Jump to content

  • Articles

    Manage articles
    Show all categories
    Guest
    Et oui, comme si on avait pas assez de difficultés à jouer sur un terrain à onze, on a décidé de jouer au soccer de plage.
    Le Canada entreprendra donc son 2e match du tournoi de Beach Soccer de la Concacaf aujourd'hui à 17h00 (EST) contre le Mexique.
    Et comment fut le premier match, vous dites ? Bah, on a perdu contre le El Salvador 6-3. Respectable, surtout contre les champions en titre. Étonnamment, le Canada n'est pas si mauvais que ça en beach soccer. Son meilleur parcours fut en 2006, lorsque l'équipe a perdu en quarts-de-finale contre le Brésil.
    Et pourquoi je parle de ça ? Je me disais qu'avec la Coupe du Monde de 2022 au Qatar, il fallait tranquillement à s'habituer au sable non ?
    Si l'équipe masculine n'est pas en mesure de se qualifier, je me suis dit qu'on pourrait essayer avec notre équipe de beach soccer.
    Sur ce, supportez votre équipe nationale en direct sur le site de la Concacaf !
    Lien : http://www.concacaftv.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home/0,,12907,00.html (Il faut s'inscrire sur le site pour voir le stream du match)
    Tout ça à cause du Qatar...Ah, Seppy Blatts !
    Guest
    Above is a current seating chart showing where identifiable members of the Southsiders have bought tickets for the Whitecaps season. As you can see, the majority are clustered around the bottom of section 251, which is in the corner. They are two sections from the area that was designated as a supporter's section by the Whitecaps front office.
    The price of the seats that the Southsiders are mostly in is almost $200 cheaper than the seats behind the goal. However, the Southsiders say that their complaints have little to do with the costs.
    I believe them. And, so should you.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    Yes, the costs of the tickets is a concern. A survey done by the Southsiders clearly indicated that the group expected season seats around $300-$350. When they came out at almost $500 it was a bit surprising to the Southsiders, to say the least. Still, the issue at play here is a lot more nuanced than a simple case of costs.
    The Whitecaps have suggested that they want to create an atmosphere that will make Seattle seem like "a tea party." If that's the case, the 'Caps have an odd strategy to create that. It's taken the one group of fans that they know will bring that type of energy and have alienated them by pricing their designated section higher than sections immediately beside them that actually have better sightlines. Southsiders president John Knox says that he was directly told by Whitecaps staffers that the pricing was decided because of a perceived value of being in a supporter's section.
    I wonder then what type of perceived value there will be once those outside of the current Southsiders that bought tickets behind the goal find out that they are in a supporter's section in name only? Who will these new fans look to when it comes time to lead chants and songs? The scoreboard? The mascot? Go 'Caps Go.
    From an outside perspective, the backlash against the Southsiders has been surprising. The casual Vancouver fan comes off as almost proud that they are paying the highest price for low-end seats in MLS. They take Southsiders complaints as being entitlement, rather than concern for what the ticket pricing will mean to the overall atmosphere.
    Part of that is defensive. "Where do they get off thinking they are better fans than me" is the cry. They don't. But, what they know to be true is that they are different fans than the casual fans. Since they've been putting themselves out there for years, you know that they will be in full voice for 90 minutes every game. Newer fans won't necessarily do that. Knox said to me that he feared a crowd that looked a bit like a Canucks game now. If you step 10 feet outside of the supporter's section in Toronto you'll find a lot of people too embarrassed/cool for school to sign along with the antics in the supporter's sections. I just don't see how it will be much different in Vancouver.
    The issue isn’t just about the Southsiders either. Typically a supporter’s section has different rules than non-supporter’s sections. Fans can bring drums, banners and other displays into the section that they can’t elsewhere in the stadium. The understanding is that the people in those sections understand what’s up and are OK with certain things that may impact their ability to see the pitch from time to time. If the Southsiders hold up a large banner in the 80th minute of a game, thus blocking the sightlines to the pitch, is that fair to the folks that bought seats right behind them without knowing that it was going to become a de facto supporter’s section?
    TFC fans have long complained about “tourists” in the supporter’s section causing problems and making issue with the things that the section is designated to host. Many of those “tourists” are actually season ticket holders that managed to get seats because the Toronto front office did not give the supporter’s groups any distribution power. They are trying to change that situation a bit now because they realize the problems that have happened. It seems to me that Vancouver is setting itself up for the same issues.
    For Vancouver's sake I hope the front office knows what it's doing.
    Guest

    FIFA votes by round

    By Guest, in 24th Minute,

    2018 FIFA World Cup
    Round 1:
    England 2 votes
    Netherland - Belgium 4 votes
    Spain - Portugal 7 votes
    Russia 9 votes
    As no absolute majority was reached, the candidate with least amount of votes, England, was eliminated.
    Round 2:
    Netherlands - Belgium 2 votes
    Spain - Portugal 7 votes
    Russia 13 votes
    Russia obtained an absolute majority.
    2022 FIFA World Cup
    Round 1:
    Australia 1 vote
    Japan 3 votes
    Korea Republic 4 votes
    Qatar 11 votes
    USA 3 votes
    Australia eliminated
    Round 2:
    Japan 2 votes
    Korea Republic 5 votes
    Qatar 10 votes
    USA 5 votes
    Japan eliminated
    Round 3:
    Korea Republic 5 votes
    Qatar 11 votes
    USA 6 votes
    Korea Republic eliminated
    Round 4:
    Qatar14 votes
    USA 8 votes
    Qatar obtained an absolute majority
    Guest

