# When two teams can advance to next round by just a draw....



## mlx (Jun 28, 2021)

Why should they give it all?

For:

Their performance put them in this position. It is not their fault the other teams depend on their result to advance.
Why risk injuries?
Why risk getting eliminated?
Agains:

It's against the spirit of the sport
It's unethical
it's cheating
Case in point, some girls LAGSD vs City SC game...

Discuss.


----------



## Emma (Jun 28, 2021)

mlx said:


> Why should they give it all?
> 
> For:
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what game you are referring to bc LAGSD and City SC are the same club.  If you agree with the other team to a fix and draw, then it's cheating.  If you don't play hard to score but play defensively so long as the score is 0-0, then it's not cheating but a game strategy for tournament purposes.


----------



## mlx (Jun 28, 2021)

Emma said:


> I'm not sure what game you are referring to bc LAGSD and City SC are the same club.  If you agree with the other team to a fix and draw, then it's cheating.  If you don't play hard to score but play defensively so long as the score is 0-0, then it's not cheating but a game strategy for tournament purposes.


Some game they are talking about here: https://www.socalsoccer.com/threads/club-soccer-stuff-that-drive-you-nuts.19796/page-11

I just thought I would give it its own thread so we can keep that thread for ranting about random stuff


----------



## Emma (Jun 28, 2021)

Yes - this is a big enough issue to rant on its own.


----------



## mlx (Jun 28, 2021)

Emma said:


> ... If you don't play hard to score but play defensively so long as the score is 0-0, then it's not cheating but a game strategy for tournament purposes...


Hm, I like this definition. But, wouldn't it be just semantics? Meaning, there's no need for the coaches or players to "fix" the score, but just by knowing that a tie would qualify both and if one team doesn't attack, just defends, the other team can decide to do just the same. What's the line?


----------



## Emma (Jun 28, 2021)

mlx said:


> Hm, I like this definition. But, wouldn't it be just semantics? Meaning, there's no need for the coaches or players to "fix" the score, but just by knowing that a tie would qualify both and if one team doesn't attack, just defends, the other team can decide to do just the same. What's the line?


When the two teams verbally agree to it - colluding to fix the game- it's wrong.  If they both come out with that strategy, there's nothing wrong with it.  Playing defensively is always an option even if Hope Solo disagrees.  Parking the bus is a strategy.  Long balls to bypass the midfield is a strategy when your midfield is weaker than the opposing team's.  

It's not semantics because the other team has the free will to come out and try to score rather than be locked into playing defensively because of an agreement between coaches.  

We've played games where we lose because we saved all our starters and put random players in random spots, knowing we would be playing the same team in the championship, in order to misguide their coach and team.  Is it cheating?  No.  Did we put our best effort forwards?  No...but it was fun and it's part of tourney strategy.


----------



## Woodwork (Jun 28, 2021)

mlx said:


> Hm, I like this definition. But, wouldn't it be just semantics? Meaning, there's no need for the coaches or players to "fix" the score, but just by knowing that a tie would qualify both and if one team doesn't attack, just defends, the other team can decide to do just the same. What's the line?


The line is an agreement to a pre-determined outcome quid pro quo.  If I agree to give your team something (no goals against) if you give me something (also no goals against), this is quid pro quo and match fixing. 

Playing for a tie happens all the time but, without a quid pro quo agreement, it still requires a lot of effort and aggressive defense.  You either cede possession in non-dangerous areas and have only a couple players transition in counters, or you hold possession and high press to win the ball back..  In a 60-90 minute game, if a game is fixed at the team level, you are going to notice if all the strikers decline to shoot at open nets or if defenders refuse to make hard tackles in dangerous areas. Game-throwing by one or two individuals is harder to detect (they usually get subbed out).

The question is whether the tournaments or leagues have rules against match fixing or, if they do, will they make examples of the teams.  Surf Cup apparently let such teams advance to finals.  https://fut411.com/post/surf-cup-scandal-update 

It is also a fair question whether clubs have their own ethical rules in this area.  

Anecdotally, I will point out that I once saw two FRAM teams, an 07 and 08 end up in a position where they played each other in group play.  If the 07 team beat the 08 team, it would have advanced to the final.  Both teams had the same coach.  That coach sat down during the match, didn't say a word and let the two teams play their hearts out.  The 08 team won and neither team advanced to the finals.  That coach was Nunez and he forever has my respect for that.


----------



## espola (Jun 28, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> The line is an agreement to a pre-determined outcome quid pro quo.  If I agree to give your team something (no goals against) if you give me something (also no goals against), this is quid pro quo and match fixing.
> 
> Playing for a tie happens all the time but, without a quid pro quo agreement, it still requires a lot of effort and aggressive defense.  You either cede possession in non-dangerous areas and have only a couple players transition in counters, or you hold possession and high press to win the ball back..  In a 60-90 minute game, if a game is fixed at the team level, you are going to notice if all the strikers decline to shoot at open nets or if defenders refuse to make hard tackles in dangerous areas. Game-throwing by one or two individuals is harder to detect (they usually get subbed out).
> 
> ...


Both FRAM teams had the same coach?


----------



## GLangevinito (Jun 28, 2021)

Emma said:


> When the two teams verbally agree to it - colluding to fix the game- it's wrong.


Agreed. It's easy to tell when a coach has given the order not to compete. Zero defensive challenges, zero shots, lots of standing around, the coach is silent.


----------



## Emma (Jun 28, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> Agreed. It's easy to tell when a coach has given the order not to compete. Zero defensive challenges, zero shots, lots of standing around, the coach is silent.


colluding is evidence that the two teams agree to do so collectively together. If each team has made the decision on their own, then it's not colluding.  It's awareness and individual decision making.  May not be what I would choose or what you would choose but if they make it individually, there's nothing wrong with it.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see my children playing then ever just kicking it around because sitting on the sideline for that long watching kick arounds are boring.  However, I want my children to learn how to strategize to win tournaments if it's their goal to win it.


----------



## GLangevinito (Jun 28, 2021)

Emma said:


> colluding is evidence that the two teams agree to do so collectively together. If each team has made the decision on their own, then it's not colluding.  It's awareness and individual decision making.  May not be what I would choose or what you would choose but if they make it individually, there's nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see my children playing then ever just kicking it around because sitting on the sideline for that long watching kick arounds are boring.  However, I want my children to learn how to strategize to win tournaments if it's their goal to win it.


It's never worked that way in the history of youth sport. Two teams of kids don't spontaneously decide to not play the game without both coaches' approval. If my team all of a sudden decided not to play, even if the game is somewhat meaningless to the standings, one shout from me and they will start to play.


----------



## Woodwork (Jun 28, 2021)

espola said:


> Both FRAM teams had the same coach?


Yes.  He made an ethical decision to sit it out to avoid a conflict of interest and he just let them play.


----------



## Woodwork (Jun 28, 2021)

GotSoccer Rankings
					






					home.gotsoccer.com
				



Proof.  But my memory was a bit off.  The FRAM Nunez 08 team would have advanced if he would have told his 07s to throw.  They should have all got a trophy for sportsmanship.  I don't know anything else about the guy but he has been legendary in my mind for the last 3 years.


----------



## Emma (Jun 29, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> It's never worked that way in the history of youth sport. Two teams of kids don't spontaneously decide to not play the game without both coaches' approval. If my team all of a sudden decided not to play, even if the game is somewhat meaningless to the standings, one shout from me and they will start to play.


Not everyone needs to think or handle situations the the way you do, it doesn't make them unethical or wrong.  Seems extreme to label it as such because they have different plans and ideas. It's ok to not take the play "every game well and great" strategy.  I have heard plenty of coaches tell players: this game isn't important, our next one will be, don't kill yourself out there and let your body rest for the next one because it's going to be tough.  Players come out there and they make the decision on how hard they will play depending on the circumstances and their teammates.  Coach stays silent because the game isn't relevant and s/he would rather see no injuries during an irrelevant game.  

Same thing as real life and work.  When a new project is coming and the current project has become irrelevant, you tell your team to show up because we have to as it's required but hold off/chill to have a few days of rest because we will have some tough long hours next week.  If is unethical to tell your team not to work hard those days even if they are getting a paycheck? I don't think so.  Some days resting for a big project is important mentally and physically.  It's important to know when to push on the gas and when to step on the brakes.


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Jun 29, 2021)

Interesting conversation. What the two teams did is clearly match fixing, is clearly wrong and should not be allowed by the event operator.


----------



## outside! (Jun 29, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> It's never worked that way in the history of youth sport. Two teams of kids don't spontaneously decide to not play the game without both coaches' approval. If my team all of a sudden decided not to play, even if the game is somewhat meaningless to the standings, one shout from me and they will start to play.


Do you think you have a higher soccer IQ and a better awareness of tournament outcomes than the ADULT players on a team capable of competing for a national championship? If so, name your credentials.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jun 29, 2021)

outside! said:


> Do you think you have a higher soccer IQ and a better awareness of tournament outcomes than the ADULT players on a team capable of competing for a national championship? If so, name your credentials.


Do you think Germany and Portugal colluded to pretty much see the game out for the last 25 min b/c they knew both teams were advancing?

This entire thread is full of sour grapes and spilt milk.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 29, 2021)

Soccerfan2 said:


> Interesting conversation. What the two teams did is clearly match fixing, is clearly wrong and should not be allowed by the event operator.


What is your definition of match fixing?  There’s no gambling and no throwing the game for financial gain.  I respectfully submit that you are incorrectly using the term match fixing here.


----------



## socalkdg (Jun 29, 2021)

I pity both teams when college coaches are on the sideline watching a game like this.   Always play like a scout is watching.


