OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Beer and Queso => Topic started by: Tralfaz on June 10, 2010, 12:15:04 pm
-
Happy World Cup Eve all.
It's hard not to think the final will come down to Brasil v Espania, but there are always suprises in store. I like Uruguay over France tomorrow, as the French may have already surrendered. Gotta go with my home boys over England Saturday, just because. Holland are my dark horse with Ribbery, Robben and Snieder running riot on everyone. Messi will
wilt without his Barcalona supporting cast, and hell Maradona is bat ass crazy. Injuries to Drogba and Nani will weigh heavy on the Ivory Coast and Portugal. The ball is a ball, quit yer cryin' keepers and I'll take the over on the number of super models in attendence to fawn over Ronaldo's abb's.
This monster will be covered like no other sporting event in history, can't wait!
-
Here is an awesome "wall chart" (http://www.marca.com/deporte/futbol/mundial/sudafrica-2010/calendario-english.html), which is a great interface for finding out who, what, where and when.
-
Very cool.
Problem is, it's in English and I can only read in Spanish, Italian, or Portuguese when looking at American Soccer stuff.
-
My favorite sporting event but just makes it that much more painful when my team exits. Four years is a long wait for "maybe next time". Hope the injuries and bad ref calls stay to a minimum (though that injury ship has sailed). US fans don't dispair when/if they lose Saturday as getting to the knockout stages is the real objective. Good luck to your country whoever they might be.
Viva Espana! La Furia Roja !!!
-
Messi will wilt without his Barcalona supporting cast, and hell Maradona is bat ass crazy.
Supposedly Maradona is going with three forwards and only three in front of the keeper...will be some wild games with them once the knockout rounds start.
Bet against Messi at your own risk.
Oh and fuck Ronaldo.
-
Here is an awesome "wall chart" (http://www.marca.com/deporte/futbol/mundial/sudafrica-2010/calendario-english.html), which is a great interface for finding out who, what, where and when.
What are those in central time? Are we 8 hrs back?
-
What are those in central time? Are we 8 hrs back?
Correct...ion
7 hours. 20:30 games kick off at 1:30pm CDT.
-
Correct...ion
7 hours. 20:30 games kick off at 1:30pm CDT.
I looked it up too, and what I saw said South Africa is GMT+2 (I thought it was +1). But an online clock showed them only 7 hours ahead...UK is 6...damn summer time!
Plus, it's fall there...who lives in such places?
-
After careful consideration I think I am adopting Uruguay this time around.
-
Bet against Messi at your own risk.
A fools bet for sure, but while he excels under the Barca system that is built to provide for him, I have yet to see it translate when he puts on an Argentina shirt. Speaking of fools, I think it's absolutely shocking that Maradona has been given the reigns to this team.
-
A fools bet for sure, but while he excels under the Barca system that is built to provide for him, I have yet to see it translate when he puts on an Argentina shirt. Speaking of fools, I think it's absolutely shocking that Maradona has been given the reigns to this team.
When God himself works through you (or his hand anyways), I guess that qualifies you to be a futbol coach.
Messi may not have Xavi or Iniesta feeding him but he won't be going up against anyone like Inter, ManU, or Chelsea so it is all relative. They are the type that may win it all or not even make it out of their group.
-
After careful consideration I think I am adopting Uruguay this time around.
They're in the Group of Death™, but the Cote d'Ivoire became a little less deadly when Drogba went down with elbow-knack.
-
They're in the Group of Death™, but the Cote d'Ivoire became a little less deadly when Drogba went down with elbow-knack.
Someone has hit the pub a little early...unless France, Mexico, and South Africa are now scary. To be fair, any Group of Death with North Korea regardless of Brazil, IC, and Portugal isnt much of G.o.D anyways.
-
Someone has hit the pub a little early...unless France, Mexico, and South Africa are now scary. To be fair, any Group of Death with North Korea regardless of Brazil, IC, and Portugal isnt much of G.o.D anyways.
IIRC, no host nation has ever failed to reach the round of 16. That includes 2002 when both Japan and South Korea made it to the knockout stage. Underestimate South Africa, and their home field advantage, at your peril. France and Mexico are strong contenders for the second round too, so two teams are going to be disappointed.
-
IIRC, no host nation has ever failed to reach the round of 16. That includes 2002 when both Japan and South Korea made it to the knockout stage. Underestimate South Africa, and their home field advantage, at your peril. France and Mexico are strong contenders for the second round too, so two teams are going to be disappointed.
I dont disagree with any of that...I thought you misplaced Uruguay in with Ivory Coast's group.
-
I dont disagree with any of that...I thought you misplaced Uruguay in with Ivory Coast's group.
I did. I was just breezing by my own error.
-
Hey young world! I'm waking up at 6:00 am Oakland time tomorrow, or 1213413412 GMT to travel to SF to watch the Mexico game. In case I don't make it back and this ends up being my last post ever-- go 'stros, go life, built to spill there's nothing wrong with love.
-
Hey young world! I'm waking up at 6:00 am Oakland time tomorrow, or 1213413412 GMT to travel to SF to watch the Mexico game. In case I don't make it back and this ends up being my last post ever-- go 'stros, go life, built to spill there's nothing wrong with love.
Salud.
-
Hey young world! I'm waking up at 6:00 am Oakland time tomorrow, or 1213413412 GMT to travel to SF to watch the Mexico game. In case I don't make it back and this ends up being my last post ever-- go 'stros, go life, built to spill there's nothing wrong with love.
They don't have cable TV in Oakland? You're going to root vocally for South Africa in a Valencia Street bar? State funding cuts have not meant that BART suspends early service on Fridays?
So many questions.
-
ESPNs coverage is shit so far this morning. Dropped/bad audio, dropped video feeds, playing the wrong clips, etc
-
Has anybody (Limey) found a way to stream the matches on your iPhone? Apparently ITV has a free app, but it appears to be available only in the UK.
-
ANyone have an online link for this?
-
Look here (http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/348767/2010_fifa_world_cup_your_definitive_technology_guide/)
-
IIRC, no host nation has ever failed to reach the round of 16.
Perhaps we just saw why
-
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
-
SA strikes first!
-
SA strikes first!
No host nation has either (1) lost it's first game or (2) failed to make it out of the group.
Tough plowing for Alkie's gauchos.
-
Great save by the SA GK!
-
Mexico ties it!
-
Finally.
-
Mexico is 3-18-5 all time when allowing the first goal in a World Cup match.
-
He'll have nightmares about that miss at 89:20
-
There are about 12 reasons I hate this silly fucking sport.
Ties is at the top.
-
This is an awesome match! Rare for opening matches usually as most squads will play defensively and try to minimize mistakes. These two squads are playing all out, the type of match that wins the hearts of neo-fans too!
-
It's over. 1-1.
-
There are about 12 reasons I hate this silly fucking sport.
Ties is at the top.
Exactly.
-
There are about 12 reasons I hate this silly fucking sport.
Ties is at the top.
This is different though, these two squads are not *playing* for a tie. I didn't like the old college four corners strategy either, but I understood it at the end of the day. But this time, this match, these two were not playing to tie, they were playing to win.
-
It's over. 1-1.
Mexico is going to need a week to recover from running all around the pitch chasing these S. Afrikaners. These guys were flying all around the pitch!
-
When does France-Uruguay start? That's going to be a wild one as well. What a tough group.
-
When does France-Uruguay start? That's going to be a wild one as well. What a tough group.
2PM EDT
-
This is different though, these two squads are not *playing* for a tie. I didn't like the old college four corners strategy either, but I understood it at the end of the day. But this time, this match, these two were not playing to tie, they were playing to win.
Ok, that's fine. But this is the tournament. The one they only hold every four years. Play it out. This isn't Little League. There should be a winner and a loser. Who are they protecting with this tie shit?
-
Ok, that's fine. But this is the tournament. The one they only hold every four years. Play it out. This isn't Little League. There should be a winner and a loser. Who are they protecting with this tie shit?
Just a couple more games, Alkie. Then there will be no more ties.
-
Just a couple more games, Alkie. Then there will be no more ties.
I get that. But again, there's all this buildup for this game. Literally years. And then..............tie? No one won?
Go home? You didn't win. You didn't lose.
How is this not like going on a hot date with a person who is really in to you and then agreeing, without sex, to never meet again?
Tie? We tied? Sorry, folks, we weren't clever enough to write an ENDING to this movie. Go home.
-
I get that. But again, there's all this buildup for this game. Literally years. And then..............tie? No one won?
Go home? You didn't win. You didn't lose.
How is this not like going on a hot date with a person who is really in to you and then agreeing, without sex, to never meet again?
Tie? We tied? Sorry, folks, we weren't clever enough to write an ENDING to this movie. Go home.
Dude.
-
I get that. But again, there's all this buildup for this game. Literally years. And then..............tie? No one won?
Go home? You didn't win. You didn't lose.
How is this not like going on a hot date with a person who is really in to you and then agreeing, without sex, to never meet again?
Tie? We tied? Sorry, folks, we weren't clever enough to write an ENDING to this movie. Go home.
Sounds like you need to release all that pent up frustration. I know just the thing.
-
Ok, that's fine. But this is the tournament. The one they only hold every four years. Play it out. This isn't Little League. There should be a winner and a loser. Who are they protecting with this tie shit?
Well, it's not like the NCAA tournament (win or go home). It is a round robin first round and you advanced by points accumlated. In a way, you are playing for something... points... in the first round. You want to assure you're going to advance... then score points. If you evaluate your group, you have to ask yourself "where will our points come from?". If you don't think you can beat France, you have to think about playing for a tie (and making sure you use a counter-attack strategy and settle for the tie if you have to, but by no means allow France to score three points with a win). If you think X amount of points will move you along to the next round, then you need to figure out where you will get at least one three point win. For Mexico, it may have been against S. Africa and that is why I think they played to win and not to tie. That a tie happened is not necessarily the thing to look at, it's how they played. Now Mexico will have to find a win either against France or Uruguay. Guess what, that is NOT going to be easy. That makes the next two matches ones to really follow because if Mexico has to open it up (and not play counter-attack but full attack futbol) then goals are going to fall.
Zach, you've got to be excited for the possibilities here and not the fact that this ended in a tie. Now in the next rounds where it's win or go home, then yeah... you betcha ties are not going to be strategic. The irony here is that the last thing Mexico wanted was only one point out of this match. The. Last. Thing. South Africa is in the same boat, they need a win from Uruguay or France and now most pundits are saying France has a bullseye on it's back from all other teams.
Nice!
-
Dude.
Yes.
-
If you don't think you can beat France, you have to think about playing for a tie (and making sure you use a counter-attack strategy and settle for the tie if you have to, but by no means allow France to score three points with a win).
Yeah. No. I disagree with this. If you don't think you can beat France, find a strategy to try to do it anyway. Can't beat France? Then you get to stop playing now. Why should I be excited that proven inferior teams be allowed to move on?
I gotta be honest, this entire thread makes it sound like I'm a lot more invested in this than I am. Frankly, once the WC ends, I stop thinking about soccer entirely for four more years, so I'll back out now, be happyish when one of my adopted teams wins (not ties), and let those of you that actually care about the sport enjoy it.
-
Just a couple more games, Alkie. Then there will be no more ties.
Sooner than you think. Most 3rd games in the group are win-or-go-home situations.
-
I get that. But again, there's all this buildup for this game. Literally years. And then..............tie? No one won?
Go home? You didn't win. You didn't lose.
How is this not like going on a hot date with a person who is really in to you and then agreeing, without sex, to never meet again?
Tie? We tied? Sorry, folks, we weren't clever enough to write an ENDING to this movie. Go home.
In the NCAA tournament for baseball, the regionals actually allow teams that *loss* to hang around and play some more and in some cases... even win from a "losers" bracket. A "losers" bracket? What? See all tournaments have their idocyncracies. In this World Cup tournament, it would be kind of lousy to prepare four years and then get sent home on Day 1. It may not be everyone's cup of tea admittedly, but there is excitement in this if you look for it.
-
Sooner than you think. Most 3rd games in the group are win-or-go-home situations.
Eggszactly. If Mexico cannot beat France, but only gets a tie, then they're in a win-or-go home situation against Uruguay because three points won't get you to the next round. Not in this group.
-
Yeah. No. I disagree with this. If you don't think you can beat France, find a strategy to try to do it anyway.
Counter-attack is eggszactly the strategy to beat a team that may be superior to you. You play your midfielders back instead of in an attack mode and if you draw in the other midfielders and are able to mount a "counter-attack" that develops quickly, you will catch them all *up* and you have a huge chance to win. You're not trying to lose by any means at any time. You settle for a tie but try for the win. It's not that you purposely want a tie, you settle for it if you have to. Big difference.
Can't beat France? Then you get to stop playing now. Why should I be excited that proven inferior teams be allowed to move on?
You can beat France, just like the USA Hockey team in 1980 beat the Russians (Should USA in 1980 not have been allowed in the tournament at all?). But you have to employ the best strategy to do so. If you push up and attack, a good squad like the French will exploit how hard you are pushing up and they have some good strikers and midfielders to make you rue the day you tried to do this. Strategically, you want to minimize your mistakes by playing back and maximize your chances by counter-attacking. What happened today with the S. Afrikaners is that they use a counter-attack strategy against the better Mexican side and it worked, almost for a win, but good enough for a tie. The pressure applied at the end of the match by both sides told you just how much both wanted to win because the next two matches for each are not going to be easy. Not impossible, just not easy.
I gotta be honest, this entire thread makes it sound like I'm a lot more invested in this than I am. Frankly, once the WC ends, I stop thinking about soccer entirely for four more years, so I'll back out now, be happyish when one of my adopted teams wins (not ties), and let those of you that actually care about the sport enjoy it.
Gotcha. I enjoy the sport and the outcome is conducive to excitement if you look at the entire picture of the tournament play. This is now set up for some wild matches ahead. Mexico should have won and that would have made the next two matches a defensive, play for the tie strategy. Now all bets are off.
-
Noe,
What does the Miracle on Ice have to do with this?
-
Noe,
What does the Miracle on Ice have to do with this?
Tournament, round robin, points to advance... inferior beats superior. Fun!
-
Fun!
Come on man its flipping soccer!
-
Noe,
What does the Miracle on Ice have to do with this?
That we can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
-
Yes.
You should be a lot less Windows and a lot more Mac about this.
-
And then..............tie? No one won?
I like to think that everyone won.
-
Ha! Have you seen this new Dodge commercial with Gen. Washington charging the British in a Charger?
-
Ha! Have you seen this new Dodge commercial with Gen. Washington charging the British in a Charger?
Epic Fail. Now I think I hate us too.
-
Epic Fail. Now I think I hate us too.
Swing and a miss on the punchline, but it was funny up to that point.
And, yes, grossly arrogant. Hopefully only airing in the States (what's youtube?)
-
That we can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
I'm far too disinterested in this topic to read through it in its entirety and see if I've been Cabrera'd, so let me just throw this out there: this isn't about Communist subversion, it's a Liberal plot to destroy America (http://deadspin.com/5560673/)...
-
Does every other country send its own announcers to cover games while the US just takes the British feed because, well, close enough?
-
Does every other country send its own announcers to cover games while the US just takes the British feed because, well, close enough?
Last time the announcers covered the game from a studio in Connecticut. And the British announcer is the American announcer.
-
You should be a lot less Windows and a lot more Mac about this.
You'd think, wouldn't you.
-
A draw for South Africa against Mexico is a win for the host nation, imo. That's Mexico easiest opponent, they needed a win as was apparent from their attacking game plan. South Africa and their fans are very happy tonight.
-
Hey, it's Lurch on the front page of ESPN right now!
ETA: Here is a link (http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0611/soc_g_arevalo_gourcuff_614.jpg), so that when it rotates off the front page you can still see it.
-
A draw for South Africa against Mexico is a win for the host nation, imo. That's Mexico easiest opponent, they needed a win as was apparent from their attacking game plan. South Africa and their fans are very happy tonight.
I'm happy to see Mexico not get a win.
-
You should be a lot less Windows and a lot more Mac about this.
You mean less suggesting and more loving and pimping unconditionally? I see.
-
Hey, it's Lurch on the front page of ESPN right now!
ETA: Here is a link (http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0611/soc_g_arevalo_gourcuff_614.jpg), so that when it rotates off the front page you can still see it.
I'm sure that guy is much more successful landing the ladies in spite of the unibrow than I ever was.
-
After careful consideration I think I am adopting Uruguay this time around.
No ground lost against the Frenchies. Alkie's favorite score, nil-nil.
-
And the even more pure, 0-0 tie in the France-Uruguay game. Uruguay did a noble job fending off a furious French attack (sic) despite being one man down the final 10+ minutes of the match.
-
France and Uruguay owe me, and more importantly, my boss, two hours.
Dire shit. And even though Forlan (http://www.footiesource.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/diegoforlan.jpg) is a dead ringer for Randy West, he needs Randy's aim because he was way off target today.
-
I'm far too disinterested in this topic to read through it in its entirety and see if I've been Cabrera'd, so let me just throw this out there: this isn't about Communist subversion, it's a Liberal plot to destroy America (http://deadspin.com/5560673/)...
"So put that in your vuvuzela and blow"
I already hate the damn thing. At least the England's barmy army bring a brass band (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjVd54E2e_U&feature=related)!
-
"So put that in your vuvuzela and blow"
I already hate the damn thing.
No shit. It's going to be a long month.
-
Swing and a miss on the punchline, but it was funny up to that point.
And, yes, grossly arrogant. Hopefully only airing in the States (what's youtube?)
For anyone that missed this ridiculousness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMRMW1FXSHw&feature=player_embedded). Chrysler is aiming for that magic demographic of soccer-watching muscle car buyers.
-
For anyone that missed this ridiculousness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMRMW1FXSHw&feature=player_embedded). Chrysler is aiming for that magic demographic of soccer-watching muscle car buyers.
The ad is made for the small but dedicated segment of the population that doesn't realize Stephen Colbert is satire.
-
No ground lost against the Frenchies. Alkie's favorite score, nil-nil.
I like soccer partly because I can really get into a nil-nil game and feel perfectly satisfied with the result.
-
I like soccer partly because I can really get into a nil-nil game and feel perfectly satisfied with the result.
I've watched nil-nil games that have been spectacular, and 4-3 games that have been total rubbish.
-
I've watched nil-nil baseball games that have been spectacular, and 4-3 baseball games that have been total rubbish.
-
Hey everybody. I'm back and alive. Though apparently you shouldn't yell "go beaners!" in a public place during a Mexico world cup match. Who knew?
-
Hey everybody. I'm back and alive. Though apparently you shouldn't yell "go beaners!" in a public place during a Mexico world cup match. Who knew?
Just assure anyone whose feathers get a little ruffled that you'll have plenty of work for them in your next video.
-
Hey everybody. I'm back and alive. Though apparently you shouldn't yell "go beaners!" in a public place during a Mexico world cup match. Who knew?
The "I <3 AZ" t-shirt probably didn't help.
-
I'm sorry, no one else here has a problem with the three-letter abbreviation they use for the African nation of Nigeria?
-
I'm sorry, no one else here has a problem with the three-letter abbreviation they use for the African nation of Nigeria?
Are "NIG" or "NGR" any better?
-
I'm sorry, no one else here has a problem with the three-letter abbreviation they use for the African nation of Nigeria?
What do they use?
-
What do they use?
NGA
-
I've discovered that if you're American and were planning to root for England, all you have to do is watch about 20 minutes of video of English soccer fans. I'm about 90% cured. I have this sinking feeling that by the match today, I'll find it near impossible to root for England.
Dammit.
I was really not planning to root for the Colonists.
-
NGA
Why would I have a problem with that?