    Reaction from a Canadian in Qatar

    By Guest, in Some Canadian Guys,

    There will be plenty of reaction on today's announcements of Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 in the coming hours and days. For now, some quick thoughts from a journalism colleague of mine who's been stationed in Doha for the past few years, when I asked her about the city's reaction to FIFA's decision:
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    Freaking out! The entire city just exploded ... They were so worked up about it -- this is going to mean a drastic change to every part of this city, as well as some international respect. Qatar's got a serious inferiority/superiority complex thing going on in regards to the rest of the (Gulf Coast countries) so this is a biggie.
    Not to mention, for us expats, it means they're actually going to finish all sorts of facilities that have been on inshallah time for years -- the new airport for example, the perpetual road construction, the man-made island, etc. They'll also have to start sorting out their attitudes towards all things haraam, which I'm excited for -- right now, you can get fined for showing your shoulders in public if someone deems it indecent, you need a special license predicated on your nationality and religion to buy liquor, and don't even think about touching someone of the opposite sex in public. They will have to get over that before 2022.
    They'll also have to actually ditch this infuriating sponsorship system, like Kuwait just did, in order to not seem like a slave holding country on the world stage. So all in all, there's a whole lot to be excited about!
    Myself, I'm just hoping they take down this massive billboard they've plastered on my apartment building.
    One more question. How's the weather today?
    25 degrees and sandy.
    And it's December 2. Yikes.
    Guest

    The Big Bid, part 3: The aftermath

    By Guest, in 24th Minute,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-z2jtUS9-Y&feature=player_embedded


    As someone that's still more than a little bitter at the IOC's decision for 1996 and 2008 (human rights? Just make sure the stadium is built) I'm not going to discourage English or American rage today. The choice of FIFA to go to Russia and Qatar does strike one as more than a bit cynical.

    Both the American and English bids were technically superior. In the case of 2018, all three bids running against Russia were technically superior actually. In the 2022 race it's hard to imagine a less likely host than Qatar. Whether it was for "legacy" or if cheques were passed is irrelevant right now. Emotion will rule the day and it will for several days.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    The USA may live to fight again. With the 2022 cup in Asia and Europe being told the next bid can't be to 2030 (not that FIFA won't change its mind if it wants to) 2026 seems wide open for a North American win. There is another CONCACAF country I'm hoping to see bid, but, again, we will hold off on that speculation out of respect to our American friends. The USA should have won. Americans have every right to be pissed.

    The English too -- especially if, as rumoured, they were the first eliminated. If that's the case, FIFA demonstrated itself to be even pettier than was already thought. An English World Cup would be brilliant. I hope today's frustration and anger passes because every football fan in the world should want to see a final at Wembley. It would just seem right. I should still be alive in 2030. I hope to be there.

    As much as the anger is justified, it is important to separate the should-haves from the possibilities of these two cups. Russia is actually a bigger risk in my mind than Qatar is, but it is a big country rich with oil money. Yes there is also a lot of problems, but logistically it doesn't seem that farfetched that Russia can pull it off. It will be tough for people to travel there (and to travel within the country when there) but not impossible.

    As the video above shows Qatar could be more than a little trippy. There is a lot of money there and logistically having all the stadiums within 60 km of each other seems absolutely brilliant, actually. There are all kinds of human rights issues that make this a very uncomfortable marriage and getting your hands on booze might prove to be difficult, but I'm not about to dismiss the possibility of Qatar putting on a hell of a good show. Reaching out to the Middle East through sport doesn't seem to be the worst idea (no does having a dry(er) World Cup either, and that's coming from a guy that likes to watch football games "wet"). On a personal level I'm quite interested to go.

    However, the whole bid process has left me exhausted and questioning of the process. In the TV world that we live in is there even a need to restrict World Cups to one country? Would it not make sense, reduce the appearance of corruption and spread the game to more of the world to have World Cups played in multiple countries? You'd have eight hosts, plus a host for the final? As stated it's a TV game anyway. Spread the wealth, reduce the costs associated with hosting and everyone wins.

    That won't happen, but maybe it should.

    In the meantime we can turn our attention to 2026. By that time the last seven World Cups will have been held in Europe, Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, Europe and Asia. It seems pretty clear that '26 is North America's to lose. That would put the USA as the front runner today.

    Unless......

