NESCAC

[blooter442]

Have to give Amherst credit - they have put together a couple of solid, on-the-ground, slick passing moves. Martin and Ciambella are real talents. However, the hoofing is out in full force - particularly from the CBs. No need to boot it every time you get the ball, particularly if there is no pressure (maybe I'm just a purist.)

As I type this, each team had a great chance in the space of a minute. This game is more wide open than I'd have thought.

[blooter442]

MIT up 1-0, Stuntz free kick. 33:59 left.

[blooter442]

Amherst rallies to go up 2-1 with 2 goals in the last 6 mins. First goal should've never stood, as there were about 4 players offside. Regardless, you can't deny that Amherst never quits.

[1970s NESCAC Player]

Amherst rallies to go up 2-1 with 2 goals in the last 6 mins. First goal should've never stood, as there were about 4 players offside. Regardless, you can't deny that Amherst never quits.

This game, like other(s) last year (e.g., WPI), exemplifies why Amherst are defending national champs.  Every team has an off game, or runs into an exceptional game by a weaker opponent, but Amherst has consistently been able to grind out the positive results.

[PaulNewman]

Amherst rallies to go up 2-1 with 2 goals in the last 6 mins. First goal should've never stood, as there were about 4 players offside. Regardless, you can't deny that Amherst never quits.

This game, like other(s) last year (e.g., WPI), exemplifies why Amherst are defending national champs.  Every team has an off game, or runs into an exceptional game by a weaker opponent, but Amherst has consistently been able to grind out the positive results.

Agree with this 100%.

[Mr.Right]

Yes.........BUT there is a major difference and now I am not the only one to comment on it....Amherst GK Lee Owen is no Thomas Bull and frankly is one of the worst GK'ers in Nescac. Amherst will not be going very far with him in net. I noticed it in the Williams game and now he struggled in the MIT game according to reports. He is a major weakness for them.

[1970s NESCAC Player]

Yes.........BUT there is a major difference and now I am not the only one to comment on it....Amherst GK Lee Owen is no Thomas Bull and frankly is one of the worst GK'ers in Nescac. Amherst will not be going very far with him in net. I noticed it in the Williams game and now he struggled in the MIT game according to reports. He is a major weakness for them.

Haven't seen him and don't doubt you are Right.  I refer more to the mentality and will to win.  So far, Amherst has been able to overcome the loss of multiple AAs -- NPL and Bull -- and get a result in every game.  Maybe they won't be able to overcome GK shortcomings all season, but so far, so good.

[blooter442]

After MIT scored, Amherst was rattled for the best part of 30 minutes, and MIT almost went 2-0 up on a few occasions. In all the times I have seen Amherst I've never seen them rattled the way they were last night, in fact despite the fact that Amherst started throwing men forward MIT was fully in control until the tying goal went in. Even so, I would say on the balance of play for the whole game that Amherst probably deserved to win, but had the equalizer not counted (as it shouldn't have) I think MIT would've perhaps held on. Regardless, I do agree with 1970s NESCAC Player in that Amherst does usually find a way, and they have to be commended for the fact that they battle until the end. They also had some very solid one-touch passing on display last night, moreso than I've seen from them - they indeed can possess the ball when they choose to. That said, there was a lot of long balls, perhaps way more than necessary, but you can't argue with their success in recent years even with the long-ball game.

I will agree with Mr.Right that Owen is not very solid in goal based on what I saw - certainly not to the level that Bull was. In fact, while the goal was a great, curling shot by Stuntz, it was from 25+ yards out on the right wing and perhaps should've been saved. Moreover, he got stuck in no-mans land off a restart and gave an MIT kid a free header (that missed), which is all the more surprising considering Amherst is a vastly bigger and more physical team than MIT, whose tallest outfield player is 6'2" compared to Amherst having guys like 6'6" Orozco and 6'3" Bean. Whether he develops into the next Thomas Bull or not, I don't know, because he still has time, but he was extremely indecisive commanding his area on multiple occasions and, based on what I saw, will certainly run into trouble the further into the tournament that Amherst gets.

