|
|
Post by dhssoccermom25 on Dec 16, 2006 22:20:14 GMT -6
I just want to say what a good job Tioga did on their first tournament. You could tell that Brian and Debi put alot of time and effort into everything. Even though there was some unwarranted criticism, they stood fast and tall and the show went on. You couldn't have asked for a more exciting final game, especially going into double overtime with the history that DeRidder and Tioga have. Hats of to the ladies from Tioga, they played 4 hard fought games, and still had their head held high, and their hands extended to us in true sportsmanship.
I would also like to commend Peabody. They showed up for thier game with us with only 7 players, and we played 7 on 7. They never gave up and really displayed great sportsmanship.
|
|
ddd3
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1
|
Post by ddd3 on Dec 17, 2006 11:39:03 GMT -6
Hi Dhssoccermom25, I'd like to get your email , and find out more about DeRidder girls soccer scores and such. My daughter plays on the team and I live in the Dallas area. I get updates from her, not as often as I'd like. LOL It took me forever to find this site, and there's not too much on the web about La highschool soccer period, let alone girls soccer. I'm coming down for the Jan. 2nd game, and she is very excited. I might try and make a tourny too. When I was in HS, there is DeRidder, they didn't have soccer. Are you from DeRidder too? Thanks for the updates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Dec 17, 2006 15:07:03 GMT -6
What was the unwarranted criticism? I know that West Monroe was not treated fairly. The tie breaker for the tournament was goals scored. For their second game, West Monroe had to play Peabody. But, Peabody didn't have enough players and had to forfeit. So, West Monroe was awarded a 1-0 victory. Typically, forfeits are counted as 3-0 when you are playing in a tournament. Because they only got 1 goal for the forfeit by Peabody, West Monroe didn't advance to the semis. A 2-0 victory over Peabody would have let West Monroe advance. Odds are good that West Monroe would have scored 2 or more goals against Peabody, so West Monroe was penalized by the forfeit. Awarding only 1 goal to the winner for a forfeit is not right.
Also, who has goals scored (with no limit) as your first tiebreaker? That just encourages teams to run up the score.
|
|
|
|
Post by jus4kicks on Dec 17, 2006 17:32:26 GMT -6
Not at all saying this is correct information, but I heard that Peabody did have 7 players (which is enough) and West Monroe chose not to play. What really did happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by dhssoccermom25 on Dec 17, 2006 17:45:48 GMT -6
Not at all saying this is correct information, but I heard that Peabody did have 7 players (which is enough) and West Monroe chose not to play. What really did happen? Same information I got at well, from several different sources. DeRidder faced the same thing with Peabody and chose to play 7 on 7. It gave our JV and younger players a chance to get some extra play time. If indeed that is the case, I cannot see where there was any unfair treatment. I was not aware of any difference in tournament and season rules. I always thought a forfiet was a 1-0 win regardless of circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by PutMeInCoach2 on Dec 17, 2006 17:57:01 GMT -6
What was the unwarranted criticism? I know that West Monroe was not treated fairly. The tie breaker for the tournament was goals scored. For their second game, West Monroe had to play Peabody. But, Peabody didn't have enough players and had to forfeit. So, West Monroe was awarded a 1-0 victory. Typically, forfeits are counted as 3-0 when you are playing in a tournament. Because they only got 1 goal for the forfeit by Peabody, West Monroe didn't advance to the semis. A 2-0 victory over Peabody would have let West Monroe advance. Odds are good that West Monroe would have scored 2 or more goals against Peabody, so West Monroe was penalized by the forfeit. Awarding only 1 goal to the winner for a forfeit is not right. Also, who has goals scored (with no limit) as your first tiebreaker? That just encourages teams to run up the score. How do you get that West Monroe was not treated fairly?! If I am not mistaken, before the coaches participate in the tournament, they are sent a copy of the rules for which the tourament is being played. If they don't recieve this, they have the right to request them going into the tournament. Although you may feel that these rules are not right, it was the rules stated before the tournament I am sure. If a coach does not like the rules of the tournament, they should not enter their team in that tournament. Plain and simple, the teams should know what they are entering into. If you don't like it, don't play. |
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Dec 17, 2006 18:28:37 GMT -6
It is my understanding that the rule that a forfeit would only count as a 1-0 victory was not in the "tournament rules" that were provided. My understanding is that it was after their 3rd game that WM was told about the 1-0 rule. Still, no one has addressed the fact that it is an unfair rule. Your first tiebreaker is goals scored with no limit, and you are only going to give a team a "1-0" score for a forfeit? So, had WM been told of the rule, that means that WM should have made Peabody take the field with their 7 players, that WM should have played with 11 players, and run up the score to make sure that they could advance if it got to the tie breaker. Is that what a team should do?
|
|
|
|
Post by jus4kicks on Dec 17, 2006 18:34:39 GMT -6
So, if Peabody DID have 7 players, willing to play, why did they have the forfeit? If WM refused to play, shouldn't they have had the forfeit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Dec 17, 2006 18:35:05 GMT -6
Of course, it is a trick question. The answer is obviously not.
|
|
|
|
Post by jus4kicks on Dec 17, 2006 18:38:57 GMT -6
Didn't mean for it to be "tricky". I'm just wondering who chose not to play -- Peabody or WM?
|
|
|
|
Post by dhssoccermom25 on Dec 17, 2006 18:43:59 GMT -6
It goes back to the statement I made earlier, doesn't a foreit always go as a 1-0 win? Is this the proper assessment and is there a difference in the forfeit score in a tournament as opposed to regular season? If someone with better knowledge of the rules and regs than I have could provide an answer I would appreciate it.