----------



## twoclubpapa (Jun 29, 2021)

Lots of discussion about both teams tanking it for a draw in order to advance.  I had a situation twenty years ago where I had a coach inform me before a game that they would intentionally lose the game in order to play for the second place trophy since a win wouldn't advance them to the championship game under the tournament rules.  Other team won 6-1.  I put the comment in my match report and let the tournament competition authority figure out what they wanted to do.  In a separate communication I recommended that in the future the tournament rules be modified so this situation would not reoccur.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 29, 2021)

twoclubpapa said:


> Lots of discussion about both teams tanking it for a draw in order to advance.  I had a situation twenty years ago where I had a coach inform me before a game that they would intentionally lose the game in order to play for the second place trophy since a win wouldn't advance them to the championship game under the tournament rules.  Other team won 6-1.  I put the comment in my match report and let the tournament competition authority figure out what they wanted to do.  In a separate communication I recommended that in the future the tournament rules be modified so this situation would not reoccur.


Why did you ask that the rules be modified?  Take your time and think about it because I am reasonably certain you can’t offer a legitimate reason for doing so.


----------



## crush (Jun 29, 2021)

socalkdg said:


> I pity both teams when college coaches are on the sideline watching a game like this.   Always play like a scout is watching.


I say, "play like it's your last game" but I'm a crazy sports junky and I never took a play off.  This looks Bushy to me but I understand not wanting dd to get hurt trying to play sport.  I tried to watch but stopped after 5 seconds.


----------



## mlx (Jun 29, 2021)

socalkdg said:


> I pity both teams when college coaches are on the sideline watching a game like this.   Always play like a scout is watching.


I would say the scout would say "wow, they have great understanding of the tournament context! "


----------



## espola (Jun 29, 2021)

twoclubpapa said:


> Lots of discussion about both teams tanking it for a draw in order to advance.  I had a situation twenty years ago where I had a coach inform me before a game that they would intentionally lose the game in order to play for the second place trophy since a win wouldn't advance them to the championship game under the tournament rules.  Other team won 6-1.  I put the comment in my match report and let the tournament competition authority figure out what they wanted to do.  In a separate communication I recommended that in the future the tournament rules be modified so this situation would not reoccur.


Noting the situation in the game report, and thus making it known to the tournament officials, makes more sense than handing out yellow cards.


----------



## Woodwork (Jun 29, 2021)

twoclubpapa said:


> Lots of discussion about both teams tanking it for a draw in order to advance.  I had a situation twenty years ago where I had a coach inform me before a game that they would intentionally lose the game in order to play for the second place trophy since a win wouldn't advance them to the championship game under the tournament rules.  Other team won 6-1.  I put the comment in my match report and let the tournament competition authority figure out what they wanted to do.  In a separate communication I recommended that in the future the tournament rules be modified so this situation would not reoccur.


I don't see a problem with a team unilaterally deciding to put minimal effort if the game is a throw-away, especially with how grueling tournaments are.  I still resent a certain coach who allowed my DD to injure herself (through over-exertion) in a meaningless game and then screamed at her in the final for not playing hard enough.

I think this also happens sometimes when the two teams have to play each other in group and will have to play each other in the final - though I think some tourneys will just let them just skip the group game in that instance.  But an agreement, with quid pro quo, is the line where it stops being sport.


----------



## SageMajor (Jun 29, 2021)

In the past one of my daughter's coaches told the team that only 1 player could go across the half field.  They were playing for a draw against a better team and points mattered.  The other team had much faster forwards and we packed the back.  It was no fun to watch as we would get the ball then just play it for the 1 player to run onto and try and get through the whole defense alone.

There was an ECNL showcase about 7 years ago that both teams played for a draw.  Literally staying on their own sides and the defenders passing the ball back and forth un-contested for 90 minutes.  The college coaches were gone about 10 minutes into the game.  Both teams did advance


----------



## MacDre (Jun 29, 2021)

SageMajor said:


> The college coaches were gone about 10 minutes into the game.


I could care less about a lame ass college coach leaving that wanted to be entertained by kids playing in adverse conditions; fuck them and let them kick rocks.

I’d be more interested in a college coach that cared about my kids development and personal well being.


----------



## Emma (Jun 29, 2021)

mlx said:


> I would say the scout would say "wow, they have great understanding of the tournament context! "


And those coaches will be at the elimination round plus MANY more coaches. I'd rather see my child playing full force at the elimination game before A LOT of coaches then getting injured in a meaningless game in front of a few coaches.


----------



## what-happened (Jun 29, 2021)

Emma said:


> And those coaches will be at the elimination round plus MANY more coaches. I'd rather see my child playing full force at the elimination game before A LOT of coaches then getting injured in a meaningless game in front of a few coaches.


Doesn't this all sound so silly.  Why have the game at all?  What is being taught?  How are the kids being developed?  Cancel all meaningless games, send the kids to an ice bath and trainers, call it a day.  Cracks me up.  Gotta hand it to the tournmanent and club for maximizing their profit.


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Jun 29, 2021)

The problem with all of this is where does it end?

What I mean by "where does it end" is that if colluding about who wins is acceptable behaviour what's to stop coaches from calling each other as soon as the schedule is relayed and determing who will be the agreed to winner.

Take it a step further... If colluding is acceptable what's to stop coaches from paying other coaches $500 for a win. 

This is why collusion in sports is an issue. It allows parties that arent participating in the game to determine the outcome of the game. It robs players of the accolades of all the effort they've gone through to get where they are.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jun 29, 2021)

MacDre said:


> college coach leaving that wanted to be entertained


Really doubt there are that many coaches/scouts that find going out to these games to be entertaining.


----------



## Emma (Jun 29, 2021)

what-happened said:


> Doesn't this all sound so silly.  Why have the game at all?  What is being taught?  How are the kids being developed?  Cancel all meaningless games, send the kids to an ice bath and trainers, call it a day.  Cracks me up.  Gotta hand it to the tournmanent and club for maximizing their profit.


I agree that it's a tournament rule issue.  Kids are being taught to play hard when it counts and rest their bodies when it doesn't, or learning to play smart.  If they use points earned in bracket in order to establish seeding for the elimination rounds, it may reduce these types of games.


----------



## Woodwork (Jun 29, 2021)

MacDre said:


> I could care less about a lame ass college coach leaving that wanted to be entertained by kids playing in adverse conditions; fuck them and let them kick rocks.
> 
> I’d be more interested in a college coach that cared about my kids development and personal well being.


I missed what the adverse conditions were.  Hopefully there were non-winning related reasons because the point of a showcase isn't to pick an ultimate winner: it exists to give the players a chance to show their stuff.


----------



## Emma (Jun 29, 2021)

Carlsbad7 said:


> The problem with all of this is where does it end?
> 
> What I mean by "where does it end" is that if colluding about who wins is acceptable behaviour what's to stop coaches from calling each other as soon as the schedule is relayed and determing who will be the agreed to winner.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone here is saying we would be allowing collusion between two coaches from two different teams.  We are disagreeing on whether coaches and their teams can independently strategize and decide how to play an irrelevant game.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 29, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> I missed what the adverse conditions were.  Hopefully there were non-winning related reasons because the point of a showcase isn't to pick an ultimate winner: it exists to give the players a chance to show their stuff.


In terms of “stuff,” decision making, courage, leadership, creativity and teamwork was displayed.  
This reminds me of the debate I have with my cousin who hates Neymar because he flops.  The same guy has no problem with a “defensive tactical foul.” The dude is a walking & talking contradiction.

I guess my point is that there is more to showing your “stuff” than going all gas no brake.


----------



## Woodwork (Jun 29, 2021)

MacDre said:


> In terms of “stuff,” decision making, courage, leadership, creativity and teamwork was displayed.
> This reminds me of the debate I have with my cousin who hates Neymar because he flops.  The same guy has no problem with a “defensive tactical foul.” The dude is a walking & talking contradiction.
> 
> I guess my point is that there is more to showing your “stuff” than going all gas no brake.


So a scout goes out to watch a showcase game, sees 22 players casually passing the ball. He picks up his cell phone and calls the college team's manager and says, "Release everyone on the current squad and make room for 22.  I found the most courageous, creative group of leaders and team players you have ever seen!"


----------



## what-happened (Jun 29, 2021)

Emma said:


> I agree that it's a tournament rule issue.  Kids are being taught to play hard when it counts and rest their bodies when it doesn't, or learning to play smart.  If they use points earned in bracket in order to establish seeding for the elimination rounds, it may reduce these types of games.


I don't know the details of the travel required to get to this tournament, but factor in cost and time wasted.  It's a lose lose for most. Someone made $$$.  I'm sure the refs wouldn't of minded trading in the dollars paid for covering the game for AC and some cocktails.


----------



## what-happened (Jun 29, 2021)

MacDre said:


> In terms of “stuff,” decision making, courage, leadership, creativity and teamwork was displayed.
> This reminds me of the debate I have with my cousin who hates Neymar because he flops.  The same guy has no problem with a “defensive tactical foul.” The dude is a walking & talking contradiction.
> 
> I guess my point is that there is more to showing your “stuff” than going all gas no brake.


How exactly are the players displaying these incredible traits?  I know you are clearly joking and it is funny.  The whole situation is funny and the joke is on the parents who paid to be there.


----------



## Woodwork (Jun 29, 2021)

The most important thing is to show fundamentals.  Shooting is for showoffs.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 29, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> So a scout goes out to watch a showcase game, sees 22 players casually passing the ball. He picks up his cell phone and calls the college team's manager and says, "Release everyone on the current squad and make room for 22.  I found the most courageous, creative group of leaders and team players you have ever seen!"


I see your point.  But it is also not only about going hard.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jun 29, 2021)

mlx said:


> If I'm catching the gist of it so far, we can now update our list with at least two additional points.
> 
> For:
> 
> ...


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jun 29, 2021)

I guess another point to add based on our two new "for" items is that we have arrived at a view where what might otherwise initially seen as a cringe-worth draw is, in reality, a win-win.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 29, 2021)

Emma said:


> colluding is evidence that the two teams agree to do so collectively together. If each team has made the decision on their own, then it's not colluding.  It's awareness and individual decision making.  May not be what I would choose or what you would choose but if they make it individually, there's nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see my children playing then ever just kicking it around because sitting on the sideline for that long watching kick arounds are boring.  However, I want my children to learn how to strategize to win tournaments if it's their goal to win it.


