that is incorrect captain. he was carded in our 2nd last fraser valley game and had to sit 1 game which he did. the game was against riverside but they decided to forefit the game I don't know why. so at the end of they day, he was eligeable
Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Senior Boy Soccer 2008
- Thread starter Captain Shamrock
- Start date
that is incorrect captain. he was carded in our 2nd last fraser valley game and had to sit 1 game which he did. the game was against riverside but they decided to forefit the game I don't know why. so at the end of they day, he was eligeable
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #83
Technically, the game wasn't played according to the guys running the tournament and Tamanawis was told they could not play him in the first game but Tamanawis chose to. Straight red cards also warrant 3 games in the Fraser Valley tournament.......
Handsworth was the most complete team I saw in the tournament and we were able to hold them off.........
Dial 9-1-1
Active Member
Spectator, the events I heard in regards to the ineligibile player are as you and Wildcat describe them.
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #85
If that is true.....my apologies. We were told it was a straight red by the Centennial coach who they were playing. Unfortunately, the ref (who also reffed the Fraser Valley final
did not send in a report on the situation so that made things even more difficult. Having said that, if that isn't the case, I'm sorry, it was just what I was told at the tournament.As for the lesser team advancing? No chance....Tamanawis had ONE chance against us and scored on a deflected shot....hardly a team that should have moved on ahead of us....having said that, I believe Handsworth are worthy champions this year, and I know we gave them a good go.
Overall, it really was a bit of a shambles of a tournament in many areas but I hope the majority of the kids had a good experience.
Spectator66
New Member
I watched the SD vs Tamanawis game and it looked like 70% of the play was in the SD end for the majority of the second half. I dont think Shamrock so go ahead and say that Tamanawis should not have advanced when they went through the pool play with two losses in shootouts by Tamanawis and Handsworth. Tamanawis beat both SD and Handsworth in PK's. It just looks like the rules should be changed next year.
Just so the Captain is not the only voice here.....
Handsworth deserved to go through. SD gave them a good game but weren't able to generate enough and lost in penalties. That being said, although penalties are a part of the game, Tamanawis was the 3rd best side in that pool. Tamanawis lost their opportunity on their own with that shocking game against Point Grey where they allowed as many goals as they did. At the end of the day, the rules are the rules and the format is the format.
Many teams have been both victimized and benefitted from this format. If you do happen to get a "pool of death", then good teams don't get the proper chance at the top 4. Although this is NOT the only format, the key to making this work is proper and fair seeding to ensure that the format works as it should.
Handsworth deserved to go through. SD gave them a good game but weren't able to generate enough and lost in penalties. That being said, although penalties are a part of the game, Tamanawis was the 3rd best side in that pool. Tamanawis lost their opportunity on their own with that shocking game against Point Grey where they allowed as many goals as they did. At the end of the day, the rules are the rules and the format is the format.
Many teams have been both victimized and benefitted from this format. If you do happen to get a "pool of death", then good teams don't get the proper chance at the top 4. Although this is NOT the only format, the key to making this work is proper and fair seeding to ensure that the format works as it should.
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #88
The rules will have to be changed to avoid this debacle in the future.....70%????????
Nice one. 1 shot on target.....a deflected shot at that........1 goal. I will say that Handsworth was a better team than Tamanawis though and that's no knock on Tamanawis who were a decent team.but in a 3 way tie, they do not count the goals alowed against the team that is not in the running. They count the goals allowed withen the 3 teams and if ur saying since Tamanawis allowed 2 goals while SD and Handsworth only allowed 1 is such a huge issue then what about the fact that Tamanawis scored twice while SD and Handsworth only scored once
Dial 9-1-1
Active Member
My recommendation for next year's tiebreaker format
Two-way tie
1) head-to-head.
If the two teams tied in head-to-head,
1) best +/- in round robin
2) Goals For in round robin
3) If still tied, then winner of the pks
Three or more-way tie
1) Best head-to-head (W-L) between the teams involved
2) If two or more teams are still tied, then best +/- between the teams (still) tied
3) If still tied, then best +/- in robin
4) Then most GF in round robin
5) Then winner of pks.
PKs should be the last tie-breaker if necessary in all situations.
Two-way tie
1) head-to-head.
