Zags at Pilots

This game should be a good one with the Zags intent on revenge for being totally dominated in the first meeting. The men's team have only lost once in conference play and are highly motivated to win down the stretch so that the LMU rematch at Merlo has real meaning. As with all WCC men's games, the teams are very even and the results are difficult to predict ahead of time (can't say the same for the women's games). Hopefully there will be some fans on hand to watch.

We'll be there, rain and all! Go Pilots!

Pilots win 2-1, with two 2nd half goals... a wet and soggy night at Merlo Field.

A well desreved result. Pilots easily outplayed Zags (except for the goal) and in the end the score was pretty indicative of the run of play. Well done!

Actually, I thought the pilots came out a bit sluggish and were lazy on their passes - just going through the motions.

The Gonzaga goal was a complete gift and a brain fart by the defense in leaving a zag at the PK spot completely unmarked on a free kick. It was a planted foot header to the corner. The guy never moved.

After that UP woke up a little, possessed more, and actually connected on some passes.

I'm not sure what the foul was that lead to the PK, but the linesman was the guy who made the call, I think. Maybe a trip or hold in the box.

The second goal was a result of some nifty passes and relentless pressure by the Pilots. In that sense, they earned the result.


I think the zags tested the patience of the ref pretty severely with cheap fouls and dissent. The fellow who earned the red for thuggery could have been sent off earlier.

I agree on the Zags goal...we gave that away. UP seemed to be a different team in the 2nd half, much better possession. And we won!!

Go Pilots!

Agreed on the Zag's goal. My first reaction was a poorly executed offside trap on the free kick--the guy was that wide open in front of the goal. I think that someone must have just missed his mark.

I know that there were quite a few people down in the Pilot Club tent, so the PK call happened right in front of you. Does anyone there have any insight regarding the PK call? Perhaps someone heard discussion between the referee and the assistant.

Both GoUP and Geeze were right as this one provided some excitement but the Zags seemed to have the bad blood and fire as a pre-existing condition while the men only contracted it once they were caught looking elsewhere, resulting in five yellows and a red between the two teams. They got lucky with a ref that would not tolerate physical play, with the PK probably due to physicality off the throw-in for a normal foul that just happened to occur in the box, according to the recap, hence the center ref rolled the ball outside the 18-yd box on a foul call that might have happened in the box later in the second half. Luke's goal could not be disputed, thanks to the passing and the unfortunate defender.

Special shoutout to Stoney for being a great sub on the internet feed tonight. He sounded comfortable, brought great energy and referenced Icelanders more famous than the Zag's Eysteinsson (Björk and Jón Páll Sigmarsson of the World's Strongest Man competition, a deep pull). Good to know UP and PN has depth for audio commentators.

A great victory for the men, moving them to a tie with idle LMU, as they make the Bay Area trip to USF's Hilltop for a 7 pm start and a Halloween matchup against the Gaels at 1 pm.

The USF game will be available for free here via Yahoo; the SMC game will only have Live stats here (link available at game time), which will be perfect for those with smart phones at Merlo as the women take on USF.

eProf wrote:I know that there were quite a few people down in the Pilot Club tent, so the PK call happened right in front of you. Does anyone there have any insight regarding the PK call? Perhaps someone heard discussion between the referee and the assistant.

I didn't hear the discussion between the center ref and the sideline official, but I was standing about 20 feet behind him when he raised his flag for a foul. My initial reaction was surprise that he called something, but seeing the center official point to the spot and then head over to confer with the side judge leads me to believe that he saw something from the middle to begin with. There were two Zag defenders marking our player with a lot of physical contact. When our guy (don't remember who) went down in the box, he had a handful of blue and red striped jersey, but both officials saw enough that they made the call. Might have been a gift, but as has been pointed out earlier, there was the play at the opposite end of the box that was called outside the box. I'll be willing to go with their judgement on this one. Overall, we dominated play and deserved the result. I love sending Zag fans home with a loss. Their players' mouthing off did even more to endear them to my heart.

Well, we get a lot of information from the Gonzaga site on the calls.

Controversial penalty kick leads to 2-1 Bulldog loss

first off, Stoney is a new Zags hero.

. The Bulldogs surrounded the middle official and protested vehemently, and even the Portland play-by-play announcer on the internet questioned the call.

