Game fixing
- Thread starter Eagle33
- Start date
OK - game fixing. But only when the game is part of something bigger. I don't think a team has ever thrown/fixed the WC. But they may throw a game to get a better opponent to win the World Cup.
DD specific 2013 G19 National Championship. DD's team beats defending National Champions in pool. Winner takes top of pool, 2nd gets 2nd. Both go on. I notice several of their top players are sitting. I think they expected a loss and decided to take it knowing they could come around on the other side. We meet again in the US National Championship final. The team we play is different than in pool. They play different and have different players on the pitch. DD holds to clean sheet out shot 8:1 in final 90. We lose in OT.
My opinion is the coach threw the pool game because they knew they would go through anyway and preferred that 2nd route to the one that we took winning the pool. I still don't know which team was better. But they were the undisputed National Champions. #1 of 10,000 G19s. Kudos to them. Well played. IMO coach threw the pool game.
http://tournaments.usyouthsoccer.or...-Championships/Schedule/U19-Girls/Division+1/
After the first 2 rounds of preliminary games, the finalists were already set. The only question was which one would get first-place honors.
From your description, the other coach rested his players, and gave his bench players a chance to play a full game. Looks like it was a good decision.
I thought so too. But it was as much a fix as mentioned in the OP. The prize was the tournament, not the game. "We are 1:1 in games vs the National Champs" is rather hollow.
I have a number of these examples, but would have to name names - so I'd rather not, as it is not that important. It is however quite common at the higher levels. And just like I would expect a teammate to swat the ball out of the goal using their hands, I'd expect a coach to throw a game (unless against the rules) to win a tournament.
Why is anyone opposed to that?
Last edited:
Fix? The result of the game was immaterial - win, lose, or draw the final game was going to be Blues vs NASA, so why would they throw the game? As I said, the opposing coach took the opportunity to do good things. Did your girl's coach do the same? If he did, was he fixing the game also? If he didn't he was clearly outcoached.
If you are posting on here saying "no big deal", then you haven't watched the game film.
I did, before it was taken down. There was an incredulous announcer, who counted 64 consecutive completed passes with zero pressure until they kicked it to the other team. This wasn't a case of not high pressing and playing in a defensive shell. Soccer wasn't even played. You could tell some of the girls were embarrassed and were not happy with what was going on. The coaches were silent. No adjustment was made at halftime. It was an embarrassing spectacle. The fact that LA Galaxy hasn't released a statement on this shows that they see nothing wrong. I'll tell you what, if I were a parent on that team I would have taken the next flight home. Even more disgusting is the contention that somehow this was a spontaneous event with no coach involvement, pushing the blame on the players.
This is not, in any way, equivalent to tactics on the field that may not yield an optimal result like resting your starters. This was a conscious decision to NOT PLAY THE GAME, and thus is an affront to the values of sportsmanship and fair play that underpin the game we all love.
If you are one of those people who shrugs off match fixing with the excuse that the ends justifies the means, then you are the problem.
I did, before it was taken down. There was an incredulous announcer, who counted 64 consecutive completed passes with zero pressure until they kicked it to the other team. This wasn't a case of not high pressing and playing in a defensive shell. Soccer wasn't even played. You could tell some of the girls were embarrassed and were not happy with what was going on. The coaches were silent. No adjustment was made at halftime. It was an embarrassing spectacle. The fact that LA Galaxy hasn't released a statement on this shows that they see nothing wrong. I'll tell you what, if I were a parent on that team I would have taken the next flight home. Even more disgusting is the contention that somehow this was a spontaneous event with no coach involvement, pushing the blame on the players.
This is not, in any way, equivalent to tactics on the field that may not yield an optimal result like resting your starters. This was a conscious decision to NOT PLAY THE GAME, and thus is an affront to the values of sportsmanship and fair play that underpin the game we all love.
If you are one of those people who shrugs off match fixing with the excuse that the ends justifies the means, then you are the problem.
This may surprise you but in DD's case I agree. So how was it different than the OP case? I don't see it difference. The opposing coach in DD's case decided not to play to win. How is that different than the Carlsbad case? It all sounds like good coaching to me.
You don't see a difference between both teams colluding to improve their position, and two teams playing a meaningless game?