If the two teams tied in head-to-head,
1) best +/- in round robin
2) Goals For in round robin
3) If still tied, then winner of the pks
Three or more-way tie
1) Best head-to-head (W-L) between the teams involved
2) If two or more teams are still tied, then best +/- between the teams (still) tied
3) If still tied, then best +/- in robin
4) Then most GF in round robin
5) Then winner of pks.
PKs should be the last tie-breaker if necessary in all situations.
Hello folks,
First of all, thx for the kind words that some have expressed. It means alot to me.
Thought it would be useful to provide the Handsworth perspective on how events unfolded. Thirty minutes prior to the Tamanawis game, I was informed by the President of the Secondary Soccer Commission that Tamanawis had an inelligible player that would have sit out. Game starts. We take a 1-0 lead minutes in. Fifteen minutes in Tamanawis subs in the "inelligible" player. At this point I am thinking that we have won the game due to an inelligible player entering the match. I start making some generous subs, as I see this as an opportunity to give playing time to some non-starters. Second half-"inelligible" player (what a nice player!) scores to make it 1-1. Game ends tied and goes to PK's. Tamanawis wins-"inelligible" player scores a PK as well. Interestingly, this boy was the best keeper in the tournament, but for some reason he wasn't in net for the PK's. Despite the result I still feel optomistic because of the information I was provided prior to kick-off.
Turns out that 20 minutes into the game the discipline commiittee reversed the decision. At no time before or during the match did anyone inform Handsworth about the decision to reverse the disciplinary action. We file an official protest based on what you have just read and two addition items:
1. The Tamanawis player did not have a consequence for his disciplinary record that carried over from the zone playdowns. This is in contravention of rule J provided at the coaches meeting. From what I understand the original cards were due to dissent towards a referee. To suggest that a forfeited game is a game is certainly not my understanding of the laws of soccer, but it is particularly wrong in high-school soccer were kids must have a consequence for their actions. This boy did not receive a consequence. What message does that send.
2. The "inelligible" player was not on the official game card. This one I can somewhat sympathize with Tamanawis because I am sure that he wasn't on the game card because they were also initially told that the player was inelligible. Still, this was clearly stated at the coaches meeting that any player not on the card is inelligible.
We felt that we had a strong case, but the protest/discipline committee ruled that the player was allowed to play due to several reasons including (this is a slight paraphrase becuase I don't have the letter in front of me) "new information that has been provided by someone".
As much as possible we tried to move on knowing that we did not control our destiny at this point, Needless to say we were outraged! Not at the Tamanawis player or their coaches, but at the arbitrary decisions that we felt were being made by the Discipline Committee. If they would have made a decision and stuck to it alot of the controversy that would occur at the end of group stages would not have happened. Fortunately, for Hanndworth, there was a three way tie for first which made the PK's moot. That meant we had to go a very complicated tie-breaking procedure that Handsworth benifitted from. In this scenario the tournament executive did follow the rules in place. In the end. I believe that Karma prevailed.
As for the comment from One Dart that the "lesser team advanced to the finals" I have to strongly disagree. Against Tamanawis, we played several players that perhaps wouldn't have played if it wasn't for the discipline controversy. This is on top of losing 5 players, 3 starters, to the Super Y League tournament in Florida. I agree, that there was little between the three teams, but in my view we improved each match and at the end of the day were full value for the win ( I think I can say objectively that we controlled the semi's vs. Stelly's and dominated most of the finals vs. Kits.) Getting out of the group was the most difficult part. Tamanawis and South Delta had great teams ( I thought that South Delta was the best team we faced all year and they would have won the BC's if they finished first in the group).
Anyways, I thought you might want to hear our side of the events. The tournament was a roller-coaster. We were lucky in many ways, but I take nothing away from the heart and character that my boys demonstrated throughout the tournament! I am very proud of the way they came together despite some significant adversity.
All the best. Perhaps we can all learn from this experience.
Cheers,
First of all, thx for the kind words that some have expressed. It means alot to me.
Thought it would be useful to provide the Handsworth perspective on how events unfolded. Thirty minutes prior to the Tamanawis game, I was informed by the President of the Secondary Soccer Commission that Tamanawis had an inelligible player that would have sit out. Game starts. We take a 1-0 lead minutes in. Fifteen minutes in Tamanawis subs in the "inelligible" player. At this point I am thinking that we have won the game due to an inelligible player entering the match. I start making some generous subs, as I see this as an opportunity to give playing time to some non-starters. Second half-"inelligible" player (what a nice player!) scores to make it 1-1. Game ends tied and goes to PK's. Tamanawis wins-"inelligible" player scores a PK as well. Interestingly, this boy was the best keeper in the tournament, but for some reason he wasn't in net for the PK's. Despite the result I still feel optomistic because of the information I was provided prior to kick-off.
