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

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.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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}
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Nunez is my daughter's coach and he is best coach I've ever seen!
 
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.
He is my daughter's coach and your opinion of him is dead-on. We were really lucky to end up on his team
 
Back
Top