Delaney: Did the better team win?
The East Syracuse-Minoa/Whitesboro boys soccer game on Tuesday night should not have been played.
Too much was at stake in the Section III Class A semifinal for the match to be played on a snow-covered field at
Players struggled with the footing and were challenged to judge the speed of the ball, which more often than not stopped short of its intended target under the weight of the snow. Speed and possession soccer were taken out of the game at a time of year when those skills should be showcased.
East Syracuse-Minoa looked to be a very good team with some good players, but the Spartans scored in part because a Whitesboro defender slipped. The game could've have been delayed two days, the forecast is more favorable for Thursday, without jeopardizing the Section III finals schedule.
posted by Anne Delaney at
10:41 PM
8 Comments:
Sorry I disagree with this. I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that it should have been postponed but that shouldn't be used as an excuse. You make it sound like Whitesboro had to play on a crappy field while ESM was on a better field and had a big advantage. Both teams had to play in the same conditions and I'm going to guess that Whitesboro wasn't the only team that slid during the game. Maybe a bad decision not to cancel but by no means should it be used as an excuse as to why Whitesboro lost.
The better team won. At least the better team that day won, just like in every other game played on any day in any condition. Weather is not a reason to postpone soccer.
Neither of the two previous comments are anywhere close to accurate. Whitesboro is a quicker and more skilled team plain and simple. So the advantage was definitely in favor of ESM on a field that did not allow for proper play and possession of the ball. On top of that, Whitesboro was the No. 1 seed and should have been allowed to play on a field both closer to home and reasonable in condition.
ESM and their fans can take their rationalizations and keep them. The better team was not the winner, that day or any other day where ESM is concerned. The inaction of Section III and Charlie Engle is inexcusable and he should seriously consider resigning from his post.
Anne Delaney got it right. Whitesboro and their fans deserved better in such an important game. They did not lose to ESM, they lost to Section III, who didn't meet their responsibilities!
I am neither a Whitesboro or ESM fan. In fact I live in the Utica school district and couldn't be less of a soccer fan. I only read the article because it was sports related and I clicked on the headline because it drew my interest. Ask yourself this question. If Whitesboro wins, are you still upset they played the game. It's easy to say yes now but in reality ESM fans would be complaining and Whitesboro would be smiling. The conditions may have been a little rough but both teams had to play in them and the team that played better won. Field conditions are not an excuse on why your team lost because both teams had to deal with it. ESM adjusted better from what I can tell and they won the game. You blame it on section III but remember you wouldn't say a single word about it and everything would be fine if Whitesboro won so stop using their decision as the scapegoat and lose with a little dignity.
Blah... Blah.... Bllllaaahhh.....
You are not a soccer fan, not a fan of either team and, quite obviously by your commments, know nothing about the game of soccer. Therefore you have no context upon which to judge whether or not the game should have been played, nor how the conditions would impact the game. I have played, coached, and officiated this game for over 30 years and know what I am talking about.
You should also learn the difference between a reason and an excuse. We made no excuses for the outcome of the game. However there were substantial REASONS why the game should not have been played under those conditions. The conditions were not "a little rough." Plain and simple, they were dangerous! In addition, it did not allow for a fair level of play between the teams. In fact, the winning goal was a direct result of the field conditions, not the skill of play.
These are not paid athletes that need to meet fan and owner expectations and bring in revenue, they are hard working kids that deserve the best the Section can offer in terms of the game experience and safety. Neither was provided in this game.
Here are the first three items from the NYSPHSAA Code of Ethics:
"1. To emphasize the proper ideals of sportsmanship, ethical conduct and fair play.
2. To eliminate all possibilities which tend to destroy the best values of the game.
3. To stress the values derived from playing the game fairly."
NONE of those were met by allowing a game to be played under such adverse conditions, irregardless of who won or lost. So, I stand by my original comments.
Don't presume to question my dignity or the teams, and don't presume you know what my reaction would be if Whitesboro won. The Whitesboro players walked off that field as winners in their character, as well as in the eyes of their parents and fans, irregardless of the final score.
This will be my last post on this. Do with it what you will. I may not be a soccer fan but I am a sports fan so I know how games, in general, are played. You may not care for my opinion but, it is in face, my opinion so don't tell me what my opinion should be. As far as your opinion it is clear you are extremely biased as a Whitesboro fan. You also told me not to question how you would respond if Whitesboro won but you never actually answered the question. I also never questioned the players dignity as I'm sure they were disappointed but proud of their season and took it as best they could without complaining. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for some of their fans.
You are entitled to your opinion, that's the beauty of these forums. However, there is a big difference between someone who is just talking and someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Further, you want to twist the issue by saying I didn't answer your question, but that is not the issue being discussed. Any fan is disappointed when their team loses, and happy when they win. However, the topic here is whether the game should have been played, the condition of the field, the safety of the players, and ultimately how that impacted the teams play. That is what's relevant, not your implied sour grapes theory.
So despite your blatant implication, Whitesboro players and fans did “take the loss with dignity” as was evident by the sportsmanship after the game as players were congratulated as they left the field. However, if you had actually been at the game you would know that wouldn’t you? So you want to hold your "opinion" even in light of facts presented, be my guest, because that is what I would expect from a "general" sports fan. As the saying goes, "jack of all trades master of none!"
Section III did not live up to their responsibilities and Code of Ethics and, as a result, caused a dangerous situation that negatively impacted the outcome of the game. You want to call it a complaint, you’re darn right, and a fully justified one. Anyone who is a knowledgeable soccer fan would recognize that before commenting. Unfortunately, that can't be said for everyone.
No, the better team did not win, only the team that got lucky in the snow. Shame on whoever allowed the game to be played in those conditions. Each team had worked hard all season to get to that point, and it wasn't fair to either of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home