    Related:

    The Big Bid 2: What's in it for Canada?
    The Big Bid 1: Why the Americans are going down.
    Guest

    Alberta: Bound

    By Guest, in Onward Soccer,

    It all started earlier this year, when the Canadian Soccer Association’s Constitution Committee came out with a sweeping new blueprint for the governance of the beautiful game in this country.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    Matters on Metcalfe Street have tended to take a turn for the responsible since Peter Montopoli took over as CSA general secretary – but the broad and sweeping nature of the proposed reforms took most of us by surprise.
    The new governance model calls for the elimination of all provincial and territorial soccer association members from the CSA board. Regional reps would be part of the new structure, but would have to be unaffiliated with the local SA’s.
    I’ve also been told the new model sets minimum qualifications for CSA executive members – requirements that many of the present group simply do not meet.
    And that’s about when things went nuts in Alberta.
    The old guard in the Alberta Soccer Association are not in favour of reform. But due to just the way things go sometimes, they were caught inconveniently out of power when the Constitution Committee bombshell hit the boardroom.
    A reform-minded ASA president, Chris Billings, looked sure to be a key vote in favour of the new governance model at the CSA’s 2010 annual general meeting.
    He never made it. (Well, I’m told he got there physically, but was not allowed to vote.)
    The Alberta old guard – led by Edmonton Minor Soccer Association president Mario Charpentier – accused Billings of various degrees of not-niceness, and managed to get him deposed. Billings refused to acknowledge their authority, and now we have two warring Alberta Soccer Associations, with the whole mess likely to be sorted out in the courts.
    In the meantime, several Alberta youth soccer clubs withheld their fees, and were stripped of tournament-hosting rights, forcing many relocations and/or cancellations.
    The old guard showed up at the CSA AGM in Winnipeg in May, and duly voted against the reforms. Quebec lined up with them, but none of that was enough to stop the majority of the board from backing the proposals.
    Ah, but this was not the final vote. That comes up next year some time.
    For the moment, the Alberta mess – however distasteful – has yet to seriously damage the Canadian game. (Anywhere outside of Alberta, that is.)
    But it is dangerously early. I'm told two other provinces (Manitoba, Nova Scotia) may be lining up in opposition. If Billings is being unfairly denied his voice, that could be enough to sink the whole deal.
    So I want us all to join forces to do something about it.
    I’m not going to insult you and try to tell you which side of the reform debate I think you ought to be on. I am very strongly pro-reform, but I will be just one voice in the upcoming conversation. Anti-reform voices are very welcome here, as well.
    No one involved in this story has been in any hurry at all to answer questions from anyone. A cone of backroom secrecy has descended, and that has rarely been good news for Canada’s national soccer teams.
    With the launch of canadiansoccernews.com, we have a large, unified stage for important Canadian soccer discussions. And there aren’t many issues more important right now than this one.
    Tell ya what I’m gonna do:
    Beginning Monday, I’m going to draft a weekly series of public letters. These will be addressed – as Onward! columns – to Mario Charpentier (Dec. 6), Chris Billings (Dec. 13) and CSA director-at-large Mike Traficante, a past-president of the ASA (Dec. 20).
    The letters will pose questions – to do with CSA reform and the role of provincial reps on the national stage.
    These gentlemen will be invited to clarify their positions – and advised that any and all responses will be considered to be on the record, and will be printed in full.
    I’m not all that confident they will answer. But that doesn’t mean all the rest of us can’t get a wide-ranging and informative conversation going -- in the comments section following each item.
    The more info all of us round up and publish, the more open letters will go out. With each letter, each discussion, each new revelation, we can – bit by bit – ratchet up the pressure.
    And that could actually make a difference. It’s very hard to keep all the knife work in the back room when an increasingly bright public spotlight is seeping, bit by inconvenient bit, into the shadowy hidden realm.
    It is clear to me that Canada’s soccer bureaucrats should be working for the game. It is even clearer that, in Alberta, the game is now working for the bureaucrats.
    So let’s start a conversation right here, right now. Are you in favour of CSA governance reform? Should the provincial reps be hoofed? Who, by rights, should be running the ASA?
    Now that you’re all here – let’s hear from all of you.
    (Oh, and Mario? You’re up!)
    Onward!
    Guest
    EA Sports VP and GM of Soccer, Matt Bilbey makes mention of the fact that fans will be able to play in BC Place before the players do at 8:28. Traditionally the FIFA series has been released in the last week of September or first week of October. [PAGE][/PAGE]Initially we've all been told repeatedly that everything is on schedule with the stadium.


