Game fixing

[Zoro]

They might as well have just sat on the field playing cards with each other. What a joke. Made a mockery of the game and horrible example of sportsmanship to the young athletes. Coaches should be suspended at the very least.

The cards are not soccer equipment. If that happened they would be cautioned for unsporting behavior and bringing the game into disrepute. If a GK sits DURING play, it is provoking and done in lopsided game - just before the fight starts and is cautioned. If they all sat down and took a nap, some refs would allow it and some wouldn't. I would want them on their feet. I don't know what I could do however if both teams sat. If one did, just start cautioning, then send-off then game over. But then there would likely be a winner as the team that first gets to 7 is traditionally the one that forfeits.

In this case from all who posted and the one who was there the two opponents were fine. Only the spectators were upset (there is a surprise).

@Surfref - Ref hat on. Both sit down, one side sits down, all stand and don't touch ball. When do you interject yourself?

 

[texanincali]

Let me know if you really want to know what happened on the field - I was there all week, so I could tell you. If you actually watched the first 25-30 minutes of the game, it was actually being played. Conservatively, and with reserves for Carlsbad, but played. Some runs downfield were made, some shots taken, and one player even suffered an ankle injury. You state that it's ok if teams rest players, play subs, sit back, and defend. That's a key statement there. Tell me this, what do you think happens in a game if BOTH teams independently decide that's going to be their strategy for a game - to sit back and defend? Your answer is what happened that day. The teams played for awhile and then learned that what the other team was doing on the field was exactly the same thing they were doing - sitting back and defending, and only pushing up field occasionally due to their natural soccer instinct, but even then conservatively. Once they realize that, and both teams are doing nothing but sitting back and defending - which you said was ok - the result is what you saw the game slowly evolve into. You can tell from the way the game started and slowly morphed into what is shown on the video that none of this was not pre-planned or ever agreed upon by the coaches. These players have been playing for a decade or more and they simply adjusted with the game as the other team's strategy revealed itself on the field. Referees continually said that there was nothing illegal about what the game turned into and even said that both teams could legally sit down if they wanted to. I'm amazed by the number of people that think they know what happened from watching a 99 second video clip that was filmed late in the 2nd half. And tell me this too...since you say sitting back and defending and playing subs is ok, how would that strategy ever result in a 4 goal victory for Carlsbad, which is the only outcome that would have made any difference whatsoever to the 3rd place team? Before you answer, remember that Carlsbad was already through to the semi-finals regardless of outcome, and that the temp with heat index was 109 that afternoon. Even a fully motivated team would be hard pressed to drop 4 goals on a team in those conditions. People that know the real story and understand soccer and saw how this played out for the full time and in the context of the actual standings get it. No farce, no disgrace, no collusion, no match fixing. The soccer world apparently wanted to see some window dressing of a game played in the manner it was played for the first 30 minutes or so. Same outcome would have occurred, mind you, but those are the optics that those that don't really get it want to have wrapped up with a bow. Will USYS implement some rule changes that address the optics or appearance of effort level of a game? Curious to see how that would be implemented and enforced.

The only disgrace here is the manner in which 3rd place in the bracket Syracuse Development Academy carried on about this both during the match and after. Spewing insults at the CHILDREN playing on both team - both in person and on social media, and even attending these teams' subsequent games to continue to yell at them, and yelling at the other Carlsbad team that wasn't even involved with this game - even at their hotel. Syracuse parents or representatives had to be physically removed from the awards ceremony after the finals because they were going to disrupt the issuance of Carlsbad's finalist awards. Syracuse displayed the most abhorrent soccer behavior I've ever seen in soccer. Deflecting attention from their very poor showing at Nationals to make their players, directors, and families think that had they not been "screwed," they'd have gone through. Yeah, right. Syracuse also fails to consider the fact that the team they beat in their 3rd game to make the goal differential even within the single game max allowed, was a better team than they were, but with nothing for that team to play for, they played subs and sat back...the same thing these teams are accused of is what Syracuse benefitted from! Syracuse wins the national championship for the most revolting behavior ever. It's too bad the widely circulated video clip doesn't pick up the audio of the Syracuse people screaming at minors on the field and on the bench. We saw one Syracuse parent filming close to the benches and I'm sure they couldn't submit that video due to the profanity they were spewing at kids. I look forward to reading about USYS sanctions or reprimands against Syracuse. Let's hear it for SDA - keeping it classy!

I have no doubt that the behavior of the Syracuse parents was a disgrace. I heard it first hand from old neighbors that were there.

