-15-2009, 04:35 AM
Hehehe. Moe Lester.

True though, if I were them I'd be scared. Personally, I don't see Toronto playing any less effective in Vancouver than here at home. I don't want to say this competition is in the bag for us, but it's not looking good for either the Impact or Whitecaps.

Oldtimer
05-15-2009, 08:22 AM
I love the
"But Fukking Dero!! The deaking balls through raindrops in a thunderstorm on our defenders is pissing me off!! "

do u know how to delete a thread??

Just go to the first post, click edit, there will be a "delete" option. Do not enter a reason for deleting. Deleting the first post will eliminate the thread.

Parkdale
05-15-2009, 08:25 AM
that goal was WAY offside. there's absolutely no question about it.

billyfly
05-15-2009, 09:05 AM
^ Being at the game I thought it was handball but the replay shows offside to me.

kodiakTFC
05-15-2009, 09:33 AM
I don't get how they figure the ref favored Toronto because that ref had 2 easy penalty calls. Anyone remember when the TFC player was clearly dragged down 1-2 metres into the box but the place kick was on the edge. what the hell was that?

deltox
05-15-2009, 09:38 AM
anyone have the replay of the offside?

its not in the TFC TV replay

same with the red card

rocker
05-15-2009, 09:42 AM
You can bet that the powers that be will do anything to get TFC to win the Nutrilite cup, including calling good goals offside.

ya, and last year the powers that be called a penalty against us vs Vancouver cuz they wanted Montreal to win the Nutrilite cup ;)

Rudi
05-15-2009, 11:14 AM
that goal was WAY offside. there's absolutely no question about it.
Do you have video footage of it?

Please say you do.

T_Mizz
05-15-2009, 11:21 AM
I don't get how they figure the ref favored Toronto because that ref had 2 easy penalty calls. Anyone remember when the TFC player was clearly dragged down 1-2 metres into the box but the place kick was on the edge. what the hell was that?
Second, that was pretty clear from where I was but I was in the nosebleeds so how clear can it really be from there. That was Barrett wasn't it?

BRed
05-15-2009, 11:59 AM
Your telling me NO ONE has a picture of the DeRo SHhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Cashcleaner
05-20-2009, 01:57 AM
Do you have video footage of it?

Please say you do.

Hear Hear! Would be nice to post that up as an avatar or something.

Blizzard
05-20-2009, 02:07 AM
Second, that was pretty clear from where I was but I was in the nosebleeds so how clear can it really be from there. That was Barrett wasn't it?

Ya Barrett. Here's the poop. The referee saw the initial foul outside the box but played advantage. He delayed his call to see if an advantage developed. Obviously it didn't because Barrett was taken down. He then made the original call that he'd delayed to play advantage, outside the box.

If there's a ref here to interpret how this all should play out, that opinion would be welcome.

I understand what he did but my question would be, did he feel that the take down of Barrett in the box was not a penalty but as there was no advantage either, the initial spot of the foul was the point at which play would be restarted (as I suspect) or is there some sort of oddity to the rule where the initial point of the foul would then overrule the fact that a penalty calibre foul took place?

Let's go back to last year when Amado got a red card for taking a man down in the box. We were scored upon on the penalty as you may recall.

You'll remember the assistant actually arguing with the referee that the initial foul had taken place outside the box as Amado and the opponant tussled their way down field.

In that case the referee ignored the assistant's advice regarding the initial foul and called the take down in the box.

All hell broke lose at that time.

Why was one a penalty and not the other? Referees, help please???

B

Kaz
05-20-2009, 11:48 AM
The Goal Montreal "scored" was shot after Toronto Players stopped play, when the offside was called.
the Call happened, and the Impact player kept playing, Frei had to suddenly get into position with no defenders, as the call had already been made

GhostPK
05-20-2009, 04:40 PM
WhitecRap southsiders are gonna walk home crying after we pick up another 3 points in their home turf. Which begs the question. Will we have to wait until the montreal game before they hand us the trophy, or will we get it in Vancouver. (Im thinking in montreal, but hoping in Vancouver). Would I ever love to see TFC raise the trophy in swangard. Put all the whitecRap critics to rest June 2.