I wonder if Stoney will get a Zag T-shirt and free tickets to the McArthur center....I understand they already love him on their forums

Second, the headline is a bit misleading. The call only led to a tie. The Zags lost because they sat back and let UP control the midfield for the winning goal. Own up, Zags.



And their coach weighed in on the call, too.

"I don't complain about the referees very often, but that was the worst call I've seen in a long time," Thorarinsson said of the penalty kick call. "They said there was an arm lock. I think he was just looking for something to call. We were kind of homered a little bit, and I don't say that very often."

At least we now know what the call was.

As to the red card at the end of the game -

Flynn was also red carded in the final seconds on a free kick when the official said Flynn punched a Pilot player in the face in the battle for the air ball inside the box, according to Thorarinsson.
"There was no punch," Thorarinsson said.

It means the Bulldogs will be without Flynn next Friday when the Bulldogs travel Saint Mary's College.

well coach, I didn't see the call, but I asked the guy next to me who was looking into the scrum what the call was for, and he just said in half disbelief "the guy punched him in the head" so -- yeah there probably was a punch.

if that's how the ref writes it up, it's a fighting red and Flynn will be gone for 3 games, not one. This may be a case of the coach lobbying for the one game.

What I saw was a Pilot going down in the area, then the referee pointing to the penalty spot on his own. The AR must have had a foul as well because he put his flag up. Don't know what the discussion was but the referee stayed with his decision.

Very perceptive of the writer. The Zags did go for a rousing and embarrassing round of ring around the referee after the penalty. They did it a few more times the rest of the game. This is one of the things that drives me nuts, about as much as diving really.

The first half saw a few too many passes to nowhere, but as the game went on the possession got better. It looked like the winner came from a really tough angle watching from my spot near the halfway line.

AR had his flag up because from my view in the tent the Gonzaga player had hold of the Pilot from the 18' to the end line inside the box.

Gonzaga's players sure like to whine and swear at the officials. "You're f-ing stupid" to the AR in the first half in the west end, then a bunch more f-bombs when the PK was called. I'm surprised that there wasn't a card for dissent then (there was one about 10 minutes later around midfield).

I didn't see a punch, but I was on the wrong end of the field. Looked like our guy got pushed hard while he was in the air.

Nice to get a win.

Geezaldinho wrote:Well, we get a lot of information from the Gonzaga site on the calls.

Controversial penalty kick leads to 2-1 Bulldog loss

first off, Stoney is a new Zags hero.

. The Bulldogs surrounded the middle official and protested vehemently, and even the Portland play-by-play announcer on the internet questioned the call.

I wonder if Stoney will get a Zag T-shirt and free tickets to the McArthur center....I understand they already love him on their forums

Wow... first off, despite DJ Sherman's kindness, I was very rusty on the play-by-play. I was butchering names left and right... it was sad to see.

But anyway... I can't believe they included that in their recap. Not to get all hoity-toity, but that's a silly thing to include in an official recap. Put in your coach's quotes and reaction, of course, but to mention the random internet play-by-play guy? Not sure about that one.

From the press box, I didn't see much that constituted a foul, but I will say that the center official did not hesitate at all about the call - he pointed straight to the penalty spot, then came over to consult with the sideline official (probably because the sideline official also signaled a foul, which I didn't know until reading the forum here), and then again pointed to the spot. So they were in agreement about whatever happened out there.

I get the sense that the penalty kick was more of a cumulation thing than an actual "take down" type play that is typically associated with the penalty kick. Gonzaga had twice as many fouls as Portland in the game (7-3 in the first half, 9-5 in the second) and I saw the ref warning several Zag players throughout the game. In the first half, a Pilot player was taken down in the box with no call. In the second half, a Pilot was fouled in the box, but the ref took the weenie way out and placed the free kick outside the box. On the play that resulted in the PK, this time the ref didn't allow a foul in the box go unpunished. Is that fair to the Zags? Hard to say - personally, what I saw didn't merit a PK. But considering the Zags had been roughing up the Pilots all game and had been warned several times about it, maybe it's what they get for treading on that edge too many times.

As for what happened after, it was pretty bad... the whole team lost their cool, and you just knew that Portland was going to score again because the Zags were too distracted by being pissed at the ref to focus on the game at hand. After Portland took the lead, I didn't know it was possible for a team to get in so many cheap shots in two minutes, but the Zags proved themselves up to the task... a yellow card and a red card in as many minutes.