Also, you are correct in most of what you post above. My problem with the whole thing was that there had to be collusion amongst the coaches - you clearly see one team pass the ball on purpose to the other team so they could have a turn knocking it around. Why would you ever give the ball to the other team if you weren't certain that they weren't going to attack and possibly score? Before the game or during the game - the result was decided by 2 grown men, not 22 17/18 year old women like it should have been.

I couldn't care less about the Syracuse team or the goal differential they had to make up to advance, they were in control of their destiny and handed off control to another team. But for me, that doesn't make what happened on that field right. If the game was truly meaningless, then both coaches should have forfeited and let Ambassodor FC roll the dice on the other game. What happened was shocking and embarrassing. I would bet a lot of money that if these two teams had to do it over again, it would not have played out the same way.

 

[Round]

Let me know if you really want to know what happened on the field - I was there all week, so I could tell you. If you actually watched the first 25-30 minutes of the game, it was actually being played. Conservatively, and with reserves for Carlsbad, but played. Some runs downfield were made, some shots taken, and one player even suffered an ankle injury. You state that it's ok if teams rest players, play subs, sit back, and defend. That's a key statement there. Tell me this, what do you think happens in a game if BOTH teams independently decide that's going to be their strategy for a game - to sit back and defend? Your answer is what happened that day. The teams played for awhile and then learned that what the other team was doing on the field was exactly the same thing they were doing - sitting back and defending, and only pushing up field occasionally due to their natural soccer instinct, but even then conservatively. Once they realize that, and both teams are doing nothing but sitting back and defending - which you said was ok - the result is what you saw the game slowly evolve into. You can tell from the way the game started and slowly morphed into what is shown on the video that none of this was not pre-planned or ever agreed upon by the coaches. These players have been playing for a decade or more and they simply adjusted with the game as the other team's strategy revealed itself on the field. Referees continually said that there was nothing illegal about what the game turned into and even said that both teams could legally sit down if they wanted to. I'm amazed by the number of people that think they know what happened from watching a 99 second video clip that was filmed late in the 2nd half. And tell me this too...since you say sitting back and defending and playing subs is ok, how would that strategy ever result in a 4 goal victory for Carlsbad, which is the only outcome that would have made any difference whatsoever to the 3rd place team? Before you answer, remember that Carlsbad was already through to the semi-finals regardless of outcome, and that the temp with heat index was 109 that afternoon. Even a fully motivated team would be hard pressed to drop 4 goals on a team in those conditions. People that know the real story and understand soccer and saw how this played out for the full time and in the context of the actual standings get it. No farce, no disgrace, no collusion, no match fixing. The soccer world apparently wanted to see some window dressing of a game played in the manner it was played for the first 30 minutes or so. Same outcome would have occurred, mind you, but those are the optics that those that don't really get it want to have wrapped up with a bow. Will USYS implement some rule changes that address the optics or appearance of effort level of a game? Curious to see how that would be implemented and enforced.

The only disgrace here is the manner in which 3rd place in the bracket Syracuse Development Academy carried on about this both during the match and after. Spewing insults at the CHILDREN playing on both team - both in person and on social media, and even attending these teams' subsequent games to continue to yell at them, and yelling at the other Carlsbad team that wasn't even involved with this game - even at their hotel. Syracuse parents or representatives had to be physically removed from the awards ceremony after the finals because they were going to disrupt the issuance of Carlsbad's finalist awards. Syracuse displayed the most abhorrent soccer behavior I've ever seen in soccer. Deflecting attention from their very poor showing at Nationals to make their players, directors, and families think that had they not been "screwed," they'd have gone through. Yeah, right. Syracuse also fails to consider the fact that the team they beat in their 3rd game to make the goal differential even within the single game max allowed, was a better team than they were, but with nothing for that team to play for, they played subs and sat back...the same thing these teams are accused of is what Syracuse benefitted from! Syracuse wins the national championship for the most revolting behavior ever. It's too bad the widely circulated video clip doesn't pick up the audio of the Syracuse people screaming at minors on the field and on the bench. We saw one Syracuse parent filming close to the benches and I'm sure they couldn't submit that video due to the profanity they were spewing at kids. I look forward to reading about USYS sanctions or reprimands against Syracuse. Let's hear it for SDA - keeping it classy!

I'm sure the parents of the "subs" are just happy their kids get to be close to you and your kid. I thought Carlsbad was changing, I guess not. I was hoping, same parents, same club.