    Over the summer we'd been told that the 'Caps would be playing at Empire Field for the first half of the season and BC Place for the second half. Apparently we're not likely to see BC Place open until at least the end of September. Now I realize that the MLS season does not end in September but there have been rumblings among the fans that they might rather play the whole season out at Empire rather then have to move 3/4's of the way through the season.
    The club has us all picking our seats out for BC Place, and it seems less likely everyday that we'll be sitting in them during the first season.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    I found it very interesting what Mr. Bilbey says at the 8:00 mark, where I believe he may be alluding to National Development and Training Centre that the Whitecaps have so desperately been trying to secure.
    Initially the club was trying to build at a location in Delta (a suburb an hour south of the city) but plans seemed to fall through earlier this year. After the collapse of the Delta deal the 'Caps let it be known that they were in search of a new location for their facilities. The mayor of Surrey has been pushing for the 'Caps to take over the Cloverdale Fairgrounds and the Fraser Downs Horse Racing Track, but again it is a location very much out of the way.
    The Whitecaps have had a fantastic relationship with the City of Burnaby and its residents for nearly 28 years. Having played at Swangard, and playing their PDL games at Simon Fraser University. For much of this offseason the Whitecaps have been setting up camp at the Burnaby Lake Sports Complex, to hold their training sessions. Rumours abound that in the near future this will be the permanent training facilities for the club. It's location is a little more centralized (within a 30 minute drive of all major media outlets), yet still far enough out of the way for a little privacy.
    Like Mr. Bilbey said in the clip he'll keep you posted on developments in the near futre.
    Guest
    Join us. Debate. Cry. Celebrate. Plot revenge.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    <iframe src="http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=9d84488b5b/height=550/width=350" scrolling="no" height="550px" width="350px" frameBorder ="0" allowTransparency="true" ><a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=9d84488b5b" >The (actually important) Decision - World Cup 2018/22</a></iframe>
    Guest

    The Southsiders v Whitecaps

    By Guest, in 24th Minute,

    Vancouver Whitecaps president Bob Lenarduzzi appeared on It’s Called Football last week. I asked him about the ticket pricing/allocation controversy between the Southsiders and the front office. The exchange went like this:
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    Me - There’s a theory that’s out there – that the Whitecaps wanta good active crowd, but what they want to avoid is the creation of powerful supporters groups and the ticket structure, particularly in the cheaper section,...is set up in such a way that it will prevent the evolution of newer groups...it will create a more uniform atmosphere around the stadium rather than one that is specifically geared towards a single supporter’s group...Could you speak to that theory.