-
Are "NIG" or "NGR" any better?
No, I thought about that. There are few abbreviations that don't say the same thing, but really? Why not NIA or NIR or NGI?
I mean, c'mon. Someone in the truck has a say in this shit and decided NGA was a'ok?
-
I mean, c'mon. Someone in the truck has a say in this shit and decided NGA was a'ok?
Country abbreviations are determined by the United Nations and are maintained by the International Organization for Standardization. "NGA" is not a creation of ESPN.
-
Country abbreviations are determined by the United Nations and are maintained by the International Organization for Standardization. "NGA" is not a creation of ESPN.
Is that right? Then I take it back.
-
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/ctycodes.htm
Niger uses NER which leaves NIR open for Nigeria, but then NI and NR are taken for two letter abbreviations. In any case, I would be amazed if anyone in Nigeria gave a shit.
-
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/ctycodes.htm
Niger uses NER which leaves NIR open for Nigeria, but then NI and NR are taken for two letter abbreviations. In any case, I would be amazed if anyone in Nigeria gave a shit.
Oh I wasn't worried about how the Nigerians felt about it. I couldn't imagine they gave a fuck what Americans thought.
-
Let me tell you something.
The USA? Doesn't play soccer. This is not our sport. This is not our tournament. Let the countries that give a shit have it.
-
What's up with the ugly florescent orange shoes?
-
What's up with the ugly florescent orange shoes?
You've not spent much time living in Europe or South America I see.
That color es muy guapo, gracias.
-
The US defense is completely disorganized. They're going to give up 4 goals today.
-
The US defense is completely disorganized. They're going to give up 4 goals today.
Minimum. Should be 2-0 already.
-
Is South Africa under attack from a giant swarm of bees?
-
You've not spent much time living in Europe or South America I see.
That color es muy guapo, gracias.
So it's a fashion statement? Egad.
-
Is South Africa under attack from a giant swarm of bees?
Reason #4 I hate this silly fucking sport. And the Oakland Athletics.
-
Is South Africa under attack from a giant swarm of bees?
Yes...they are South Africanized bees. They're not really killers, they're just annoying as hell.
-
Why is the US goalkeeper such a puss?
-
What are they doing to make that terrible noise?
-
Why is the US goalkeeper such a puss?
Why don't they stop the clock when there's a timeout on the field?
-
Why is the US goalkeeper such a puss?
It's part of this silly sport. These are, almost without question, the best athletes on Earth, but when they get breathed on wrong, they have to pretend they've been injected with deadly poison.
-
What are they doing to make that terrible noise?
They passed out kazoos.
-
Why don't they stop the clock when there's a timeout on the field?
Then everyone would know how much time is left in the game
-
Why don't they stop the clock when there's a timeout on the field?
Reason #2.
They're called timeclocks. They've been around for decades and are relatively cheap. I recommend FIFA look in to those. It might cut down on the ridiculous, arbitrary "stoppage time" thing (reason #6).
-
These are, almost without question, the best athletes on Earth
I don't know...I bet they have lousy hand/eye coordination.
-
They passed out kazoos.
If you want to call those kazoos. They're as long as my arm. And everyone has one.
You seriously have to wonder who thought this was an awesome idea. Why not C Battery Night?
-
Reason #2.
They're called timeclocks. They've been around for decades and are relatively cheap. I recommend FIFA look in to those. It might cut down on the ridiculous, arbitrary "stoppage time" thing (reason #6).
I'm beginning to think soccer is the dumbest sport ever invented.
-
If you want to call those kazoos. They're as long as my arm.
Mine's as long as your arm, but I don't call it "kazoo".
-
I'm beginning to think soccer is the dumbest sport ever invented.
Yeah, you watch enough of it (34 minutes) and you come to that conclusion.
I had an Englishman explain it to me before. The game itself is secondary. The reason everyone gets in to it (the fans, I don't mean the players) is the country-wide tailgating party for each match. It's about community and alcohol and sex and singing and shit. Americans tailgate at football games, so we don't need soccer. It made sense to me, especially since the game itself (soccer) is a fundamental nightmare.
-
Mine's as long as your arm, but I don't call it "kazoo".
Half-yard Hudson, that's what they call him.
-
Half-yard Hudson, that's what they call him.
Piss him off and see how far he can run you down before getting winded?
-
Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.
-
Flipped back to the Astros game momentarily. How did the US score?
-
Flipped back to the Astros game momentarily. How did the US score?
You have to see it.
-
Flipped back to the Astros game momentarily. How did the US score?
The US kicked the ball toward the goal and the English goalkeeper tried some "Ole shit" and it rolled right up his arm into the goal.
-
The US kicked the ball toward the goal and the English goalkeeper tried some "Ole shit" and it rolled right up his arm into the goal.
Let's be fair here. USA didn't kick it toward the goal, they kicked it RIGHT AT THE KEEPER.
-
Let's be fair here. USA didn't kick it toward the goal, they kicked it RIGHT AT THE KEEPER.
Is the goal keeper going to get shot when he gets back home?
-
Is the goal keeper going to get shot when he gets back home?
If he was South American, his entire family would already be dead.
-
He would in Colombia. In England he'll simply be shunned.
-
The US kicked the ball toward the goal and the English goalkeeper tried some "Ole shit" and it rolled right up his arm into the goal.
So it will be replayed on some ESPN affiliate upteen thousand times? Maybe I can catch one.
-
I didn't know Flea played soccer for England.
-
Are the goal keepers allowed to wear any gaudy uniform they'd like?
-
So it will be replayed on some ESPN affiliate upteen thousand times? Maybe I can catch one.
It's really quite remarkable. You could watch a month of kids' league games and not see a screw-up as egregious.
-
I didn't know Flea played soccer for England.
One of their best players.
His wife aight. Or used to be.
-
Are the goal keepers allowed to wear any gaudy uniform they'd like?
Oui.
Reason #7. Uniforms? Why should I know which team the keeper plays for?
-
Are the goal keepers allowed to wear any gaudy uniform they'd like?
I think it's supposed to be related to the team's color scheme, but it's supposed to be distinctive so that a) other players know he's the keeper (because he enjoys some protection) and b) the referee can easily identify that he's the fellow allowed to use his hands.
-
I think it's supposed to be related to the team's color scheme, but it's supposed to be distinctive so that a) other players know he's the keeper (because he enjoys some protection) and b) the referee can easily identify that he's the fellow allowed to use his hands.
Right. USA. Red, white, blue, and fluorescent orange.
-
It's really quite remarkable. You could watch a month of kids' league games and not see a screw-up as egregious.
oh. WOW.
just WOW.
-
oh. WOW.
just WOW.
See?
-
Right. USA. Red, white, blue, and fluorescent orange.
Matches the shoes.
-
See?
No shit. How the FUCK did that happen? Did he have a mini-stroke at that nanosecond?
-
No shit. How the FUCK did that happen? Did he have a mini-stroke at that nanosecond?
It's so bad, you almost have to count it as an own-goal on the keeper.
-
Fuck England. The queen is a whore.
-
The U.S. is fortunate to have only allowed 1 goal in the first half. Their defense has given England way too many good scoring chances.
-
OK...who wants watermelon?
-
How long is halftime?
-
The U.S. is fortunate to have only allowed 1 goal in the first half. Their defense has given England way too many good scoring chances.
having a real goalkeeper seems to make a difference
-
How long is halftime?
Considering no one knows how long the *halves* are, does it matter?
And where are the dancing girls?
-
having a real goalkeeper seems to make a difference
Gotta be the shoes, Money.
-
Considering no one knows how long the *halves* are, does it matter?
And where are the dancing girls?
I think it's interesting that over the course of one half of soccer, you've come to the exact same conclusion as I have regarding this sport.
Wait till this ends in a tie and, after 6 months of build up, no one gets to celebrate a goddamn thing.
-
Why is the USA guy still rolling around on the ground like he's been shot?
-
It would be legal to go deer hunting in that goalie's outfit.
-
Why is the USA guy still rolling around on the ground like he's been shot?
See above.
Quick-acting, deadly poison.
-
It's clear that Onyewu isn't sufficiently recovered to play at this level. Can we get a real defender in there, please?
-
It's clear that Onyewu isn't sufficiently recovered to play at this level. Can we get a real defender in there, please?
Where's Mario Williams.
-
Ok, someone who likes this sport, explain offsides to me.
Why is a team penalized for getting someone wide open and hitting them with a perfect pass ahead/behind the defense?
-
Where's Mario Williams.
He'd be carded out of the game within 5 minutes. But those 5 minutes would be awesome.
-
All seriousness aside...is there a range of time a typical soccer game lasts?
-
OK...who wants watermelon?
Racist
-
All seriousness aside...is there a range of time a typical soccer game lasts?
90 minutes plus a completely arbitrary, rounded-to-a-madeup-minute additional set of minutes based on.....something.
-
Racist
Thank you. Where the fuck have you been?
-
Ok, someone who likes this sport, explain offsides to me.
Why is a team penalized for getting someone wide open and hitting them with a perfect pass ahead/behind the defense?
Wait till you see the offsides trap D
-
Ok, someone who likes this sport, explain offsides to me.
Offsides is when a player crosses the opponents blue line before the puck.
-
Ok, someone who likes this sport, explain offsides to me.
Why is a team penalized for getting someone wide open and hitting them with a perfect pass ahead/behind the defense?
If you're on the attacking half of the field, there must be two defenders (usually the keeper and somebody else) between you and the goal line when a pass is made to you. The point is to keep people from camping out in the box and cherry-picking. Same idea as blue-line offsides in hockey. The key point is that the decision is made when the pass is made, not when you receive the pass.
-
Ok, someone who likes this sport, explain offsides to me.
Why is a team penalized for getting someone wide open and hitting them with a perfect pass ahead/behind the defense?
This is the main argument I have with my husband (who loves soccer) all the time. It's a stupid fucking rule. If you want to control the zones of play, do something like hockey offsides.
-
Racist
Huh? Seriously...it's hot as fuck here today...I just cut up a watermelon I've had in the fridge. It's really good.
-
If you're on the attacking half of the field, there must be two defenders (usually the keeper and somebody else) between you and the goal line when a pass is made to you. The point is to keep people from camping out in the box and cherry-picking. Same idea as blue-line offsides in hockey. The key point is that the decision is made when the pass is made, not when you receive the pass.
Ok, but why?
If I decide to camp out in the box, I'm not playing defense. Seems like there's risk/reward there that evens out.
-
All seriousness aside...is there a range of time a typical soccer game lasts?
Infinity. Cubed.
-
All seriousness aside...is there a range of time a typical soccer game lasts?
Two hours, wall time. Another 35 minutes or so if it goes to OT (which none of these early round games will, much to Alkie's disappointment).
-
Here's how you fix soccer:
- 5 players on each side (4 if someone doesnt show up)
- field 1/10th the size
- orange cones for sidelines and goal
- no goalkeeper
- max age: 6
- chaos
Under these terms it is a fantastic sport.
-
No. 8 for USA is a real pussy.
-
Kick it at his hands!
-
Ok, but why?
If I decide to camp out in the box, I'm not playing defense. Seems like there's risk/reward there that evens out.
Tradition? I don't know. I see your point about risk/reward, but I don't know the evolution of the current rule.
-
Here's how you fix soccer:
- 5 players on each side (4 if someone doesnt show up)
- field 1/10th the size
- orange cones for sidelines and goal
- no goalkeeper
- max age: 6
- chaos
Under these terms it is a fantastic sport.
Also, you could make the ball orange, allow players to dribble it with their hands instead of feet, and make the goals round and 10 feet in the air. Plus, fouls would actually be called consistently (or more so anyway), the sidelines would actually mean something, and at the end of the game, one team would have more points than the other.
-
Kick it at his hands!
Bravo!
-
No. 8 for USA is a real pussy.
He's from a trailer park in Nacogdoches.
-
Shit! Altidore has to finish that chance!
-
This is actually more enjoyable than i expected
-
This is actually more enjoyable than i expected
This thread? Cause this game is boring as shit.
-
Tradition? I don't know. I see your point about risk/reward, but I don't know the evolution of the current rule.
I want to be clear, I don't understand it in hockey either. Same thing.
I mean, look, in basketball, if I decide to stay in the defensive back court and cherry pick, my team is at a massive disadvantage on defense. The risk is we get scored on easy. The reward is...the other team fucks up and now WE get the easy score.
Why is it a bad thing to have a 1 on 1 situation in soccer? Those so far appear to be the exciting points in the game. Then someone blows a whistle, a Brazilian holds up a neon flag, I wonder what the fuck happened, and once again I go from being almost thrilled to bored.
-
Shit! Altidore has to finish that chance!
Poop in his hand.
-
This thread? Cause this game is boring as shit.
nobodys making you watch, are they?
-
I was just told that this is a really fascinating game because its not just being played with physiology, but psychology as well. So there's that
-
nobodys making you watch, are they?
I feel like I have to. All the hype and everything. The good thing is, here in another 20 minutes, my team will either have won or lost, and it won't be three hours for no reason.
-
I was just told that this is a really fascinating game because its not just being played with physiology, but psychology as well. So there's that
While this is obviously a very physical game, I can't see where it's really a thinking man's game.
-
Ok, going back to this from the other day...
When this ends 1-1, chuck and Noe are going to feel completely satisfied with this match.
I want, very badly, to believe that I would too. But I won't. I'll feel totally cheated.
-
I feel like I have to. All the hype and everything. The good thing is, here in another 20 minutes, my team will either have won or lost, and it won't be three hours for no reason.
Really.
-
Really.
Yes. It's the same reason I feel compelled to watch ice dancing in the Olympics.
-
Yes. It's the same reason I feel compelled to watch ice dancing in the Olympics.
Sorry. I wasn't asking "really?" I was agreeing with your point.
-
Yes. It's the same reason I feel compelled to watch ice dancing in the Olympics.
Not the chicks in the skimpy outfits?
-
Ok, going back to this from the other day...
When this ends 1-1, chuck and Noe are going to feel completely satisfied with this match.
I want, very badly, to believe that I would too. But I won't. I'll feel totally cheated.
You know when I feel cheated? Shootouts. Let's play an entire game, plus overtime, then have a freethrow contest.
-
Not the chicks in the skimpy outfits?
Well, there's that too.
-
Yes. It's the same reason I feel compelled to watch ice dancing in the Olympics.
Nip slip?
-
While this is obviously a very physical game, I can't see where it's really a thinking man's game.
That, ultimately, is what turns me off to this sport. It's about being a fantastic athlete and being in the right place at the right time.
I get that there are plays and strategy to an extent, but there are so many variables and the lack of protecting the ball carrier make it almost meaningless. If I'm allowed to reach in and/or grab the guy without penalty, it's just a matter of being in the right place when the ball almost by accident is a fortunate place.
-
Well, there's that too.
Whew! I was worried there for a bit.
-
You know when I feel cheated? Shootouts. Let's play an entire game, plus overtime, then have a freethrow contest.
The problem there is it's really two different games. And shootout is the better of the two
-
You know when I feel cheated? Shootouts. Let's play an entire game, plus overtime, then have a freethrow contest.
Totally agree.
And yet, I'd rather see a shootout than a fucking tie.
-
Couple of nice plays by the goalie, there.
-
It's clear that Onyewu isn't sufficiently recovered to play at this level. Can we get a real defender in there, please?
Seriously.. how have been there no subs for the US yet? I'd sub out findley as well.
-
Seriously.. how have been there no subs for the US yet? I'd sub out findley as well.
You get what you asked for...
-
US need a miracle to hold on to a point here.
-
The guy in the yellow shirt is almost always open.
-
US need a miracle
That, sir, happened in the first half.
-
US need a miracle to hold on to a point here.
They need a goal to win the game.
-
The guy in the yellow shirt is almost always open.
He plays for both teams.
Actually, that would almost kick ass.
-
Seriously, at this point if you were in the stadium, how could you continue to blow that fucking horn?
-
He plays for both teams.
Actually, that would almost kick ass.
All-time QB. Fantastic.
-
They need a goal to win the game.
No, HH. Don't you see? A tie is a win because of that thing. We all get trophies. We all get pizza party. We all get to go home to our families. Except Green; whose family is long dead.
-
Seriously, at this point if you were in the stadium, how could you continue to blow that fucking horn?
Go drinking with Limey some night.
-
I'm rooting for England and I'd much rather USA score (than nothing) just so this fucking thing doesn't end in a tie.
-
How come England is allowed to have twice as many players on the field as USA?
-
So if there are 15 seconds to go in the game and I'm up 1, and the ball goes out of bounds, I can just hold the fucking thing (out of bounds) until the clock runs out. How is this cool with you people? Why doesn't the ball have to be put in play? ARGH.
-
Flea complains a lot.
-
How come England is allowed to have twice as many players on the field as USA?
Three of the players in white are fans that are allowed to use their hands but not their feet.
-
Flea complains a lot.
We should get him an account here on SnS so he can join this thread.
-
We should get him an account here on SnS so he can join this thread.
He's the Roy Oswalt of the old country.
-
He's the Roy Oswalt of the old country.
Rooney already plays for the Yankees.
-
Everyone!
10!
9!
8!
7!
6!
5!
4!
3!
2!
1!
-
Seriously, how hard would it be to have a clock that counts DOWN from 90:00 with a man that stops the goddamn thing during dead balls so we don't have this ridiculous fucking arbitrary stoppage time shit?
-
No shit...how do you know when to pull the goalie?
-
I didn't think I could hate this sport more, but thanks to this grossly overhyped game, congrats.
Soccer fucking sucks. If I lived in a country that cared about it, I'd get in to it to be part of the tailgating aspect of it, but this sport it totally unsatisfying.
-
Kiss yer sister. ugh.
Draw.
-
Well that was fucking pointless.
-
Well that was fucking pointless.
Real fucking question: not that it's likely, but of course, it's possible...if all the teams in a group tie every game...how do they pick the "winners" of the group?
-
Real fucking question: not that it's likely, but of course, it's possible...if all the teams in a group tie every game...how do they pick the "winners" of the group?
I'm sure it's pretty fucking random, like who's girlfriends have the biggest tits.
-
Real fucking question: not that it's likely, but of course, it's possible...if all the teams in a group tie every game...how do they pick the "winners" of the group?
Shootout
-
I want to be clear, I don't understand it in hockey either. Same thing.
I mean, look, in basketball, if I decide to stay in the defensive back court and cherry pick, my team is at a massive disadvantage on defense. The risk is we get scored on easy. The reward is...the other team fucks up and now WE get the easy score.
Why is it a bad thing to have a 1 on 1 situation in soccer? Those so far appear to be the exciting points in the game. Then someone blows a whistle, a Brazilian holds up a neon flag, I wonder what the fuck happened, and once again I go from being almost thrilled to bored.
If they allowed a player to sit inside a basketball goal, there wouldn't be much scoring.
-
If they allowed a player to sit inside a basketball goal, there wouldn't be much scoring.
Not the same thing.
-
If they allowed a player to sit inside a basketball goal, there wouldn't be much scoring.
If the goal were 24 feet in diameter there would be.
-
Plus, fouls would actually be called consistently
AHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Real fucking question: not that it's likely, but of course, it's possible...if all the teams in a group tie every game...how do they pick the "winners" of the group?
I believe that the first tie-breaker is goal differential (goals scored in all 3 games - goals allowed in all 3 games), followed by goals scored, followed by goals allowed. I have no idea what follows that, or what would happen if each and every game in the group ended in, for example, a 1-1 tie. At that point it probably devolves to HH's criterion.
-
AHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah, I got a laugh out of that too. Has he actually been watching the finals this year?
-
Yeah, I got a laugh out of that too. Has he actually been watching the finals this year?
I said MORE SO.
And the NBA doesn't count as basketball.
