SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer SCISA 2009

You're right mediocrates, I just can't handle this forum.. I might as well just leave.

First off, who ever said the Pinewood PK was called when one of their players had his jersey pulled near the corner flag is an IDIOT. Clearly, the player was at the six, when he was, not pulled by his jersey, but pulled by his entire arm out of the way. A legit call. Second, as for the free kick, the CN player definitely took a touch and looked to clear when he saw the pp players, and was then called off the ball by the keeper, who then picked it up. With so many pinewood players around, this was a serious oppotunity to possibly take the ball and finish. Finally, even if the ref call the kick back, and makes them take it again, what are the odds PP doesn't put it in the back of the net the second time from SIX YARDS OUT?! and even so, the keeper deserved a yellow...and if you take the kick away entirely, PP wins 3-2. the lack of composure showed by CN when they tried to pressure with everyone resulted in the fourth goal. Dramatic comback, great job keeping composure by the pinewood players. Dont try to take that away from them because CN lost control and was out played.

Not at all the case allstar sir. I believe a main point on this thread is that the opinion of many peoples believing there was a horrible officiating crew. And no one is calling pinewood "villians" or "bad guys" ease up mom.

As a referee i hope i can add an alternate perspective of the IFK overtime goal. I was not at the game and cant offer possible explanation for the PK that was given, but i saw footage of the IFK. The fake is obviously a legitimate tactic when taking a free kick however no card or penalty should be given for a player biting on that fake. For those wanting the goal called back from the ref distracting the players they should speak to the GK and defenders on the line. They appealed to the ref after the fake and appeared to ask the referee to blow his whistle. if they made any sort of vocal appeal the referee will talk back. if he does not blow his whistle there is no reason to stop. based off of the angles i have seen it looks as if everything was right. it would be interesting to hear what was said by the referee to clarify..

i might be unclear unto the keeper charging the ball. However there is no denying from anyone on this forum that the ref was indeed instructing the defending team thus distracting them while pinewood scored. apparently cat scatch, you have never played soccer. IT is nearly impossible to score on a team with 11 players packed in the box in front of the ball. If the ref wasnt distracting the players they wouldnt have scored. period.

While you do make a valid point comet, this was not the case. No questions. Asked the refs WERE talking to the defending team explaining what the situation was and so PW exploited this and kicked it knowing the refs wernt paying attention and especially the defending team. In no ways whatsoever was that considered "trickery" or fair. Oh well it happened and that's that. You have to know that the officiating wasn't the best and that's the honest truth.

I don't totally disagree with what you are saying, but do have a couple of minor clarifications.

The PW players actively involved in the play, taking the kick, weren't at all focused on the refs, they were focused on the defense. They did not exploit anything related to the refs not paying attention, but the defensive disorganization.

Play the video without sound, since obviously you appear to be hanging up on the "trickery" statement made by the media person.

As for the officiating, I don't totally disagree with that either, as there were a couple of times I thought different calls could/should have been made for both teams, but it appears that many are making their assessment of the game based on this one play. This particular play, from a different view:

Ball is bouncing around in the box, collected by a CN defender, keeper calls him off......rather than step directly away, he pushed the ball towards the keeper, which was the intentional pass back. Ball did not go more than 2 feet or so, but it was intentionally played by the defending team to the keeper. So yes, I agree with the call, which set up the free kick.

At first the person taking the tap for Pinewood set up on the left side of the ball, setting up most likely a kick to the right. Performs the fake. There was no discussion from the ref at this point. The CN keeper who was positioned to the right of the ball, jumped, and then the rest of the wall jumped. The PP player who actually took the kick, decided it was going to go left, and had the tapping player move to the right of the ball, which when he did so, the wall jumped again. At this point the discussions started, ref telling CN to stay back and PP to put the ball in play. If you just look at the video, you can see this point when the player that ultimately took the kick, was focused on the ball, but then turned to the ref. PP took the kick.

The referees were in good positions, ball and play between them. The center ref had blown the whistle to restart the play after setting the wall initially. The discussions by the referee TO BOTH TEAMS was to restart play. For him to intervene at any point would require some kind of infraction to have occurred. Yellow to the keeper or entire CN team for jumping in, or yellow to the PP kicker combination for delaying the restart. As HTP pointed out which you said after you totally agreed, there really wasn't anything that should have lead the referee to either of those actions. In this particular play, the actions by the refs were probably the best they could have been.

The ref wasnt distracting BOTH TEAMS...comet and the theatrics u were talking about were the instructions of a ref. The entire wall was looking at the ref while pinewood kicked it