Chingy Tweets
By: Laurie | July 11th, 2009
Houston player and former USL Sounder Brian Ching (who wasn’t even at the game, given that he was playing for the Nats on the other side of the country today) offers us a little tweet on today’s match.
 |
MLS Forums | MLS Results |  |
 |
Category: Seattle Team News
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments | Add your comment
-
Thanks for pointing to the highlights video on mlsnet, I was able to see the different angles. That is a tough call, I watched the video several times and tried to freeze frame the ball on his foot. One attempt at hitting pause at the right moment did make it look like the ball was over the line, but maybe I’m biased (ya think?!). I wish the video quality was better.
Anyway, the call could have gone either way. If it hadn’t been allowed I would have been disappointed but not calling for the ref’s head.
Posted from
United States
-
was ching watching that game from the dressing room? should have been concentrating on the USA game, you almost lost that game you former sounder.
p.s. Doesn’t Houston have a disproportionate number of former Sounders on their team? I mean their coach is even a former Sounder.
Posted from
United States -
There does seem to be a two-way street between these teams. I know at least Ianni and Jaqua are former Dynamo. And off the top of my head Houston has Chingy, Cam Weaver and Waibel.
Posted from
United States -
I don’t know whether it actually went over the line or not, but the best part about the whole thing is watching the Houston broadcast of the goal, which is convieniently available on MLSnet. If you watch the commentator talking about the goal, he sees that behind the net angle and says there was (paraphrasing) NO WAY that the ball crossed the line, but after seeing the overhead angle he suddenly changes directions and says “its awful hard to speculate from up in the box”. That was the funniest thing i had heard all day.
Posted from
United States -
In Ching’s twitter feed, he later apologized:
“Look i made a rash comment yesterday. I dont know who the ref was. I didnt understand how someone could all a goal when it wasnt 100% clear
I apologize for the comment which i made in the heat of the moment. Everyone tries their best and mistakes happen.”
Posted from
United States -
@rowepower: If you watch the replay again from the behind-the-goal angle, notice that even from behind the goal the ball doesn’t even appear to fully cross the line running through the camera and the post. Thus, there is no way that it crossed the goalline running through both posts.
Posted from
United States -
Woah, did Brian Ching really just comment here???
honestly, refs can change games… sometimes you just get screwed… Seattle has been screwed too. Good teams find ways to win/tie games despite bad breaks or calls that don’t go there way. Houston didn’t and Seattle was the better team. Deal with it, because all the whining and finger pointing in the world won’t change the result.
Posted from
United States -
Ching tweeted an apology today.
“Look i made a rash comment yesterday. I dont know who the ref was. I didnt understand how someone could all a goal when it wasnt 100% clear. I apologize for the comment which i made in the heat of the moment. Everyone tries their best and mistakes happen.”
Dynamo lost, it’s fine, we will see how Seattle does once they start their road trip.
Posted from
United States -
@steve: My point is that from a diagonal angle the ball would have to be a ways across the line in order for it to line up with the post in the frame. Because it’s at a diagnoal angle you can see space between the ball and the post which gives the impression that it didnt cross the line but since the angle is from the back corner and not completely from the side it seems like its not even close. Draw a goal (or rectangle) on a piece of paper then drawn a dot in the corner where the camera was, then draw a line from the dot to the far post. The ball would have to cross this imaginairy line in order to appear to line up with the post in the frame, but as you will notice in order for the ball to go past the post (in this particular angle) it would have to be a couple of feet into the goal in order for it to seem like a legit goal (passing the post in the frame). I sit in the north end so I can see how poorly positioned the camera was.
Look, all im saying is that its an incredibly close call either way so theres no point in pinning this one on the ref. If you compare the available angles side by side and look at where the defenders foot is planted on the ground (almost right on the line) and compare that to his leg extended infront of him you can’t tell me that it’s an obvious can miss call. The behind the net angle is simply awful. But seriously, draw the diagram. The line between the camera and the post is nowhere near the same as the goal line.Posted from
United States -
I meant @DaveS, sorry steve.
Posted from
United States -
@ Rowepower. As a referee I would never say that it was a goal unless absolutely certain. You gotta know, AND you’ve gotta be in the right place in order to sell that call. Otherwise, you just can’t be sure. Hell people with multiple angles and slow motion aren’t sure.
In regards to Ching…I’m really happy he apologized and I’m sorry I was so rude to him to start with. He understands the difference between making a mistake and a bad call, or making a bad call intentionally. I understand that I should’ve been nicer to him about his comments, he’s upset and he deserves to be upset.
Posted from
United States -
@rowepower: Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/mekjoe
The red line is the line straight from the camera through the right post. Watch the MLS replay… the ball never fully crosses that line (it doesn’t cross fully to left side of post from camera angle). Therefore, it CAN NOT have crossed the goal line.
Posted from
United States -
i don’t believe the ball crossed the line but like dustin said people make mistakes . i guess we’re all gonna be looking forward to the next dynamo/sounders game down here in tha H . lets see if the the sounders can handle the 100+ degree heat . [[Forever Orange]]
Posted from
United States -
@DaveS: I appreciate the diagram, however, you have the camera on the wrong side of the goal. If you don’t believe me (I sit in the north end, and the camera in question is right in front of me) then watch the regular replay from the press-box angle you will see the camera on the far side of the goal about ten yards away and five yards from the touchline, not on the near side as your diagram suggests. Further evidence is that the defenders body is in the foreground not blocked by the post while Montero’s body is in the background, this scenario would be flipped had the camera angle been from the near side. Im not trying to be a jerk, but the redline should have crossed through middle of the goal to get through the post (the camera was looking through the netting of the goal) and not in front of the goal. If your diagram was correct the shot would have been cleared about a yard in front of the net which is just absolutely ridiculous.
