09-30-2018, 11:34 PM
One other positive - the first goal marked the return of Charlie Wehan, who had been out injured for the last couple of weeks. He kept a half-volley DOWN, and hit it under the keeper, which is something a lot of Stanford's forwards on both the men's and women's teams seem to be having trouble with.
Another thing - this double-header thing? Does anyone else think the field is getting REALLY chewed up? I know the dew starts to settle in the early evening, but I've been noticing a LOT more slipping and loss of footing problems. And the goalmouths are not nearly as pristine as I am used to.
Last thing - one alternative theory that I forgot to mention about the jarring habit of the producers ignoring on-field action in favor of shots of someone the commentators are talking about - e.g., in the women's game tonight, with the ball in play on the field, there was about a 10 second shot of Paul Ratcliffe sitting on the bench. AND THEY WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT HIM. While there was a throw-in, a change in possession, and $C moving the ball along the side of the Stanford area.
I wonder if the producers aren't a bit victim of the discontinuous nature of other American sports. In basketball, hockey, but most especially football, baseball, and softball, the action is very limited (what did they say, about 11-12 minutes of live ball action in the average 3.5-4 hour football game?)
They are brought up in a workplace where they are SUPPOSED to do cutaways, and replays, and closeups, and sideline interviews, to take up the time when there is NO actual game action going on. So when they get to soccer, they just seem uncomfortable staying with a high shot that follows the action, and feel like they need to intervene and "liven up" the broadcast, while soccer afficianados, like me, are yelling "SHOW US THE BALL!"
Anyhow, good wins for futbol this weekend, if not for the oblate spheroid kind.
VG
Another thing - this double-header thing? Does anyone else think the field is getting REALLY chewed up? I know the dew starts to settle in the early evening, but I've been noticing a LOT more slipping and loss of footing problems. And the goalmouths are not nearly as pristine as I am used to.
Last thing - one alternative theory that I forgot to mention about the jarring habit of the producers ignoring on-field action in favor of shots of someone the commentators are talking about - e.g., in the women's game tonight, with the ball in play on the field, there was about a 10 second shot of Paul Ratcliffe sitting on the bench. AND THEY WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT HIM. While there was a throw-in, a change in possession, and $C moving the ball along the side of the Stanford area.
I wonder if the producers aren't a bit victim of the discontinuous nature of other American sports. In basketball, hockey, but most especially football, baseball, and softball, the action is very limited (what did they say, about 11-12 minutes of live ball action in the average 3.5-4 hour football game?)
They are brought up in a workplace where they are SUPPOSED to do cutaways, and replays, and closeups, and sideline interviews, to take up the time when there is NO actual game action going on. So when they get to soccer, they just seem uncomfortable staying with a high shot that follows the action, and feel like they need to intervene and "liven up" the broadcast, while soccer afficianados, like me, are yelling "SHOW US THE BALL!"
Anyhow, good wins for futbol this weekend, if not for the oblate spheroid kind.
VG