Turns out that 20 minutes into the game the discipline commiittee reversed the decision. At no time before or during the match did anyone inform Handsworth about the decision to reverse the disciplinary action. We file an official protest based on what you have just read and two addition items:
1. The Tamanawis player did not have a consequence for his disciplinary record that carried over from the zone playdowns. This is in contravention of rule J provided at the coaches meeting. From what I understand the original cards were due to dissent towards a referee. To suggest that a forfeited game is a game is certainly not my understanding of the laws of soccer, but it is particularly wrong in high-school soccer were kids must have a consequence for their actions. This boy did not receive a consequence. What message does that send.
2. The "inelligible" player was not on the official game card. This one I can somewhat sympathize with Tamanawis because I am sure that he wasn't on the game card because they were also initially told that the player was inelligible. Still, this was clearly stated at the coaches meeting that any player not on the card is inelligible.
We felt that we had a strong case, but the protest/discipline committee ruled that the player was allowed to play due to several reasons including (this is a slight paraphrase becuase I don't have the letter in front of me) "new information that has been provided by someone".
As much as possible we tried to move on knowing that we did not control our destiny at this point, Needless to say we were outraged! Not at the Tamanawis player or their coaches, but at the arbitrary decisions that we felt were being made by the Discipline Committee. If they would have made a decision and stuck to it alot of the controversy that would occur at the end of group stages would not have happened. Fortunately, for Hanndworth, there was a three way tie for first which made the PK's moot. That meant we had to go a very complicated tie-breaking procedure that Handsworth benifitted from. In this scenario the tournament executive did follow the rules in place. In the end. I believe that Karma prevailed.
As for the comment from One Dart that the "lesser team advanced to the finals" I have to strongly disagree. Against Tamanawis, we played several players that perhaps wouldn't have played if it wasn't for the discipline controversy. This is on top of losing 5 players, 3 starters, to the Super Y League tournament in Florida. I agree, that there was little between the three teams, but in my view we improved each match and at the end of the day were full value for the win ( I think I can say objectively that we controlled the semi's vs. Stelly's and dominated most of the finals vs. Kits.) Getting out of the group was the most difficult part. Tamanawis and South Delta had great teams ( I thought that South Delta was the best team we faced all year and they would have won the BC's if they finished first in the group).
Anyways, I thought you might want to hear our side of the events. The tournament was a roller-coaster. We were lucky in many ways, but I take nothing away from the heart and character that my boys demonstrated throughout the tournament! I am very proud of the way they came together despite some significant adversity.
All the best. Perhaps we can all learn from this experience.
Cheers,
SofaKingGood
Member
What about the couple of Grade 11's that year that stepped up?
That was a roller coaster ride, beating the Clarke brothers, then beating the favored Richmond High in shootouts after trailing them in regulation with a few to go, then trailing again in OT and scoring in the last minute to tie it up.
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #93
Totally agree. I've been saying this for the last 5 years....hopefully it will be resolved at the AGM....and we'll try to get this sorted with the AAA Girls tournament.
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #94
Well said, Ferno.......for the record though, One Dart didn't say that. It was someone else. One Dart (who you shared a beverage with in recent years ) said Handsworth was worthy of the win.
Once again, well done, and welcome to TTP.
) said Handsworth was worthy of the win. Once again, well done, and welcome to TTP.
SofaKingGood
Member
Can't believe this issue wasn't solved back in the day. Going Back to the Future, when we (ND) won in 1994, we went 2-1 in round robin play. We lost to Alpha ( i think it was 2-1 or 3-2), and they finished with a round robin record of 2-1. I remember when they beat us in the final round game, they were so estatic and we hand our heads down as we were eliminated. But our Vice Principal told us we were through on Goal Differential. Obviously we did not complain and went on to win AAA, but I remember their coach was absolutely pissed and almost chewed off some committee person's ear off when he found out our good news.
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #97
That must have been a mistake OR the rules were obviously different........the first tie-breaker in any two team tie is head to head. So technically they should have gone through......just as the penalty shootout win for Handsworth put them through over us.
So it was a tainted win.............
Members online
No members online now.