This is inaccurate.  Collusion doesn't require an express agreement between the parties.  It is correct to say if each team made the decision on their own, it's not collusion.  But if a wink and a nod occurred, that is sufficient to establish collusion...all that's required is an understanding between the parties.  "won't someone please rid me of that damned priest"


----------



## mlx (Jun 29, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> This is inaccurate.  Collusion doesn't require an express agreement between the parties.  It is correct to say if each team made the decision on their own, it's not collusion.  But if a wink and a nod occurred, that is sufficient to establish collusion...all that's required is an understanding between the parties.  "won't someone please rid me of that damned priest"


You are just disagreeing for the sake of arguing.

Emma said: "colluding is evidence that the two teams agree to do so collectively together."
A wink, a nod a high five IS an agreement by the two teams.

You are saying exactly the same as her, just with more unnecessary words.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 29, 2021)

espola said:


> Noting the situation in the game report, and thus making it known to the tournament officials, makes more sense than handing out yellow cards.


Issuing yellow cards is a medium impact (it may or may not change the situation), high risk for the ref (the game may go out of control if people object to the ref giving player yellow cads), low benefit for the ref (he/she won't get paid anymore).  It's therefore unlikely to happen.

Writing up a game report is a low impact (it's after the fact and the tournament isn't going to overturn the game result), low risk for the ref (hey make it someone else's problem), low benefit for the ref (I'm done...who cares).

Changing the tournament rules to prohibit this is a high impact (would prevent this from happening), high risk for the tournament (if no one else is doing it, I just bought myself a headache when it's just easier to let the teams go through), low benefit for the tournament (I just bought myself a headache but it doesn't really encourage anyone to register)

The thing that would be most impactful here is if US Soccer were to develop a code of conduct which would prohibit the coaches from doing this among other conduct we commonly complain about. The tournaments could then just incorporate by reference a violation of the code of conduct is sufficient to disqualify the team.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 29, 2021)

mlx said:


> You are just disagreeing for the sake of arguing.
> 
> Emma said: "colluding is evidence that the two teams agree to do so collectively together."
> A wink, a nod a high five IS an agreement by the two teams.
> ...


I'll freely concede I might have misunderstood her but she did point out that there would be a verbal agreement.  My only point is it doesn't need to be verbal.  It doesn't need to be express.  They don't even need to be a wink and a nod.  A collusion can be established by just a common understanding between the coaches.  If I misunderstood her, regrets, but I don't think that's what she was saying.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jun 29, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Release everyone on the current squad and make room for 22.


Well, maybe just 20.  With their keenly developed tactical awareness of the situation the two keeps are probably catching a nap between the posts.  You know, resting up for the knock out games when the REAL coaches will be there. 

Unless maybe they are trying to showcase their verbal ability in directing the back line to lollygag.


----------



## mlx (Jun 29, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I'll freely concede I might have misunderstood her but she did point out that there would be a verbal agreement.  My only point is it doesn't need to be verbal.  It doesn't need to be express.  They don't even need to be a wink and a nod.  A collusion can be established by just a common understanding between the coaches.  If I misunderstood her, regrets, but I don't think that's what she was saying.


Luckily, we can see that's EXACTLY what she was saying. Just re-read her statement, which is the one that I quoted.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 29, 2021)

mlx said:


> Luckily, we can see that's EXACTLY what she was saying. Just re-read her statement, which is the one that I quoted.


Then you have a reading comprehension issue because that’s not clear at all particularly when taken with the prior verbal agreement statement. She lays out 2 choices: a verbal agreement and coming to it independently. My point is an agreement doesn’t need to be verbal or express. I don’t know if she does or doesn’t contemplate this but am willing to concede maybe she does but it’s not clear


----------



## mlx (Jun 29, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Then you have a reading comprehension issue because that’s not clear at all particularly when taken with the prior verbal agreement statement


You are just splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of arguing. You have this inferior complex that you need to look for things to disagree just for the heck of it.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 29, 2021)

mlx said:


> You are just splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of arguing. You have this inferior complex that you need to look for things to disagree just for the heck of it.


Not it’s a relevant point: collusion isn’t just 2 coaches getting together to verbally agree to split the match. They don’t even need to talk at all to establish a collusion. Unless Emma is another fake account on this site (and you are Emma), you have no basis for saying she intended otherwise. Only Emma can clarify and id accept any clarification at face value graciously


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jun 29, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> collusion isn’t just 2 coaches getting together to verbally agree to split the match. They don’t even need to talk at all to establish a collusion.


I think you are saying that, depending on how things work out (usually there is one weaker team in the group that will is assured to be beat up upon by the other three), the third game of group play can occasionally present a situation in which it is readily apparent and mutually beneficial for both teams to play for a scoreless draw.  How the teams react to this possibility on the field dictates the course of events, and it can be complicated to figure out if there is anything collusion-y about it.  Recent events provide a clear example.  "collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in Federal criminal law." Similarly, "coordination does not have a settled definition"....."we understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between Team 1 and Team 2 on group play interference. That requires more than the two teams taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."


----------



## outside! (Jun 30, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> IThe thing that would be most impactful here is if US Soccer were to develop a code of conduct which would prohibit the coaches from doing this among other conduct we commonly complain about. The tournaments could then just incorporate by reference a violation of the code of conduct is sufficient to disqualify the team.


I think it would be better if US Soccer developed a code of conduct for itself that would do more to protect the child athletes from the ravages of a system designed to extract money from families.


----------



## Emma (Jun 30, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> This is inaccurate.  Collusion doesn't require an express agreement between the parties.  It is correct to say if each team made the decision on their own, it's not collusion.  But if a wink and a nod occurred, that is sufficient to establish collusion...all that's required is an understanding between the parties.  "won't someone please rid me of that damned priest"


I don't think I ever excluded  winks and nods from my definition of collusion - "colluding is evidence that the two teams agree to do so collectively together. "


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 1, 2021)

Emma said:


> I don't think I ever excluded  winks and nods from my definition of collusion - "colluding is evidence that the two teams agree to do so collectively together. "


You are trying to eke out a technical point by ignoring the realities of the sport. As I understand it, your position is that teams could, spontaneously, without any overt express agreement, decide to independently stop playing a match and stand around on the field in a sporting pantomime. 

MAYBE this happens at the 5 year old rec level when a kid spots a cool looking beetle. Not in competitive sports, and not in the national finals. 

All it takes is one kid to decide to steal the ball and shoot. All it takes is one shout of "what are you doing!?" from one of the many coaches on the sidelines. 

We don't need a videotape of a backroom deal. We have eyes, and everyone can see that it takes two to tango.


----------



## MacDre (Jul 1, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> All it takes is one shout of "what are you doing!?" from one of the many coaches on the sidelines.


Are you really advocating “joystick” coaching in a competitive environment?
What about decision making w/o coaches input?
Seriously, why do you have such a problem with development?


----------



## espola (Jul 1, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> You are trying to eke out a technical point by ignoring the realities of the sport. As I understand it, your position is that teams could, spontaneously, without any overt express agreement, decide to independently stop playing a match and stand around on the field in a sporting pantomime.
> 
> MAYBE this happens at the 5 year old rec level when a kid spots a cool looking beetle. Not in competitive sports, and not in the national finals.
> 
> ...


If either team or both decided not to risk losing in the last 5 minutes of a game when both needed a win or a tie, everyone would see that as solid soccer IQ.  Same for the last 10 minutes?  Same for the whole game?

Getting out of the sport for a minute -- there was a controversy in the Olympics badminton competition a few years back when a team who was already assured of moving on to the quarter-finals deliberately lost a match so they wouldn't be matched up with the other team from their country.


----------



## Emma (Jul 1, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> You are trying to eke out a technical point by ignoring the realities of the sport. As I understand it, your position is that teams could, spontaneously, without any overt express agreement, decide to independently stop playing a match and stand around on the field in a sporting pantomime.
> 
> MAYBE this happens at the 5 year old rec level when a kid spots a cool looking beetle. Not in competitive sports, and not in the national finals.
> 
> ...


Coaches and teams make decisions based on their position in a tournament.  I'm not eeking out any technical point. You're refusing to see it for what it is.  This is done all the time in tournaments and life in general.  You're arguing that you can look at a situation and jump to unethical conclusions without further investigation. You're arguing that two teams can't come to the same conclusion independently based on looking at tournament results. Maybe 5 year old rec kids can't see what they need to do based on the tournament results, but any club soccer player or coach with a decent IQ realizes what their options are.

And you're right, it only takes one kid that decides to score and everyone else will have to exert more physical effort. Hmmmmm...all the players get it though, they don't have to exert any effort and can save their energy to win their elimination match instead. 

Player choices...
(1) play hard in the heat to try to score on a meaningless game ...
(2) save energy for elimination match to move further ahead in a national finals series. 

What should I choose?


----------



## watfly (Jul 1, 2021)

I'm not opposed to tournaments, but it seems that the most controversial behavior seems to occur at tournaments.  Allegations of "match fixing", extreme parent and fan behavior (ie brandishing a gun), running up the score, etc.  I can recall my kid's team having to run up the score to advance in the Cerritos Cup years ago (there are simple rule changes for tournaments to avoid that).   Emotions always seem to be heightened at tournaments, particularly the big ones.  Maybe we take tournaments too seriously.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 1, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> All it takes is one shout of "what are you doing!?" from one of the many coaches on the sidelines... it takes two to tango.


The thread still seems to have this duality about a general case versus whatever national final women's game presents lingering issues.  I'm here to satirize the general point of view that sandbagging a final game in group play to a 0-0 draw somehow is good for development, soccer IQ, the life lessons of the squeezed out team, etc.  