-
I believe that the first tie-breaker is goal differential (goals scored in all 3 games - goals allowed in all 3 games), followed by goals scored, followed by goals allowed. I have no idea what follows that, or what would happen if each and every game in the group ended in, for example, a 1-1 tie. At that point it probably devolves to HH's criterion.
So the point is there is absolutely the chance that all 4 teams could end in a 4 way, unbreakable tie.
This sport fucking sucks. I'm sorry, I get this is wildly American of me, and that is disappointing, but this sport is fucking stupid. It's poorly executed.
-
Yeah, I got a laugh out of that too. Has he actually been watching the finals this year?
Apparently he quit watching the NBA about twelve years ago. Or at least I did.
-
Apparently he quit watching the NBA about twelve years ago. Or at least I did.
13 years ago. I'll watch the Spurs in the playoffs pretty regularly, but try as I might to give a fuck about Celtics/Lakers XVIII; I can't get past a quarter before I lose total interest.
-
Ok, going back to this from the other day...
When this ends 1-1, chuck and Noe are going to feel completely satisfied with this match.
I want, very badly, to believe that I would too. But I won't. I'll feel totally cheated.
Seeing as how the Amer-kans are supposed to be vastly superior to Slovenia and Algeria, a tie with England is huge. Had they not tied, then one of either Slovenia or Algeria would have a great chance to jump the group with 3 points. That is three very huge three points for those squads and had USA been sitting at zero points today, then it would be very bad for their chances, albeit not impossible.
Honestly, why do you watch?
-
This is the main argument I have with my husband (who loves soccer) all the time. It's a stupid fucking rule. If you want to control the zones of play, do something like hockey offsides.
The rule is simple, the *ball* not the players must be ahead in the field of play. It would be like asking why in the NFL you're not allowed to just have on guy sitting in the end Zone running around before a play is run or why forward laterals are *NOT* allowed. The rules aren't dumb (honestly, raise your hand if you think a forward lateral is dumb rule), the rules are just strange to all of you because it isn't the game you like to watch.
I taught a Frenchman how to watch baseball two years ago in one night. He thanked me because he said all his American baseball loving fans could never convince him the game was worth his time nor something they could explain enough for him to have any sort of interest. It took me one night and simple explanations about how the strategy of the game is involved. He was so interested that before the night was over he would tell me "He's going to... eh... bunt? Right?" He was excited because he understood the strategy. Until you understand the underlying strategy of a game, you'll never be a fan per se or at least understand.
-
So if there are 15 seconds to go in the game and I'm up 1, and the ball goes out of bounds, I can just hold the fucking thing (out of bounds) until the clock runs out. How is this cool with you people? Why doesn't the ball have to be put in play? ARGH.
There is no clock in baseball... imagine that! But seriously, the only official timekeeper is the ref, no one else matters. He blows his whistle, the people in the stadium can only guess if the stadium clock started when he blew his whistle. So that being the case, there is no wild waving of his arm telling someone in the press box to stop or start a clock and no controversy about time left on a clock, et. al., like you have in the NFL or NBA. You run around for the 90 minutes you get to play that keeps running. That is it. That is all the time you get to make a play. If, however, the ref decides that a player is actually stalling, he can stop his watch. He will then tell his fellow sideline refs how much stoppage time is left in the game. Basically, what the stadium clock is showing subtracted from his *official* clock.
One thing that has been unique about futbol is that with no stoppage in the clock (or commercial timeouts), the action is non-stop. So guess what, most nations do not sell commercial time like we know it here in America. Basically you don't call timeout because it's time for that Budweiser commercial we all love. (Next time one of you complains about the Ford Truck commercials on an Astros broadcast, remember this). So companies who want commercial time during the game buy segments of the match. Basically, the next 10 minutes of play are brought to you by....
-
This thread is hilarious. It's like Glenn Beck producing an episode of MST3K.
-
Seeing as how the Amer-kans are supposed to be vastly superior to Slovenia and Algeria, a tie with England is huge. Had they not tied, then one of either Slovenia or Algeria would have a great chance to jump the group with 3 points. That is three very huge three points for those squads and had USA been sitting at zero points today, then it would be very bad for their chances, albeit not impossible.
No, I get all that. I understand the importance of the single point in order to move on to the next round. We're talking about two different things. You're talking about (understandably) the point of the first round, as a whole; which of course is to just be one of the two teams in your group with the most "points." I'm not arguing the importance of the single point. I'm saying this match today, by itself, happened. It was a game that had no winner.
Honestly, why do you watch?
Because at its core, I think the World Cup is a super fucking cool idea. I wish every sport did this. It's a giant World War without guns. The best of every country comes together for a massive All Star Tournament to decide which country has the biggest penises and therefore gets to have sex with the better looking women. I think that's great. But it's like this every four years. I spend the month leading up to World Cup getting somewhat excited.......and then the games start. Sometimes I stay interested, but most of the time it's just cross country with a ball. Again, and I can't stress this enough, if I lived in a place where the people around me treated soccer as religion, I'd almost certainly be balls out huge into it. I think if I lived in Mexico or spent half my year in Panama, I'd be playing a kazoo as long as HH's arm right now and telling my friends about how amazing it was that USA got out of the England match with a valuable point. But I live in America, where soccer is the 8th most popular sport (behind shit like tennis and golf).
Oh, and my wife for some reason is oddly very excited about the Cup, so what am I going to do? Frankly, if there's a sporting event on, we generally have it on the TV (for Pedro's sake, I'm watching OU play UVA in college baseball right now for some reason) and usually find a reason to pick a team/player/whatever.
I think what also hurts me as a "fan" of soccer is that I know zero of the players. I know some names, but I know fuckall about the sport (which I think is clear from my posts). I've noticed that most soccer fans have their clubs of course, but it's a very personality driven sport. People that don't live in a city with a club will follow a player instead of a team. Since I don't have any of that, to me, it's just a very disorganized sport with incredibly relaxed and illogical rules (why is the ball out of bounds sometimes but not other times? Why bother having the white line?) and there's just too much luck for me to wrap my brain around. Honestly, like a lot of people who hate soccer but are familiar-enough with it, I like the concept of shootouts a hell of a lot more than the game part; just because I can see the point of it.
Player X is trying to beat Player Y at a very specific thing. Offense vs defense. It's a score or it isn't. At the end, the team with the offensive players that scored more (or the defensive player who allowed less) wins. I get that. I find that satisfying as a competition.
What I watched today was not satisfying at all from a single-event stand point. If I just wanted to watch some really really good athletes not win or lose, why are we bothering to have them play against another team? Why don't we just watch them practice and give them a point?
Look, I'm not trying to convince a single person to hate soccer. I appreciate soccer in that it's cheap, easy to get in to as kids, and clearly I'm the person who is wrong if 99% of the rest of the world gets it. I'm totally on board with that. Trust me, I would love to get soccer. I just don't. I get tennis. I get golf. I even get (but am bored by) hockey. I just don't get soccer.
-
There is no clock in baseball... imagine that!
Not even close to the same thing. If there two outs in the bottom of the ninth and we're winning, I can't just decide to not pitch to the last batter. I can't just decide the game ends because I don't feel like playing anymore and I'm winning.
But seriously, the only official timekeeper is the ref, no one else matters. He blows his whistle, the people in the stadium can only guess if the stadium clock started when he blew his whistle.
Yeah, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Maybe that's what bugs the shit out of me about soccer; it's faith based. I like knowing how much time is left.
One thing that has been unique about futbol is that with no stoppage in the clock (or commercial timeouts), the action is non-stop.
No. No, it isn't. That's exactly the problem. The action stops CONSTANTLY. People go down with fake injuries. The ball goes out of bounds. There are cards being handed out. The action stops all....the...time. But the clock keeps going. It's maddening. Why is the clock going while the play is absolutely, without question, stopped? The ball is being held by an official; it's not in action.
So guess what, most nations do not sell commercial time like we know it here in America.
No, instead there are commercials duct taped to every surface in the stadium. Just because the ads aren't packaged as 30 second moving pictures doesn't mean they're not there.
Basically you don't call timeout because it's time for that Budweiser commercial we all love. (Next time one of you complains about the Ford Truck commercials on an Astros broadcast, remember this). So companies who want commercial time during the game buy segments of the match. Basically, the next 10 minutes of play are brought to you by....
I admit, I like the lack of commercials, but c'mon, Noe. That's a happy accident. When they invented soccer, I'm pretty sure they didn't have American television commercials in mind when they decided the clock would never stop.
-
If I lived in a country that cared about it, I'd get in to it to be part of the tailgating aspect of it, but this sport it totally unsatisfying.
yeah cause wearing stupid hats and bouncing up and down with a moron's grin and a flag hanging from your shoulder seems like tons of fun
-
There is no clock in baseball... imagine that! But seriously, the only official timekeeper is the ref, no one else matters.
But there *is* a clock in soccer. It's just that the length of the game is different every game. That's dumb.
He blows his whistle, the people in the stadium can only guess if the stadium clock started when he blew his whistle
Then how do the players and coaches know how much time is left?
One thing that has been unique about futbol is that with no stoppage in the clock (or commercial timeouts), the action is non-stop.
Well, let's not get carried away. The "action" isn't non-stop, the clock just runs non-stop. That doesn't mean there's anything to yell about happening on the field.
-
yeah cause wearing stupid hats and bouncing up and down with a moron's grin and a flag hanging from your shoulder seems like tons of fun
I don't know, man, I like tailgating.
One of the very few things we looked forward to our last year in El Paso was Saturdays during football season. We got season tix with my dad and uncle and spent the entire day (UTEP always plays at night) getting drunk, eating, singing, etc. It was a blast and a great way to spend the day.
-
But there *is* a clock in soccer. It's just that the length of the game is different every game. That's dumb.
Then how do the players and coaches know how much time is left?
Well, let's not get carried away. The "action" isn't non-stop, the clock just runs non-stop. That doesn't mean there's anything to yell about happening on the field.
I gotta say, the one I thing I do really like about soccer compared to our major sports is the time-keeping system. We get so time-obsessed that we end up nit-picking hundreths of a second and stupid shit like that, and of course the last 2 minutes of any football or basketball game is really like 7 hours. Plus our time systems lead to the TV networks micromanaging things, which has led to the often excrutiating chore of watching an NFL or college basketball game especially. I like the idea of just letting the clock run and that being that. Injury time doesn't make that much sense, but again, it's cool that the last 3 minutes of a game really are 3 minutes, and not 777.64 hours.
-
I wanted to be clear about this: I'm glad chuck and Noe get this sport and are satisfied with the 1-1 tie. I mean that. I can appreciate that it's my own ignorance and not something else. I can sleep at night knowing that I could learn to love this sport if I understood it.
I'm sure once we move outside the country, we'll be face painting, kazoo blowing, flag waving hooligans.
-
I don't know, man, I like tailgating.
One of the very few things we looked forward to our last year in El Paso was Saturdays during football season. We got season tix with my dad and uncle and spent the entire day (UTEP always plays at night) getting drunk, eating, singing, etc. It was a blast and a great way to spend the day.
I love tailgating too, who doesn't? I'm just responding to your suggestion that you want to get roped up in tailgating the way the world cup does it, with the stupid hats and the like.
-
it's cool that the last 3 minutes of a game really are 3 minutes, and not 777.64 hours.
But is it? Shouldn't the end of the competition be the most exciting?
-
I love tailgating too, who doesn't? I'm just responding to your suggestion that you want to get roped up in tailgating the way the world cup does it, with the stupid hats and the like.
Well, I mean look, if I really wanted to, I'd have gone down to East Village today and done it.
I'm just saying if I lived in a place where it was part of what you do the day your team plays in the WC, I'd be all over it.
-
But is it? Shouldn't the end of the competition be the most exciting?
the end of soccer games are exciting. i like the crazy desperation that goes on, knowing that you only have a certain amount of time and that's it and you have to somehow kick the ball across the field in a hurry. i think it's dumb the way the nfl does it, and even dumber the way ncaa football does it, where the clock stops all the damn time. and then with basketball and all the fouling to stop the clock, just give it a rest and accept that in sports one team has to win and one team has to lose.
-
The rule is simple, the *ball* not the players must be ahead in the field of play. It would be like asking why in the NFL you're not allowed to just have on guy sitting in the end Zone running around before a play is run or why forward laterals are *NOT* allowed. The rules aren't dumb (honestly, raise your hand if you think a forward lateral is dumb rule), the rules are just strange to all of you because it isn't the game you like to watch.
I taught a Frenchman how to watch baseball two years ago in one night. He thanked me because he said all his American baseball loving fans could never convince him the game was worth his time nor something they could explain enough for him to have any sort of interest. It took me one night and simple explanations about how the strategy of the game is involved. He was so interested that before the night was over he would tell me "He's going to... eh... bunt? Right?" He was excited because he understood the strategy. Until you understand the underlying strategy of a game, you'll never be a fan per se or at least understand.
I understand the rule and I understand and agree with the need to have some form of offsides, but I think the way soccer defines offsides is fucking stupid. As Alkie pointed out, the rule basically says "if the defender is slow and you get ahead of him, that's not allowed" which is why that's an actual strategy some teams / players employ. I also think the offsides is left to a lot of judgment (why there's so much kvetching about whether or not something is offsides). I much prefer something like hockey's definition of offsides which says the puck must enter the zone before the offensive player but is not dependent in any way on the behavior of the defenders.
-
the end of soccer games are exciting. i like the crazy desperation that goes on, knowing that you only have a certain amount of time and that's it and you have to somehow kick the ball across the field in a hurry. i think it's dumb the way the nfl does it, and even dumber the way ncaa football does it, where the clock stops all the damn time. and then with basketball and all the fouling to stop the clock, just give it a rest and accept that in sports one team has to win and one team has to lose.
The most irritating thing in sports is the time-out to psych-out the opposing team's kicker on a last minute field goal. Especially after the offensive team just called a time-out to set-up the kick. Hate that.
-
the end of soccer games are exciting. i like the crazy desperation that goes on, knowing that you only have a certain amount of time and that's it and you have to somehow kick the ball across the field in a hurry. i think it's dumb the way the nfl does it, and even dumber the way ncaa football does it, where the clock stops all the damn time. and then with basketball and all the fouling to stop the clock, just give it a rest and accept that in sports one team has to win and one team has to lose.
I totally agree. I love the fact that time is just time, and it ends when it ends. American sports have such a precision obsession, as though a hundredth of a second is something that actually exists in the real world, that can be isolated and prepared for and a specific play is drawn up for this for this one concrete and identified microsecond that will start as soon as a ball is inbounded or snapped.
-
I much prefer something like hockey's definition of offsides which says the puck must enter the zone before the offensive player but is not dependent in any way on the behavior of the defenders.
They're pretty much the same rule, only the "offsides line" is employed by both teams as a strategy in soccer. A forward can still be faster than the defender, which happens a lot. Just prove your speed from the same area after the ball is kicked.
Soccer is a fantastically simple sport with very few rules. I'm continually amazed at the folks that just "don't understand" it, or find it somehow illogical.
-
They're pretty much the same rule, only the "offsides line" is employed by both teams as a strategy in soccer. A forward can still be faster than the defender, which happens a lot. Just prove your speed from the same area after the ball is kicked.
Soccer is a fantastically simple sport with very few rules. I'm continually amazed at the folks that just "don't understand" it, or find it somehow illogical.
true, it is very simple. but soccer players and fans do seem particularly rule-obsessed, despite the relative lack of rules they have. aside from the obvious attempts at manipulating the rules through flopping and stuff like that, you see players completely stop what they're doing and point any time a rule is broken in the slightest, whether the ref calls it or not.
yesterday while i was watching the france-uruguay game, some irish dude went off on me for a long time about how ireland got jobbed in their game against france to qualify for the world cup. later when i went home i looked it up to see what he was so upset about, and there's apparently this big controversy where the french player had a really really obvious handball that directly led to a last-minute goal and the ref inexplicably missed it. and it was totally obvious and the ref did miss it, but what really killed me about the play was that all the irish players, INCLUDING THE GOALIE, just completely stopped once the french dude had the handball and did nothing while the other french dude ACTUALLY SCORED THE GOAL.
you see stuff like this a lot in soccer. usa did it nonstop today on those offsides calls, where the defenders just let a guy set up behind them, basically strategize to do so, and basically just count on the ref calling it. at some point common sense needs to set in and you have to just say to yourself, "okay, this may be technically against the rules, but i'm not going to let a guy from the other team get a free shot on my goal."
-
But I live in America, where soccer is the 8th most popular sport (behind shit like tennis and golf).
No you don't, you live in New York City. Next time the Tri plays take the train down to Sunset Park or some other similar nabe.
And before you give up on the whole thing wait until a couple of really good teams play each other. England is pretty good but they were terrible today and the US plays like a bunch of 8 year olds. Wait until you get a Holland versus Brazil sort of matchup and I think you'll be able to see very clearly what the game is all about.
-
They're pretty much the same rule, only the "offsides line" is employed by both teams as a strategy in soccer. A forward can still be faster than the defender, which happens a lot. Just prove your speed from the same area after the ball is kicked.
Soccer is a fantastically simple sport with very few rules. I'm continually amazed at the folks that just "don't understand" it, or find it somehow illogical.
No, they're not the same rule. I can have a breakaway in hockey and it's all about me being faster / better than the other athlete. In soccer, I have to time when I can be a better athlete because the line isn't some objective standard but dependent on the defender. As a sports fan, I think that's stupid. What I find amazing is this view that somehow an objection to something in soccer is just b/c people "don't understand". I understand completely (I've been woken up early by British roommates / husband on Saturdays for the last 15 years to watch the EPL), but I think it's a stupid fucking concept. I can also never get comfortable with the general pussyness of soccer players. They're DYING on the pitch until some trainer runs out with the "magic spray" and then all is right with the world.
-
And before you give up on the whole thing wait until a couple of really good teams play each other. England is pretty good but they were terrible today and the US plays like a bunch of 8 year olds. Wait until you get a Holland versus Brazil sort of matchup and I think you'll be able to see very clearly what the game is all about.
I never said I was giving up on it. We'll get up again tomorrow and piss away another 8 hours watching it again.
Once we get to knockout rounds and no more ties, plus we get rid of a lot of the super el crappo teams, I'll feel a lot better about what I'm watching.
-
It was a game that had no winner.
Watching my English wife in the room and her family/friends back in Manchester having a party (on skype), there may not have been a winner but trust me there definitely was a loser in this match.
-
Watching my English wife in the room and her family/friends back in Manchester having a party (on skype), there may not have been a winner but trust me there definitely was a loser in this match.
All the people that spent 6 months waiting for it?
ETA: Whatever. I get it. You get it. England should have won, tied, so they lost. USA should have lost, tied, so they won. You guys are satisfied, I'm not. This really is getting boring.
-
All the people that spent 6 months waiting for it?
No doubt that they took it worse than we would have it the US loss, but this will be mostly forgotten in couple of weeks if they still finish top of group.
To be fair, the six months or even the four years part of it isn't really accurate for the avid soccer fan as the club seasons just finished up a few weeks ago. Nobody is really sitting around waiting just for their national team but rather watching Real Madrid, ManU, Liverpool, Inter, etc... play out their league as well as the champions league (or other tourney). That is the problem with only watching soccer every four years in the World Cup...you rightfully dont get how Slovenia vs Algeria is the "beautiful game". Watching Holland, Brazil, or Spain play each other in the knockout stages might help change your perception but in the end probably not. Anyways...try to make it through the knockout stages...enjoy
-
Anyways...try to make it through the knockout stages...enjoy
Having "knockout" stages where there are no winners is part of the problem.
-
Having "knockout" stages where there are no winners is part of the problem.