 

[LA Galaxy SD - GK Dad]

I have no doubt that the behavior of the Syracuse parents was a disgrace. I heard it first hand from old neighbors that were there.

Also, you are correct in most of what you post above. My problem with the whole thing was that there had to be collusion amongst the coaches - you clearly see one team pass the ball on purpose to the other team so they could have a turn knocking it around. Why would you ever give the ball to the other team if you weren't certain that they weren't going to attack and possibly score? Before the game or during the game - the result was decided by 2 grown men, not 22 17/18 year old women like it should have been.

I couldn't care less about the Syracuse team or the goal differential they had to make up to advance, they were in control of their destiny and handed off control to another team. But for me, that doesn't make what happened on that field right. If the game was truly meaningless, then both coaches should have forfeited and let Ambassodor FC roll the dice on the other game. What happened was shocking and embarrassing. I would be a lot of money that if these two teams had to do it over again, it would not have played out the same way.

There was absolutely no collusion. This game turned into this on its own volition. Realize that this went against every natural soccer fiber in these players' bodies to be a part of a game that turned into this, but at the same time, neither team had a need or desire to change the direction the game went as it turned into what it became. There was no agreement that they would pass it around the back for awhile and then sent it up to the other team, but think of how awkward it surely felt for one team to be the only one doing it? Especially when Syracuse was over there swearing at them. So there was only so long each team wanted to be on center stage holding the ball in the back before they tired of it and they sent it away to see if the other team would do the same. That was no sign of collusion, it was simply realization that both teams had the same strategy but didn't want to be the only one implementing it. To believe this was pre-orchestrated is absurd. The game started normally, so are you suggesting the collusion occurred during the game? With officials all over the field and sidelines and behind the sidelines? And then how would that instruction be communicated to players on both teams? And then the implementation of it would have to be considered masterful, if you believe that...to direct the game to change as gradually as it did...c'mon, get real. Had the teams come right out of the gate like that, or after halftime like that, or if the change happened immediately...then a suspicion of collusion might have more merit. If you were there, you would realize that.

It went like this, as I said, the game was already very conservative at the outset, as would be expected. There were plenty of balls held in the backfield for longer than you would normally expect, but eventually a player would run or pass out of the backfield, or an offensive player would challenge the ball. As the game progressed, each time the ball went into the backfield, the amount of time that passed before a player contested it or a defender chose to run or pass out of the backfield was increased. It happened gradually and subtlety. If you saw it occur, you would be satisfied that it wasn't pre-planned, colluded, or fixed. It truly just gradually morphed into that.

A few things you said..."Syracuse was in control of their own destiny." No, they weren't. As I said before, at the start of both games (which started at the same time) Syracuse needed to have a Carlsbad win and a total of 7 goal differential made up between the two final games. They made up 3 of those goals on their own in beating a team 3-1 that had nothing to play for. That means they left Carlsbad with 4 goals they'd have to make up for them. That IS NOT in control of their own destiny.

You asked why not forfeit...this is not the way the game was expected to play out, so asking for a forfeit at the outset was not ever considered, and a forfeit in one game could potentially mean forfeiting all future games in the tournament. Carlsbad expected Ambassadors to play some and to give our reserves a chance to actually play a game. While they did for awhile, that play gradually eroded.

Would this game be played the same way again today? If they knew ahead of time that the facts would not be reported accurately, if they knew the headlines would allege match fixing, if they knew Syracuse would swear at the kids for the next 3 days...then, no, they'd have probably continued to play the game as the first 30 minutes were played. Pretty sure Syracuse would still be the douchebags about it, but the window dressing would be what the rest of the Monday morning quarterbacks would want to see.

 

[LA Galaxy SD - GK Dad]

I'm sure the parents of the "subs" are just happy their kids get to be close to you and your kid. I thought Carlsbad was changing, I guess not. I was hoping, same parents, same club.

Don't be a clown. My daughter WAS a sub in this tournament - she's a 14-year old GK that was brought along with this U-18 team as a reserve, and we would have loved to see her get more action in a game that was played more outright. This isn't her normal team, so our objectivity here is based on what we actually saw. Thankfully she did get some real gametime when we drubbed the douchebags from Syracuse 6-nil. Sorry, was the use of the word "sub" derogatory? Wasn't my intent. Should I have said "reserve?" Should I have said "those who don't get as much playing time?" Really, I'm asking. I don't know what's the appropriate phrase to use.

