When two teams can advance to next round by just a draw....
- Thread starter mlx
- Start date
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
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.
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.
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.
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
GOLD
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.
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
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
GOLD
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!
DA
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.
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
SILVER
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
PREMIER
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?
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.
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?
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
GOLD
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.