I get it - I don't need to see the video, nor does E. While both of us often do not agree we have both been around this over a decade (or two). It does not matter. Coaches may choose to not win a game. Speaking for me, not E, I would not want my kid on any team where a coach would not do that to win the trophy (within the laws) . I don't care if they sit on the ball, fall down, or kick it 60 yards out of play to use time. I want them to learn the referee, learn the rules of the tournament and win it. It is nice they play good soccer, but if the rules make for bad soccer blame the tournament authorities, not the coaches.
I see a difference. Is colluding allowed? I don't know. It is specifically not allowed in cycling. The LOTG are silent on it. Does not bother me if it is not against the rules/laws. But it is clearly different.
Wez
DA
I thought the outcome of the game mattered, is that no longer true? Regardless, it's an embarrassment they chose to basically sit down for 90 mins. instead of letting their benches workout and getting another developmental learning experience against great competition, play out.
The outcome did matter. That is why they both played to the outcome that mattered to them 0-0.
If it was supposed to be a game I'd expect 120 min. If these two team met in the finals I'd guess:
A - It would be a game (of up to 120 min)
B - There would have been no agreement.
Because the finals was the only thing that mattered in that tournament.
Wez
DA
And that's why people are rightly calling bullshit on this. Why didn't they approach the tournament staff and say, "since we are not going to actually "play" each other, can we go to lunch and just mark our score cards at 0-0?" That way they could have put the responsibility on the tournament staff to approve their plan and they didn't put the kids in the awkward position of acting a fool for a whole game. If it was within the "legal boundaries" of the rules, why the act?
I've officiated lots of tournaments and while refs should not discuss outcomes of games before they start, how a pool was seeded is a conversation that has come up before.
While unusual, you can have a pool where the two likely winner are. Or, where two teams know each other well and both think they should be in the final. The idea is one wins the pool, the other takes 2nd and they go to the finals. As in this case, I guess, if one was to win, the other would go home, likely because they didn't win enough earlier. Requiring that two potential finalist fight it out so one goes home also does not seem fair to me, and unenforceable. As long as rules are not broken, allowing this makes the whole tournament more interesting.
While unusual, you can have a pool where the two likely winner are. Or, where two teams know each other well and both think they should be in the final. The idea is one wins the pool, the other takes 2nd and they go to the finals. As in this case, I guess, if one was to win, the other would go home, likely because they didn't win enough earlier. Requiring that two potential finalist fight it out so one goes home also does not seem fair to me, and unenforceable. As long as rules are not broken, allowing this makes the whole tournament more interesting.
Because of fairness to the opponents they will meet later. They are supposed to run around for 60 min or whatever and get tired. Having a picnic made them more rested.
Typically in a youth tournament especially the semis are the are the hardest fought. Many finals have tired players, physically and emotionally.
Wez
DA
Wait, are you saying the game we saw on that video was played as if it was real and the girls got tired?
Wez
DA
Are you being intellectually honest here, or just trying to be right? If it was acceptable to fix the match, there was no reason to "act" out a game. They should have had the refs just mark the scorecard and the refs could have made the girls run laps to avoid a bullshit circus show.
No, I'm saying there is a difference between a tournament authority allowing a picnic vs putting them on the field. They could have sat on the field (although as a ref I would not have allowed sitting). From a tournament standpoint the prelim games should be played and finished. Just as a game that is 7-0 needs to be finished. Games with 7-0, 10-0 are not being hard fought either, if they are guys - their may be a fight.
The issue here is seeding. You can't always get it right, but when you put teems that fancy themselves as the rightful finalists in a pool you get this kind of stuff.
So I am not being mis-understood, I don't "like" it but there was no real foul or harm here. Pool #3 was the looser as had the top 2 had a winner #3 would have gone on. But #3 should have dealt with that the game before. They are all part of the same tournament with one Cup. No awards are given for pool games.
Two different tournaments -- in the game last week, both teams were better off with a tie than with a loss. In the 2013 tournament Zoro brought up, the 4-team bracket was settled after the first 2 games (teams were 2-0-0, 2-0-0, 0-2-0, 0-2-0), and the third game between the top 2 teams was meaningless since both were going to be in the final no matter what the result.
My kid's team was in a similar situation once - the two Saturday games set up the same situation where the 2 teams would play Sunday morning in the third game and then Sunday afternoon in the final. The two coaches got together with the tournament director and the referees and decided the morning game would be the final.