[Jump4Joy]

Looked like a couple of guys were in an offside position on the tying goal.
Must be that the goalscorer was not.
Anyone have any video?
Amherst was in the hunt hard at that point in the game, so not surprising one finally went in.
Gotta like the guts ball by Amherst, as a few have already highlighted.
MIT must have been gutted not to have been able to hold on.
Also, regarding height of field players last night: 8 of Amherst's are listed as 6' or over; 7 of MIT's.
Credit to MIT who played big last night.

[blooter442]

Looked like a couple of guys were in an offside position on the tying goal.
Must be that the goalscorer was not.
Anyone have any video?
Amherst was in the hunt hard at that point in the game, so not surprising one finally went in.
Gotta like the guts ball by Amherst, as a few have already highlighted.
MIT must have been gutted not to have been able to hold on.
Also, regarding height of field players last night: 8 of Amherst's are listed as 6' or over; 7 of MIT's.
Credit to MIT who played big last night.

From my angle, as I was sitting near the Amherst goal, Orozco - the goalscorer - was offsides. I did feel that MIT got robbed at that moment, and based on what I saw I still don't think the goal should have stood. However, this afternoon I went back and found the video, which even after watching 3 or 4 times was inconclusive. Despite the goal being offsides from my view, I can understand why the linesman might have flubbed it, because it was a very tough call for the following reasons:

1. When the ball was half-cleared - prior to the ball being played by Aoyama - Orozco and the Amherst players were very much onside, as an MIT player was slow to get back up the field.

2. However, at the point where the ball is played, the aforementioned player is not in view of the camera, and before he goes out of view, he is seen running back up the field. Moreover, the camera is not at an angle that accurately represents depth perception. As such, at the moment the ball is played, there's no way to tell whether he is still playing them onside or not.

3. In the video, when the ball is played, Orozco - compared to the other players in the shot - appears to be offsides. At that moment, he was out near the right sideline, perhaps expecting a diagonal ball. When he scores the goal, however, he is at the top-right corner of the 6-yard-box.

4. As a result of Orozco's initial positioning - being out of the play and not appearing to be involved with the scoring chance - the linesman may well not have paid much attention to whether he - as opposed to the players in the center - was offsides or not. And though the linesman is supposed to be watching everyone for offsides, it is perhaps understandable that he didn't pay much attention to the guy out on the wing when the ball was being played into the center. That doesn't mean that I condone it, but it did not look like Orozco was going to be involved in the goalscoring chance.

5. Moreover, Orozco may well have obstructed the linesman, who was positioned on the near sideline.

6. The ball played into the 18 was a nice, well-weighted one-timer from Aoyama. However, it did bounce, and only after it bounced did Orozco head it in, meaning that MIT failed to clear it despite it bouncing off the turf. When it was first played, it appeared that an MIT defender would probably clear it away, as it was a high, hopeful ball, but none did. Again, I am not saying I am excusing the linesman, but I do understand why he might not have thought much of a ball that looked like it was going to be headed away.

7. As far as other players interfering with the goalkeeper, there were none. In fact, the only reason that the goalscoring chance happened was that MIT let the ball bounce, which Orozco then headed home. Whether the MIT defenders were unable to clear the ball away because they were too far up (and the Amherst players or offsides) or not, I don't know - they could well have been. However, what is known is they failed to clear the ball, and that's how the goal happened.

All told, Orozco was offsides from my angle. However, I can understand why the linesman wasn't able to make a call and - as is generally accepted - gave the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

Amherst definitely deserved the win on the night, so I can ultimately have no complaints on that front. However, I can very much understand why MIT would feel aggrieved. Regardless, a good game, and a fun one to watch. Onto the weekend!