There was a typo there (should have been "make it through to the knockout stages"). The "knockout stage" is the final sixteen, where there are no ties; you play until you get a winner. Unfortunately, that may involve the dreaded penalty kick shoot-out.
Speaking of the shoot-out, UIL has changed the way they do it in high school, and perhaps it has changed elsewhere, too. Now, instead of ordinary penalty kicks, the offensive player starts out with the ball about 30 yards away from the goal, and has five seconds to get a shot off. The goalkeeper can (and usually does) leave the line as soon as the whistle blows. It's much more like the hockey penalty shot scenario, and it leads to some interesting plays. They're much less automatic than the usual penalty kick (which often winds up being less automatic than you would think it should be).
-
Having "knockout" stages where there are no winners is part of the problem.
no one is going to argue that penalty kicks is shit way to end a match but such is life in tournament futbol...College football OT isnt any better...starting from your opponents 20 yard line isnt real football either...both are exicting sometimes but doesnt really prove who is the better team
-
no one is going to argue that penalty kicks is shit way to end a match but such is life in tournament futbol
I'd argue that.
-
But is it? Shouldn't the end of the competition be the most exciting?
But excitement to you means outcome and not the actual play (which I fully understand). You are used to one set of fans leaving the stadium saying "Man, if we only had scored that man from third and second in the ninth, we would have won this game or tied." Or "Man, it's great how we did not allow them to scored those two runs from second and third in the ninth to secure the win!" It creates excitement in you to know that while they have two men on, your closer was able to shut the door. You leave with a *sense* of closure, because you are used to closure being either win or lose.
I get it.
But why must your need supercede what is a games rules that ties can and will happen and that you, as a fan, start to understand that during tournament play (this is even pretty much standard for season long tournaments up to and including the Premiere League), your team can prepare to face a vastly superior team with a tatic to secure a point moreso than a win. If so, you watch and see how they strategically play to secure said point. At some point, you have to secure your wins, and that is basically when you get to the win or go home stages of tournament play.
It is just different, not worse or better.
-
This Serbia-Ghana game is not one of the beautiful nil-nil endeavors.
-
I understand the rule and I understand and agree with the need to have some form of offsides, but I think the way soccer defines offsides is fucking stupid. As Alkie pointed out, the rule basically says "if the defender is slow and you get ahead of him, that's not allowed" which is why that's an actual strategy some teams / players employ. I also think the offsides is left to a lot of judgment (why there's so much kvetching about whether or not something is offsides). I much prefer something like hockey's definition of offsides which says the puck must enter the zone before the offensive player but is not dependent in any way on the behavior of the defenders.
No, it's not the defender, it is your forwards can not camp out behind the defense waiting for the ball to catch them. It's the other way around, *YOU* must catch up to the ball. One of the beautiful things of watching futbol is how an attack is mounted. It is exactly like watching the nuances of a the trap play the Steelers run for pretty much two decades now. If you can accept strategic attack strategies in the NFL, you can definitely accept strategic attack strategies in futbol. Why this *HAS* to be different in futbol is beyond me. You have to watch how the backline starts an attack (think of it as a "play" like in the NFL), where does the midfield run to create space, is the attack down the left side or right side or is the middle exposed. The midfield then usually looks for space to send the ball (not the player, hence the offsides). Then it is a defender trying to protect *space*. Usually a coach will decide if his defense will mark *space* or mark a man. It's rare to have defenders each mark a man, they are responsible for *space* on the pitch, but occasionally, as you saw yesterday, you will spare one man to mark a player (in this case it was Rooney). By playing space, the forward knows when and where to run into space because it is the midfielders job to place the ball into the space for a the forward to *run on* to the ball.
If a player is offsides, it is because he has decided *not to wait* for the ball and thus the defense has nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with it. It is your own forward deciding to negate the play. Just like in the NFL, an offensive lineman cannot decide to start a play before everyone else, you will get flagged for a *false start*. Imagine someone watching the NFL for the very first time.
How would you explain a *false start*. Now map that back how you cannot or will not accept the concept of *offsides* in futbol. Same difference, however one is not more acceptable than the other. They are both necessary for the respective games to create a fairness and really to allow defenses a chance to play against a mounting offensive attack.
It's probably not anyone's cup of tea to watch a game that relies on defensive strategies as much as futbol does (unlike the NFL that relies on offensive strategies), but that is the way the game is played. The onus in futbol is for the offense to mount an attack, not just run down the pitch and camp waiting for the ball. The entire beauty of futbol is to watch an attack being mounted against the defense. That is why Brazil has been one of the greatest squads like forever. They play the game with a style and grace that marvels the fans. The way they create *space* is brilliant. The Italians were also known for a strategy that was nicknamed "all attack, all defend" (similar to the Phoenix Suns strategy of run, run, run all the time).
If you watch with understanding, you watch as a fan.
-
I never said I was giving up on it. We'll get up again tomorrow and piss away another 8 hours watching it again.
Once we get to knockout rounds and no more ties, plus we get rid of a lot of the super el crappo teams, I'll feel a lot better about what I'm watching.
Well, the el crappo teams are still here, but the last two group games for England and USA are "must win". If either team ties (or loses) against the group minnows, they're going home.
-
Watching my English wife in the room and her family/friends back in Manchester having a party (on skype), there may not have been a winner but trust me there definitely was a loser in this match.
Right. Different, not worse or better. There is always a loser of sorts, even in a tie.
-
I totally agree. I love the fact that time is just time, and it ends when it ends. American sports have such a precision obsession, as though a hundredth of a second is something that actually exists in the real world, that can be isolated and prepared for and a specific play is drawn up for this for this one concrete and identified microsecond that will start as soon as a ball is inbounded or snapped.
I wish I could say things in as simple and concise ways as you guys.
Agreed!
-
Right, because again, we're talking about two different things.
I'm not sure why this isn't clear in my posts: I get the point thing and the greater sense thing. I get how important the game point was in order to move on to the next round.
I'm not talking about or arguing or misunderstanding that.
I'm saying that the single event that took place yesterday ended in a tie. I don't like ties in American football, I dislike them just as much if not more in American soccer.
My problem is that my team, your team, anyone's team, could conceivably go 0-0-3 in the first round and move on to the next round having not won a single thing yet. A tie is only worth a point because soccer accepts it that way. A tie has no intrinsic value. I just disagree with the idea that we're rewarding a non-win. Obviously someone agrees with me since the next-round-forward gets rid of ties (correct?). So if it's good enough for the last 4 rounds, why isn't it good enough for the first round?
-
Right, because again, we're talking about two different things.
I'm not sure why this isn't clear in my posts: I get the point thing and the greater sense thing. I get how important the game point was in order to move on to the next round.
I'm not talking about or arguing or misunderstanding that.
I'm saying that the single event that took place yesterday ended in a tie. I don't like ties in American football, I dislike them just as much if not more in American soccer.
My problem is that my team, your team, anyone's team, could conceivably go 0-0-3 in the first round and move on to the next round having not won a single thing yet. A tie is only worth a point because soccer accepts it that way. A tie has no intrinsic value. I just disagree with the idea that we're rewarding a non-win. Obviously someone agrees with me since the next-round-forward gets rid of ties (correct?). So if it's good enough for the last 4 rounds, why isn't it good enough for the first round?
Try to be more zen in your definition of "win." Similarly, I think it could be argued that a tie has no extrinsic value, but only intrinsic. In your 0-0-3 scenario, two teams will go through on goal differential (or whichever tie breaker applies in this unlikely world of yours), thus "winning" the group. The pool play is to set up the knockout stages, they're different beasts.
-
Try to be more zen in your definition of "win." Similarly, I think it could be argued that a tie has no extrinsic value, but only intrinsic. In your 0-0-3 scenario, two teams will go through on goal differential (or whichever tie breaker applies in this unlikely world of yours), thus "winning" the group. The pool play is to set up the knockout stages, they're different beasts.
Yeah, I'm done. I totally get it and at this point I'm just proving what a moron I look like.
-
Right, because again, we're talking about two different things.
I'm not sure why this isn't clear in my posts: I get the point thing and the greater sense thing. I get how important the game point was in order to move on to the next round.
I'm not talking about or arguing or misunderstanding that.
I'm saying that the single event that took place yesterday ended in a tie. I don't like ties in American football, I dislike them just as much if not more in American soccer.
My problem is that my team, your team, anyone's team, could conceivably go 0-0-3 in the first round and move on to the next round having not won a single thing yet. A tie is only worth a point because soccer accepts it that way. A tie has no intrinsic value. I just disagree with the idea that we're rewarding a non-win. Obviously someone agrees with me since the next-round-forward gets rid of ties (correct?). So if it's good enough for the last 4 rounds, why isn't it good enough for the first round?
You are the one that doesn't understand that a tie is not a bad outcome because you keep arguing it was *bad*. It is strategic for tournament play, similar to how a manager in a college baseball tournament would not say that being in the loser brackets is *bad*. You can't see it singularily in tournament play. We keep telling you that so you'll understand why yesterday there was an awful lot of beauty in the play. Seeing defenders mark Rooney, seeing his frustration. Watching Tim Howard fend off attacks, seeing even Green make a spectacular play against Altidore to keep the *TIE* in place (or give his team a chance to win by them mounting an attack). If at the end of 90 minutes, both squads have given their all and come off the pitch with a tie, it is because they played to a draw in terms of play on the pitch that day.
Often in American sports you'll hear a pundit say "It's too bad there has to be a loser in this game, both teams are playing brilliantly and one team is going to give their fans the joy of victory while the other is going to give their fans the agony of defeat". You are conditions to think this way for a single match. Hockey, I think, is the only N. American sport that allows ties for season long play that results in points. It is the system, not the players or teams that drives strategy. For futbol fans, it is clearly understood that a single match has it's beauty in the play and not altogether in a win or lose outcome.
That will come soon enough (eventually, you need a winner and a loser in tournament play, just like in Hockey).
-
This Serbia-Ghana game is not one of the beautiful nil-nil endeavors.
Yeah, that changed.
-
For futbol fans, it is clearly understood that a single match has it's beauty in the play and not altogether in a win or lose outcome.
I get it. I'm done pretending to be obtuse.
-
Yeah, that changed.
Good for Ghana, especially being the first African team to win a WC cup game in Africa, but the "beautiful" part didn't change.
-
Good for Ghana, especially being the first African team to win a WC cup game in Africa, but the "beautiful" part didn't change.
At least someone won.
-
Hockey, I think, is the only N. American sport that allows ties for season long play that results in points.
Not any more.
-
Anyone know what % of penalty kicks are made?
-
You are the one that doesn't understand that a tie is not a bad outcome because you keep arguing it was *bad*. It is strategic for tournament play, similar to how a manager in a college baseball tournament would not say that being in the loser brackets is *bad*. You can't see it singularily in tournament play. We keep telling you that so you'll understand why yesterday there was an awful lot of beauty in the play. Seeing defenders mark Rooney, seeing his frustration. Watching Tim Howard fend off attacks, seeing even Green make a spectacular play against Altidore to keep the *TIE* in place (or give his team a chance to win by them mounting an attack). If at the end of 90 minutes, both squads have given their all and come off the pitch with a tie, it is because they played to a draw in terms of play on the pitch that day.
Often in American sports you'll hear a pundit say "It's too bad there has to be a loser in this game, both teams are playing brilliantly and one team is going to give their fans the joy of victory while the other is going to give their fans the agony of defeat". You are conditions to think this way for a single match. Hockey, I think, is the only N. American sport that allows ties for season long play that results in points. It is the system, not the players or teams that drives strategy. For futbol fans, it is clearly understood that a single match has it's beauty in the play and not altogether in a win or lose outcome.
That will come soon enough (eventually, you need a winner and a loser in tournament play, just like in Hockey).
But Alkie has a good point. Obviously someone agrees ties aren't a great way to resolve things because they do away with them in the later rounds, even going with something as trivial as penalty kicks. By your logic, if even in the championship two teams play their hearts out, go back and forth all game, shouldn't they just call it a tie and both go home satisfied at a good match, both as champions?
-
But Alkie has a good point. Obviously someone agrees ties aren't a great way to resolve things because they do away with them in the later rounds, even going with something as trivial as penalty kicks. By your logic, if even in the championship two teams play their hearts out, go back and forth all game, shouldn't they just call it a tie and both go home satisfied at a good match, both as champions?
It's just the difference between the group stage and the knockout rounds. They have different goals. The group stage separates the wheat from the chaff, the knockout stage is designed to propel one team forward each game.
-
Anyone know what % of penalty kicks are made?
roughly 75% is the number I have always heard
-
Often in American sports you'll hear a pundit say "It's too bad there has to be a loser in this game, both teams are playing brilliantly and one team is going to give their fans the joy of victory while the other is going to give their fans the agony of defeat".
That's the very essence of athletic competition. It's *why* you play the game. I understand the strategy aspect. I understand why you might want to play for a tie in a tournament, given the rules for advancement to the next round. But I just disagree with the general philosophy that a tie is a perfectly acceptable outcome of a sporting event.
-
It's just the difference between the group stage and the knockout rounds. They have different goals. The group stage separates the wheat from the chaff, the knockout stage is designed to propel one team forward each game.
That's not what Noe's saying. He's saying that ties are okay because sometimes two teams just play their hearts out and if they draw under that circumstance then the winner is the fan. I think Alkie's point, if I may interpret, is that if England really considers it a 'soft loss' to tie with the US, and the US a 'soft victory' to tie with England, then why not decide it in a real way that cuts through that ambiguity. Or at least do it like hockey, where each time gets a point for tieing at the end of regulation, but the winner of overtime gets the full win.
-
It's just the difference between the group stage and the knockout rounds. They have different goals. The group stage separates the wheat from the chaff, the knockout stage is designed to propel one team forward each game.
So Slovenia are the wheat and England and USA are the chaff?
-
That's not what Noe's saying. He's saying that ties are okay because sometimes two teams just play their hearts out and if they draw under that circumstance then the winner is the fan. I think Alkie's point, if I may interpret, is that if England really considers it a 'soft loss' to tie with the US, and the US a 'soft victory' to tie with England, then why not decide it in a real way that cuts through that ambiguity. Or at least do it like hockey, where each time gets a point for tieing at the end of regulation, but the winner of overtime gets the full win.
Well, I can't speak for Noe (nor would I want to for the risk of carpal-tunnel), but my point is that ties are part of the group stage because the group stage is a more general inquiry than single-elimination knockout play. In knockout play you need an immediate absolute victor, in the group stage you just want to be able to determine which two teams are the best out of the four after all four play three games. Introducing the random/arbitrary element of penalty kicks in the group stage distorts the entire purpose of having a group stage.
-
So Slovenia are the wheat and England and USA are the chaff?
If at the end of three games that's what the scoreboard says, then so be it. If the US or England can't beat Algeria, then they belong with the chaff. But let's let them play the games, HH.
-
Well, I can't speak for Noe (nor would I want to for the risk of carpal-tunnel), but my point is that ties are part of the group stage because the group stage is a more general inquiry than single-elimination knockout play. In knockout play you need an immediate absolute victor, in the group stage you just want to be able to determine which two teams are the best out of the four after all four play three games. Introducing the random/arbitrary element of penalty kicks in the group stage distorts the entire purpose of having a group stage.
I get that, and honestly I don't completely disagree with it. But at the same time, Alkie was right on about yesterday's game. It was way more than a mere general inquiry to those two teams, and maybe that shouldn't have been the case, but it was. If I'm England and their fans today, I'm probably thinking that I have the better team and played the better game but 'lost' because of a total fluke goal and a hot US goalie. What's wrong with going another 30-45 minutes to validate the outcome? Again, if it's really a big deal then give each team a point for tying after 90, and give the other team the full 3 if they win in extra time.
-
Introducing the random/arbitrary element of penalty kicks in the group stage distorts the entire purpose of having a group stage.
So don't use penalty kicks. Soccer fans love to endlessly point out how many miles soccer players run on average in a given match and how it's the most athletically demanding sport (bullshit), but if that's the case then make those uberathletes play until a real goddamn goal is scored. No ties, no penalty kicks, sudden death OT.
-
What's wrong with going another 30-45 minutes to validate the outcome? Again, if it's really a big deal then give each team a point for tying after 90, and give the other team the full 3 if they win in extra time.
I don't have the problem with extra-time that I do with penalty kicks in the group stage.
Though I would argue that only three points can be awarded in a game, and in your scenario each team should get one point for going to extra time and the eventual victor earns the other available point.
-
So don't use penalty kicks. Soccer fans love to endlessly point out how many miles soccer players run on average in a given match and how it's the most athletically demanding sport (bullshit), but if that's the case then make those uberathletes play until a real goddamn goal is scored. No ties, no penalty kicks, sudden death OT.
In the knockout stage they play 30 minutes of extra time, only going on to penalties if the match is still tied after the extra time.
The argument that I always hear against indefinite sudden death extra time is that the players get more tired, play uglier, and a goal becomes less likely while the risk of injury increases. I don't know how much of that I buy.
Frankly, I've always argued that they should replace penalty kicks with alternating corner kicks, which is something that involves each entire team and bears some semblance to the actual sport.
-
If at the end of three games that's what the scoreboard says, then so be it. If the US or England can't beat Algeria, then they belong with the chaff. But let's let them play the games, HH.
So do they all play each other in the preliminary rounds? If so, I'm not getting how it's "do or die" for USA or England.
-
Frankly, I've always argued that they should replace penalty kicks with alternating corner kicks, which is something that involves each entire team and bears some semblance to the actual sport.
that could get pretty painful. seems like the success rate of corner kicks is far south of kevin cash's batting average.
what about making extra time like 9 on 9 or something like that, similar to the way hockey does it.
-
So do they all play each other in the preliminary rounds? If so, I'm not getting how it's "do or die" for USA or England.
Yes. It's a round robin. Each team plays the other three. At the end of the round robin, the top two advance to the knockout stage.
I'm not sure where you got the "do or die" thing from. Even with a loss, either team would still advance by beating Slovenia and Algeria. Both England and the US are expected to top the group and move on. This game was a chance for one team to gain the pole position on finishing with the top seed, which matches it against a second seed from a different group in the first round of knockout play.
-
that could get pretty painful. seems like the success rate of corner kicks is far south of kevin cash's batting average.
what about making extra time like 9 on 9 or something like that, similar to the way hockey does it.
Pretty much anything would be better than penalty kicks.
-
I'm not sure where you got the "do or die" thing from.
Well, that's what I've been hearing and reading. That USA and England are behind the proverbial 8 ball because they tied and Slovenia won. Which is why I guess I assumed that there wasn't the opportunity for each team to play each other.
-
Well, that's what I've been hearing and reading. That USA and England are behind the proverbial 8 ball because they tied and Slovenia won. Which is why I guess I assumed that there wasn't the opportunity for each team to play each other.
Where have you seen that? It makes no sense.
Nevertheless, if either England or the US loses to Slovenia, they're pretty much fucked. I guess you could argue that if Slovenia merely ties their games against both England and the US (merely "not losing") they are assured of advancing with 5 points, where the most points the US or England could get is 4 points with a win against Algeria. So in the sense that Slovenia needs to "not lose" while England and the US now need to "win," Slovenia has the upper hand. But that's purely theoretical. Playing to "not lose" doesn't really work very well.
-
Where have you seen that? It makes no sense.
Well, this was one place:
http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=111033.260
I assumed Limey knew what he was talking about, but I guess not.
I guess you could argue that if Slovenia merely ties their games against both England and the US (merely "not losing") they are assured of advancing with 5 points, where the most points the US or England could get is 4 points with a win against Algeria.
If USA and England tie Slovenia and beat Algeria, they all have 5 points, do they not?