 

[iliv]

Zoro, why are you such an apologist for Michael Duggan? The events on the field were clearly disruptive to the spirit kids sporting. Just because it's not illegal, does not make it ethical (and isn't that what we want our kids to take away from the whole experience)? Your win at all cost attitude is what's wrong with youth soccer, and that's what the academy is trying to get away from.

He is a shady character. The whole merger with Lightning/Wave to Carlsbad United was sold to the parents as a good move for our "community based club", as detailed in our mission statement. The next year "LA Galaxy San Diego" was shoved down our community based club's throat. We don't live in LA and we don't live in San Diego. Our fields are impacted; but I do enjoy watching the directors arrive to practice in their expensive cars. Nonprofit 501c3 for sure, as long as directors salaries are hidden within contracts and not reportable (as 501c3 should be). Now us locals have no choice but to do business with the proverbial devil. Makes me embarrassed my daughter wears that jersey, but can't commute and she loves soccer. What to do?

 

[texanincali]

A few things you said..."Syracuse was in control of their own destiny."

They were in control of their destiny before taking a pounding from Carlsbad, it was very clearly written.

Just to be clear, your stance is that a game that started normal, albeit conservatively, and turned in to patty cakes without instruction from coaches. What made the attackers stop trying for the ball? Did they just decide this on their own?

Also, the reason you give for passing the ball to the other team (didn't want to be yelled at) is laughable at best.

Last thing, just so we have it on record. If no one mis-reported the facts, and no one was there to scream at them like the Syracuse folks did...you would advocate playing the same way?

 

[LA Galaxy SD - GK Dad]

They were in control of their destiny before taking a pounding from Carlsbad, it was very clearly written.

Just to be clear, your stance is that a game that started normal, albeit conservatively, and turned in to patty cakes without instruction from coaches. What made the attackers stop trying for the ball? Did they just decide this on their own?

Also, the reason you give for passing the ball to the other team (didn't want to be yelled at) is laughable at best.

Last thing, just so we have it on record. If no one mis-reported the facts, and no one was there to scream at them like the Syracuse folks did...you would advocate playing the same way?

You're just not going to get it since you weren't there and didn't see it happen. You do an admirable job of putting statements into someone else's mouth, however, so kudos for that. Wishing you well in your soccer life. Cheers.

 

[Zoro]

Zoro, why are you such an apologist for Michael Duggan? The events on the field were clearly disruptive to the spirit kids sporting. Just because it's not illegal, does not make it ethical (and isn't that what we want our kids to take away from the whole experience)? Your win at all cost attitude is what's wrong with youth soccer, and that's what the academy is trying to get away from.

He is a shady character. The whole merger with Lightning/Wave to Carlsbad United was sold to the parents as a good move for our "community based club", as detailed in our mission statement. The next year "LA Galaxy San Diego" was shoved down our community based club's throat. We don't live in LA and we don't live in San Diego. Our fields are impacted; but I do enjoy watching the directors arrive to practice in their expensive cars. Nonprofit 501c3 for sure, as long as directors salaries are hidden within contracts and not reportable (as 501c3 should be). Now us locals have no choice but to do business with the proverbial devil. Makes me embarrassed my daughter wears that jersey, but can't commute and she loves soccer. What to do?

I don't even know who he is. I've officiated and seen combined over 1,000 games I see stuff like this and find it interesting. And I was surprised by the accusations of a sports media reporter. There may have been an act that was wrong, I just didn't see evidence for it. Certainly not from a laws of the game perspective.

I'm pretty sure every team playing olders at Nationals has some forward that knows how to sell a call, and get some refs to make a call that they would not otherwise have made. And everyone on that team benefits. So those against it, just should not play at that level. For me - I see soccer as a competition. Competitors are supposed to win. If they can win not breaking rules, not hurting someone physically or mentally - they should be creative. I do not see the value in bringing arguments into the game that make touching a ball with a hand, or not kicking it somehow a reflection of character. Kids play by the laws - the referee decides. And the rules - the tournament people decide. And win - not at all costs. At the cost of training more, getting on a better team and being smart about it. If you live in SoCal you have choices - and it may cost time and money where you drive.

Likely for another thread... I don't think my win attitude is an issue at all. It is in fact the point of sport. Once you win you get to keep playing someone better until you loose. That is how it goes.
What I think is wrong with soccer is not a win at all cost attitude. I think it is sports in college and the drive to chase a sport for money/college. I'm an advocate of taking advantage of it because it is there, but that drives this huge club industry/lottery.

 

[espola]

For a guy named "Truth," you sure don't seem to bring any.