    Lenarduzzi’s answer did not go over well with the Southsiders. Almost immediately they called into question the accuracy of his answer. I spoke with Southsiders president John Knox yesterday and he told me that Lenarduzzi’s claim that there were 140 Southsiders in the designated supporter’s section was inaccurate. The vast majority of current Southsiders have purchased their tickets in the corners, outside of the designated area.
    The reason for that is that is simple – the tickets are cheaper. Knox questions the logic of pricing the seats behind the net – partially obstructed view he points out – at a higher price point than the seats in the corner. He says that the only reason the club would do that is to take advantage of the perceived value of being in a supporter’s section. Actually, Knox says he was told that verbatim in meetings with the club. Since people want to be in a supporter’s section, the club feels it can charge more for those seats.
    Knox wants to stress that although his group feels that the ticket prices are too high when compared to other MLS markets, that’s not the Southsiders biggest beef. Being used as marketing tools (through images and references), but not, in their opinion, being respected is.
    On the Southsiders discussion board, Knox published an e-mail exchange between himself and Lenarduzzi. I’m including it below:
    Hi Bob,
    I've just caught your recent appearance on the "It's Called Football" show.
    I wish to clarify that the source of the discontent coming from the Southsiders is not exclusively related to pricing. While you are correct to say that some of our members have bit the bullet and accepted the rates for what they are, you have vastly overstated the numbers within our membership who fall into that category.
    The pre-sale numbers you were quoting seem to include seats purchased by other supporters who are not members of the Southsiders organization. I'll chalk that down to a misunderstanding. I can assure you that more than half of our 190 members will be seeking "Green" tier pricing when the general sale takes place.
    More importantly, there are a few points that you, your colleagues at the FO and some media outlets don't seem to have a proper handle on.
    Our biggest concern is not the cost of the tickets... it is WHERE those prices are applied within the stadium and WHY.
    The club has applied a $560 price point (after tax and fees) to seats which are directly behind the goals, while much better seats in the corner areas are nearly $200 cheaper.
    This practice is completely inconsistent with how most stadiums in MLS locate their pricing tiers, and in leagues throughout the world. Logic dictates that a seat with an obstructed view behind the net and advertising boards should cost less than a corner seat with a better view. In Vancouver, this logic has been thrown out the window.
    In our meetings with your staff, we asked Roberto Cabrone why this was the case. This is what we were told, ver batim:
    "There is a perceived value in a supporters section because of what happens there."
    So here's the reality of that statement:
    Supporters who sing and chant make the areas behind the goal look like a fun place to be... so the Whitecaps are going to charge people more money to be a part of it.
    The club's communications strategy about the placement of these pricing tiers has been rooted in catchphrases like "it's fair pricing," and "the public supports it," and "it's what the market will bear."
    It's these sorts of explanations which continue to provoke anger within our membership. One long-time season ticket holder explained it to me like this: "It's like they're pissing on my leg and trying to convince everyone else it's rain."
    As you rightfully stated in the broadcast, "it's a business." Fair enough. The Whitecaps are an entity which is designed to generate a return on investment. We are both on the same page there.
    I think the club would earn back a lot of respect from its fans if it you or your colleagues were more honest about the fact that the supporters experience is being sold at a premium because, quite simply, it's smart business to do so. Neither of us should be under any illusion that the Southsiders would be appeased by such an admission, but I am certain they would at least respect the club for its honesty on the subject.
    While I have your attention, I'd like to clear the air on another issue:
    The Southsiders have absolutely no desire to sabotage the Whitecaps sales drive, or to attract negative publicity to the club.
    While it is true that I have spoken to the press about our concerns, this should come as absolutely no surprise to you or your colleagues.
    In our group's confidential meetings with Roberto Cabrone and Ryan McKee, I made it clear that our organization would not go out of our way to issue news releases on the pricing / seating issue, but that I would speak honestly and openly about the discontent within our membership if the press contacted me for comment. I expressed this same warning to Jason MacNaughton and Nathan Vanstone in a separate discussion.
    In both cases, I made it clear that our members expectations of the upcoming pricing announcement were vastly out of touch with the much higher rates which were about to be announced. I warned that a negative reaction from the majority of our membership was imminent, and that I was obligated to speak for those members if asked by the press.
    I am not sure if my intentions in this regard were ever brought to your attention, but they should have been. If you were sincerely caught off guard by our comments in the press, it would seem indicative of a substantial communications problem within your office.
    As a supporter I am thankful that we have been able to collaborate on so many events and projects in the past, but the reality is that your office has created the conditions responsible for the current discord within our membership, and the negative press which continues to be an inconvenience to the club.
    The club's first mistake was its failure to properly manage the pricing expectations of its largest supporters group.
    We warned you, Paul Barber and other staff that there was bound to be significant anger on the horizon over the pricing structure, and yet the club chose to keep those supporters in the dark right up until the public release date. Were it not for the confidentiality requirements imposed on our board members by your staff, we could have helped you mitigate this entire disaster well in advance of your media launch.
    The club's second mistake was its failure to take the actions necessary to neutralize the anger and opposition brewing within its fan base after the prices were released.
    In the club's dealings with the press, our members heard many times over that they were in the wrong, and that there were many new fans who would support the club if we wouldn't. Up until this point our members had simply felt puzzled. However, the club's responses in the media at this point in time - and yours specifically - left them feeling grossly disrespected, and questioning whether the new Whitecaps was worthy of their support.