-
If USA and England tie Slovenia and beat Algeria, they all have 5 points, do they not?
Uh... yeah. I'm not much with the math on a Sunday.
-
Well, this was one place:
http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=111033.260
I assumed Limey knew what he was talking about, but I guess not.
Limey said "but the last two group games for England and USA are "must win"." That would be the remaining games in the round robin.
-
Limey said "but the last two group games for England and USA are "must win"." That would be the remaining games in the round robin.
Right. He said they're "must win". You say they're not. My calculator says they're not, as long as they both get to play Slovenia and Algeria.
-
Right. He said they're "must win". You say they're not. My calculator says they're not, as long as they both get to play Slovenia and Algeria.
I'll let Limey debate his semantics with you, but if either team loses to Slovenia, they're pretty much fucked. That's certainly a must win. Assuming that the other team beats Algeria, which is an assumption one has to make given that Algeria is the weakest squad of the group, then either team's match against Algeria is a must win.
If one of England or the US fails to win its next two matches, that team will likely be left holding its hat at the end of the group stage.
I was saying the US-England match wasn't a "must win." Limey is talking about the other two games.
-
Right. He said they're "must win". You say they're not. My calculator says they're not, as long as they both get to play Slovenia and Algeria.
Well, and again, my real problem with this current system is that there is an actual statistically possible outcome where you have an unbreakable 4-way tie. That shouldn't be.
If every game had to go until there was a winner and loser, in a 4 team bracket over 3-games-each, it would be virtually impossible to not have reasonable tiebreaks (if even necessary) to choose the two teams that move on.
And I watched Ghana and their fans after the last match. You can't tell me a win isn't significantly more satisfying to those people today than a 0-0 tie would have been just because they understand the "bigger picture."
-
I'll let Limey debate his semantics with you, but if either team loses to Slovenia, they're pretty much fucked. That's certainly a must win. Assuming that the other team beats Algeria, which is an assumption one has to make given that Algeria is the weakest squad of the group, then either team's match against Algeria is a must win.
If one of England or the US fails to win its next two matches, that team will likely be left holding its hat at the end of the group stage.
I was saying the US-England match wasn't a "must win." Limey is talking about the other two games.
England and USA could *both* lose to Slovenia and one of them advance. Both could tie Slovenia and either one or even both advance. One can lose to Slovenia while the other one ties Slovenia and the team that lost to them could avance. There are lots of scenarios which don't involve beating Slovenia to advance. Neither game is a "must win" at this point for either England or USA
I was saying the US-England match wasn't a "must win." Limey is talking about the other two games.
I was saying I'm hearing it's now "do or die" for the USA and England. I don't see that, if they both get to play the same two teams.
-
in real sports news, hafner just destroyed a low and inside strasburg fastball. washington-cleveland on their way to a 1-1 tie
-
Well, and again, my real problem with this current system is that there is an actual statistically possible outcome where you have an unbreakable 4-way tie. That shouldn't be.
You'll love this. The tie-breakers are (1) goal differential (2) total goals scored (3) head to head points against the team(s) you're tied with (4) head to head goal differential against the team(s) you're tied with (5) head to head goals scored against the team(s) you're tied with, and (5) RANDOM DRAW.
And I watched Ghana and their fans after the last match. You can't tell me a win isn't significantly more satisfying to those people today than a 0-0 tie would have been just because they understand the "bigger picture."
Yes, a win is better than a tie. FIFA agrees with you by awarding a team that wins 3 points, while a team that ties only gets 1 point, and a team that loses gets 0 points. Way to crack the code, Alkie.
-
You'll love this. The tie-breakers are (1) goal differential (2) total goals scored (3) head to head points against the team(s) you're tied with (4) head to head goal differential against the team(s) you're tied with (5) head to head goals scored against the team(s) you're tied with, and (5) RANDOM DRAW.
You're right. My brain just exploded.
Yes, a win is better than a tie. FIFA agrees with you by awarding a team that wins 3 points, while a team that ties only gets 1 point, and a team that loses gets 0 points. Way to crack the code, Alkie.
Oh, I didn't realize we were going from a discussion to being actual dicks to each other. I can play that game, too.
-
Oh, I didn't realize we were going from a discussion to being actual dicks to each other. I can play that game, too.
Well, surely nobody ever advanced the argument that a win is not better than a tie.
Or, without the double negatives, surely everybody agrees that a win is better than a tie.
-
So if USA and England both tie their next two games with equal total goals scored, and they are tied for the #2 spot.....it goes to a random draw for the chance to move on?
If that's actually true, everything Noe and chuck have said is out the window.
-
Well, surely nobody ever advanced the argument that a win is not better than a tie.
Or, without the double negatives, surely everybody agrees that a win is better than a tie.
Yes, but you intentionally pretended that I was talking about "FIFA" when you knew fully fucking well that I was talking about the teams and, more importantly, the fans of that country to make it sound like I'm too fucking stupid to understand the 0-1-3 point system.
-
So if USA and England both tie their next two games with equal total goals scored, and they are tied for the #2 spot.....it goes to a random draw for the chance to move on?
Yes. Therein lies Limey's "must win."
If that's actually true, everything Noe and chuck have said is out the window.
In my opinion, they were talking about an individual game, not an entire round robin, but I'll let them explain themselves.
-
Yes, but you intentionally pretended that I was talking about "FIFA" when you knew fully fucking well that I was talking about the teams and, more importantly, the fans of that country to make it sound like I'm too fucking stupid to understand the 0-1-3 point system.
It wasn't intentional. Basically, your point seems to be that the fans and teams greatly prefer a win over a tie, which is the same point. Obviously, that's true.
-
It wasn't intentional. Basically, your point seems to be that the fans and teams greatly prefer a win over a tie, which is the same point. Obviously, that's true.
i think his point is more that fans and teams have been pussywhipped into thinking that a tie is pretty much as good as a win.
-
i think his point is more that fans and teams have been pussywhipped into thinking that a tie is pretty much as good as a win.
Oh. My bad.
A tie can be good, but a win is absolutely better.
-
Yes. Therein lies Limey's "must win."
Something I can completely agree with. All the games should be "must wins." It's like a tournament and shit.
In my opinion, they were talking about an individual game, not an entire round robin, but I'll let them explain themselves.
Oh, NOW we're talking about the single event. How convenient.
This really is, quite possibly, the stupidest non-politics thread here ever. HH and I are arguing that the point of any single competition is to have a winner and a loser. You, chuck, Noe and whoever else (I've lost track) are suggesting that we're somehow missing the point of a round robin tournament where ties are granted points; as if maybe our science/math based advanced degrees have failed us or that we're just rednecks (which is possible). While I am genuinely embarrassed that my feelings on this matter make me uncharacteristically small-minded and Merikun, it's just a matter of philosophies and none of us are likely to budge. HH and I completely get that the point of the first round is simply "to move on" and not to "win 3 games." We understand the rules (in that regard). We like rules. I'm for regulation. Our problem isn't that there are rules, it's that we think the rules are silly because they have possible non-answer outcomes. That the biggest sporting event on the face of the earth could conceivably end in a 4-way tie that would be decided by random draw for advancement doesn't jive for me (and I assume HH).
-
i think his point is more that fans and teams have been pussywhipped into thinking that a tie is pretty much as good as a win.
YES.
EXACTLY.
The NY Post headline today is, I shit you not:
USA WINS 1-1!!!
I get that it's (somewhat) tongue in cheek, but that's exactly the sentiment. USA didn't win. Not even kind of. They tied. We have no right to celebrate a win. We didn't win.
-
YES.
EXACTLY.
The NY Post headline today is, I shit you not:
USA WINS 1-1!!!
I get that it's (somewhat) tongue in cheek, but that's exactly the sentiment. USA didn't win. Not even kind of. They tied. We have no right to celebrate a win. We didn't win.
Not losing ground to the presumptive group favorite in the first game of the round robin is a net positive for the US. I know you appreciate this, which is why I'm perplexed at your rejection of celebrating getting a point against England.
ETA: And in no way am I defending an asinine NY Post headline.
-
If that's actually true, everything Noe and chuck have said is out the window.
The only thing I have said (that I know of) is that I don't mind ties. The anti-draw wing of the SNS party does not bother or threaten me in any way and as far as I know I have not tried in earnest to convince anyone to abandon their position on the matter.
-
Not losing ground to the presumptive group favorite in the first game of the round robin is a net positive for the US. I know you appreciate this, which is why I'm perplexed at your rejection of celebrating getting a point against England.
I totally agree with the idea that Americans should be glad they got 1 point instead of 0 points, but they didn't win yesterday's match. They won a game-point. Not the match. And treating it as a win strikes me as...wrong.
-
The only thing I have said (that I know of) is that I don't mind ties. The anti-draw wing of the SNS party does not bother or threaten me in any way and as far as I know I have not tried in earnest to convince anyone to abandon their position on the matter.
Cool.
-
I totally agree with the idea that Americans should be glad they got 1 point instead of 0 points, but they didn't win yesterday's match. They won a game-point. Not the match. And treating it as a win strikes me as...wrong.
Not a win, but certainly a good thing that puts the U.S. in a position to compete for the top slot in the group. That's all I've said.
-
Not a win, but certainly a good thing that puts the U.S. in a position to compete for the top slot in the group. That's all I've said.
And no one has argued that the US shouldn't be happy with the point they got in this World Cup. This whole discussion is about why some of us find it hard to get interested in soccer. The fact that a 0-0 tie is perfectly acceptable is the single biggest obstacle to my personally appreciating it as a sport. I think Alkie feels the same way.
-
The Germans are putting on a clinic right now.
-
The Germans are putting on a clinic right now.
Should be 4-0.
-
And no one has argued that the US shouldn't be happy with the point they got in this World Cup. This whole discussion is about why some of us find it hard to get interested in soccer. The fact that a 0-0 tie is perfectly acceptable is the single biggest obstacle to my personally appreciating it as a sport. I think Alkie feels the same way.
Aye.
-
Should be 4-0.
They're just absurdly organized (shocker for Germans, I know). Everybody is always where they are supposed to be, everybody always knows where everyone else is. No great superstars, but always a whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts quality tournament team.
-
They're just absurdly organized (shocker for Germans, I know). Everybody is always where they are supposed to be, everybody always knows where everyone else is. No great superstars, but always a whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts quality tournament team.
6-0. Easily the most one sided match so far.
-
Just think of the group stage as a double-elimination tournament.
All I know is that if I was at a game, a number of people would be shitting vuvuzelas tonight.
-
All I know is that if I was at a game, a number of people would be shitting vuvuzelas tonight.
Finally, something everyone can agree on.
I can just see some asshole with an IQ of 40 finding one in a Kay-Bee in Joberg and thinking "you know what would kick ass? 80,000 of these. At. Once." And that person, unfortunately, is also in charge of promotions for the World Cup.
-
Well, THAT ain't gonna help Australia.
-
Well, THAT ain't gonna help Australia.
OK...so the Aussie guy gets ejected...why doesn't he get replaced?
-
OK...so the Aussie guy gets ejected...why doesn't he get replaced?
Moral of the story - don't get ejected.
-
OK...so the Aussie guy gets ejected...why doesn't he get replaced?
Actually, I'll say this is one thing about soccer I really do like. If a dude gets thrown out, he shouldn't just be replaced. Obviously, it wouldn't work in, say, baseball. But for this specific sport/concept, I like it.
-
Actually, I'll say this is one thing about soccer I really do like. If a dude gets thrown out, he shouldn't just be replaced. Obviously, it wouldn't work in, say, baseball. But for this specific sport/concept, I like it.
I had no idea that was the rule. That blows, especially when it's over something as ticky tack as that little love pat that got this guy tossed.
-
And another thing...they should make these guys tuck their shirts in.
-
And another thing...they should make these guys tuck their shirts in.
You kids get off my lawn!
-
Slaughter.
-
Say, you know who I wish I had taken in my pool now?
-
You kids get off my lawn!
And these guys who slide around, banging their chests, acting like they just saved the world when they score...they'd get dotted right between the shoulder blades next time up.
-
This enough scoring for y'all?
-
And these guys who slide around, banging their chests, acting like they just saved the world when they score...they'd get dotted right between the shoulder blades next time up.
Yeah, and so would the guy doing cartwheels in the end zone, so what? It's a different game.
-
This enough scoring for y'all?
It's easy enought to score on Australia...then you make them play a man down? How is this fair?
-
Yeah, and so would the guy doing cartwheels in the end zone, so what? It's a different game.
I don't like all that end zone dancing crap either.
-
This enough scoring for y'all?
Are you kidding? This sucks. Where is the 1-1 match from yesterday?
-
Are you kidding? This sucks. Where is the 1-1 match from yesterday?
Is it just me, or do the Australians just stand around a lot.
-
Is it just me, or do the Australians just stand around a lot.
Dude, this match has been over for an hour. They're just hanging out and waiting to go back to the hotel so they can celebrate the 0-4 loss (win) with their fans.
-
Dude, this match has been over for an hour. They're just hanging out and waiting to go back to the hotel so they can celebrate the 0-4 loss (win) with their fans.
There's not much to take away from this evisceration other than the fact that they don't have to play Germany again. Serbia and Ghana ain't pushovers either.
-
There's not much to take away from this evisceration other than the fact that they don't have to play Germany again. Serbia and Ghana ain't pushovers either.
This AUS team I'm watching right now isn't going to beat either the Serbia or Ghana teams I watched this morning.
-
There's not much to take away from this evisceration other than the fact that they don't have to play Germany again. Serbia and Ghana ain't pushovers either.
Especially with Cahill missing the next game.
-
This AUS team I'm watching right now isn't going to beat either the Serbia or Ghana teams I watched this morning.
And without Cahill (red card) they are really up shit's creek against Ghana.
HH: A red card means you're ejected from that game and also have to sit out the next game, though the excluded player's position in the lineup is filled by someone else. Two yellow cards in the group stage means you sit out the next game in the group stage. The slate is wiped clean when knockouts begin, but two yellow cards over the course of the knockout stage by a player means they have to sit out the next game as well.
-
And without Cahill (red card) they are really up shit's creek against Ghana.
HH: A red card means you're ejected from that game and also have to sit out the next game, though the excluded player's position in the lineup is filled by someone else. Two yellow cards in the group stage means you sit out the next game in the group stage. The slate is wiped clean when knockouts begin, but two yellow cards over the course of the knockout stage by a player means they have to sit out the next game as well.
I think that's yellows in consecutive games, isn't it? If I get yellows in games 1 and 3, I don't think that means I have to sit game 4.
-
HH: A red card means you're ejected from that game and also have to sit out the next game, though the excluded player's position in the lineup is filled by someone else.
Apparently not. Either that or they royally fucked up today. Australia was forced to play with only 10 guys.
-
I think that's yellows in consecutive games, isn't it? If I get yellows in games 1 and 3, I don't think that means I have to sit game 4.
I think it's total, but I'm not 100%.
-
Apparently not. Either that or they royally fucked up today. Australia was forced to play with only 10 guys.
For the rest of that game, yes. But next game, while Cahill is not allowed to play, the Australians can field 11 guys.
-
For the rest of that game, yes. But next game, while Cahill is not allowed to play, the Australians can field 11 guys.
Well of course. You're not forced to start the same 11 players every game, are you? The coach can change the starting lineup from game to game, can he not?
-
I had no idea that was the rule. That blows, especially when it's over something as ticky tack as that little love pat that got this guy tossed.
Cahill is a chippy little fuck. If in was the referee, I'd yellow card him in the tunnel before the game, so he'd be off for his first, inevitable, injury-risking hatchet job.
-
Actually, I'll say this is one thing about soccer I really do like. If a dude gets thrown out, he shouldn't just be replaced. Obviously, it wouldn't work in, say, baseball. But for this specific sport/concept, I like it.
I also like how you're limited to two substitutions total, regardless of injuries.
-
Well of course. You're not forced to start the same 11 players every game, are you? The coach can change the starting lineup from game to game, can he not?
Right. A red card to a player means the team has to finish that game with 10 players and the red-carded player is not allowed to play in the next game. However, the team is not forced to start the next game with only 10 players.
-
I also like how you're limited to substitutions total, regardless of injuries.
That'll really get HH going.
-
Cahill is a chippy little fuck. If in was the referee, I'd yellow card him in the tunnel before the game, so he'd be off for his first, inevitable, injury-risking hatchet job.
Yeah, but come on...what he did today? My wife hits me harder than that.
-
Right. A red card to a player means the team has to finish that game with 10 players and the red-carded player is not allowed to play in the next game. However, the team is not forced to start the next game with only 10 players.
I guess I'm confused as to why you feel the need to mention that, and why you stated it as "replacing" his position. I feel like I'm missing something.
-
That'll really get HH going.
Actually, I'm ok with that.
-
I guess I'm confused as to why you feel the need to mention that, and why you stated it as "replacing" his position. I feel like I'm missing something.
In the game from which he gets ejected, he cannot be replaced by another player. In the next game, while he can't play in it, his position in the starting lineup can be replaced by another player.
-
I guess I'm confused as to why you feel the need to mention that, and why you stated it as "replacing" his position. I feel like I'm missing something.
You're short-handed for the game in which the red card occurs, but not for the next (at least, not until somebody else gets a red card in that game). But the red-carded player cannot play in the next game.
-
In the game from which he gets ejected, he cannot be replaced another player. In the next game, while he can't play in it, his position in the starting lineup can be replaced by another player.
Can his position not be replaced even if he doesn't get a red card? Can the coach simply not replace his position in the lineup because he sucks?
-
Can his position not be replaced even if he doesn't get a red card? Can the coach simply not replace his position in the lineup because he sucks?
Each team is allowed two substitutions per game.
-
I think it's total, but I'm not 100%.
Your are correct: Total.
Two yellows in one game = a red.
Two yellows total in group stage = suspension (ineligible for next game).
Record expunged for knockout stage, but "earned" suspensions enforced.
Two yellows total in knockout stage = suspension (ineligible for next game), even the if it's the final (see Gazza, Crying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u96T3rnHRM&feature=youtube_gdata)).
-
Each team is allowed two substitutions per game.
Which means that if, after you've used your substitutions (I thought it was 3, but whatever), somebody gets injured sufficiently that they can't continue, you play a man down. That's the consequence that I figured would upset HH, but I guess I was wrong.
-
Each team is allowed two substitutions per game.
But can they not start different 11 guys from game to game?
-
But they can they not start different 11 guys from game to game?
Absolutely. You can start whomever you want for the next game (except for players serving suspensions for red cards, obviously).
-
Which means that if, after you've used your substitutions (I thought it was 3, but whatever), somebody gets injured sufficiently that they can't continue, you play a man down. That's the consequence that I figured would upset HH, but I guess I was wrong.
Why would it upset me? It's the same thing in baseball. You're allowed certain number of subs and after that, you play shorthanded. It's just that in baseball that number is 16.
-
Yeah, but come on...what he did today? My wife hits me harder than that.
Soccer is a "non-contact" sport the same way that basketball is. You're not allowed to take anyone else's space, and you definitely can't come through a player from behind. It's illegal, and incredibly dangerous. FIFA, for once doing something good, has ordered refs to punish such challenges very harshly. The players know this, Cahill is just too stupid to stop himself doing it anyway.
-
Why would it upset me? It's the same thing in baseball. You're allowed certain number of subs and after that, you play shorthanded. It's just that in baseball that number is 16.
Why isn't it 25?
-
Why isn't it 25?
Because only 25 players are available to play in any game.
-
and you definitely can't come through a player from behind. It's illegal, and incredibly dangerous.
And yet you still try to convince us that soccer isn't gay..(NTTAWWT)
-
Because only 25 players are available to play in any game.
Unless it's September...
-
Unless it's September...