She still hasn't posted the instances she claimed where I told a lie about Surf.

 

[Round]

Don't be a clown. My daughter WAS a sub in this tournament - she's a 14-year old GK that was brought along with this U-18 team as a reserve, and we would have loved to see her get more action in a game that was played more outright. This isn't her normal team, so our objectivity here is based on what we actually saw. Thankfully she did get some real gametime when we drubbed the douchebags from Syracuse 6-nil. Sorry, was the use of the word "sub" derogatory? Wasn't my intent. Should I have said "reserve?" Should I have said "those who don't get as much playing time?" Really, I'm asking. I don't know what's the appropriate phrase to use.

Was it derogatory? What was your point, seems to me that you were referring to them in a negative way? When you were enjoying chicken wings with their parents at the team dinner were you referring to their kids as the subs? Your kid may be, probably will be a sub on her team sooner or later. Maybe even less than a sub, asked to stay home so the club can add to the roster. It won't necessarily be because she is not as good as the others, its just the way it happens when you support these institutions and start using their words and attitudes. Karma sucks.

 

[LA Galaxy SD - GK Dad]

Was it derogatory? What was your point, seems to me that you were referring to them in a negative way? When you were enjoying chicken wings with their parents at the team dinner were you referring to their kids as the subs? Your kid may be, probably will be a sub on her team sooner or later. Maybe even less than a sub, asked to stay home so the club can add to the roster. It won't necessarily be because she is not as good as the others, its just the way it happens when you support these institutions and start using their words and attitudes. Karma sucks.

Very well, in the future I will say that some players that hadn't started thus far in the tournament got to see significant playing time. Appreciate the correction. Soccer wasn't my sport growing up. This also isn't our regular team, so I have no idea who was normally a "starter" and who wasn't. No intent to offend anyone on the team or in the soccer world.

 

[MakeAPlay]

There was absolutely no collusion. This game turned into this on its own volition. Realize that this went against every natural soccer fiber in these players' bodies to be a part of a game that turned into this, but at the same time, neither team had a need or desire to change the direction the game went as it turned into what it became. There was no agreement that they would pass it around the back for awhile and then sent it up to the other team, but think of how awkward it surely felt for one team to be the only one doing it? Especially when Syracuse was over there swearing at them. So there was only so long each team wanted to be on center stage holding the ball in the back before they tired of it and they sent it away to see if the other team would do the same. That was no sign of collusion, it was simply realization that both teams had the same strategy but didn't want to be the only one implementing it. To believe this was pre-orchestrated is absurd. The game started normally, so are you suggesting the collusion occurred during the game? With officials all over the field and sidelines and behind the sidelines? And then how would that instruction be communicated to players on both teams? And then the implementation of it would have to be considered masterful, if you believe that...to direct the game to change as gradually as it did...c'mon, get real. Had the teams come right out of the gate like that, or after halftime like that, or if the change happened immediately...then a suspicion of collusion might have more merit. If you were there, you would realize that.

It went like this, as I said, the game was already very conservative at the outset, as would be expected. There were plenty of balls held in the backfield for longer than you would normally expect, but eventually a player would run or pass out of the backfield, or an offensive player would challenge the ball. As the game progressed, each time the ball went into the backfield, the amount of time that passed before a player contested it or a defender chose to run or pass out of the backfield was increased. It happened gradually and subtlety. If you saw it occur, you would be satisfied that it wasn't pre-planned, colluded, or fixed. It truly just gradually morphed into that.

A few things you said..."Syracuse was in control of their own destiny." No, they weren't. As I said before, at the start of both games (which started at the same time) Syracuse needed to have a Carlsbad win and a total of 7 goal differential made up between the two final games. They made up 3 of those goals on their own in beating a team 3-1 that had nothing to play for. That means they left Carlsbad with 4 goals they'd have to make up for them. That IS NOT in control of their own destiny.

You asked why not forfeit...this is not the way the game was expected to play out, so asking for a forfeit at the outset was not ever considered, and a forfeit in one game could potentially mean forfeiting all future games in the tournament. Carlsbad expected Ambassadors to play some and to give our reserves a chance to actually play a game. While they did for awhile, that play gradually eroded.

Would this game be played the same way again today? If they knew ahead of time that the facts would not be reported accurately, if they knew the headlines would allege match fixing, if they knew Syracuse would swear at the kids for the next 3 days...then, no, they'd have probably continued to play the game as the first 30 minutes were played. Pretty sure Syracuse would still be the douchebags about it, but the window dressing would be what the rest of the Monday morning quarterbacks would want to see.