WEST COAST REDS!

TFCREDNWHITE
05-20-2009, 04:58 PM
Ya Barrett. Here's the poop. The referee saw the initial foul outside the box but played advantage. He delayed his call to see if an advantage developed. Obviously it didn't because Barrett was taken down. He then made the original call that he'd delayed to play advantage, outside the box.

If there's a ref here to interpret how this all should play out, that opinion would be welcome.

I understand what he did but my question would be, did he feel that the take down of Barrett in the box was not a penalty but as there was no advantage either, the initial spot of the foul was the point at which play would be restarted (as I suspect) or is there some sort of oddity to the rule where the initial point of the foul would then overrule the fact that a penalty calibre foul took place?

Let's go back to last year when Amado got a red card for taking a man down in the box. We were scored upon on the penalty as you may recall.

You'll remember the assistant actually arguing with the referee that the initial foul had taken place outside the box as Amado and the opponant tussled their way down field.

In that case the referee ignored the assistant's advice regarding the initial foul and called the take down in the box.

All hell broke lose at that time.

Why was one a penalty and not the other? Referees, help please???

B


One thing that i see refs having a hard time with...(MLS, UEFA or FiFa approved) is that the rule CLEARLY states that when you allow or play to the advantage then that advantage call STANDS immediately and you cannot GO BACK and give the original infraction, because you decided to allow or play the advantage, and at that point it doesn't matter if the advantage is lost you still decided to allow it.

I don't know if that helps or not....

The point is that you see refs allow the advantage, then soon realize that 5 yards later the player lost the advantage, and then the ref reverts back to the original foul 5 yards previous....This is not allowed by the rule book!!

GhostPK
05-20-2009, 06:41 PM
im pretty sure the advantage allows refs to decide whether or not the infraction steals an opportunity to move forward. The 3 steamboats following the infraction allow the ref some time to make a call. If forward progress is hindered because of the foul, the call is made and play is stopped.

It does not make sense for the ref to call advantage if there is no advantage and not be able to revert back to the original call. It negates the whole purpose of advantage and instead it becomes a call or noncall.

TFCinVANCOUVER
05-20-2009, 06:41 PM
Would I ever love to see TFC raise the trophy in swangard. Put all the whitecRap critics to rest June 2.

WEST COAST REDS!

Me too!! cus I WILL rush the pitch NO MATTER WHAT!!
And run right for the camera so the boys back home can see our flag swung PROUD!!!:scarf:

Can anybody help me pay the fine??? I'm a student!! lololol

Wagner
05-20-2009, 06:55 PM
what's evil burt saying??
that's what i really want to know.

Carter
05-20-2009, 06:58 PM
Moe Lester, and Evil Bert, where do these guys come up with names....

GhostPK
05-20-2009, 07:02 PM
The Advantage rule states on page 21

"The Referees Shall:
- allow play to continue if the team against which an offense has been committed stands to benefit from such an advantage, and penalize the original offense if the anticipated advantage does not ensue"

It also states on page 44

"the referees may allow play to continue by applying the advantage rule if the team has not committed 5 accumulated fouls and the opposing team is not denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity"

Page 65 states

"When a team has committed five accumulated fouls and then commits an infringement that is punishable with a direct free kick or penalty, the referees MUST award the direct free kick or penalty except where there is a clear goal scoring opportunity (with the advantage rule being played).

However, if an offense is committed that is punishable by an indirect free kick in accordance with Law 11, the referees must try to play advantage to ensure that play flows, provided that this does not lead to any retaliation and is not prejudicial to the team against which the the offense was committed."

If this doesnt clear things up.... nothing will.

source: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/51/44/50/futsal_lotg_2008_en.pdf
Futsal Laws of the game 2008