True. After Sept. 1st, you're allowed 31 substitutions per game.
-
Because only 25 players are available to play in any game.
Oh. Gotcha.
-
But can they not start different 11 guys from game to game?
Each team has a squad of 23 players. From that squad, for each game they name a starting 11, plus 6 (IIRC) subs, of which three can be used. They can change the players/subs for each game as much as they want, within the 23 man squad. If you lose a player to injury, you can't replace him on the squad, you just operate with a 22 man squad. Suspended players are merely dropped off the squad for one game, and reinstated for the next (if there is one).
In game, a red-carded player is gone, but the coach can sub one of the other players, if he wants to get a particular position covered. The most obvious example is if the goalie is sent off. The coach can sub one of the outfield players with the spare goalie.
-
It's illegal, and incredibly dangerous.
It's "incredibly dangerous" the same way sex with Lucy Lawless (http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/Lucy_Lawless_Xena_01.jpg) is "incredibly dangerous".
-
In game, a red-carded player is gone, but the coach can sub one of the other players, if he wants to get a particular position covered. The most obvious example is if the goalie is sent off. The coach can sub one of the outfield players with the spare goalie.
Which reminds me...are only certain guys allowed to play in goal? Or can anyone be designated the goalkeeper?
-
Which reminds me...are only certain guys allowed to play in goal? Or can anyone be designated the goalkeeper?
Just as long as you have a garish color-clashing uniform that fits you.
-
Which reminds me...are only certain guys allowed to play in goal? Or can anyone be designated the goalkeeper?
Anybody can be designated to be the goalkeeper, the same way anybody can be put behind the plate at catcher. But you probably won't like the results of putting a random person back there, the same way you'll probably not like the results of playing a random person at catcher.
-
Anybody can be designated to be the goalkeeper, the same way anybody can be put behind the plate at catcher. But you probably won't like the results of putting a random person back there, the same way you'll probably not like the results of playing a random person at catcher.
But if you had to, you could put anyone in goal, right?
Do you ever "pull" the goalie in soccer like you do in hockey (not that you'd know how much time is left in the game)?
-
It's "incredibly dangerous" the same way sex with Lucy Lawless (http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/Lucy_Lawless_Xena_01.jpg) is "incredibly dangerous".
Because she's a well armed man?
-
But if you had to, you could put anyone in goal, right?
Yes, you could. Like Bench said, though, they have to change jerseys so that they're easily distinguished from the other players.
Do you ever "pull" the goalie in soccer like you do in hockey (not that you'd know how much time is left in the game)?
I don't think I've seen a goalie "pulled", but sometimes goalies will come up and participate in the offense. There used to be a little Mexican keeper who played for the LA Galaxy who did this routinely (I'm embarrassed that I can't remember his name right now).
-
Which reminds me...are only certain guys allowed to play in goal? Or can anyone be designated the goalkeeper?
Anyone can play goalie, the ref just needs to know who it is. In the old days, before subs were allowed (or when only one sub was available), an outfield player would go in the goal if the goalie was injured or ejected. That player would put on the green jersey (they all used to wear green back then) and make a complete hash of things for the remainder of the game.
In 1956, Bert Trautmann (http://) played more than half of the FA Cup final with a broken neck, because there was no replacement keeper. T'was a man's game back then.
-
Do you ever "pull" the goalie in soccer like you do in hockey (not that you'd know how much time is left in the game)?
Yeah. The US did it a few world cups ago to disastrous failure.
-
I don't think I've seen a goalie "pulled", but sometimes goalies will come up and participate in the offense. There used to be a little Mexican keeper who played for the LA Galaxy who did this routinely (I'm embarrassed that I can't remember his name right now).
Yeah, this is what I mean. Obviously there is not free substitution like in hockey. I was just wondering if the goalie ever ran up and participated in the offense trying to get a man advantage on the attack.
-
But if you had to, you could put anyone in goal, right?
Do you ever "pull" the goalie in soccer like you do in hockey (not that you'd know how much time is left in the game)?
No, because subs are precious and may have already been used up by then. But a goalie will leave the net empty and try do do some damage in the outfield if losing a must win game and it's late. I'm sure we'll see this a few times in the tournament. It's usually when the trailing team has a set piece of some description at the opponent's end - the goalie will run up and act as an additional attacker. They typically suck at everything except goalkeeping, through, so the results are usually poor but occasionally hilarious.
-
Yeah, this is what I mean. Obviously there is not free substitution like in hockey. I was just wondering if the goalie ever ran up and participated in the offense trying to get a man advantage on the attack.
On desperation corner kicks it happens. The goalie can go anywhere he wants, he just can't use his hands outside of the 18 yard box.
-
Anyone can play goalie, the ref just needs to know who it is. In the old days, before subs were allowed (or when only one sub was available), an outfield player would go in the goal if the goalie was injured or ejected. That player would put on the green jersey (they all used to wear green back then) and make a complete hash of things for the remainder of the game.
In 1956, Bert Trautmann (http://) played more than half of the FA Cup final with a broken neck, because there was no replacement keeper. T'was a man's game back then.
Is this right? There was a story about the N Koreans trying to put a "striker" on the team as a "goalie" and they were told no go
-
Is this right? There was a story about the N Koreans trying to put a "striker" on the team as a "goalie" and they were told no go
There may be rules about roster composition that require somebody listed as a "goalie" to have appeared in X number of games as a goalie (and I believe that each team is allowed to carry 3 goalies on their WC roster). But once the game is underway, any player can move to goal.
And I have no idea why the North Koreans would try to do that, but they ARE the fucking crazy Norh Koreans, so I'm not going to try to figure it out.
-
Thank. Fucking. God.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5282269/ce/us/organizers-consider-silencing-vuvuzelas?cc=5901&ver=us
-
Thank. Fucking. God.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5282269/ce/us/organizers-consider-silencing-vuvuzelas?cc=5901&ver=us
Please let it be so.
-
There may be rules about roster composition that require somebody listed as a "goalie" to have appeared in X number of games as a goalie (and I believe that each team is allowed to carry 3 goalies on their WC roster). But once the game is underway, any player can move to goal.
And I have no idea why the North Koreans would try to do that, but they ARE the fucking crazy Norh Koreans, so I'm not going to try to figure it out.
Probably trying to get around the goalie maximum. Either that, or he was carrying the WMDs.
-
Yeah, this is what I mean. Obviously there is not free substitution like in hockey. I was just wondering if the goalie ever ran up and participated in the offense trying to get a man advantage on the attack.
Comparing substitutions in soccer to line changes in hockey seems to be stretching things. Also, hockey also is the only game I can think of that makes personnel changes with play continuing.
-
Thank. Fucking. God.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5282269/ce/us/organizers-consider-silencing-vuvuzelas?cc=5901&ver=us
You don't like loud vulvas?
-
You don't like loud vulvas?
Sounds like France is threatening to surrender to them.
-
The Lego version of the US-England match (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2010/jun/14/world-cup-2010-england-usa-brick)
-
The Lego version of the US-England match (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2010/jun/14/world-cup-2010-england-usa-brick)
That's actually quite good.
-
That's actually quite good.
I liked the way they were careful to have little Lego Gerrard take his shot off the outside of his foot.
-
This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/13/ledley-king-world-cup) is fucking nuts.
England Coach Capello will be consulting the team's psychologist (yes, you read that right) before deciding whether to play or drop Robert Green as goalie for the next match. The team's psychologist (pausing again to let that settle on the brain) will evaluate Green's mental state, as well as that of his defenders.
I suggest locking them all in a room, blast them with vuvuzelas, and don't let them out until someone grows a pair.
-
This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/13/ledley-king-world-cup) is fucking nuts.
England Coach Capello will be consulting the team's psychologist (yes, you read that right) before deciding whether to play or drop Robert Green as goalie for the next match. The team's psychologist (pausing again to let that settle on the brain) will evaluate Green's mental state, as well as that of his defenders.
I suggest locking them all in a room, blast them with vuvuzelas, and don't let them out until someone grows a pair.
Losing is a disease... as contagious as polio... as contagious as syphilis... as contagious as the bubonic plague... attacking one, but infecting all.
-
This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/13/ledley-king-world-cup) is fucking nuts.
England Coach Capello will be consulting the team's psychologist (yes, you read that right) before deciding whether to play or drop Robert Green as goalie for the next match. The team's psychologist (pausing again to let that settle on the brain) will evaluate Green's mental state, as well as that of his defenders.
I suggest locking them all in a room, blast them with vuvuzelas, and don't let them out until someone grows a pair.
For the first time, I am thinking that the USA can win the group and avoid Germany.
-
For the first time, I am thinking that the USA can win the group and avoid Germany.
Perhaps they should let the USA and England team up against Germany. It'll be like old times.
-
Perhaps they should let the USA and England team up against Germany. It'll be like old times.
France forfeits?
ETA: Japan did get an unexpected opening win...
-
France forfeits?
Not so much forfeits, but gets completely overrun and is pretty much useless in the second half.
-
Wow.
I don't know which is cooler; Paraguay looking at an upset, or Italy dramaqueening a possible first match loss to Paraguay.
-
ETA: Japan did get an unexpected opening win...
Nobody saw that coming.
-
Not so much forfeits, but gets completely overrun and is pretty much useless in the second half.
forfeits, then plays for both sides.
-
For the first time, I am thinking that the USA can win the group and avoid Germany.
1) If both England and USA beat both Slovenia and Algeria, both go to the Round of 16, but #1 and #2 will come down to the tie-breakers enumerated earlier in this thread. The last of which is a coin flip.
2) If either England or USA loses to Slovenia, then that team will go home, the other will win the group. Slovenia goes through in the #2 slot.
3) If both England and USA lose to Slovenia, then Slovenia wins the group. The tie-breakers will decide which of England and USA is the runner-up and which goes home.
4) If either England or USA loses to Algeria, they should seriously consider giving up the game.
5) Whoever plays Germany is going to get smoked. Easily the best team I've seen so far.
-
BTW, referring to the above post, I should qualify that the "lose(s) to" phrase should really be "fails to beat". At this point, a tie being as good (or as bad) as a defeat.
-
France forfeits?
ETA: Japan did get an unexpected opening win...
So I should be looking for some team to drop the bomb on Japan in the game that eliminates them from the World Cup... Got it!
-
From the dashed hopes department: FIFA won't ban vuvuzelas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8737455.stm).
Bugger.
-
BTW, referring to the above post, I should qualify that the "lose(s) to" phrase should really be "fails to beat". At this point, a tie being as good (or as bad) as a defeat.
Yeah, but what if (all assuming England and US beat Algeria):
1. England beats Slovenia, and USA ties Slovenia
2. USA beats Slovenia, England ties Slovenia
3. both England and USA tie Slovenia
I guess all depend on how badly England and US beat Algeria, but if all beat Algeria 1-0 you have a clusterfuck that will be settled by BS. I bet then teams would wish they could have settled it on the field.
-
I bet then teams would wish they could have settled it on the field.
They have that opportunity, and it's their own fault if they fail to take it. If you win all three of your group matches, you win the group and avoid all possibility of being in a coin-flip situation (actually, I think they draw lots). That's why the USA coming back and earning a tie against England was so important: it prevents England from running the table (undeserved as it might have been) and keeps alive the possibility of the USA (or Slovenia) getting into the Round of 16 and avoiding Germany.
Actually, because of the tie, even Algeria are still in with a chance...on paper.
Now both England and USA have to go out and score as many goals as possible against the Slovenia and Algeria to stack the stats for the tie-breaks. In this endeavour, it's advantage USA as you get to play Algeria last, meaning that you'll have a good idea of what you have to do against them. BUT, you have to play Slovenia next, and they will have their tails up and be looking to defend their leadership position.
Everyone (not you, Alkie), still think ties are boring?
Of course, for the 1994 World Cup, England dicked around in qualifying, and had to beat tiny San Marino's part-timers by 7 goals in order to make the finals. San Marino - Europe's worst team - proceeded to score the World Cup's faster ever goal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGdQvqbIexk). England won 7-1, and missed the finals that time around. Those were the finals held in the summer of 1994 in the United States. In the spring of 1994, Limey moved to the United States. Grrrrrrr.
-
Everyone (not you, Alkie), still think ties are boring?
I guess I missed the "ah-ha!" that would have led anyone to change their mind. Is it about the game, or is it about tiebreaker rules in a tourney? Because the game ending in a tie sucked.
-
Everyone (not you, Alkie), still think ties are boring?
I just wanted a point of fact here: I never said 1-1 was boring. I said it was unsatisfying. The match was fine (as far as soccer goes).
-
I just wanted a point of fact here: I never said 1-1 was boring. I said it was unsatisfying. The match was fine (as far as soccer goes).
Right. I never said ties were boring, I said they were pointless and an obstacle to my becoming a fan of the sport.
-
My apologies.
However, I'm hoping that I have at least made it more clear that the tie in group play adds to the overall intrigue, rather than diminish it, even if the individual result may be unsatisfactory.
Losing isn't very satisfactory either.
-
This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/13/ledley-king-world-cup) is fucking nuts.
England Coach Capello will be consulting the team's psychologist (yes, you read that right) before deciding whether to play or drop Robert Green as goalie for the next match. The team's psychologist (pausing again to let that settle on the brain) will evaluate Green's mental state, as well as that of his defenders.
I suggest locking them all in a room, blast them with vuvuzelas, and don't let them out until someone grows a pair.
Honest question: Is the whole notion of the British Stiff Upper Lip a complete fabrication or merely something of the past?
-
Losing isn't very satisfactory either.
Yeah, this one I disagree with.
-
Losing isn't very satisfactory either.
It's better than a tie.
-
I had forgotten how much I hate Cristiano Ronaldo, thankfully, he was diving all over the pitch today, in order to remind me of his complete douchebaggery.
-
I had forgotten how much I hate Cristiano Ronaldo, thankfully, he was diving all over the pitch today, in order to remind me of his complete douchebaggery.
No. No. No! You don't understand!
He's moving so fast that he's on the verge of being out of control the whole time, so the even the slightest whiff of contact will send him tumbling. At least, that's what his current manager will say; every other manager says he's a diving cheat.
I hate him.
-
It's better than a tie.
I think North Korea losing only 2-1 to Brazil will be satisfactory for them, and very unsatisfactory for Brazil.
It's a funny ol' game.
-
I think North Korea losing only 2-1 to Brazil will be satisfactory for them, and very unsatisfactory for Brazil.
It's a funny ol' game.
The ridiculous showboating by Brazil late in that game almost had me rooting for North Korea, which is insane. They were just playing around when they got up 2-0 like it was a scrimmage, everybody fooling around on these 1 and 2 man attacks trying to pad their stats. Then the Koreans scored and the Brazilians were still showboating, and the Koreans actually had a couple of chances to tie it as a result. Their best chance was with a minute or so left, on a break after the Brazilians had 6 guys up on a scoring attack. 6 guys attacking with a minute left when you're only up 1 goal in the world cup! The Koreans might have had the goal too, but their main striker on their late chances was some dude the announcers were making fun of because he always shoots as soon as he gets the ball.
-
The ridiculous showboating by Brazil late in that game almost had me rooting for North Korea, which is insane.
Supposedly the 100 NK fans were hired actors from China.
-
Question. In the Round of Sixteen, can two countries from the same region play each other? There's a good chance that 2A v 1B will be Argentina v Uruguay. If they can't face each other, who would be moved?
-
The ridiculous showboating by Brazil late in that game almost had me rooting for North Korea, which is insane. They were just playing around when they got up 2-0 like it was a scrimmage, everybody fooling around on these 1 and 2 man attacks trying to pad their stats. Then the Koreans scored and the Brazilians were still showboating, and the Koreans actually had a couple of chances to tie it as a result. Their best chance was with a minute or so left, on a break after the Brazilians had 6 guys up on a scoring attack. 6 guys attacking with a minute left when you're only up 1 goal in the world cup! The Koreans might have had the goal too, but their main striker on their late chances was some dude the announcers were making fun of because he always shoots as soon as he gets the ball.
To be fair to the Brazilians, the "showboating" of which you speak is their natural style. They seem to be just fucking around - what England's Coach Capello likes to call "resting with the ball" - but they are also moving the defense around, trying to work an opening and waiting for an opportunity at which point they strike like a cobra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HrjevD2vhk&feature=related)*.
* This was in the 1970 World Cup Final vs. 4-time World Champion Italy.
-
Question. In the Round of Sixteen, can two countries from the same region play each other? There's a good chance that 2A v 1B will be Argentina v Uruguay. If they can't face each other, who would be moved?
The bracket is fixed from the moment they draw the groups, and anyone can play anyone depending on how that goes for them. Certain teams are seeded in the group draw, but that's pretty much it as far as engineering the match-ups goes.
-
Supposedly the 100 NK fans were hired actors from China.
I read that they re-edit the games that are shown domestically so that NK wins.
-
Supposedly the 100 NK fans were hired actors from China.
...and these 36 orange-clad hotties (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/15/fifa-bavaria-beer-orange-dresses) (SFW) were part of an "ambush advertising" stunt by a dutch brewery.
-
...and these 36 orange-clad hotties (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/15/fifa-bavaria-beer-orange-dresses) (SFW) were part of an "ambush advertising" stunt by a dutch brewery.
So blowing on horns is okay but hot women in orange are verboten?
You know how I know soccer is gay?
-
Is it just me, or has Spain played the entire first half in Switzerland's penalty area without scoring a goal?
-
Is it just me, or has Spain played the entire first half in Switzerland's penalty area without scoring a goal?
As Seth Meyers tweeted, "Thus far Swiss defense playing like regular cheese."
-
Is it just me, or has Spain played the entire first half in Switzerland's penalty area without scoring a goal?
68% of the possession, in a sport where 55% is notable dominance.
Spain's record since winning Euro 2008: 25W-1L-0D, scoring 75 goals in the process. During WC 2010 qualifying, Switzerland lost to Luxembourg...at home.
From the Guardian's PBP: "Half time: Spain 0-0 Switzerland. Permission to weep for the future of football?"
-
Aaaaaaand right on cue, the Swiss take the
cheese lead.
-
Aaaaaaand right on cue, the Swiss take the cheese lead.
One goal on 2 shots (one of which was a free kick)? That's Swiss efficiency!
-
Aaaaaaand right on cue, the Swiss take the cheese lead.
That was pretty awesome little exchange too... If keep gave up his body on that one, like US goalie did, he might have some broken ribs, but the Swiss would not have scored.
-
That was pretty awesome little exchange too... If keep gave up his body on that one, like US goalie did, he might have some broken ribs, but the Swiss would not have scored.
More from the Guardian's (highly recommended) PBP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/16/world-cup-2010-spain-switzerland-live): "In a daft way Spain are lucky to just have conceded a goal, because both Casillas and Pique could have given away a penalty and been sent off during that attack."
-
One goal on 2 shots Two shots one goal (one of which was a free kick)? That's Swiss efficiency!
FIFY
-
More from the Guardian's (highly recommended) PBP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/16/world-cup-2010-spain-switzerland-live): "In a daft way Spain are lucky to just have conceded a goal, because both Casillas and Pique could have given away a penalty and been sent off during that attack."
Video of the goal is available on ESPN's gamecast.
-
FIFY
Spain has 30 touches in the attacking penalty area, while Switzerland has only 5.
-
Why the fuck did 21 guys just stand around while that shot came off the crossbar?
-
And now Switzerland hits the post.
-
To be fair to the Brazilians, the "showboating" of which you speak is their natural style. They seem to be just fucking around - what England's Coach Capello likes to call "resting with the ball" - but they are also moving the defense around, trying to work an opening and waiting for an opportunity at which point they strike like a cobra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HrjevD2vhk&feature=related)*.