As for the goals for and or against, it was clearly stated in the tournament packet that would be the case if there was not a clear winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by dhssoccermom25 on Dec 17, 2006 18:48:16 GMT -6
West Monroe chose not to play from my understanding, but I don't believe 7 players is enough for a legal game, it was Peabody's forfiet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Dec 17, 2006 18:48:21 GMT -6
lol. Sorry, that post was in reply to mine, not yours.
The WM coach was told by the ref that the forfeit would count as a 3-0 game. They gave Peabody some time for more players, but they didn't show. If the WM coach had been told that it would only have counted as a 1-0 game, he would have played the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by dhssoccermom25 on Dec 17, 2006 18:53:18 GMT -6
I have a feeling that the refs didn't read the rules and if that is the case and that is what your coach was told, then unfortunaly he was misinformed and it probably cost WM a chance to advance.
I say this because in the final, after regulations, the refs were going to go straight into PKs even though everyone was trying to tell them that the tournament packet stated the 2 ten minute overtimes. We had to get the paperwork and show them before they would relent and let us play out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jus4kicks on Dec 17, 2006 18:55:09 GMT -6
It's 3 points for the win...not 3 goals. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding between the coach and ref.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowbird on Dec 17, 2006 19:02:38 GMT -6
These are the facts:
The refs gave Peabody a 5min grace period. At the end of 5min, Peabody had 5 players. The WM coach was not thrilled about playing against 7 players but would have(had 7 players been present) and would have been forced to run the score up. The refs called the match...not the WM coaches. The score regarding forfeits was not in the tournament rules...it was decided after WM had played all bracket games. The scoreboard just had a "F" for the game and was later changed to 1-0.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Dec 17, 2006 19:04:06 GMT -6
dhssoccermom25, the rule that goals scored would be the tie breaker was in the tournament rules provided, but there was nothing in the rules about counting a forfeit as a "1-0" game.
To answer your question, typically tournaments use goal differential and goals against for the tie breaker, with a limit of 3 per game. For example, if you beat someone 10-0, it counts as a +3 on the goal differential. You limit it to 3 because you don't want to encourage teams to needlessly run up the score against weaker teams. And, that is why a forfeit is counted as a "3-0" win. That gives the team that was ready to play the max amount of points that they could have earned. If you only give them a "1-0" win, you are penalizing that team simply because its opponent didn't show up with enough players. That is not their fault.
By having goals scored as your tie breaker, and only awarding a "1-0" game for a forfeit, you are encouraging teams to run up the score. With hindsight being 20-20, WM should have made Peabody take the field with their 7 players and then WM should have scored as many points as possible (since you don't know how many goals will be scored by the other team(s) with whom you will be tied). First, that is not fair to Peabody. Second, it is not fair to the players on the WM bench that will not get in the game, because WM needs to score as many goals as possible to win any potential tiebreaker. That is not the right thing to do, but that is what the Tioga rules called for. The tournament rules should never encourage teams to run up the score on other teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Dec 17, 2006 19:09:10 GMT -6
It's 3 points for the win...not 3 goals. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding between the coach and ref. Yes, it was 3 points for a win. But, the question is how many "goals" are awarded for a forfeit for purposes of the tiebreaker. Typically, it is recorded as a "3-0" win. |
|
|
|
Post by jus4kicks on Dec 17, 2006 19:17:47 GMT -6
Thanks, snowbird, for setting it straight.
Beckham, the problem with awarding 3 goals on a forfeit is that a team that didn't even play can potentially beat out a team that actually played, but only scored 1 or 2 goals. I feel sure that WM could have AND would have scored 3 or more against Peabody, but who's to say that that would always be the case. It was an unfortunate situation for WM and Peabody. In any event, for a first time tournament, I think it went well. I think the 2 best teams ended up in the finals, and it was a great game.
|
|
|
|
Post by dhssoccermom25 on Dec 17, 2006 19:20:45 GMT -6
You mean an awesome game! I dont' know that it is about DeRidder and Tioga and going into overtime, but 3 of the last 4 meetings have been decided in OT. Last night was a classic battle and I think both teams have an even greater respect for each other. Should be a real barnburner when Tioga comes to DeRidder next month!
|
|