But to be a bit serious for a moment I think it may actually be easier for developed, tactically aware, teams of olders to play for such a non-result. And it does not have to be collusion-y (I do think the Mueller Report definition cited above saying there has to be some kind of smoking gun has relevance).  The team that is going to advance anyway simply drops many of the starters to rest them (nothing wrong with that), adopts a defensive shape (nothing wrong with that), drops to four in the back, boxes the midfield or whatever, and chooses not to offensively push in any real way (wherein my issue arises).  The team that stands to automatically gain from the sandbagging, recognizing the situation, does the same.  Games develop as they proceed.  With neither team pushing the result becomes the entropic low spot.

Every system of play is underpinned by a philosophy of play.  The philosophy of play can be "our philosophy with respect to tourney play is always to advance as far as possible.  Whatever strategical or tactical means we need to do this are therefore appropriate and can be rationalized within our system of play".  The risk of injury is a bit different, I'll admit, extending to the welfare of the players.  There too, however, there are decisions being made that are informed by the philosophy of play.  

Collusion-y shenanigans, where they can be showed to occur, need to be dealt with through appropriate sanctions.  But that should remain a high bar.  I think the more general issue is philosophy of play.


----------



## watfly (Jul 1, 2021)

watfly said:


> I'm not opposed to tournaments, but it seems that the most controversial behavior seems to occur at tournaments.  Allegations of "match fixing", extreme parent and fan behavior (ie brandishing a gun), running up the score, etc.  I can recall my kid's team having to run up the score to advance in the Cerritos Cup years ago (there are simple rule changes for tournaments to avoid that).   Emotions always seem to be heightened at tournaments, particularly the big ones.  Maybe we take tournaments too seriously.


I forget "favorable brackets for the host Club" as an example.


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 2, 2021)

Emma said:


> Player choices...
> (1) play hard in the heat to try to score on a meaningless game ...
> (2) save energy for elimination match to move further ahead in a national finals series.
> 
> What should I choose?


1. You compete. I can't believe you think either option is ethical.


----------



## mlx (Jul 2, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> 1. You compete. I can't believe you think either option is ethical.


They are ethical. And you are competing.

You are competing to win the tournament. Geezzz!!! Can't believe how square you guys are.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 2, 2021)

Emma said:


> Player choices...
> (1) play hard in the heat to try to score on a meaningless game ...
> (2) save energy for elimination match to move further ahead in a national finals series.


Those are more likely team level considerations.  And at the team level there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive as you suggest.  You can play for the win while still positioning the roster for next game.  Happens all the time.


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 2, 2021)

*



			FRISCO, TEXAS (July 30, 2016)
		
Click to expand...

*


> — US Youth Soccer takes the issues of fair play and respect for the game very seriously. Following the July 28 game between Carlsbad Elite 97/98 (CA-S) and Ambassadors FC (OH-N), the National Championship Series (NCS) Committee of US Youth Soccer met on Thursday evening to examine the conduct of the coaches and teams, and has reached a determination based on the evidence presented and reviewed.
> 
> After meeting with both teams, *the Committee found the teams were disrespectful to the game, the competition and US Youth Soccer. The integrity of the National Championships Series Competition is predicated on fair play and sportsmanship by all participants and those ideals were compromised.*
> 
> ...


I think the "match fixing is perfectly fine" crowd here is in the minority. 

Along the same lines, I once watched a U10 boys match at a tournament. It was a tight match, tied, and parents were going crazy on the sidelines. One team scored, and that team's goalkeeper fielded a corner kick shortly after and then fell down and did a Neymar quad-roll grabbing his ankle. Play was stopped, the coach went out, the trainer went out. No attempt was made to stand or get up off the field. Parents were yelling "stay down", and I thought his ankle might be broken. He was down for 15 minutes, which was the majority of the half. Ref was forced to blow the final whistle, as the next game needed to kick off. Goalkeeper leapt to his feet and joined his teammates to celebrate the win, causing absolute mayhem on the sidelines. Security was called, accusations were made, and the team was disqualified. Was that against the rules of soccer? Probably not. Was it unethical and unsportsmanlike? Absolutely.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 2, 2021)

mlx said:


> You are competing to win the tournament. Geezzz!!! Can't believe how square you guys are.


Depending on the philosophy of play that may not be the sole, or even the primary, objective for a team within a tournament.


----------



## MacDre (Jul 3, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> I think the "match fixing is perfectly fine" crowd here is in the minority.
> 
> Along the same lines, I once watched a U10 boys match at a tournament. It was a tight match, tied, and parents were going crazy on the sidelines. One team scored, and that team's goalkeeper fielded a corner kick shortly after and then fell down and did a Neymar quad-roll grabbing his ankle. Play was stopped, the coach went out, the trainer went out. No attempt was made to stand or get up off the field. Parents were yelling "stay down", and I thought his ankle might be broken. He was down for 15 minutes, which was the majority of the half. Ref was forced to blow the final whistle, as the next game needed to kick off. Goalkeeper leapt to his feet and joined his teammates to celebrate the win, causing absolute mayhem on the sidelines. Security was called, accusations were made, and the team was disqualified. Was that against the rules of soccer? Probably not. Was it unethical and unsportsmanlike? Absolutely.


This witch hunt is becoming un American because the finding of “disrespect” is ethnocentric and violates due process because the decision is unfair.  The decision is unfair because the committee did not find collusion or any violations of their regulations and they just made up this disrespect of the game bullshit.  Really?

What type of kangaroo court just makes up a catch all disrespect clause to force their warped ideology on others.  This decision is very disturbing and clearly unconstitutional.

In terms of your ethnocentric Neymar comment, do you also think professional/tactical fouls are unethical and unsportsmanlike?  Please elaborate.


----------



## espola (Jul 3, 2021)

MacDre said:


> This witch hunt is becoming un American because the finding of “disrespect” is ethnocentric and violates due process because the decision is unfair.  The decision is unfair because the committee did not find collusion or any violations of their regulations and they just made up this disrespect of the game bullshit.  Really?
> 
> What type of kangaroo court just makes up a catch all disrespect clause to force their warped ideology on others.  This decision is very disturbing and clearly unconstitutional.
> 
> In terms of your ethnocentric Neymar comment, do you also think professional/tactical fouls are unethical and unsportsmanlike?  Please elaborate.


Speaking of unethical -- I have stopped watching the Copa America games because of the fake or exaggerated fouls and injuries.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 3, 2021)

MacDre said:


> This witch hunt is becoming un American because the finding of “disrespect” is ethnocentric and violates due process because the decision is unfair.  The decision is unfair because the committee did not find collusion or any violations of their regulations and they just made up this disrespect of the game bullshit.  Really?
> 
> What type of kangaroo court just makes up a catch all disrespect clause to force their warped ideology on others.  This decision is very disturbing and clearly unconstitutional.
> 
> In terms of your ethnocentric Neymar comment, do you also think professional/tactical fouls are unethical and unsportsmanlike?  Please elaborate.


Ethnocentric?  Unconstitutional?

You've gone loopy.

The better question is whether it is possible to write a set of rules where this happens less often.  "Top two advance" seems to lead to this kind of thing in game 3.  Especially when the top 2 seeds meet in the 3rd game.


----------



## MacDre (Jul 3, 2021)

dad4 said:


> Ethnocentric?  Unconstitutional?
> 
> You've gone loopy.
> 
> The better question is whether it is possible to write a set of rules where this happens less often.  "Top two advance" seems to lead to this kind of thing in game 3.  Especially when the top 2 seeds meet in the 3rd game.


Yes, ethnocentric because I think there are different cultural approaches to the game of soccer and I think it’s problematic for a group to attempt to codify their cultural norms into an international game.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  Different cultures approach and solve problems differently.  Difference should be celebrated not silenced.

Yes, unconstitutional because there was no collusion or violation of the rules but a fine for disrespect was issued.  I think it’s unfair, ethnocentric, and unconstitutional to find a legitimate cultural approach to soccer disrespectful and issue a fine.

I think the rules are fine the way they are because they allow diversity of opinion and develop all involved by exposure to different ways of doing things.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 3, 2021)

If your team wins their games, you won’t have to worry about needed help to advance….problem solved!


----------



## dad4 (Jul 3, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Yes, ethnocentric because I think there are different cultural approaches to the game of soccer and I think it’s problematic for a group to attempt to codify their cultural norms into an international game.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  Different cultures approach and solve problems differently.  Difference should be celebrated not silenced.
> 
> Yes, unconstitutional because there was no collusion or violation of the rules but a fine for disrespect was issued.  I think it’s unfair, ethnocentric, and unconstitutional to find a legitimate cultural approach to soccer disrespectful and issue a fine.
> 
> I think the rules are fine the way they are because they allow diversity of opinion and develop all involved by exposure to different ways of doing things.


You always end up with competing social conventions within sport.  Argentina occasionally does play England.  The game will have hard fouls and flops, often on the same play.  

The referee needs to decide which, if any, to penalize.  And a Russian referee team might have a different opinion than a team from Uruguay.  So what?  It's just sport, not "cultural imperialism".


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 3, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Yes, unconstitutional because there was no collusion or violation of the rules but a fine for disrespect was issued.  I think it’s unfair, ethnocentric, and unconstitutional to find a legitimate cultural approach to soccer disrespectful and issue a fine.


You are clearly trolling at this point, but what clause of the Constitution do you think was violated by that statement?


----------



## MacDre (Jul 3, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> You are clearly trolling at this point, but what clause of the Constitution do you think was violated by that statement?


Due process requires fairness.  Fining someone for disrespect after finding that there’s no collusion or rule violation is unfair.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 3, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> what clause of the Constitution do you think was violated?


I think in article 8 cruel and unusual punishment clauses there is something like "the freedom to flop or otherwise performs acts of simulation in sporting contest or during other such diversions shall remain unbooked and unabridged."  