[Once_A_Metro_Always_A_Red]

Looked like a couple of guys were in an offside position on the tying goal.
Must be that the goalscorer was not.
Anyone have any video?
Amherst was in the hunt hard at that point in the game, so not surprising one finally went in.
Gotta like the guts ball by Amherst, as a few have already highlighted.
MIT must have been gutted not to have been able to hold on.
Also, regarding height of field players last night: 8 of Amherst's are listed as 6' or over; 7 of MIT's.
Credit to MIT who played big last night.

From my angle, as I was sitting near the Amherst goal, Orozco - the goalscorer - was offsides. I did feel that MIT got robbed at that moment, and based on what I saw I still don't think the goal should have stood. However, this afternoon I went back and found the video, which even after watching 3 or 4 times was inconclusive. Despite the goal being offsides from my view, I can understand why the linesman might have flubbed it, because it was a very tough call for the following reasons:

Took a pretty extensive look at the goal, and I'm fairly confident that the goalscorer was inside, but there's definitely uncertainty as to whether other Amherst players were in an offside position when the ball is kicked.

Here's a screenshot of the last frame in which the second to last defender for MIT is on the screen. Defender is way to the left (highlighted by the blue line) and the eventual scorer is the rightmost Amherst player in the box (highlighted by the red circle). Apologies if the photos are small, I think you can zoom or click on them.


As the ball comes out, you can make out the shadow of the MIT player way to the left. The goalscorer is definitely onside at this point, and you could probably make a decent case that the other Amherst players in the box are also onside -- though it's obviously difficult to make out the exact alignment of the defender and the assistant referee relative to those players



Here is the moment the ball is kicked. The defender is totally out of the shot now, but we can still use the positioning of the assistant referee as a gauge of offsides position. If we assume that the assistant referee is in the correct position -- in this case, in line with the second to last defender -- then his determination of whether a player is in an offsides position only requires use of simple heuristic; he does not really have to focus on the exact position of each player. Rather, any player to the AR's left (and even) is onside and any player to his right if off. From the looks of the photo, the goalscorer is I think unequivocally to the left of the AR, and thus, onside in the eyes of the AR. Again, the status of the other Amherst players in the penalty area is fairly ambiguous, but they seem at least even based on my own perception of the photo. You can use the football lines as a decent guide for position of the AR vs. the Amherst players




Once the ball is in the air and the MIT defender is back in the frame its pretty difficult to reconstrut e situation. The only remaining question is the question of whether that one Amherst player in the middle of the box was offside AND attempted to play the ball. Otherwise we've got to assume (if we believe the AR had proper positioning) that the goal is good.

[Jump4Joy]

Metro: Well done.

[blooter442]

Weekend Picks

Tufts 0-1 Amherst
Despite its 6-0-1 record, Amherst did display some defensive vulnerabilities on Wednesday night. Moreover, Tufts is on its home turf, and will probably try to quicken the pace of the game. That said, I don't know where Tufts' offense will come from, and think that Amherst will get a solitary goal.

Wesleyan 1-0 Hamilton - Buoyed by Tuesday's rather unexpected win at Tufts, Wesleyan keeps things rolling.

Colby 0-2 Middlebury - Colby keeps this one tight for a while, but Middlebury will get it done on the road.

Trinity 1-1 Bates - Can't pick between the two teams. Trinity blows hot and cold, Bates has done the same - they impressively beat Wesleyan at home, only to be listless against Williams the next day.

Conn. 1-2 Williams - Williams is really starting to find its stride, even after conceding 4 goals against Amherst last weekend. Conn. can muster some offense but I think Williams has too much.

Wesleyan 1-0 Trinity - A tight one to call, but home field advantage gives Wesleyan a slim edge.

Tufts 2-1 Hamilton - Hamilton has played well as of late, and Tufts has had some problems scoring, but I think the Jumbos find a way in this one.

Amherst 3-0 Bates - I had picked Bates to be my darkhorse, but they really haven't come out of the shadows yet this year.

[Mr.Right]

Metro that was EXCELLENT....I say the AR was out of position based on those pics...+1 Metro

[Mr.Right]

Nescac picks I will do Sat morning...