Were you pleased with the way your player performed in the game? That to me would be the measuring stick. And if the answer is yes then no need to defend anything.

 

[Truth]

You're just not going to get it since you weren't there and didn't see it happen. You do an admirable job of putting statements into someone else's mouth, however, so kudos for that. Wishing you well in your soccer life. Cheers.

I watched the whole game. It was streamed live, remember? The game started by reflex as a normal game, maybe 5 minutes. Then it looked like something was said, because like a light switch it turned off. Forwards stopped running. Midfielders stood in place. Defenders passed back and forth with little enthusiasm. The announcer was caught off guard, I think he was wondering if someone dropped or there was some other distraction. He went from surprised, to amused, to indignant, to angry, to exasperated.

It would easy for one of us to be proven wrong, GK Dad. All they had to do was not try and hide the evidence and take the video down. If it was a contested match like you said for 1/2 the game and then a spontaneous slowdown, there wouldn't be much of a story and no need to conceal the video.

You and I both know what happened. Kudos to you for trying to have your club and your coach's back, but a line was crossed here and the response from the guilty parties has been excuses, blaming others, shifting stories, and dismissal. It was a poor decision to fix the match, and an even poorer decision to cover up the evidence and make excuses.

 

[Wez]

If it's true the Tournament authorities gave their approval, all you can really complain about is how this type of thing should be handled in the future.

 

[LA Galaxy SD - GK Dad]

Blame USYS for taking the video down. It was their video and they had control over it. Since they said the gameplay was OK while it was happening and told the coaches as much, maybe someone at USYS got in a pickle over it. Or are you adjoining USYS as a participant in your theory of collusion?

 

[Zoro]

There is no money given or bet on this game. Coaches sharing and agreeing to tactics is "normal".
So I am curious if it is as bad as the worst description here - if both coaches talked to each other about their tactics before the game and then both teams executed them - all within the laws of the game, what should the outcome be?
Other than this shaming that is going on, is a sanction in order - and then, if so - for what?

 

[espola]

Blame USYS for taking the video down. It was their video and they had control over it. Since they said the gameplay was OK while it was happening and told the coaches as much, maybe someone at USYS got in a pickle over it. Or are you adjoining USYS as a participant in your theory of collusion?

From the looks of what has been posted here, perhaps someone complained about the unprofessional behavior by the announcer.

 

[Surfref]

The cards are not soccer equipment. If that happened they would be cautioned for unsporting behavior and bringing the game into disrepute. If a GK sits DURING play, it is provoking and done in lopsided game - just before the fight starts and is cautioned. If they all sat down and took a nap, some refs would allow it and some wouldn't. I would want them on their feet. I don't know what I could do however if both teams sat. If one did, just start cautioning, then send-off then game over. But then there would likely be a winner as the team that first gets to 7 is traditionally the one that forfeits.

In this case from all who posted and the one who was there the two opponents were fine. Only the spectators were upset (there is a surprise).

@Surfref - Ref hat on. Both sit down, one side sits down, all stand and don't touch ball. When do you interject yourself?

As soon as they sat down I would assume there was some type of heat related injury and call the coach and trainer on to evaluate the players for heat exhaustion/stroke or some other type of injury. If no injury, than the game proceeds and I write a report when the game is over documenting what I observed and let the gaming authority decide on the consequences if any. The LOTG say nothing about players trying to play hard, but the Spirit of the Game and good sportsmanship would be the problem. Someone would have to touch the ball initially. If both teams were putting zero effort into the game, I would talk to both coaches at halftime to find out what was going on. I would also discuss the situation with the Field Marshal and suggest someone of higher authority come and observe the game.

There really is not much you can do as a referee. I had a game a few years ago, not going to name the club, where both teams from the same club needed at least a tie to move to the Semi-finals of their clubs tournament (they were using cross bracket play for the bracket rounds and ended up meeting in the final) . They each scored a give-me goal than just proceeded to sub on every stoppage and just pass the ball around until both teams scored another give-me goal within the last 5 minutes. I expressed my concerns and annotated it on the game report, but nothing was done.

 

[Truth]

Blame USYS for taking the video down. It was their video and they had control over it. Since they said the gameplay was OK while it was happening and told the coaches as much, maybe someone at USYS got in a pickle over it. Or are you adjoining USYS as a participant in your theory of collusion?

I have no doubt USYS took the video down once they realized what happened. I also heard that both coaches approached the film crew and told them to stop filming at halftime. The film crew refused.