Nonetheless, readers familiar with Monty Python might do well to remember the outcome when Nietzsche chose to argue with Confucius about free will on the pitch.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 3, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Due process requires fairness.  Fining someone for disrespect after finding that there’s no collusion or rule violation is unfair.


Its not just due process.  I think it's a clear violation of the seventh and eight amendments.  No jury trial and cruel and unusual punishment.

Bonus points if you can work a third amendment violation into it.


----------



## Emma (Jul 6, 2021)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> Those are more likely team level considerations.  And at the team level there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive as you suggest.  You can play for the win while still positioning the roster for next game.  Happens all the time.


Absolutely, but not in this case.  It's July in Frisco, Texas and they just had an injury.  Devil is in the details.  It's definitely not unethical to preserve your body in July Frisco, TX heat to compete at an elimination round when your team has already competed extremely well and earned the right to relax during this currently game condition.


----------



## Emma (Jul 6, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> 1. You compete. I can't believe you think either option is ethical.


See - you made a choice. Great for you.  The girls chose option 2.   Options and having differences of opinions.  It's ok - not unethical or unconstitutional.  Just different.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 6, 2021)

Emma said:


> Absolutely, but not in this case.  It's July in Frisco, Texas and they just had an injury.  Devil is in the details.  It's definitely not unethical to preserve your body in July Frisco, TX heat to compete at an elimination round when your team has already competed extremely well and earned the right to relax during this currently game condition.


Yes, and they actually WON the right to do so.


----------



## Emma (Jul 6, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> I think the "match fixing is perfectly fine" crowd here is in the minority.
> 
> Along the same lines, I once watched a U10 boys match at a tournament. It was a tight match, tied, and parents were going crazy on the sidelines. One team scored, and that team's goalkeeper fielded a corner kick shortly after and then fell down and did a Neymar quad-roll grabbing his ankle. Play was stopped, the coach went out, the trainer went out. No attempt was made to stand or get up off the field. Parents were yelling "stay down", and I thought his ankle might be broken. He was down for 15 minutes, which was the majority of the half. Ref was forced to blow the final whistle, as the next game needed to kick off. Goalkeeper leapt to his feet and joined his teammates to celebrate the win, causing absolute mayhem on the sidelines. Security was called, accusations were made, and the team was disqualified. Was that against the rules of soccer? Probably not. Was it unethical and unsportsmanlike? Absolutely.


Actually - that's a ref problem.  Ref should have had coach removed player so game can continue.  15 minutes in a tournament game for U10 is at least 25% of match time. They received disqualification because it was against the rules and unethical.  This is completely different from a team who has already won their previous 2 games and guaranteed a spot in the elimination round.  Your comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 6, 2021)

Emma said:


> Actually - that's a ref problem.  Ref should have had coach removed player so game can continue.  15 minutes in a tournament game for U10 is at least 25% of match time. They received disqualification because it was against the rules and unethical.  This is completely different from a team who has already won their previous 2 games and guaranteed a spot in the elimination round.  Your comparing apples to oranges.


The question of whether something violates that the rules and whether something is unethical are technically 2 different things.

I agree they are apples to oranges, but this is NOT  a ref problem.  The ref can't order a coach to remove the player.  If there's a suspicion that the player may have broken an ankle, the ref can't administer medical treatment by having the player removed.  The coach can volunteer to remove the player (if he can be carried) but the ref can't order the coach to remove the player if there's a fear of serious injury (otherwise if there's any complication that's on the ref, who isn't qualified to determine how and when an injured player should be removed for fear of further aggravating the injury).  The proper procedure if the player cannot move off and the coach will not move the player off is to call for an ambulance to treat and remove the player.

Since the game ended, there's not much the referee can do once the 3 whistles are blown other than note it in the match report.  Since it is a violation of the rules (faking injury) disqualification is  the proper remedy in response to this situation.  This is an example of something which is both a violation of the rules and unethical.  The "match fixing" situation was apparently not in violation of the tournament rules (there is an argument this fits in under the vague "disrespect of the game" rules, but it's hard to disqualify a team under such a vague standard, but the argument is whether it SHOULD be a violation) and there is an argument over whether it is or isn't ethical.


----------



## Emma (Jul 6, 2021)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> Depending on the philosophy of play that may not be the sole, or even the primary, objective for a team within a tournament.


This is for the national title.  I can't imagine going there just to play 3 great games.   When you fly out to a national tournament to compete for a national title, the objective is to win the tournament.  It's very rare that philosophy of play differs when competing for a National Championship Title.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 6, 2021)

Emma said:


> This is for the national title.  I can't imagine going there just to play 3 great games.


Yes, I think its been well established at that point that whatever this particular game was, it was in a very important tournament played under brutal conditions. People are different.  I, for one, can readily imagine a situation in which a team gets the opportunity to play in a national venue, enjoys three games against really good teams from across the country, plays each one as a real match despite the elements or whatever particulars, and comes away satisfied. In the case that many are focusing on here, it sounds like one of the first three games probably wasn't so great, acquiring some kind of asterisk. If it's in a big venue, that kind of asterisk can evidently linger for some time.



Emma said:


> It's very rare that philosophy of play differs when competing for a National Championship Title.


To me there are three basic situations.  One, each team feels sufficiently motivated to try and score against the other and will play, even if conservatively, to achieve that result. Doesn't have to be full out but there is intent.  Two, one team plays for the win, even if consertatively, while the other seeks to hold them off to achieve a scoreless draw. There is still active agency.  Three, neither team even tries to really play because the situation in the tournament dictates that it is not necessary and they can get away with it.  The game, in their view, is meaningless. I have only seen situation 3 myself a few times, mostly at Ulittle but another example recently in a pretty high level tournament at BU17.  So to my knowledge situation 3 it is fortunately rare, even though the circumstances in which could occur are not necessarily uncommon.  However, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a philosophy of play that embraces situation 3 is all well and good-perhaps even astute-if a trophy-particularly a national title-lies at the end.


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 7, 2021)

Emma said:


> Actually - that's a ref problem.  Ref should have had coach removed player so game can continue.  15 minutes in a tournament game for U10 is at least 25% of match time. They received disqualification because it was against the rules and unethical.  This is completely different from a team who has already won their previous 2 games and guaranteed a spot in the elimination round.  Your comparing apples to oranges.


They were 25 minute halves so it was more than half of the 2nd half, which I suppose isn't as bad as 90% of the game in the Carlsbad example. And the "injury" was not against the rules, unless the tournament had a catchall anti-cheating provision. 

In both examples, teams stopped playing the match in order to preserve a result. In both examples, a team was robbed of an opportunity because the game was not played as intended and agreed. Because Carlsbad wouldn't directly benefit doesn't make it ethical, it just makes their decision stupid.


----------



## outside! (Jul 7, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> They were 25 minute halves so it was more than half of the 2nd half, which I suppose isn't as bad as 90% of the game in the Carlsbad example. And the "injury" was not against the rules, unless the tournament had a catchall anti-cheating provision.
> 
> In both examples, teams stopped playing the match in order to preserve a result. In both examples, a team was robbed of an opportunity because the game was not played as intended and agreed. Because Carlsbad wouldn't directly benefit doesn't make it ethical, it just makes their decision stupid.


None of those women are stupid. You should not call them that. When was the last time you hauled your butt up and down the field and risked a career ending injury?


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 8, 2021)

dad4 said:


> Bonus points if you can work a third amendment violation into it


OK, I'll bite.  8th and 7th, sure.  3rd  is the whole "can't be forced to quarter soldiers" thing.  What are you thinking-the center ref or the opposing coach for an embarassing non-effort match shows up at your door, demands dinner, raids the liquor cabinet, passes out on the couch and starts snoring? You're like "Dude, time to waky-waky and lawyer up.  The only quartering you're going to get is preceded by being drawn".


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 8, 2021)

outside! said:


> None of those women are stupid. You should not call them that. When was the last time you hauled your butt up and down the field and risked a career ending injury?


Where did I call anyone stupid? Dramatic. 

I called the Carlsbad DECISION to NOT PLAY THE GAME stupid. Whoever made it, and I am looking squarely at the Carlsbad coaching staff. No chance in hell all 22 players decided simultaneously to just not play a game, the first time in their lives. The coaches allowed it, and Carlsbad had nothing to gain from it. So, stupid. 

And "risking a career ending injury" happens each and every time a player steps onto the pitch. This is not about that, it's about ethics.


----------



## Emma (Jul 8, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> They were 25 minute halves so it was more than half of the 2nd half, which I suppose isn't as bad as 90% of the game in the Carlsbad example. And the "injury" was not against the rules, unless the tournament had a catchall anti-cheating provision.
> 
> In both examples, teams stopped playing the match in order to preserve a result. In both examples, a team was robbed of an opportunity because the game was not played as intended and agreed. Because Carlsbad wouldn't directly benefit doesn't make it ethical, it just makes their decision stupid.


I disagree with your philosophy that faking an injury for 15 minutes in a 50 minute contested game is equivalent to letting teams choose their game strategy.  In most tourneys refs are required to minimize injury time by moving players out and a true injury but a fake injury to rob your opponent of most of the playing time is cheating and unethical because it denies your opponent competition time.  In the Carlsbad case, they didn't rob anyone of their playing time because all parties can choose to play the game as they planned. 

It seems we won't agree because I don't think Carlsbad had an obligation to put their best game forward or any game forward as they earned that right according to the tournament rules.  They made the decision based on their player's health as well as their goal to play better in the elimination match, one which I can respect and have no right to call unethical.  I think playing kids hard in high heat during a game that is not necessary to win after an injury already resulted, is immoral of a coach.  It's worse than working kids hard during high heat practice unnecessarily.  My first priority for a coach is always to protect players first, then playing good soccer, and finally winning when it's important bc sometimes winning is more important than playing good soccer (players have to learn how to adjust and compete). Your priority for your coach is to play every game the same way.  We agree to disagree.