* This was in the 1970 World Cup Final vs. 4-time World Champion Italy.
I get that part of it. What bugged me was how, after they got 2 goals up, it seemed like everybody on their team was suddenly only interested in getting a goal for themselves so they wouldn't be left out of the party. The earlier precision of their strikes was out the window in favor of just 1 or 2 guys trying to go against the entire Korean defense on their own. It truly almost cost them a tie, as the Koreans had 3 genuine chances after their goal, all as a result of this singleminded attempt to pad individual stats. I mean, on Brazil's second to last posession, in like the 92nd minute, they had 6 guys up to the penalty area. Korea got the ball back after a sloppy 1 on 5 strike, got the ball back the other way and quickly had a great chance to score. Unfortunately the guy who ended up with the ball was the Korean guy who literally takes a shot as soon as he touches the ball no matter where he is.
And yeah, the part about the North Koreans hiring actors to be their fans was pretty hilarious.
-
Thanks for the Gaurdian link Limey. Good commentary.
-
Aaaaaand... fin. Swiss win 1-0.
-
Wow!!
-
Arizona just lost to Santa Clara in the first round.
-
Thanks for the Gaurdian link Limey. Good commentary.
You're welcome. Tune in for every match to read classic commentary such as "Ramos zips dangerously into the box from the right and then toebungs fecklessly wide of the near post".
Also, your typo of "Gaurdian" is apropos, as the print version used to be famous for typos itself. So much so that's its nickname is the "Grauniad", after the (false) urban legend that that's how they once printed their own name.
-
Aaaaaand... fin. Swiss win 1-0.
The last, crumbling pillars of my bracket have just been kicked out from under it. Brazil vs Spain in the Ro16 is a real possibility when I had that as the final (with Spain winning).
-
WHOA! The suprise's in this tourney are the freaking best!
-
WHOA! The suprise's in this tourney are the freaking best!
I'm feeling sorry for the hosts right now. Uruguay merited the win, but the ejection of the SA keeper and the ensuing penalty were both harsh to say the least. I felt the whole time that SA were getting the rough end of the ref., but there was nothing really egregious (like that obvious thought-foul on Robert "Super Hands" Green) that impacted the result.
Good news is that, now, Mexico and France are in a true Thunderdome scenario. I'm clearly neutral in that one so, all I'll say is: Viva México!
-
Good news is that, now, Mexico and France are in a true Thunderdome scenario. I'm clearly neutral in that one so, all I'll say is: Viva México!
That'll be a great one.
The second game of group stage is where all the moving and shaking happens. Teams have to be more aggressive now that the landscape is starting to take form, so I think we'll see more goals and less ties. This tournament quickly heats up after the feeling-it-out phase of the first game.
-
I'm feeling sorry for the hosts right now. Uruguay merited the win, but the ejection of the SA keeper and the ensuing penalty were both harsh to say the least. I felt the whole time that SA were getting the rough end of the ref., but there was nothing really egregious (like that obvious thought-foul on Robert "Super Hands" Green) that impacted the result.
Good news is that, now, Mexico and France are in a true Thunderdome scenario. I'm clearly neutral in that one so, all I'll say is: Viva México!
I'm rooting for France b/c Alkie is rooting for Mexico.
-
Oh shi.... (http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/demotivational-posters-robert-green.jpg)
-
But Alkie has a good point. Obviously someone agrees ties aren't a great way to resolve things because they do away with them in the later rounds, even going with something as trivial as penalty kicks. By your logic, if even in the championship two teams play their hearts out, go back and forth all game, shouldn't they just call it a tie and both go home satisfied at a good match, both as champions?
I don't understand, did my logic say "this round" in anything I posted? If it did not, then let me crystal clear: the context of a tie is "this round", a round-robin affair where "points" are the goals for teams wanting to move on. If you play your best and it ends in a tie, you're awarded a point. A point is good, not great, but it is way better than no points. Because you accumulate points throughout the 3 game round-robin, you start to see where the points you're getting will help you advance. England and USA should beat Algeria, just like Slovenia did. If they don't, then they don't deserve to move on. Slovenia has already taken care of the three points they knew they could get in this group round robin play. The worse thing that could happen to them is they lose to both USA and England, because they will only have the three point cumulative. The USA and England can count the one point acquired plus the 3 points they should get when they win over Algeria, that is four points total. With a win over Slovenia for each, then it jumps to seven points each with the goal differential playing a part of where each will be seeded next. If, on the other hand, both USA and England tie with Slovenia, you will end up with a three teams at five points each. The goal differential will determine who goes on and who goes home. Last year, in the Confederation Gold Cup (in South Africa), the US was facing a similar fate in their last match in the round-robin. They needed to win against Egypt and they needed the team above them in the points standings to lose. But that would only assure a tie with the team above them, so they knew not only that they needed to win the last match, but they needed to win by three goals to advance. It was exciting to watch that match as the USA did exactly that, scored a victory but they also knocked in three goals (my favorite being the Michael Bradley goal, set up beautifully by the midfield play of both Bradley and Donovan). So I know everyone expects wins and loses in single games, but this is tournament play and the first round is all about points and goal differential.
The context of "this round" is all you need to know to understand my logic.
-
That's not what Noe's saying. He's saying that ties are okay because sometimes two teams just play their hearts out and if they draw under that circumstance then the winner is the fan. I think Alkie's point, if I may interpret, is that if England really considers it a 'soft loss' to tie with the US, and the US a 'soft victory' to tie with England, then why not decide it in a real way that cuts through that ambiguity. Or at least do it like hockey, where each time gets a point for tieing at the end of regulation, but the winner of overtime gets the full win.
Wow, you didn't read a thing I said at all. How can you bold face lie about what I said? It's not that hard to read my post, is it?
-
So if USA and England both tie their next two games with equal total goals scored, and they are tied for the #2 spot.....it goes to a random draw for the chance to move on?
If that's actually true, everything Noe and chuck have said is out the window.
If England and USA do not beat Algeria, then I don't care what system you use, both of them should be sent home. It's like the Pittsburgh Steelers losing a real game to a junior college team. If that happens, the Steelers should just be totally ashame of themselves. Why are you worried about losing or a tie with Algeria?
-
Something I can completely agree with. All the games should be "must wins." It's like a tournament and shit.
Oh, NOW we're talking about the single event. How convenient.
This really is, quite possibly, the stupidest non-politics thread here ever. HH and I are arguing that the point of any single competition is to have a winner and a loser. You, chuck, Noe and whoever else (I've lost track) are suggesting that we're somehow missing the point of a round robin tournament where ties are granted points; as if maybe our science/math based advanced degrees have failed us or that we're just rednecks (which is possible). While I am genuinely embarrassed that my feelings on this matter make me uncharacteristically small-minded and Merikun, it's just a matter of philosophies and none of us are likely to budge. HH and I completely get that the point of the first round is simply "to move on" and not to "win 3 games." We understand the rules (in that regard). We like rules. I'm for regulation. Our problem isn't that there are rules, it's that we think the rules are silly because they have possible non-answer outcomes. That the biggest sporting event on the face of the earth could conceivably end in a 4-way tie that would be decided by random draw for advancement doesn't jive for me (and I assume HH).
Define winner and loser to me. If the Houston Texans win the last game of the season in 2009, they won... correct? But they had to sit around and wait to see if the Bengals won a game over the Jets in order for them to realize a playoff berth. The Jets won, the Texans, while *winners* of the last game (the single competition), did not take that and hoist it as a great accomplishment... instead they bemoaned the fact the Bengals laid down and did not play their best against the Jets. They, in essence, decided that the greater picture is the fact that they did *NOT* make it to the playoffs, regardless of the single winning moment. I can celebrate battles won with the best of them, but winning the war is always the goal of a team... is it not?
BTW - if England and the USA (and Slovenia) allowed Algeria to tie them in a four way, then they all deserve to have FIFA do a draw to see who advances. That is the height of laying down if Algeria were involved in a four way tie with those squads. I'd welcome a random draw at that point just to add shame to the humiliation that all the other three teams brought on to themselves.
-
So...5 goals in 2 games for Argentina and none for Messi? The worlds greatest player is obviously not playing yet, right?
-
Maradonna is beginning to remind me of a hobbit. What a tiny man.
-
Soccer does not mess around. The threat of a red card is what allows a game to be better controlled by a single ref than an NBA game is with 3.
-
So...5 goals in 2 games for Argentina and none for Messi? The worlds greatest player is obviously not playing yet, right?
He's been at the center of most of the goals.
-
Soccer does not mess around. The threat of a red card is what allows a game to be better controlled by a single ref than an NBA game is with 3.
Howard Webb should've red-carded the Spanish goalie for the physical assault on the Swiss striker just before the goal. It annoys me when refs decide to let automatic ejections slide because a goal was scored. Anywhere else on the field, the perpetrator of a foul like that gets his marching orders.
Yes, I am aware that Webb is the English representative in the officiating ranks. Last WC, Englishman Graham Poll let an Italian (IIRC) stay on the field after his 2nd yellow, and only red-carded him after his third yellow. Officiating this time around has been much better so far, and reasonably consistnet, Howard Webb notwithstanding.
-
So if USA and England both tie their next two games with equal total goals scored, and they are tied for the #2 spot.....it goes to a random draw for the chance to move on?
If that's actually true, everything Noe and chuck have said is out the window.
Americans and soccer. (http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/129209328504419918.png)
-
Americans and soccer. (http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/129209328504419918.png)
Did you build that? It's pretty much dead on.
-
Did you build that? It's pretty much dead on.
Not me.
-
WC humour. Just received this via email:
Friday 18th of June, don't miss it! A war between two nations, England and
Algeria! One of them a fanatical Muslim country, where bombers and
terrorists are born and trained, where tough sharia law is being implemented
and white Christians are outcasts and live in fear. The other is a shithole
in North Africa.
-
The nutshell for France - Mexico, from the Guardian's fabulous minute-by-minute commentary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/17/world-cup-2010-france-mexico-live):
Diego Forlan drove Uruguay top of this group last night with their emphatic win over hosts South Africa, which means defeat for either of these two sides [France and Mexico] would leave them in all sorts of bother, leaving them three points off the pace with one match to play and relying on other results, goal difference, other teams not conspiring against them by colluding and all the usual last-round-of-the-group-stage shenanigans.
-
Ok, explain the rankings to me. USA appears to be 14th. But who ranked them there? If you go team by team, it seems pretty obvious that USA would be expected to lose to a number of teams below them and aren't the 14th best team in the world.
I mean, I just watched a piece about how if the US doesn't win tomorrow, there's genuine concern about being Algeria. I mean, really? How is USA 14th? Who put them there and does that actually mean anything?
-
Ok, explain the rankings to me. USA appears to be 14th. But who ranked them there? If you go team by team, it seems pretty obvious that USA would be expected to lose to a number of teams below them and aren't the 14th best team in the world.
I mean, I just watched a piece about how if the US doesn't win tomorrow, there's genuine concern about being Algeria. I mean, really? How is USA 14th? Who put them there and does that actually mean anything?
ESPN has one set of rankings, FIFA another, and Limey another still. Fortunately, the tiebreakers will now include the computer rankings as one-third of the formula.
-
So they are, in fact, completely made-the-fuck up.
-
So they are, in fact, completely made-the-fuck up.
If they weren't, they'd be standings.
-
WC humour. Just received this via email:
Now that's funny.
-
Ok, someone splains me this...
How is it that real live Mexicans are made of rubber and steel...go on, try to injure one on the job; it can't be done. I've seen it.
But the Mexicans that play professional sports are little fucking girls made of glass and styrofoam.
-
Ok, someone splains me this...
How is it that real live Mexicans are made of rubber and steel...go on, try to injure one on the job; it can't be done. I've seen it.
But the Mexicans that play professional sports are little fucking girls made of glass and styrofoam.
And France is the one making them act like little girls.
-
Ok, someone splains me this...
How is it that real live Mexicans are made of rubber and steel...go on, try to injure one on the job; it can't be done. I've seen it.
But the Mexicans that play professional sports are little fucking girls made of glass and styrofoam.
Pretty sure wearing blue jeans and long sleeve shirts while putting shingles on a roof in August has something to do with it. Fucking baked in toughness.
-
Pretty sure wearing blue jeans and long sleeve shirts while putting shingles on a roof in August has something to do with it. Fucking baked in toughness.
Racist.
-
Offsides doesn't count if you're Mexican apparently.
-
Offsides doesn't count if you're Mexican apparently.
There's a racist border joke here. Alkie?
-
Offsides doesn't count if you're Mexican apparently.
He looked even with defender when the ball was struck.
-
There's a racist border joke here. Alkie?
Why you picking on the dude from Mexico?
-
2-0 Mexico.
Bye, bye, Frenchies.
-
2-0 Mexico.
Bye, bye, Frenchies.
It would have been fun to have the Irish there. What a waste of a cheat.
-
VIVA EL TRI!
Don't worry, the rest of you rooting for USA can root with me next week when your team is gone from the tourney.
-
He looked even with defender when the ball was struck.
More even than Greece's winning goal.
-
VIVA EL TRI!
Don't worry, the rest of you rooting for USA can root with me next week when your team is gone from the tourney.
When you start rooting for the Yankees in the playoffs, I will deliver the mercy killing.
-
When you start rooting for the Yankees in the playoffs, I will deliver the mercy killing.
That, I can promise you, will never fucking happen.
Last year, I thought "oh what the hell, I live here now." It lasted, no shit, until the starting lineups. I can't do it.
-
Offsides doesn't count if you're Mexican apparently.
...when playing France, who are only there by virtue of Henri's blatant-as-fuck handball against Ireland.
Actually, the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking player. Freezeframe shows him fractionally offside, but (IMH, NBAF(M), O) the assistant made the right call because in real time there would've been shitloads of doubt.
-
It would have been fun to have the Irish there. What a waste of a cheat.
It was classic when the English commentator ...um...commented, before Mexico's penalty, that if it went in France would be deep in the trenches. Pretty much everyone in ear shot said "Well that'd be a fucking first!"
-
Serbia still up 1-0 over the Krauts. Krauts apparently screwed by weak red card. Can't tell since I'm at work (and wouldn't really know if I were watching the game).
-
Serbia takes it. I didn't see the red card but it better have been deserved. Germany over 50 minutes down a man.
-
Serbia takes it. I didn't see the red card but it better have been deserved. Germany over 50 minutes down a man.
It wasn't. It was Klose's second yellow of the first half (the last of six total awarded in that half), and it was nothing more than a little love-tap on the ankle. The referee set the bar way too low for those cards. I think that Lahm also got one, which means that he gets to sit out the next game, too.
-
It was on his second yellow. Referee was pulling yellow cards when he probably should have been calling fouls. However, he had done so several times prior to that foul and had called it both ways prior to that foul. Was he quick on the draw? Probably. Was it unfair to the German side? No, definitely not. Both teams should have realized by then that the referee was quick with the yellow card and adjusted their play accordingly. I knew when he committed the foul that a card would come out just by observing how he was calling the game.
-
Can't get the ESPN feed online -- anybody have another link for this morning's futbol? Thx.
-
That goal was surprising because, I mean, USA is 14th in the world.
How bad is England?
-
Slovenia up 1 on a typical fubar by USA defense.
-
Can't get the ESPN feed online -- anybody have another link for this morning's futbol? Thx.
Do you have an ATT account? I'm using that with ESPN3, works pretty good.
-
Do you have an ATT account? I'm using that with ESPN3, works pretty good.
I couldn't figure out ESPN3. And I'm not exactly gonna go out of my way to watch a soccer game.
-
That goal was surprising because, I mean, USA is 14th in the world.
How bad is England?
Worse than you know. Apparently, we are replacing the hapless Robert Green in goal with David "Calamity" James. Yes, that is his "official" nickname. He's had it for years. Go to youtube and search for "Calamity James" - I can't bring myself to do it. That's what's in goal for us today.
Somewhere, high up a mountain, in a lofty, cloudy perch, the Gods are weeping.
-
It was on his second yellow. Referee was pulling yellow cards when he probably should have been calling fouls. However, he had done so several times prior to that foul and had called it both ways prior to that foul. Was he quick on the draw? Probably. Was it unfair to the German side? No, definitely not. Both teams should have realized by then that the referee was quick with the yellow card and adjusted their play accordingly. I knew when he committed the foul that a card would come out just by observing how he was calling the game.
This is all true, and would be totally acceptable if he hadn't changed his tactic in the 2nd half, and only booked half of the ticky-tac (but rulebook bookable) fouls. Now, I'm as happy to see Germany bite the big one as the next guy - Stanley Spodolski's (http://www.reelfilm.com/images/uhf.jpg) penalty miss was especially satisfying - but at some point that Spanish clown might ref a game I care about, and that's not cool.
Also, Group C tactics just got thrown into a cement mixer. Now, finishing 2nd might not be such a bad thing...
-
How many Slovenians does it take to change a light bulb (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2010/6/18/1276871034087/Slovenia-celebrate-scorin-006.jpg)?
-
Let me tell you something.
The USA? Doesn't play soccer. This is not our sport. This is not our tournament. Let the countries that give a shit have it.
-
I couldn't figure out ESPN3. And I'm not exactly gonna go out of my way to watch a soccer game.
You made the right call.
-
The US reminds me of my High School team. Just kick it downfield and assume you'll quickly get the ball back, and then a series of random midfield headers just cuz we can.
-
Let me tell you something.
The USA? Doesn't play soccer. This is not our sport. This is not our tournament. Let the countries that give a shit have it.
The MBM dude at The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/18/world-cup-2010-slovenia-usa-live) agrees:
Slovenia are manifestly the superior team and deserve to be in the lead. The Americans have been stodgy and predictable (so they learned something from England the other night, then) even if there have been slight hints that they might could score maybe one goal in the second half. But their defence is diabolical so it is almost certain that they will concede, too.
-
ESPN commentator pointing out that it's been 4 years since someone has come back from a two goal deficit in the world cup. Also, I just ate breakfast for the first time since yesterday.
-
I worked with a guy from Slovenia who the biggest anti-American douche I've ever met. Worse than the French. I bet he is on cloud 9 right now.
-
Let me tell you something.
The USA? Doesn't play soccer. This is not our sport. This is not our tournament. Let the countries that give a shit have it.
I owe you lunch, alkie. This pathetic showing makes me feel guilty for not having lost the bet.
-
Wins for Team USA in World Cup:
2010 - 0
2006 - 0
2002 - 2
1998 - 0
1994 - 1 (as the fucking HOST)
1990 - 0
For the love of fucking god, someone, ANYONE, tell me why we're all under this insane belief that USA is, at WORST, an average soccer team. I'm pretty good with geography and I've never heard of at least 4 of the countries the USA has lost to in the last 20 years.
-
I owe you lunch, alkie. This pathetic showing makes me feel guilty for not having lost the bet.
Nah, it was a tie. And sure, that makes me bored to tears, but if it's good enough for soccer, it's good enough for gambling.
-
Nah, it was a tie. And sure, that makes me bored to tears, but if it's good enough for soccer, it's good enough for gambling.
Works in blackjack, everyone keeps their money. Funny how I don't hear anyone bleating about ties at the blackjack table.
-
Works in blackjack, everyone keeps their money. Funny how I don't hear anyone bleating about ties at the blackjack table.
I'm ok with ties in games of chance. Games of skill or games of competition are not the same thing.
-
I'm ok with ties in games of chance. Games of skill or games of competition are not the same thing.
Blackjack isn't a game of chance. The house always wins.
-
Blackjack isn't a game of chance. The house always wins.
Point taken.
-
Blackjack isn't a game of chance. The house always wins.
No, no, no. Every person who's ever been to Vegas swears up and down they win. Every. Single. Time. It's amazing that the casinos can stay in business the way people keep taking their money.
