deahler: I've not before today posted on this subject; I thought pretty much everything had been said -- however, your post was pretty good in terms of using analogy to explain why some folks felt the way that they did. What I've particularly liked is that every post of yours has congratulated Wando -- that's particularly appropriate because in the end, Wando won -- everything else is just discussion. I'd like to add my own personal congratulations to Wando for playing a very hard-nosed and tough game and bringing home yet another win for what has become a leading 4-A program in South Carolina.
It's funny how there's an attempt at a self-imposed censorship of a discussion of the game. I think I understand it; emotions run high and people tend to become very critical and accusatory very quickly. And yet there are some fairly interesting things that have come up that I find absolutely fascinating. Since I've never flinched from making folks angry at me on this message board, I thought I'd raise a few of them.
I believe that the role of the referees has been understated, not overstated. Wando scored off of a header from a free kick rising from an assessed penalty. It was a very, very nice play on Wando's part. However, I find it amusing that so many people in the endless debate of precisely how much time was played 12v11 (i.e., an attosecond, 1:11, 4:00, 40:00, the greater part of the season, a geological era, etc.) fail to account for the fact that in a single second a referee made a decision that a foul occurred and that in just a few seconds a score occurred from a free kick. Trying to assess a probability in what in essence is a "discontinuous function" seems at best an incredibly arduous task. (Note: I heard today that Drogba scored in stoppage to lead Chelsea to a 1-0 win over Manchester United -- it seems strange to me that this could happen when no one scored in the first 90 minutes.
)
That brings me back to the role that the referees played in this match. The referees appeared to decide very early that they were going to "let them play" which resulted in a very physical match. Nothing wrong with that. However, the referees then appeared to make random calls, in a non-biased but deeply weird fashion, on some physical play not not on the majority of the physical play. This occurred against both Lexington and Wando. I've seen this again and again this season -- rare is the referee that allows a physical game and then doesn't succumb to the desire to assess random penalties that can't be explained in light of all of the previous non-calls made. I'm actually beginning to believe that particularly in high school the referees would be better off calling games a bit more tightly from the beginning and focusing on being consistent. The referees in this match weren't terrible -- they were just inconsistent -- and thus inserted themselves entirely too much into the match rather than helping the players understand what was being called and why it was being called by being repeatable in their decisions.
With this said, Wando defensively played a very, very smart game. Wando's coach was interviewed by the Lexington newspaper and she noted that a primary factor was that she made a decision before the game to always play at least 1-2 players on one of Lexington's players. It worked fabulously; while there were any number of attempted assists by that player Lexington could not capitalize. What I think was equally important was that Wando's players played a very smart game given the refereeing that they were seeing -- they played much more aggressively on defense in their midfield and less aggressively as the ball got closer to their goal. This resulted in Lexington having few dangerous set plays. On the set plays that Lexington did have, the team did not execute as well as they have been doing. While the headlines all scream about 12v11, the real story of this game wasn't that -- and it wasn't even Wando's very nice score on the free kick (a glancing header by Olivia Ureg) -- it was why Lexington couldn't score and what Wando did to prevent Lexington from scoring.
Finally, with respect to the criticism of various coaches and players, I think that too many folks are proving themselves incapable of empathy. Wando's coach did exactly what she should have done both in terms of strategy and in terms of coaching her team. Yes, some amount of time went by when there was a 12v11 situation. That was the fault of the referees, not Wando's coach. She coached a wonderful game. Lexington's coach did exactly what he should have done in response to what occurred -- if he hadn't have gotten a red card for strenuous argument in the situation his team was in it would have been a mistake -- it was his job to go up to the line, and beyond it, in passionate advocacy for his team and some sense of equitable fairness. The players from both teams shook hands after the match. Not sure how much more can be expected from the coaches and the players.
The blue and yellow painted high school boys should not have thrown the two half-empty 12-ounce water bottles onto the sideline. While I don't feel that their offense rises to the felonious heights that the Post and Courier reporter did, they still shouldn't have done it.
Congratulations to Lexington, who acquitted themselves rather well for their first 4-A final appearance. Unlike Wando, Lexington doesn't have a history of great women's soccer. It's going to be tougher, not easier, for them next year -- the many seniors that are graduating have played critical roles and will absolutely be missed.
Congratulations to Wando, the 4-A state champions.