----------



## Emma (Jul 8, 2021)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> Yes, I think its been well established at that point that whatever this particular game was, it was in a very important tournament played under brutal conditions. People are different.  I, for one, can readily imagine a situation in which a team gets the opportunity to play in a national venue, enjoys three games against really good teams from across the country, plays each one as a real match despite the elements or whatever particulars, and comes away satisfied. In the case that many are focusing on here, it sounds like one of the first three games probably wasn't so great, acquiring some kind of asterisk. If it's in a big venue, that kind of asterisk can evidently linger for some time.
> 
> 
> 
> To me there are three basic situations.  One, each team feels sufficiently motivated to try and score against the other and will play, even if conservatively, to achieve that result. Doesn't have to be full out but there is intent.  Two, one team plays for the win, even if consertatively, while the other seeks to hold them off to achieve a scoreless draw. There is still active agency.  Three, neither team even tries to really play because the situation in the tournament dictates that it is not necessary and they can get away with it.  The game, in their view, is meaningless. I have only seen situation 3 myself a few times, mostly at Ulittle but another example recently in a pretty high level tournament at BU17.  So to my knowledge situation 3 it is fortunately rare, even though the circumstances in which could occur are not necessarily uncommon.  However, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a philosophy of play that embraces situation 3 is all well and good-perhaps even astute-if a trophy-particularly a national title-lies at the end.


I think you are missing the element of protecting your players in excessive heat and to give their bodies sufficient recovery period for the elimination round in front of more scouts. 

I'm advocating that we don't single out a strategy of play as unethical because someone over generalized it without specific details, especially when the coach is trying to physically protect her players. I think you and G are looking at things through very narrow lenses and unwilling to listen to people who were there, explaining the heat situation, amount of game situation and the injury preceding the decision to slow down the game in order to put safety of our children first.


----------



## outside! (Jul 8, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> Where did I call anyone stupid? Dramatic.
> 
> I called the Carlsbad DECISION to NOT PLAY THE GAME stupid. Whoever made it, and I am looking squarely at the Carlsbad coaching staff. No chance in hell all 22 players decided simultaneously to just not play a game, the first time in their lives. The coaches allowed it, and Carlsbad had nothing to gain from it. So, stupid.
> 
> And "risking a career ending injury" happens each and every time a player steps onto the pitch. This is not about that, it's about ethics.


Like I said before, you were not there. The players on the field said to each other that the game did not matter after the injury happened. The coaches admittedly did not push the matter, because once again, the game did not matter. If the NY team wanted a different result, they should not have lost a previous group play game by 6 or 7 to zero. No one would have ever known about this if it were not for a bunch of asshole NY parents that submitted the video and involved the officials. What should be discussed here is the poor behavior of the NY parents.


----------



## watfly (Jul 8, 2021)

I could post this is in number of different current threads, as there seems to be a common theme, but if someone is looking for fairness from Top Division soccer (for lack of a better term) you're going to be sorely disappointed.  Fairness is rarely a factor to consider and almost always takes a backseat to winning at this level.  My kid has been both a victim and beneficiary of the lack of fairness.  Things to consider that aren't fair:

- If your kids team didn't win its first two games, two other teams may play to a draw so that they both advance and your team doesn't
- Other teams may stack their team with ringer(s) just to win a tournament, including playing down players that normally play up in league
-The tournament host club will rig the brackets for their teams to be easy, and yours to be hard
- Guest/ringer will show up out of the blue for a tournament and take away playing time from your kid and/or ball hog and not pass to your kid
- Your kid may make every practice and give 110% which guarantees him nothing in terms of starting, playing time and position to name a few.  Another kid may make half the practices and put in half the effort of your kid, but will start, play more and at a preferred position if he is a better than your kid, or perceived to be better
-Your kid could be promised a certain amount of playing time for a game or a season and circumstances change, or the coach just changes his mind, and your kid hardly plays at all
-Your kid could have been with a club for years and a shiny new object from another club shows up and knocks you off the team or severely limits your kids playing time.  This can happen anytime during the season...pre, beginning, middle, end and off-season.  Don't expect your kids whole portfolio of work to be considered over a shiny new object's 90 minute showing at a practice tryout
-Don't expect  equal consideration for you or your child because your a full tuition paying parent.  Scholarship families tend to be treated preferentially.  Even when Club's have a strict "need-based" scholarship policy, don't be surprised when a scholarship family rolls up in an $80,000 SUV.

These are just to name a few and out of all these parents struggle most with the idea that effort doesn't guarantee anything on these teams.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard _"My kid comes to practice every day and busts his butt, and this other kid doesn't and he starts ahead of my kid.  That's not fair!"_  Well at the end of the day that guy's kid is just not as good as the other kid, and 9 time out of 10 the coach is going to pick the better player.  Now in the long term its probably going to work out better for the kid with the effort, but for the game that weekend, the effort kid may be warming the bench.

Simply put the coach is going to play the player's he or she perceives will give the team the best opportunity to win, regardless of any other factors.   Not trying to justify anything, that's just the reality of teams at this level.  If you expect fairness, or for promises to be kept, your going to be frustrated and miserable.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 9, 2021)

Emma said:


> I think you are missing the element of protecting your players in excessive heat and to give their bodies sufficient recovery period for the elimination round in front of more scouts.
> 
> I'm advocating that we don't single out a strategy of play as unethical because someone over generalized it without specific details, especially when the coach is trying to physically protect her players. I think you and G are looking at things through very narrow lenses and unwilling to listen to people who were there, explaining the heat situation, amount of game situation and the injury preceding the decision to slow down the game in order to put safety of our children first.


My interest in the thread(s) is precisely to generalize the situation, which I have called, above, as Situation 3.  This is because I originally posted Situation 3 as a pet peeve of mine, since that was the OP kick off.  So there is no mistake, Situation 3, as defined by me,  is not to play for a draw.  It is to not meaningfully play, thereby achieving a 0-0 draw as an entropic fallout in a game both teams consider meaningless since they will advance anyway.  After I posted, this particular game came up. Some have described the game as a potential Situation 3.  So, here's my pet peeve (even if just a tiny slice of my experience with youth soccer), with a chance to see what people post as  justifications.  That's my interest. Call it narrow if you will.

I think I pretty much have everything I can glean from this.  But I will probe one more time on the ethical thing about player safety. Dallas in the summer (if I have it right this was in Dallas) can be hot and humid (although try Houston).  Perhaps in this game a player collapsed of heat stroke early on in the match, I don't know, could affect how both teams viewed things, although there would be other ways to handle it.  In my mind I'm going yeah that's a larger ethical concern than my pet peeve.   But I'm also thinking, hey, my kid's team has played 100 F plus with high humidity more than once and not performed a Situation 3 spectacle.  Some hypothetical litmus tests also come to mind.  Like, say this team needed the three points out of the final game would they have done the same thing or suddenly rolled out their A game?  Also, if the weather did not change, would the team continue to play in a similarly lackluster fashion in the KOs? Real ethical concern or rationalization, that's what I'm driving at here.  The stuff about there being more scouts in the KOs, this being a national title and all that, that just seems fatuous to me in terms of the larger issues.  The scouts could be as thick as flies on buffalo hide, all grumpy and sweating with their little notebooks as far as I'm concerned and it would not change my view of it.  Sorry.  

By the time our kiddos crank out grand-kiddos the average heat stress during a match will almost certainly have increased substantially. Gaming associations need to find a meaningful way to to deal with that.  As I see it, tournament organizers do not have the necessary incentive.  So going forward, I think referee associations will need to be or feel empowered to say, nope, not right now, not safe for the players.  That is important and could prevent, how to say it delicately, "ad-hoc solutions".


----------



## Emma (Jul 9, 2021)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> My interest in the thread(s) is precisely to generalize the situation, which I have called, above, as Situation 3.  This is because I originally posted Situation 3 as a pet peeve of mine, since that was the OP kick off.  So there is no mistake, Situation 3, as defined by me,  is not to play for a draw.  It is to not meaningfully play, thereby achieving a 0-0 draw as an entropic fallout in a game both teams consider meaningless since they will advance anyway.  After I posted, this particular game came up. Some have described the game as a potential Situation 3.  So, here's my pet peeve (even if just a tiny slice of my experience with youth soccer), with a chance to see what people post as  justifications.  That's my interest. Call it narrow if you will.
> 
> I think I pretty much have everything I can glean from this.  But I will probe one more time on the ethical thing about player safety. Dallas in the summer (if I have it right this was in Dallas) can be hot and humid (although try Houston).  Perhaps in this game a player collapsed of heat stroke early on in the match, I don't know, could affect how both teams viewed things, although there would be other ways to handle it.  In my mind I'm going yeah that's a larger ethical concern than my pet peeve.   But I'm also thinking, hey, my kid's team has played 100 F plus with high humidity more than once and not performed a Situation 3 spectacle.  Some hypothetical litmus tests also come to mind.  Like, say this team needed the three points out of the final game would they have done the same thing or suddenly rolled out their A game?  Also, if the weather did not change, would the team continue to play in a similarly lackluster fashion in the KOs? Real ethical concern or rationalization, that's what I'm driving at here.  The stuff about there being more scouts in the KOs, this being a national title and all that, that just seems fatuous to me in terms of the larger issues.  The scouts could be as thick as flies on buffalo hide, all grumpy and sweating with their little notebooks as far as I'm concerned and it would not change my view of it.  Sorry.
> 
> By the time our kiddos crank out grand-kiddos the average heat stress during a match will almost certainly have increased substantially. Gaming associations need to find a meaningful way to to deal with that.  As I see it, tournament organizers do not have the necessary incentive.  So going forward, I think referee associations will need to be or feel empowered to say, nope, not right now, not safe for the players.  That is important and could prevent, how to say it delicately, "ad-hoc solutions".


I see what you're saying.   I can understand the frustration of watching two teams not put much effort forwards.  In a situation where they both want a tie to move forward, it would even be more frustrating.  You care that the kids play every game to the best of the ability.  Which I can truly appreciate.

