How They Scored: New England Revolution

I thought it might be in some interest to examine the decisions of our players and the referees that led to our goals against New England and how we can correct some of those problems. I suppose, then, I will do just that.

Goal 1: Borchers red and penalty

This is the goal that’s been much discussed and replayed. Nobody doubts that Nat Borchers was improperly sent off, and it’s been well accepted that the ball should have been dealt with before that point. How did the referee see a penalty, then?

When the ball was launched forward, our lovely referee was slightly left of the center circle, then started jogging back, clearly not expecting anything to come of the play. He is not completely visible in the replays, so we’ll have to make a few assumptions. Let us assume that he continued to jog back, not at any great pace, and remained essentially in the middle of the pitch but closer. His view, we can assume, would be similar to the sideline view but with a steeper angle on the play. His view of the ball would be blocked by Borchers and Feilhaber, and he likely would not be able to see if any contact was made. The assistant referee, were he in the proper position, would be able to see Borchers make clear contact with the ball before Feilhaber goes down, but he would likely not be able to see whether there was initial contact made with any definitive say.

Now, admittedly, this is one of few calls that would have been made easier by the presence of officials behind the goals, but I doubt much this would have solved the bad call. The referee, rather than consulting with his linesman who would have had a better if not perfect view, made the decision on assumptions about Borchers and Feilhaber and whether contact was made between them before contact was made with the ball. More optimally, even if both relevant referees had made the decision that a foul was made, a red card would not have been issued, and a yellow card would even be an unlikely decision.

Goal 2: Chris Tierney’s free kick

This goal has been less discussed, and it’s certainly less controversial, but there’s a prominent element of gamesmanship involved. As Tierney goes to take the free kick, Lekic (I believe it’s Lekic, and correct me if I’m wrong) stands in the wall to disrupt it — not an unusual tactic, and one we’d have been aware of before hand — and, as the kick is taken, moves behind Saborio and pulls him to the side. The ball bobbles along the pitch, Rimando tries to get there but fails, and the free kick nets New England their second goal.

Now, there’s no real blame to Nick Rimando here. The wall was positioned properly, and he was in the position you’d expect for a free kick. Without a topspin-inflected dipping free kick — those beat even brilliant keepers anyway, and getting it to come off is difficult in no small respect from that distance — or an unfortunate deflection, the goal is safe. But when Lekic pulls one man off the wall — you can see Lekic pulling Saborio and Saborio’s leg in the air as a result — the ball has a clear route to goal. The pull on Saborio would be a strictly illegal one, and it should have been whistled for a foul, but Alvaro either has to stand his ground or he has to completely fall and sell the foul. It’s unfortunate gamesmanship, but sometimes, the only way to fight fire is with fire. The disturbing part, though, is that this is clearly a practiced free kick situation, and the tactic was to commit an illegal foul off the ball.

Goal 3: Shalrie Joseph header from a free kick

The freekick given late in the match may have been untenably soft, but that’s not why the goal was scored. As the ball is set up, Olave is clearly marking Joseph and is standing off him a bit. As the ball is taken, he moves forward, looking, I believe, to attack it first-time. But in doing so, he loses his marker, and when he realizes it, he turns and attempts to again mark Joseph. By this time, it’s too late, and Olave’s momentary indecision has put New England in a position where they’re leading the match. This is where the presence of Nat Borchers would have made all the difference: He plays a more communicative role on set pieces, and while Olave has undoubted quality in the air, his makeshift partnership Chris Schuler was not one with a deal of communication inherent. It’s something that will need to be improved on in the future, and it’s certainly a problem with an easy solution. It’s again proof that a momentary lapse of concentration leads to goals.

In other news

On a side note, does anybody else think it’s strange that LA Galaxy are apparently facing off against Real Madrid in a “World Football Challenge”? The idea of them facing one of the top ten European sides and doing well gives me reason to chortle a bit. Yeah, the same LA Galaxy we showed a 4-1 win early in the season.

And we kick off against rivals FC Dallas tomorrow at the Rio Tinto. Get there early and loud, folks. This is expected to be a tough matchup — more on that tomorrow.