Saturday, March 23, 2013

Blizzard postgaming


If you want to find my thoughts after that insane game in Colorado, head over to The Shin Guardian to take in my retro diary and then skip over to American Soccer Now to read my match ratings. Word to the wise: ratings in those conditions were rough. Take them with a grain of salt.

- Will Parchman

17 comments:

dikranovich said...

pacman, ive been banned from lesg, agai. big surprise, but could you post your diary here please? and maybe you could also talk to your stat friends and see what kind of numbers they can produce from DMB's nasty little performance last night.

dikranovich said...

hello, is there anybody out there, just nod if you can hear me. is there anybody home?

it would have been a glorious day if dc united could have handled the crew, but as it is, i gotta settle for montreal beating redballs and improving to 4 and 0.

its early, but anyone who thought that montreal was going to be dog meat.... ahh, maybe not.

heythisisrobbie said...

Serious question: with Costa Rica protesting that game in Denver, can we protest playing on concrete at Saprissa?

Jay said...

Nope. See the FIFA competition regulations [pdf], specifically article 19.1:

The venues of the matches shall be fixed by the host association concerned and the matches may only be played in stadiums that have been inspected and approved by FIFA and/or the confederation.

In other words: that stadium and that turf have been pre-approved by FIFA. There's no standing for protest.

dikranovich said...

robbie, i think the real answer to your question is, of course we can. that protest being given any consideration is another question however.

dikranovich said...

interestingly robbie, law 19.1 does discuss the distance a venue needs to be from the nearest international airport. that maximum allowable distance is 150 km. the law also states that the drive should be no more than a two hour drive.

the USA played in mazatenango guatemala several cycles ago, which is just over 100 km from guatemala city. the catch is that it does take more than two hours to drive the route between the two cities.

its a lot hotter and more humid in the outpost city as well.

dikranovich said...

and when you get down to the nuts and bolts of our situation in denver, rule 14.8 is most applicable.

14.8. if any of the formal conditions of a protest as set out in these regulations is not met, such protests shall be disregarded by the competent body.

there is of course the question of how competent the body is

Jay said...

dik: regarding a potential US protest of the state of Costa Rica's turf, please read article 14.7 and reconsider your position.

Furthermore, the most relevant articles for the Costa Rica protest are 19.6 and 19.7, regarding the condition of the pitch and extreme weather interruptions. I'm confident that Costa Rica was preparing their official protest documents before the end of the first half for timely delivery to FIFA.

dikranovich said...

jay, why in the world would the USA lodge a formal complaint, if it was not with sound reason?

we would not lodge a complaint if it was unfounded. dont be ridiculous

dikranovich said...

costa rica say they filed a protest with fifa within 24 hours in accordance with fifa guidlines.

it makes you wonder if they followed 14.2 and lodged the complaint within two hours of the completion of the match.

i thought i read somewhere the other day that costa ricas federation head said he did not lodge the original complaint in such a timely manner.

dikranovich said...

19.7 is scary because it requires a 90 minute replay, which is contrary to what ian darke was saying about a restart from the time the game is abandoned.

the final judgement falls to the organising committee, which happen to be the same group that gave the world cup to qatar.

this might just come down to whether or not coast rica dotted all their I's and crossed all their T's, and even then, fifa would be handing down a second unjust decisions on the USA.

if the USA has never registered a complaint with fifa due to field conditions, that will be a big plus in our favor.


Jay said...

Dik. Really. You can't have it both ways. Either the US "of course" can file a protest about Costa Rica or they can't. Choose one and decide whether or not it would be without standing. We both know it would be, and that there are penalties from FIFA for doing so. Don't get huffy -- just make an argument and stick with it.

If you read somewhere that Costa Rica didn't file in time, I suspect that it's incorrect -- ESPN is already reporting that FIFA is taking it under consideration.

dikranovich said...

well jay, it is really a moot point because costa rica have a new national stadium that they have been using for their national team games. the new national stadium is natural grass.

obviously the usa cant protest a game from four years ago in saprissa.

dikranovich said...

jay, we need to reconsider. fifa guidelines online, are apparently not up to date with regards to where a restart would occur from.

i really think it is going to come down to if costa rica dotted all their Is and crossed the Ts.

now with regards to playing a future game in saprissa; costa rica did get the stadium and turf approved by fifa back in 2002, but that is more than ten years ago.

fifa quality concept for football turf has a whole slew of guidlines and maintaining the standard and original quality of the turf is number one on the list.

my guess, saprissa turf is not the same quality that it was back in 02

dikranovich said...

and guess what another brick in the wahl is saying on twitter?

heythisisrobbie said...

When I was in CR a few weeks back the guys down there told me that 4 qualifiers will be at the new stadium, and 1 will be at Saprissa.

Guess who the 1 is?

dikranovich said...

jay, sorry for making you look so stupid, but you made it to easy.