I like to use soccer to teach kids how to compete and a soccer tournament is about skills and strategy.  Unless two teams are explicitly colluding for a specific result, in tournament games - learning when to play hard and when to rest is very important to any tournament strategy.  Learning that if you work hard during your first two games, you have the option of resting the third one (bc the rules allow it) is good.  Club soccer teaches kids to deal with life and how to handle situations differently.  Yes, if they needed to win, they MIGHT have played differently after the injury because the players and coaches have to learn how to balance their risks and rewards.  In this particular game, the reward was approval by some people while the risk was injury.  The assessment the players and coaches made were good in my eyes as applied to this particular situation. 

I agree with the heat issue too.  Tournaments and refs should start having a maximum level of heat and humidity index while playing games.  Those Silverlakes turf fields should be banned at a certain temperature and humidity. It's probably going to take a severe injury and lawsuit before this occurs.


----------



## espola (Jul 9, 2021)

Emma said:


> I see what you're saying.   I can understand the frustration of watching two teams not put much effort forwards.  In a situation where they both want a tie to move forward, it would even be more frustrating.  You care that the kids play every game to the best of the ability.  Which I can truly appreciate.
> 
> I like to use soccer to teach kids how to compete and a soccer tournament is about skills and strategy.  Unless two teams are explicitly colluding for a specific result, in tournament games - learning when to play hard and when to rest is very important to any tournament strategy.  Learning that if you work hard during your first two games, you have the option of resting the third one (bc the rules allow it) is good.  Club soccer teaches kids to deal with life and how to handle situations differently.  Yes, if they needed to win, they MIGHT have played differently after the injury because the players and coaches have to learn how to balance their risks and rewards.  In this particular game, the reward was approval by some people while the risk was injury.  The assessment the players and coaches made were good in my eyes as applied to this particular situation.
> 
> I agree with the heat issue too.  Tournaments and refs should start having a maximum level of heat and humidity index while playing games.  Those Silverlakes turf fields should be banned at a certain temperature and humidity. It's probably going to take a severe injury and lawsuit before this occurs.


In times of severe heat, make the tournament field marshalls run laps around the field until the half is over.


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 9, 2021)

> I disagree with your philosophy that faking an injury for 15 minutes in a 50 minute contested game is equivalent to letting teams choose their game strategy.


Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later. 

No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance. 

The kid who faked an injury chose to stay on the ground and rob the other team of a chance to advance. It's the same thing. 

These children were taught a lesson about ethics that day. The wrong lesson.


----------



## outside! (Jul 9, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.
> 
> No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.
> 
> ...


You sound like a parent from the NY team that lost by 6 or 7 to zero. No team that loses a group play game by that much at the National Championships deserves a chance to advance. Get over it. Why do you keep calling adults children?


----------



## Emma (Jul 9, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.
> 
> No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.
> 
> ...


The team that didn't advance wasn't robbed of anything.  They lost big time and deserved not to go.  If they advance, it was by sheer luck and mercy of another team.  They HAD a chance to decide their fate and they decided it by being badly beaten.  Do you not see a difference between that and a player robbing a team of 30% of their game time to decide their own fate?  

How much effort do you think Carlsbad should have put into that game?  Carlsbad would need to beat that team by 7 or 8 goals to help the other team advance.  No one got robbed of anything but a few parents did lose their sensibilities that it's only youth soccer and they don't get to control others.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 9, 2021)

espola said:


> In times of severe heat, make the tournament field marshalls run laps around the field until the half is over.


Force field marshalls to run laps for 45 min? Never mind the heat.  I'm not sure I could keep a run that long if it were 68 degrees and partly cloudy.

Would be simpler if the tournament rules specified the wet bulb temperature above which they stop games.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 9, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.
> 
> No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.
> 
> ...


By “none of us” do you mean “you”?  I’m sure you would have preferred a forfeit then your team (that couldn’t make it they on their own) would have been gifted a spot they didn’t earn.  

Your argument continues to present itself as sour grapes.


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Jul 9, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.
> 
> No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.
> 
> ...


I agree. What is ethical and what is legal are both the same and very simple. You must compete always and you cannot collude to remove the natural uncertainty from the game. Both teams deciding not to play is by itself obvious collusion. 

It is also petty to report it as a parent of another team. The refs should do so and then it’s up to the event operator to handle.


----------



## espola (Jul 9, 2021)

dad4 said:


> Force field marshalls to run laps for 45 min? Never mind the heat.  I'm not sure I could keep a run that long if it were 68 degrees and partly cloudy.
> 
> Would be simpler if the tournament rules specified the wet bulb temperature above which they stop games.


My guess is that in extreme heat they would do one lap and suspend the game.


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 12, 2021)

Emma said:


> The team that didn't advance wasn't robbed of anything.  They lost big time and deserved not to go.  If they advance, it was by sheer luck and mercy of another team.  They HAD a chance to decide their fate and they decided it by being badly beaten.  Do you not see a difference between that and a player robbing a team of 30% of their game time to decide their own fate?
> 
> How much effort do you think Carlsbad should have put into that game?  Carlsbad would need to beat that team by 7 or 8 goals to help the other team advance.  No one got robbed of anything but a few parents did lose their sensibilities that it's only youth soccer and they don't get to control others.


The team that was robbed of a chance to advance due to cheating by Carlsbad and Ambassadors had earlier tied that Ambassadors team, so it's fairly likely that had Carlsbad decided not to cheat that day, they might have beaten Ambassadors by a similar score. We'll never know, because they fixed the match. 

The likelihood of a team advancing is not a good argument to support match fixing, it just makes the decision to fix the match even more stupid. You put your integrity and reputation on the line to protect a result that likely would have happened anyway? Just dumb.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 12, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> The team that was robbed of a chance to advance due to cheating by Carlsbad and Ambassadors had earlier tied that Ambassadors team, so it's fairly likely that had Carlsbad decided not to cheat that day, they might have beaten Ambassadors by a similar score. We'll never know, because they fixed the match.
> 
> The likelihood of a team advancing is not a good argument to support match fixing, it just makes the decision to fix the match even more stupid. You put your integrity and reputation on the line to protect a result that likely would have happened anyway? Just dumb.


Maybe said team should have won their game so they don’t have to complain about what another team did or didn’t do that kept them from advancing.

It’s time to put this thread to rest!


----------



## Emma (Jul 12, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> The team that was robbed of a chance to advance due to cheating by Carlsbad and Ambassadors had earlier tied that Ambassadors team, so it's fairly likely that had Carlsbad decided not to cheat that day, they might have beaten Ambassadors by a similar score. We'll never know, because they fixed the match.
> 
> The likelihood of a team advancing is not a good argument to support match fixing, it just makes the decision to fix the match even more stupid. You put your integrity and reputation on the line to protect a result that likely would have happened anyway? Just dumb.


Or you didn't match fix because no one dropped 10K in your bank account or called Courtney and said "Let's screw this random team you already beat badly" .  Her integrity and reputation is in place - protected her players from injury and helped them play better in the next round.  She had focus and vision for the future, sounds like someone we should promote


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 12, 2021)

watfly said:


> If someone is looking for fairness from Top Division soccer (for lack of a better term) you're going to b sorely disappointed.  Fairness is rarely a factor to consider and almost always takes a backseat to winning at this level.


I really liked this post.  it was heartfelt and accurate.  Whether it is all-inclusive or not is an important question. There is much about youth soccer that seems opposite to what it should be, or at least purports to be, about.  And as parents who are no longer rash and inexperienced travelers we are thus presented with our very own, seemingly bottomless, pitcher of black Kool-Aid.  With an accompanying little note that says "This is the free part-go ahead chug-a-lug me".  I've been there.  In different ways, I'm sure we all have.  But I guess I must also say, or at least want to believe, that is not the entirety of it.  Because if it is-what a waste.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 12, 2021)

Since I feel I kind of started this hot mess, I wanted to add what is-for me-a capstone.  My situation 3-unethical, tactical, sour grapes from the asshole parents of the sandbagged team, another example of why life is fundamentally unfair, just win all your games and you'll never have to bitch, or what?  I guess for me in the end it still just comes down to what is sporting and what is not.  Old-fashioned, square, whatever, don't care. I realize there must be some point at which "sporting" is subsumed within the larger body of "ethics".  But unethical feels like a strong label for Situation 3, unless firm collusion-y stuff can be established. On the other end, just writing Situation 3 off as "life is unfair" seems off point to me as well.  I think there is an argument that the reason sport exists in the first place is exactly because life is unfair.  Standard shit going on behind the scenes, but when you step into the game, there is a certain expectation of conduct.  "Mom says I suck at art, Dad says I suck at music, Coach tells me I suck at soccer, but here I am". Some might say, well, what a bunch of moralistic hogwash, getting on a high horse, etc.  But the thing is the horse is not that high, not 14 hands.  Just a bit taller than the marginal animal that immediately springs to mind when you visualize the standard youth soccer dog and pony show.  