    The club's third mistake was to ignore our requests for a sit-down meeting to resolve our differences and work cooperatively towards a solution.
    Our members have been waiting for some news in this regard for several weeks now, and the silence from the club only feeds a growing perception that fans and supporters no longer matter to this organization.
    What is particularly frustrating about this point is that our board was fully prepared to present three separate proposals relating to our pre-sale privileges which would have resulted in Whitecaps organization looking like heroes in the eyes of supporters and media in Vancouver and throughout the MLS.
    Sadly, the Whitecaps have missed out on this opportunity in its refusal to meet with us. Had the club worked towards a solution, we would have gladly sung your praises to any reporter that would listen. Unfortunately, the club ignored us and tried to marginalize us in the media as a minority nuisance - a tactic which only perpetuates the negative attention focused on the club.
    As stated before, we have no interest in damaging the club's reputation. I can cite several other examples in recent weeks where we have withheld potentially embarrassing information from our membership, and from the media:
    * We (the Southsiders executives) stumbled across the IoMedia renderings of BC Place two weeks before they were released publicly. We kept this information in strict confidence to protect the integrity of the official launch. If we had an agenda to embarrass the club, we could very well have released the publicly accessible web address, screen photos, or publicized the fact that the central TV screens mistakenly featured a Telus advertisement instead of the primary sponsor, Bell.
    * We became aware that certain retailers were selling the new MLS jerseys well in advance of the official release date. We did not publicize this fact given that the club would have lost its pre-release retail window, and it would have ruined a jersey launch event we were trying to plan in cooperation with your staff and with Bell. As it turns out, some of the rogue retailers eventually publicized their jersey sales via Twitter, and there was nothing further that we could do to suppress that information from getting out.
    * We suppressed the release of a joint statement with the ECS and Timbers Army on the away seating allocation issue because Paul Barber was out of town and unable to respond to the media calls which were likely to result. This came at the request of Nathan Vanstone and Jason MacNaughton, and we obliged out of respect for the club.
    * We refused more than half a dozen major media requests to elaborate on our dissatisfaction on the pricing / seating issues because we preferred to reach an understanding with you, Paul and other staff members in a face to face meeting. Nearly three weeks later, our requests for such a meeting remain unfulfilled.
    In spite of our present disagreements and discontent, we will continue to be the Whitecaps' loudest and proudest supporters. Our numbers will continue to grow in the MLS era, and we will be doing our damnedest to rival anything North America has ever seen before.
    Our members want to work in collaboration with you and your staff to fill BC Place to the rafters. We want more than anything for Caps v. Seattle or Portland to outsell the Grey Cup one day, but that will only come if we work together to wake this city up.
    I want the club to view the Southsiders as a respected asset, not as a pain in the ass.
    I also want my members to look at the club as a valued partner, not as a corporate behemoth standing in our way.
    I'm putting the ball squarely at your feet and asking you directly if these are things the club wants too.
    I look forward to hearing your thoughts at your earliest convenience.
    Please note: TEAM 1040 wants to pre-record a segment with me today or tomorrow for the Full Time show. I have no idea what their intended discussion topics are, but I am obliged to speak candidly about issues affecting my members. If the pricing / seating issue comes up, I fully intend to keep it polite and respectful, and I'll express my optimism that we can continue working together constructively for the betterment of football in Vancouver.
    Sincerely,
    John Knox, president
    Vancouver Southsiders
    His response:
    Thanks for the follow up John. I’m not sure that responding to your many comments/concerns will solve much. As a club we feel as though we have tried to liaise with you and other Southsiders over the last couple of years on various matters. It appears though that recent discussions regarding ticket pricing, and specifically the pricing of certain sections has resulted in a great deal of misinterpretation. I think that at this time we should agree to disagree on this particular matter and move on. Thanks for your past and future support.
    Bobby
    You can read the reaction to the letter here.
    Guest
    Today, we're joined by Declan Hill, Oxford scholar and author of The Fix, to talk about match fixing at this summer's World Cup, what's being done to rid the game of corruption on a global level, the FIFA Dirty Secrets report and he breaks some news on our show about a footballing organization actually cracking down on corruption.
    We'll also get into our picks for the Canadian player of the year, if the Whitecaps are helping or hurting their buzz with all the press conferences, some of the latest Toronto FC news and moves and what Fredy Montero becoming a DP means for the rest of the league.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    We're back on Monday. But we're hoping to have an Interview Only up with Andrew Jennings a little later in the week, so stay tuned.
    <embed src="http://itscalledfootball.podhoster.com/FlowPlayerLight.swf?config={embedded:true,videoFile:%27http://itscalledfootball.podhoster.com/download/2540/21060/dec2.2010final.mp3%27,initialScale:%27scale%27,controlBarBackgroundColor:%270x778899%27,autoBuffering:false,loop:false,autoPlay:false}" width="400" height="25" scale="fit" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>
    Guest
    Welcome to the first edition of Don't Fight The Laws, in which I combine my years of being a referee with my years of being a smartass to provide my answers to your questions about the Laws of the Game, controversial decisions and other odds and ends relating to referees and what they do.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    Got a question? Send it over to canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com. But for this week, we have the following...
    Squizz, please explain to us the situation of the 2007 Gold Cup, where a Canadian goal was deemed offside. Please explain the call that your blind brethren made and why it was correct/incorrect.
    -- Tuscan
    Yeah, may as well get this puppy out of the way right off the hop. The name Benito Archundia is to Canadian soccer dorks what Voldemort is to Harry Potter dorks, vilified as he is for a number of decisions that have gone against Les Rouges in critical games. The most oft-cited example came in the semi-finals of the 2007 Gold Cup, when the Mexican referee found himself in the middle of this debacle:


    First of all, yes the call was wrong, and I'll get into that momentarily. Second, it wasn't Benito Archundia's fault.
    Yeah, I know, I know, it's easy and fun to hold Archundia up as a bogeyman, emblematic of all that ails Canadian soccer. If you're desperate enough to still want a bogeyman, let it be Ramon Ricardo Louisville of Suriname -- he's the assistant referee that wrongly flagged Hutch for offside.
    While the man/woman in the middle is the ultimate arbiter of the game, and may ignore the calls of the assistant referees, you will nearly never see a referee go against an AR's call on offside. Why? Because it is fucking impossible to accurately determine offside from the middle of the field. (Don't believe me? Try it sometime.) Hell, it's damn near impossible to do it properly from the sideline, particularly in the 94th minute of a match, as Mr. Lousville showed us.
    Now, much was made about whether the ball was actively played by the American defender, or whether it simply rebounded off of him. This is relevant because the Laws state that a player's onside/offside position is determined "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team" and that a player is offside if they "(play) a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position."
    In other words, if Hutch was in an offside position when his teammate made the cross, and the ball merely rebounded off the American defender, then he was, indeed, offside. But that replay makes clear that this was no mere rebound; it was an intentional (albeit terrible) header. While the Laws are infuriatingly vague in this instance, it's commonly understood that intentional control of the ball by the defending team (such as this crappy header) negates the original offside. This is not explicitly stated in the Laws, but is tacitly suggested by the usage of the words "rebounds ... off an opponent" rather than "rebounds, or is played by, an opponent".
    For what it's worth, though, I think Hutch was onside even at the moment of the original pass, which renders this entire discussion moot. But in any event, yes everyone, Jack Warner was in the earpieces of Archundia, Lousville and the rest of the refs, specifically instructing them to screw us out of a well-earned equalizer. So I think we can put that one to bed.
    Whew. The rest of the answers won't be that verbose, I swear.
    What do the rules of the game say about (the recent deliberate sending offs by Jose and the like)?
    -- Some Unidentified Person
    Nothing, really.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPplbi9QeKE
    Obviously, Alonso and Ramos were intentionally wasting time. So the referee did exactly what he was supposed to do. He cautioned them for unsporting behaviour. Both were already on yellows. Both got sent off for a second cautionable offence.
    UEFA has punished the players and their manager for this cynical ploy (although, it must be said, the ploy worked, as neither Alonso nor Ramos were hit with additional suspension time). But during the game, this additional punishment is none of the referee's concern. The ref's only recourse, when it comes to sanctioning players for their dickhead behaviour, is to caution them or send them off (with mitigating circumstances, if applicable, detailed in their match report). If a governing body chooses to take additional action (as UEFA did in this case), that's their call.
    Perhaps the ref was fully aware of what Alonso and Ramos were doing. But to me, the individual referee's job, in any individual game, is not to take into account the broader implications of his/her decisions on that player, or the competition at large. Their job is to enforce the Laws of the Game, to the best of their abilities. There's no way for refs to avoid knowing what impact a yellow card may have on a player's eligibility for upcoming games, but that should (in theory) have no bearing on whether or not they choose to caution that player.
    Also, you knew Luis Suarez had to be involved in this preposterous situation somehow, didn't ya?
    Can you clarify for people on when you CAN'T be offside? For example in the World Cup I had many debates with England fanboys who were crying that the one German goal was offside, however the ball was played from a goal kick. Many people don't seem to know you cant be offside from a goal kick. Same with a throw in. -- Branden F.
    First of all, I'm not sure why you're wasting your time discussing soccer with anyone idiotic enough to believe there was anything remotely offside about the opening goal by the Germans, scored by Miroslav Klose. But yes, you're right, a player cannot be offside if he/she:

    receives the ball from a goal kick, corner kick or throw-in; or
    is in his/her own half of the field at the moment the ball is played; or
    is level with the second-last or last two defending players; or
    is nearer to his/her own goal than the ball at the moment it is played

    Points one and two are self-explanatory. Point three means that as long as you're not nearer to the opposing goal than two of the defending players (whether or not one of them is the goalkeeper), then you're in the clear. And point four explains why teammates that find themselves in a two-on-zero situation can still make a pass (even though the recipient is behind the second-last defender), just so long as it's a lateral or backward pass.
    But, seriously, really? People really thought Klose was offside? I mean, Jesus Christ. He wasn't even close to being in an offside position! What did they think of Suarez's handball? That what he did was OK because he wasn't using a vuvuzela?
    In the Tottenham-Liverpool game (on Sunday) there was a penalty awarded to Tottenham (which Defoe missed) when the ball was "handled" on, or just outside, the line of the 18 yard box. What do the rules say about placement of freekicks from handballs? The wall was clearly inside the box and the ref was not at an angle to see that the ball was handled outside the box.
    -- Some Unidentified Person
    If you haven't seen it, skip ahead to 7:25:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xfu3as_goaltube-org-sprs-rds_sport?additionalInfos=0
    Law 12 states that a free kick is taken "from the place where the offence occurred" and that a penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct-free-kick offence "inside his own penalty area". There is no differentiation made between a free kick for a handball versus any other similar offence in this regard.
    In terms of the penalty area, think about it like the regular field of play -- the ball is in the penalty area unless the whole of it is outside of the penalty area. The goalkeeper can handle the ball so long as a sliver of it is "breaking the plane" (to borrow some pointyball terminology) of the lines marking the penalty area.
    Ergo... if the ball was handled deliberately (which it was, in my opinion) while it was on the edge of the penalty area (which, again, it was, IMO) then the "place where the offence occurred" is considered to be inside the penalty area, and the appropriate call is a penalty kick.
    Now, whether or not the referee was in the ideal position to make this determination is debatable (it certainly couldn't have hurt for him to consult his AR). But from this replay, I think he got the call right. Either way, as you say, Defoe blotched the bloody spot kick, so it's all for naught anyway.
    That's it for this week. Send me an email at canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com, and your query may turn up in the next edition of Don't Fight The Laws.
    Guest
    Who?
    This kid gets my vote for Canadian Soccer Athlete of the Year.
    Emil Cohen, a student at Northern Secondary School in Toronto, was suspended after standing up at an athletic ceremony and complaining about how his soccer team was getting the short end of the physical education department's stick.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    Voicing his concerns got him a two day holiday and also a ban on playing for any school teams in the future.
    While many in the GTA media today are making this story about free speech and the right to say what you like, this, obviously, has touched a different tone with me. Having grown up in rural Southwestern Ontario I remember what it was like to have your sport marginalized in high school.
    Basketball, volleyball and hockey got much of the funding - and attention - while the soccer teams were left playing on pitches that resembled those in third world countries.
    If you wanted to play, the onus was basically on the players to come up with a team, uniforms and a coach. Never mind getting people out to your game to watch, just getting to the game was an actual concern.
    It's frustrating for players like Emil, and often reflective of why our kids don't try to take their soccer further, when they're confronted with such inequalities.
    Club teams across Canada have made big strides in the last ten years and when it comes to post-secondary educations soccer scholarships are plentiful south of the border - so it's strange to me to see the high schools here have not followed suit.
    By the numbers, soccer stands alone as the highest participatory sport in the country - it's probably number three or four when it comes to funding.
    Perhaps in the next ten years, with three first division clubs and a number of D2 and D3 teams sprinkled across the country we'll see some change in the high schools - but my guess is, with limited funds and even less resources, we'll still be hearing about how kids like Emil are putting the work on their backs to play the game they love.
    Guest
    The Toronto Star reports today that Rogers is in negotiations with the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan to buy a majority stake in MLSE. Such a move would mean that the telecommunications giant would be the majority owner of the Leafs, Raptors, Jays, the AHL Marlies and Toronto FC.
    The deal is reported to be worth a billion dollars.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    TFC is an afterthought in the deal. It's about taking control of the Leafs and, especially, the TV rights for the NHL club. As one of the county's biggest cable and wireless providers, Rogers is interested in sports properties as part of an overall strategy to find cheap content for its various platforms (Rogers is also front and centre in the Bills in Toronto series and is thought to be behind the efforts to bring an NFL team to Toronto).
    The kneejerk reaction of many might be to rejoice in the possibility of getting rid of the teacher's fund from the ownership group. It's thought that the perceived bottom line only focus of MLSE is because it is owned by a pension fund only interested in returns for its investors.
    From a TFC perspective there might be some thought that bringing in Rogers may provide the club with more resources to compete. Such thinking ignores the fact that TFC currently doesn't suffer from getting resources to compete. It's the utilizing of those resources that the Reds struggle with.
    If you are concerned about ticket prices and perceived gouging by ownership you may wish to give pause. In addition to having some of the highest cell phone rates in the world, Rogers are the folks that thought selling the Bills in Toronto series at an average price of $183 a seat was a good idea. That blew up in their face, but as anyone that has to deal with the company will tell you, Rogers can be a little shameless when it comes to pricing.
    Ultimately a change in majority ownership wouldn't likely change much on a day to day basis for TFC -- for good or bad.
    Guest
    Long Balls is in the midst of some minor editorial tweaks. We're now including footballers from Canada's main Concacaf rivals like Honduras and Costa Rica and then judging which country can boast the best performances in the best leagues.
    If it helps you to visualize these things, perhaps you could imagine Long Balls as something resembling a World Cup Nike commercial. A group of footballers - say Atiba Hutchinson, Bryan Ruiz, Wilson Palacios and a few others - is walking across a garbage-strewn vacant lot set against a generic third-world backdrop. Suddenly happy, clapping people from the neighbourhood surround the players and start whistling for a match. The footballers stare at each other with bemused expressions until Didier Drogba inexplicably pops up from nowhere sporting a toothy grin and a soccer ball and asks, "Where's the pitch?"
    Or you could just use the series as a handy reference to how Canadian footballers abroad are faring. This weekend, for example, they didn't fare well.
    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
    It's a sobering testament to the footballing prowess of Concacaf beyond the U.S. and Mexico that the most notable occurrence affecting a European-based player from any of those countries was a hamstring injury suffered by Tottenham's Dutch midfielder Rafael van der Vaart.
    Yes, that's right. The unlucky Dutchman's injury has the Honduran press bleating about how Wilson Palacios will finally get a chance for minutes in the Tottenham midfield. That is surprising, considering his form has stunk this year.
    It was difficult to declare a "winner" from the performances this weekend, so I'm not going to. No Canadian stood out, except for Atiba Hutchinson, and that was for the wrong reasons. The Honduran duo of Maynor Figueroa and Hendry Thomas played most of two losses for Wigan, and Costa Rican striker Bryan Ruiz buggered his knee. Here is the rundown:
    Canada
    No scorers this week. PSV's Atiba Hutchinson turned in a forgettable performance at rightback. That's the position at which he seems to be getting minutes now, despite playing most of his career as a central midfielder.
    Josh Simpson played 81 minutes for Manisaspor in the Turkish top flight... and had a baby girl! That would be out and away the performance of the weekend if it weren't for the fact it doesn't have anything to do with soccer.
    Simeon Jackson seems to have drifted back into a sub's roll at Norwich City in the English second division. He came on in the 85th minute in a 4-1 victory over Ipswich Town.*
    Canada maybes
    Jonathan de Guzman moved into a more defensive midfield position as one of two holders in a 4-2-3-1 as Mallorca beat Málaga 2-0. That's surprising, as from everything I've read he's been performing well this year in the attacking role.
    Honduras
    The aforementioned Wilson Palacios didn't have a particularly good match against Liverpool, although there are rumours that Juventus wants him. Maynor Figueroa and Hendry Thomas started and played significant minutes for Wigan in both the weekend loss to West Ham and the Carling Cup loss to Arsenal on Tuesday.
    Costa Rica
    Twente's striker Bryan Ruiz suffered a knee injury and won't play again until next year.
    Jamaica
    Stoke City striker Ricardo Fuller played 75 minutes in a 1-1 draw with Manchester City.
    *This article originally referred to Norwich City's victory as a loss.
×
×
  • Create New...