Im not trying to upset anyone, my only point was that there is no clear evidence either way that it was a goal or not. Based on the dynamo’s reactions they made it seem like it was obviously not a goal when in fact it could have gone either way. No matter what the call was there would have been an upset party involved. It’s an imperfect game and should be embraced as such: sometimes the breaks go your way and the fifty fifty calls get called in your favor and sometimes they do not. It was a tough break for the dynamo and they should have been upset, yet I was simply surprised how personal Ching and the head coach got with some of their comments towards the linesman. That’s all. Im glad Ching apologized because I like him and those comments seemed out of character for him. I think maybe he watched the other replays which show more clearly how close of a call it was and realized that it was a mistake that could have gone either way, and not an outright blown call. The ref is in decent position to make the call on the endline and I have no doubt in my mind that he was 100% percent positive that it was a goal, his flag went up right away signifying a goal immediately. Whether or not it was truly a goal is definately up for debate since we have slow mo and freeze frame. The ref did what he was supposed to and made the call right away and made the call that he though was right (I would understand the outrage had he made a late call, or called it a goal after the fans or players prodded him to). Attacking him for doing his job seems a little cheesy thats my only point. I brought up the behind the net angle because that replay is what got the coaches and players fired up at the time, when really its a very poor perspective. I have no doubt in my mind that Ching and his team mates have cooled off some after watching replays and realizing that it was much closer than the farside behind the net angle seems to show.I am truly sorry if I upset anyone, I just thought I should share my experience in the north end.
Posted from
United States -
@rowepower http://tinyurl.com/nd5lor
Skip to the :55 second mark. I’m not sure which shot you are talking about, but it doesn’t matter… the :55 mark in that video is incontrovertible geometric proof that the ball didn’t cross the goal line… IT DIDN’T EVEN CROSS THE LINE FROM CAMERA THROUGH THE POST. I’m not saying my diagram was to scale and had perfect angles, but it doesn’t matter… as long as the camera was on the goal line or behind it, it is physically impossible for the ball to have crossed the goal line since it didn’t even cross the line of sight of camera.
And, no… you didn’t upset anyone as far as I can tell.
Posted from
United States -
Hmmm… that URL is broken… the end of it should say
video.jsp?content_id=5528949
Posted from
United States -
Also, I’m not griping about the ref–I’m happy to see my team get a lucky break for once.
I’m only “arguing” about it because I think its interesting to derive the actual result by observing the poor video that we have available.Posted from
United States -
Hey Dave, I’m still not sure what video you are going off of, but in my post I was trying to describe the main replay they used on the big screen filmed from the end-line camera in the north end. That angle can be see in this screencap:
The location of the camera that filmed this angle can be confirmed in this screen cap which was taken from the main broadcast camera:
The diagram I was referring to would look like this from a true straight on birds eye angle (the circle is the camera, the orange is the defense, the green is FREDY!):
Notice that in order for the ball to line up with the post in our line of sight (the green line) from the behind end-line angle, the ball would have to be past the end-line (the red line) by a large margin in order to “line up” with the post from this perspective.
Im not sure if this was what you were talking about or not, I only thought this was the angle you were referring to because its the only angle besides the regular broadcast angle and the zoomed in sideline angle that I have seen. It would be interesting to see if someone got some good footage with a home video.
Im not using these pictures as proof that it was in fact a goal. In actuality, it was only my intent to show how poor the behind the net angle was, and how it may have led to more anger than was absolutely necessary since its so far to the side and behind but zoomed in it can distort depth perception. Im still not convinced if it was or wasn’t a goal other than the fact it was an awesome play (by both teams I suppose).
Posted from
United States -
Here, @rowepower. You’ll see from the screencap here (at exact instant ball is kicked by defender) that this image IS proof that the ball didn’t cross the line:
The ball is ON THE RED LINE, occluded by the post. The diagram on the right shows that the ball lies on the orange segment of the line. It is physically impossible for the ball to have crossed because it would require it to be in two places at once.
Wow, we took this pretty far. Haha. And yes, Montero’s handling of the inbound ball with chest was worth the point either way.
Posted from
United States -
And if you’re curious, you can go to the video from which that was captured (linked above) and step frame by frame to confirm that this is indeed the exact instant where the ball was kicked. It’s pretty clear from stepping and watching motion that there isn’t some lost time between frames.
Posted from
United States -
Haha, I wish you had shown me that before. My bad Dave, I thought you where talking about the replay on the big screen.
Posted from
United States -
Wow, guys. I’m feeling totally geeked out right now.
Posted from
United States -
I just want to say: sorry for wasting everyones time. Dave, you are a gentleman and a scholar, I differ to you in all freeze frame related matters for the rest of the year.
Posted from
United States -
Laurie, I’m feeling pretty ashamed, myself.
Posted from
United States -
Don’t be, Dave and Rowe. Over on the Goal Seattle boards, Carlos was reflecting (half-seriously) on the fact that if you knew the exact time of the goal, you could determine the position of the sun, and then look at a photo and use trigonometry to determine where the shadow would fall if the ball had, in fact crossed the line. This thread is pretty tame compared to that.
(I actually find both threads hugely entertaining.)
Posted from
United States
Read the rest of the comments
Leave a Reply
If you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse ourCommenting Guidelines.
Home 