Overall, the Pilots controlled possession and deserved the win, but man oh man was that a defensive lapse to let Gonzaga score. I mean my goodness, the guy was completely unmarked in the box on a set piece... you just can't allow that to happen.

Given our RPI, we couldn't afford to lose that one if we want to be in the mix for an at-large bid, so it was awesome to see us do what we needed to get the win - I thought Portland played incredibly well in the second half, with great intensity.

No doubt we'll hear from the Geez, but according to NCAA rules he has quoted elsewhere, if a player tell's an official, "You're f-ing stupid," the "f'ing" word makes it an automatic red card. The official is supposed to have no discretion on this. I bet if the officials enforced the rule, it would stop.

What really surprised me when the Zags surrounded the official was that one of them pointed his finger at the ref and jabbed it at him several times. I don't think he made contact with the ref, but it was the most blatant non-physical attack on a ref I've ever seen. The ref did not call anything. One could take that as not being willing to enforce the rules or exercising great restraint.

PS - Maybe the ref was checking with the AR to make sure the AR hadn't raised his flag for an off-sides call. The check was brief.

Here's the rule, which makes it clear any abusive language is a red and the ref MUST enforce it.

12.3.7 Engages in hostile or abusive language or harassment that refers to
race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or national origin, or other abusive,
threatening or obscene language, behavior or conduct;
A.R. 12.3.7.a. If the referee believes that a player, coach or other bench personnel
uses abusive, threatening or obscene language/gestures unintentionally, may the
referee decide not to eject the individual? RULING: No.

As to the CR checking with the AR, the AR was doing the happy flag indicating a foul, not just holding it up for an offside. The CR may have been checking to see if there was a second foul and/or in what order they might have happened.

Stonehouse wrote: I can't believe they included that in their recap. Not to get all hoity-toity, but that's a silly thing to include in an official recap. Put in your coach's quotes and reaction, of course, but to mention the random internet play-by-play guy? Not sure about that one.

where did you get your new Bulldog tatoo done?

UPSoccerFanatic wrote:
What really surprised me when the Zags surrounded the official was that one of them pointed his finger at the ref and jabbed it at him several times. I don't think he made contact with the ref, but it was the most blatant non-physical attack on a ref I've ever seen. The ref did not call anything. One could take that as not being willing to enforce the rules or exercising great restraint.

Kids these days copy what they see in the EPL. Apparently referees do as well. Don't want to "ruin" the game by sending someone off who decides to misbehave.

Geezaldinho wrote:Here's the rule, which makes it clear any abusive language is a red and the ref MUST enforce it.

12.3.7 Engages in hostile or abusive language or harassment that refers to
race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or national origin, or other abusive,
threatening or obscene language, behavior or conduct;
A.R. 12.3.7.a. If the referee believes that a player, coach or other bench personnel
uses abusive, threatening or obscene language/gestures unintentionally, may the
referee decide not to eject the individual? RULING: No.

As to the CR checking with the AR, the AR was doing the happy flag indicating a foul, not just holding it up for an offside. The CR may have been checking to see if there was a second foul and/or in what order they might have happened.

If its directed at the AR and not the CR (lets assume CR didn't hear it), nothing happens?

PilotDrummer wrote:

Geezaldinho wrote:Here's the rule, which makes it clear any abusive language is a red and the ref MUST enforce it.

12.3.7 Engages in hostile or abusive language or harassment that refers to
race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or national origin, or other abusive,
threatening or obscene language, behavior or conduct;
A.R. 12.3.7.a. If the referee believes that a player, coach or other bench personnel
uses abusive, threatening or obscene language/gestures unintentionally, may the
referee decide not to eject the individual? RULING: No.

As to the CR checking with the AR, the AR was doing the happy flag indicating a foul, not just holding it up for an offside. The CR may have been checking to see if there was a second foul and/or in what order they might have happened.

If its directed at the AR and not the CR (lets assume CR didn't hear it), nothing happens?

the said language doesn't have to be directed at anyone. the ref just has to believe it was said.

that can mean he takes the AR's word for it

Geezaldinho wrote:the said language doesn't have to be directed at anyone. the ref just has to believe it was said.

that can mean he takes the AR's word for it

That answers the other question...the AR would have to speak up.