I'm not sure why somebody who basically posts you can get injured at any time doing anything, soccer or not soccer, should catch hate here.  We all know its true, and probably are aware of specific examples.  There was a poster on this site named Culchie, who I think was a formative person in the Celtic soccer club.  Not sure if they are active anymore.  They posted a lot of stuff i didn't agree with as I remember.  But they often posted "It's a players game".  I think maybe I'm starting to understand that now.  The problem with Situation 3 is not about the team that got sandbagged, it's about the two teams that were involved.  Somebody else posted play like college scouts are always watching.  I guess my take on that would be play like you want to remember yourself playing 20 years from now.  Because the time is short.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Jul 13, 2021)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> Since I feel I kind of started this hot mess, I wanted to add what is-for me-a capstone.  My situation 3-unethical, tactical, sour grapes from the asshole parents of the sandbagged team, another example of why life is fundamentally unfair, just win all your games and you'll never have to bitch, or what?  I guess for me in the end it still just comes down to what is sporting and what is not.  Old-fashioned, square, whatever, don't care. I realize there must be some point at which "sporting" is subsumed within the larger body of "ethics".  But unethical feels like a strong label for Situation 3, unless firm collusion-y stuff can be established. On the other end, just writing Situation 3 off as "life is unfair" seems off point to me as well.  I think there is an argument that the reason sport exists in the first place is exactly because life is unfair.  Standard shit going on behind the scenes, but when you step into the game, there is a certain expectation of conduct.  "Mom says I suck at art, Dad says I suck at music, Coach tells me I suck at soccer, but here I am". Some might say, well, what a bunch of moralistic hogwash, getting on a high horse, etc.  But the thing is the horse is not that high, not 14 hands.  Just a bit taller than the marginal animal that immediately springs to mind when you visualize the standard youth soccer dog and pony show.
> 
> I'm not sure why somebody who basically posts you can get injured at any time doing anything, soccer or not soccer, should catch hate here.  We all know its true, and probably are aware of specific examples.  There was a poster on this site named Culchie, who I think was a formative person in the Celtic soccer club.  Not sure if they are active anymore.  They posted a lot of stuff i didn't agree with as I remember.  But they often posted "It's a players game".  I think maybe I'm starting to understand that now.  The problem with Situation 3 is not about the team that got sandbagged, it's about the two teams that were involved.  Somebody else posted play like college scouts are always watching.  I guess my take on that would be play like you want to remember yourself playing 20 years from now.  Because the time is short.


How many times does one need to repeat his/her position about something that happened five years ago?  Time to move on.  Those young ladies have probably all graduated from colleges and entered workforce.  Match fixing has not become prevalent in youth soccer as a result.

Go tell every Italian you know how "unethical" Chiellini's foul on Saka is if you have too much time on your hand.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 13, 2021)

Messi>CR7 said:


> Go tell every Italian you know how "unethical" Chiellini's foul on Saka is if you have too much time on your hand.


That was tactical but lacked in execution. You could go on for days with “unethical” examples:
- Maradonna “hand of god”
- Ramos’s arm drag on Sala which took him out of the game.  
- Pepe

Yes, I’m Italian LOL.


----------



## outside! (Jul 13, 2021)

Kicker4Life said:


> That was tactical but lacked in execution.


It was only a tactical foul because the current implementation of the laws of the game define that as a yellow card offense. A simple change to define jersey pulls from behind as dangerous play would make this a red card offense and after a few months these types of fouls would become much less prevalent.


----------



## watfly (Jul 13, 2021)

outside! said:


> It was only a tactical foul because the current implementation of the laws of the game define that as a yellow card offense. A simple change to define jersey pulls from behind as dangerous play would make this a red card offense and after a few months these types of fouls would become much less prevalent.


Every intentional foul that isn't Red is a tactical foul "only" because of the laws of the game...that's what makes them tactical fouls.  (Although I could argue a DOGSO outside the box is a tactical foul).  You would think that Chiellini's type of foul could be easily addressed in the LOTG of the game to make it a sending off offense.


----------



## espola (Jul 13, 2021)

outside! said:


> It was only a tactical foul because the current implementation of the laws of the game define that as a yellow card offense. A simple change to define jersey pulls from behind as dangerous play would make this a red card offense and after a few months these types of fouls would become much less prevalent.


You have to give the referee credit for calling the foul and issuing the card.  Some refs swallow their whistles (finalitis) and "let them play" (leading me to suspect that their last assignment was as a referee in a rugby match).


----------



## GLangevinito (Jul 27, 2021)

Emma said:


> Or you didn't match fix because no one dropped 10K in your bank account or called Courtney and said "Let's screw this random team you already beat badly" .  Her integrity and reputation is in place - protected her players from injury and helped them play better in the next round.  She had focus and vision for the future, sounds like someone we should promote


Her reputation is badly damaged by this instance of cheating. Yes, her endorsement of cheating helped her players. That's the purpose of cheating - to give your team an advantage that other teams did not get. They had to play all their games. 

Congrats to your team on your "title". Too bad it's a hollow victory.


----------



## espola (Jul 27, 2021)

Did anyone watch the USA-Australia game today?  Seems on topic here.


----------



## Emma (Jul 27, 2021)

GLangevinito said:


> Her reputation is badly damaged by this instance of cheating. Yes, her endorsement of cheating helped her players. That's the purpose of cheating - to give your team an advantage that other teams did not get. They had to play all their games.
> 
> Congrats to your team on your "title". Too bad it's a hollow victory.


She doesn't have a bad reputation.  Courtney has a GREAT reputation and her team earned that title. They earned the advantage by beating their previous opponents badly.  You think the team that lost to them 7-0 deserved it more? hmmmm


----------



## socalkdg (Jul 27, 2021)

USA vs Australia.   0-0 draw.   Both teams advance.   Both played very conservative.   Pretty boring to watch.


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 28, 2021)

Emma said:


> She doesn't have a bad reputation.  Courtney has a GREAT reputation and her team earned that title. They earned the advantage by beating their previous opponents badly.  You think the team that lost to them 7-0 deserved it more? hmmmm


Agreeing to give each other a tie in a game is no different than agreeing that one team will win and the other will lose.  It is match throwing or game fixing.

If C pre-arranged an outcome in a tournament context (which I don't know as true or false), "deserved" isn't determined by merit anymore. If advancement is earned by the total pool points, pre-determining pool points by agreement is cheating. Cheaters deserve to lose.  So, yes, basically any other team deserved it more.


----------



## outside! (Jul 28, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Agreeing to give each other a tie in a game is no different than agreeing that one team will win and the other will lose.  It is match throwing or game fixing.
> 
> If C pre-arranged an outcome in a tournament context (which I don't know as true or false), "deserved" isn't determined by merit anymore. If advancement is earned by the total pool points, pre-determining pool points by agreement is cheating. Cheaters deserve to lose.  So, yes, basically any other team deserved it more.


Were you there?


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 28, 2021)

At this point, anyone complaining is doing so because their team lost in group play and needed one of these teams to beat the other so their team could advance.  

The dead horse didn’t flinch (it was the wind)….so let’s not continue to beat it. 

This happened how long ago?  {rhetorical question, please don’t answer}


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 28, 2021)

Kicker4Life said:


> At this point, anyone complaining is doing so because their team lost in group play and needed one of these teams to beat the other so their team could advance.
> 
> The dead horse didn’t flinch (it was the wind)….so let’s not continue to beat it.
> 
> This happened how long ago?  {rhetorical question, please don’t answer}


This entire forum exists to beat dead horses.  We'll stop beating the horse when we are good and ready, and then we'll create a new thread a few weeks later.  

The thing is this scenario comes up a lot.  But, every example I can think of from my own experience in club soccer is where the coaches let the teams score goals in games that don't matter, employing energy conserving tactics that fall short of an agreement with the other team to a predetermined outcome.  You can't normalize game fixing.  It runs counter to the reason the sport exists. As a soccer participant and fan, I will reject any version with scripted results and asterisked trophies.


----------



## Emma (Jul 28, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Agreeing to give each other a tie in a game is no different than agreeing that one team will win and the other will lose.  It is match throwing or game fixing.
> 
> If C pre-arranged an outcome in a tournament context (which I don't know as true or false), "deserved" isn't determined by merit anymore. If advancement is earned by the total pool points, pre-determining pool points by agreement is cheating. Cheaters deserve to lose.  So, yes, basically any other team deserved it more.


I don't think you're following what occurred and spreading misinformation by not knowing the truth is what creates problems. 

1. NO pre game arrangement happened
2. An injury occurred at the beginning of the game
3. C already won her bracket, regardless of the outcome of the game.


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 28, 2021)

Emma said:


> I don't think you're following what occurred and spreading misinformation by not knowing the truth is what creates problems.
> 
> 1. NO pre game arrangement happened
> 2. An injury occurred at the beginning of the game
> 3. C already won her bracket, regardless of the outcome of the game.


There appear to be people who disagree with you as to one of these.  I have no opinion. Anyone with 2nd grade reading comprehension would clearly see that I am speaking in the hypothetical.  This entire thread exists to debate that particular hypothetical.  By bringing this C's name up (which you did, and I didn't), it suggests that it fits the hypothetical.


----------



## Emma (Jul 28, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> There appear to be people who disagree with you as to one of these.  I have no opinion. Anyone with 2nd grade reading comprehension would clearly see that I am speaking in the hypothetical.  This entire thread exists to debate that particular hypothetical.  By bringing this C's name up (which you did, and I didn't), it suggests that it fits the hypothetical.


No one disagrees with any of the above 3 points.  You replied to a particular situation in which Mr. G attacked C's reputation based on a video rather than personal knowledge and Mr. G not taking into account the injury that occurred prior to the video.

Either way, I'm quite certain Mr. G is C and just constantly bringing it up in a negative light so I and others can point out how well she manages games and player injuries.  Well played C.


----------



## Larzby (Aug 13, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> The line is an agreement to a pre-determined outcome quid pro quo.  If I agree to give your team something (no goals against) if you give me something (also no goals against), this is quid pro quo and match fixing.
> 
> Playing for a tie happens all the time but, without a quid pro quo agreement, it still requires a lot of effort and aggressive defense.  You either cede possession in non-dangerous areas and have only a couple players transition in counters, or you hold possession and high press to win the ball back..  In a 60-90 minute game, if a game is fixed at the team level, you are going to notice if all the strikers decline to shoot at open nets or if defenders refuse to make hard tackles in dangerous areas. Game-throwing by one or two individuals is harder to detect (they usually get subbed out).
> 
> ...


Nunez is my daughter's coach and he is best coach I've ever seen!


----------



## Larzby (Aug 13, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> GotSoccer Rankings
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He is my daughter's coach and your opinion of him is dead-on.  We were really lucky to end up on his team


----------