-
No, no, no. Every person who's ever been to Vegas swears up and down they win. Every. Single. Time. It's amazing that the casinos can stay in business the way people keep taking their money.
I have walked out of casinos with house money, but I have never left Vegas doing anything other than breaking even (i.e. table profits paying for the balance of the weekend - flights & hotels excluded). And I've only done that twice out of maybe 8 visits. I agree that anyone who claims otherwise over the long term is a liar. It's actually a proven psychological fact! that gamblers only remember when they win.
-
I have walked out of casinos with house money, but I have never left Vegas doing anything other than breaking even (i.e. table profits paying for the balance of the weekend - flights & hotels excluded). And I've only done that twice out of maybe 8 visits. I agree that anyone who claims otherwise over the long term is a liar. It's actually a proven psychological fact! that gamblers only remember when they win.
I knew a doctor who claimed he could count 5 decks of cards in blackjack. He was a really smart guy, but that's also the kind of thing a compulsive gambler says.
-
I take it all back.
-
WOW. Tied.
-
Not.Done.Yet
-
Equalized!!!
-
SUCK IT ALKIE!!!
-
Holy hell. What a set up by Altidore. Money finish by Bradley.
-
WTF!!!
-
Holy hell. What a set up by Altidore. Money finish by Bradley.
...udgirl...Paging B...
No, not that Bradley, and not that kind of "money finish".
-
Reffing horrible all day
-
Reffing horrible all day
what did he call? terrible. fucking horrible.
-
USA just got fucked, no lube.
-
what did he call? terrible. fucking horrible.
Apparently, Bradley illegally wrapped the defender's arms around his midsection, thus giving him an unfair advantage.
Rubbish!!!
-
3 fucking USAers held on that goal. FUCK THAT!!!!
-
Not often you have to play a man down with no one sent off.
-
3 fucking USAers held on that goal. FUCK THAT!!!!
There's nothing quite like getting jobbed, World Cup style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbbsytHDp2o).
-
So who won?
-
So who won?
You.
-
So who won?
The English.
-
So who won?
the gamblers that payrolled the ref.
-
So - correct me if I'm wrong,
Slovenia - 4 pts
USA - 2 pts
England - 1 pt
Algeria - 0 pts
Meaning the US needs England to lose/tie (1-1) to Slovenia to advance, assuming Algeria loses all three games. Right?
-
There's nothing quite like getting jobbed, World Cup style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbbsytHDp2o).
Why didn't one of you blokes knock that little fuck on his ass while he was dribbling (is that the right word in socceer) around you like he was a fucking Harlem Globetrotter?
-
Assuming England win today, they need any non draw in the England slovenia game.
-
SUCK IT ALKIE!!!
Wow. Another tie. Awesome.
-
So - correct me if I'm wrong,
Slovenia - 4 pts
USA - 2 pts
England - 1 pt
Algeria - 0 pts
Meaning the US needs England to lose/tie (1-1) to Slovenia to advance, assuming Algeria loses all three games. Right?
US and England beat Algeria and England beats Slovenia, US advances.
-
Assuming England win today, they need any non draw in the England slovenia game.
Gotcha. Thanks.
-
Assuming England win today, they need any non draw in the England slovenia game.
What would happen if the US, Slovenia and Limeyville all end up with 5 points?
-
What would happen if the US, Slovenia and Limeyville all end up with 5 points?
They have a blackjack tournament in Vegas to decide who advances.
-
What would happen if the US, Slovenia and Limeyville all end up with 5 points?
GD in the respective Algeria matches, then draw lots, right?
-
FWIW, a 2-2 tie > a 1-1 tie, because the second tie-breaker after goal difference is goals scored. Let me try and break this down:
Assuming that England beats Algeria today...
USA can expect to finish with 5 points by beating Algeria in Game #3. If England beats Slovenia, that puts England and USA through as 1st and 2nd in the group with 7 and 5 points respectively, Slovenia finishing with 4 and Algeria 0.
If England ties Slovenia, that creates a three-way tie on points. Slovenia are in the most peril in this scenario, as they beat Algeria only 1-0. If England and USA each beat Algeria by more than 1 goal, then Slovenia is out and the tie-breakers will further decide which of England and USA is 1st and 2nd.
If England loses to Slovenia, Slovenia wins the group and USA goes through in 2nd place.
If anyone loses or even ties Algeria, they will likely, and should, go home, but the permutations become too myriad to bother with here.
-
Why didn't one of you blokes knock that little fuck on his ass while he was dribbling (is that the right word in socceer) around you like he was a fucking Harlem Globetrotter?
It's worse than you think. This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk-kXwjASEE) is what happened immediately after the re-start. This was in the 80's, so lopping off a leg would've brought only a yellow. To be honest, I would've taken a red to have crocked that cheating little fuck. And I would've done it after the whistle. If there are no rules...then it's 'Nam, right?
-
It's worse than you think. This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk-kXwjASEE) is what happened immediately after the re-start. This was in the 80's, so lopping off a leg would've brought only a yellow. To be honest, I would've taken a red to have crocked that cheating little fuck. And I would've done it after the whistle. If there are no rules...then it's 'Nam, right?
One of the greatest WC goals of all time.
-
Congrats to Team USA. A win over Algeria next Wednesday puts you into the next round in all but the whackiest of scenarios. As far as I can tell, the worst predicament, would be to fall into a lot-drawing with England and/or Slovenia.
All assuming the win over Algeria (who should be mathematically eliminated by England in a few hours).
-
One of the greatest WC goals of all time.
And some of the shittiest defending ever seen since my balls dropped.
-
A fan speaks out against vuvuzelas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Ln_rqPpPk).
-
Ok, just saw the replay of the disallowed goal. Granted my understanding of soccer rules is pretty week, so can someone explain *why* that wasn't offsides? From every replay I saw, there was clearly no other Slovenia player between him and the goalkeeper when the pass was made.
-
Ok, just saw the replay of the disallowed goal. Granted my understanding of soccer rules is pretty week, so can someone explain *why* that wasn't offsides? From every replay I saw, there was clearly no other Slovenia player between him and the goalkeeper when the pass was made.
Then we weren't watching the same thing. All US attackers were either behind Slovenian defenders, or being tenderly held by them, when the ball was struck.
And the ref didn't call offsides, he called a foul on Edu, which is absoluite bullshit.
-
And the ref didn't call offsides, he called a foul on Edu, which is absoluite bullshit.
Yahoo recap says it was an offsides call on Bradley*. And every angle I saw showed him clearly between any defender and the goalkeeper when the ball was struck. I get that he was being mauled from behind at the time, but the defender *was* behind him, and I can't see where he wasn't offsides. But if that wasn't the call, then it's a moot point.
*Edited
-
Yahoo recap says it was an offsides call on Bradley*. And every angle I saw showed him clearly between any defender and the goalkeeper when the ball was struck. I get that he was being mauled from behind at the time, but the defender *was* behind him, and I can't see where he wasn't offsides. But if that wasn't the call, then it's a moot point.
*Edited
Did anyone see if the lineman assistant flagged? If he did, then it's on him (although the referee has the option to overrule him, but they rarely do*). If there was no flag, then the offside call is the ref backsliding to cover for his own error.
* They should be watching for everything except offside, because the assistant is doing that.
-
Did anyone see if the lineman assistant flagged? If he did, then it's on him (although the referee has the option to overrule him, but they rarely do*). If there was no flag, then the offside call is the ref backsliding to cover for his own error.
* They should be watching for everything except offside, because the assistant is doing that.
Is the linesman the other guy in the yellow standing on the sidelines? If so, then no, he didn't raise his flag, at least not that I could see. But Bradley was clearly between the goal and the guy buttfucking him. Does the fact that he's fighting off a rabid Slovenian penis cancel out his being offsides? Should something else have been called?
-
Is the linesman the other guy in the yellow standing on the sidelines? If so, then no, he didn't raise his flag, at least not that I could see. But Bradley was clearly between the goal and the guy buttfucking him. Does the fact that he's fighting off a rabid Slovenian penis cancel out his being offsides? Should something else have been called?
No flag means no offside. That can't be it.
FTR, the offside rule was softened a few years ago to discriminate between players who are actively seeking to play the ball, and those who are "inactive", i.e. innocently offside and not involving themselves in the play. Therefore, an attacking player who is behind the last defender is not offside until he makes a positive move to play, or even chase, the ball.
A very good example happened in the Germany - Serbia game today. A Serbian striker was standing about six yards from goal, and about six yards behind the last defender, when a shot was fired in from distance. No flag as the striker was not "active". The shot hit the post and came back near to the striker; still no flag as he stood there flat-footed and still "inactive.". Then he raised a leg towards the ball in an idiotic attempt the control it even though it was way out of his reach...flag.
Basically, when in an offside position, you have to stand there like a kid next to a smashed vase, until the play passes you and you are brought back onside.
-
Should something else have been called?
Illegal injection?
-
No flag means no offside. That can't be it.
So the refereee can't call offside? That must not have been the call then, even though Bradley clearly was.
Basically, when in an offside position, you have to stand there like a kid next to a smashed vase, until the play passes you and you are brought back onside.
Well, this was not Bradley today. He was clearly making a move in the play. But I guess it doesn't matter, if offside wasn't the call.
Does the referee not announce or signal or something what the call was?
-
Does the referee not announce or signal or something what the call was?
Donovan says... (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=264045&cc=5901&ver=us)
I'm a little gutted to be honest," Donovan said. "I don't know how they stole that last goal from us. I'm not sure what the call was. He (the referee) wouldn't tell us what the call was.
-
There was a linesman in the same side of the kick, perfectly positioned to call an offsides. He did not, the referee was in no position to call offsides from behind the action.
The referee gave a free kick, which indicates a foul. I believe that offsides would be goal kick.
Edit: Don't really know what I'm talking about it, just trying to restate the non-American ESPN commentators comment about whether it was offsides or a foul. For some reason I thought the keeper took the kick on an offsides, similar to after a goal or out of bounds on the back line, but I'm pretty sure I'm wrong.
-
So the refereee can't call offside? That must not have been the call then, even though Bradley clearly was.
He can, but it's generally the linesman's job.
Well, this was not Bradley today. He was clearly making a move in the play. But I guess it doesn't matter, if offside wasn't the call.
The play went past Bradley. Just because he was moving doesn't mean he was in the play.
I also disagree that he was offsides. It's pretty much impossible to be offsides when you're being fully embraced by an opposing player. By definition, you're on the same plane.
Does the referee not announce or signal or something what the call was?
He doesn't have to.
-
Donovan says... (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=264045&cc=5901&ver=us)
Well that's no good. The referee should at least make a call or give a signal or something..."offsides on No. 21...foul on No. 10...unnecessary buttfucking by No. 6"....somthing, you know. How can you not hold the referee accountable for making call?
-
It's pretty much impossible to be offsides when you're being fully embraced by an opposing player. By definition, you're on the same plane.
No you're not. I can grab and bear hug you from behind, as well as from the side. NTTAWWT.
He doesn't have to.
Reason number 4,287 why this is the worst sport in the world.
-
No you're not. I can grab and bear hug you from behind, as well as from the side. NTTAWWT.
In the clutch of your embrace, your arm would still be between me and the goal.
-
No you're not. I can grab and bear hug you from behind, as well as from the side. NTTAWWT.
Reason number 4,287 why this is the worst sport in the world.
But from the video angle, the SerbSlov player is actually invisible (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q76/SAPRaider/USNotOffsides.jpg)*. Which, given the angle of the shot, means that he is, at the moment of ball strike, at least parallel to Bradley if not slightly ahead.
If the referee could see Bradley well enough to call him offsides, then he could not have missed the bear hug.
**image taken from 2:42 of ESPN highlight (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5301919&categoryid=4823314&cc=5901&ver=us)
-
In the clutch of your embrace, your arm would still be between me and the goal.
Only after I caressed you in my arms. And does that invalidate an offside call?
-
But from the video angle, the Serb player is actually invisible (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q76/SAPRaider/USNotOffsides.jpg)*. Which, given the angle of the shot, means that he is, at the moment of ball strike, at least parallel to Bradley if not slightly ahead.
Absolutely not. Bradley, and his bald head are clearly between the defender and the goal. I'm not sure how you can possibly see it any other way.
Apparently this was not the call anyway.
-
Only after I caressed you in my arms. And does that invalidate an offside call?
A part of you would be between me and the goal, so I wouldn't be offsides.
-
A part of you would be between me and the goal, so I wouldn't be offsides.
But most of you would be between me and the goal. Do my portion over rule your portion?
-
Reason number 4,287 why this is the worst sport in the world.
Everyone comes around eventually.
I can't say exactly what did it for me, but I finally lost total interest in the first round somewhere after the equalizer and the non-goal. Reading about the tiebreakers that wouldn't have to be here at all if every game had a fucking winner and a fucking loser isn't helping. This sport is so half assed, it's actually making me angry.
-
Absolutely not. Bradley, and his bald head are clearly between the defender and the goal. I'm not sure how you can possibly see it any other way.
Apparently this was not the call anyway.
It was not the call, but I did just see another angle where it's clear that Bradley was on the same plane as the defender, both of them turned toward the sideline. He had also been in the special hug for a number of strides up to that point. He wasn't offsides, and as AtascAstro pointed out, if the ref had even been looking at Bradley enough to call something, it would have been been the aggressive dry-humping and a penalty kick.
-
But most of you would be between me and the goal. Do my portion over rule your portion?
Well, you're a lot bigger than me. So we'd have to take that into account.
-
Absolutely not. Bradley, and his bald head are clearly between the defender and the goal. I'm not sure how you can possibly see it any other way.
Apparently this was not the call anyway.
If the defenders penis is 16 inches long and goes from behind the player, through his legs, and ends in front of the player, the player is on side. But this is a moot point, the flag wasn't up on the sideline.
-
Absolutely not. Bradley, and his bald head are clearly between the defender and the goal. I'm not sure how you can possibly see it any other way.
Because I can't see the Slovenian player behind Bradley either, which means they are at least even. As the play progresses, the SerbSlov player suddlent appears from behind Bradley. I can't believe that you are being fooled by the camera angle.
Here is another view. (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q76/SAPRaider/StillNotOffsides.jpg) The ball is in flight, at the Slovenian player's right knee. You can clearly see two Slovenian defenders with Bradley between them. Bradley is in no way, behind the last defender.
Edit: Serbia/Slovenia, same difference.
-
Everyone comes around eventually.
I can't say exactly what did it for me, but I finally lost total interest in the first round somewhere after the equalizer and the non-goal. Reading about the tiebreakers that wouldn't have to be here at all if every game had a fucking winner and a fucking loser isn't helping. This sport is so half assed, it's actually making me angry.
So here's a partial list of the most ridiculous things about soccer:
1. It's played against a clock, but no one knows exactly how long a game will last.
2. The referee can call anything he wants and does not have to explain what he called to anyone.
3. There doesn't have to be, and frequently isn't, a winner in the game.
And this sport is popular exactly why?
-
If the defenders penis is 16 inches long and goes from behind the player, through his legs, and ends in front of the player, the player is on side.
Hmmm...I'll have to be careful then, next time I'm on defense.
-
So here's a partial list of the most ridiculous things about soccer:
1. It's played against a clock, but no one knows exactly how long a game will last.
2. The referee can call anything he wants and does not have to explain what he called to anyone.
3. There doesn't have to be, and frequently isn't, a winner in the game.
And this sport is popular exactly why?
This guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyA2s8aZnWQ)
-
Because I can't see the Slovenian player behind Bradley either, which means they are at least even.
If you can't see the Slovenian player, you're either blind or simply ignoring him. He's as plain as day, his bright white jersey sticking out like a 16 inch penis.
-
If you can't see the Slovenian player, you're either blind or simply ignoring him. He's as plain as day, his bright white jersey sticking out like a 16 inch penis.
You are the only person I've seen or heard that thinks Bradley was offsides. You also admittedly know very little about soccer, or the game's rules.
See where I'm going here?
-
This guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyA2s8aZnWQ)
YOU gotta be shittin' me! (http://content9.flixster.com/photo/10/99/87/10998771_gal.jpg)
-
You are the only person I've seen or heard that thinks Bradley was offsides. You also admittedly know very little about soccer, or the game's rules.
See where I'm going here?
I'm not following you.
-
I'm not following you.
Is that because you're blind or simply ignoring me?
-
You are the only person I've seen or heard that thinks Bradley was offsides. You also admittedly know very little about soccer, or the game's rules.
Yahoo said he was offsides, and when the game was being played live, the TV people thought he was offside. He was clearly between the defender and the goal when the ball left Donovan's foot. That cannot be argued objectively. I have admitted that I didn't know the rule about the penis, which is why I asked in the first place.
See where I'm going here?
Not really.
-
Is that because you're blind or simply ignoring me?
/awards free kick to Hudson
-
You are the only person I've seen or heard that thinks Bradley was offsides. You also admittedly know very little about soccer, or the game's rules.
See where I'm going here?
you've been around long enough to know that HH takes a side opposite of the consensus view, then shouts "YOU ARE WRONG!" as loud and as often as he can.
-
you've been around long enough to know that HH takes a side opposite of the consensus view, then shouts "YOU ARE WRONG!" as loud and as often as he can.
YOU ARE WRONG!
-
you've been around long enough to know that HH takes a side opposite of the consensus view, then shouts "YOU ARE WRONG!" as loud and as often as he can.
I know. And yet I'm always amused to watch it play out.
HH and Alkie are enjoying playing the role of soccer troll.
-
I know. And yet I'm always amused to watch it play out.
HH and Alkie are enjoying playing the role of soccer troll.
It's more interesting than the game itself.
-
Yahoo said he was offsides, and when the game was being played live, the TV people thought he was offside.
The TV people thought he was called offside, and upon reviewing the replay dismissed it as obviously not being the case.
He was clearly between the defender and the goal when the ball left Donovan's foot. That cannot be argued objectively.
That Bradley was offside can only be argued subjectively. He clearly wasn't.
-
It's more interesting than the game itself.
The thing that continually amazes me about world class football is the quality of the 1st touches. Especially the English side in this game, no matter what kind of ball is sent their way, a high lob, a line drive, a bouncing ball, they are able to control the ball amazingly well. That's the big difference between US soccer and the world class football played in Europe, players just don't have nearly the skill, manifested by weak 1st touches in comparison.
-
you've been around long enough to know that HH takes a side opposite of the consensus view, then shouts "YOU ARE WRONG!" as loud and as often as he can.
Some hunt Sasquatch or Nessie, I too hope to see the impossible. I think UH gets their Big XII invite long before HH concedes an arguement.
-
The TV people thought he was called offside, and upon reviewing the replay dismissed it as obviously not being the case.
That's what I mean.
That Bradley was offside can only be argued subjectively. He clearly wasn't.
He was clearly between the defender and the goal. That's simply a matter of geography. You say it doesn't constitute "offside" as either the defender's hands or his penis may have extended past Bradley...and I believe you.
-
The thing that continually amazes me about world class football is the quality of the 1st touches. Especially the English side in this game, no matter what kind of ball is sent their way, a high lob, a line drive, a bouncing ball, they are able to control the ball amazingly well. That's the big difference between US soccer and the world class football played in Europe, players just don't have nearly the skill, manifested by weak 1st touches in comparison.
So if the English have such superior first touches, why doesn't that translate to actually winning a game? Are first touches not that important?
-
Some hunt Sasquatch or Nessie, I too hope to see the impossible. I think UH gets their Big XII invite long before HH concedes an arguement.
he never even concedes that there is an argument. HE IS RIGHT!
-
he never even concedes that there is an argument. HE IS RIGHT!
Most peoples' lives would be a lot richer if they'd come to this same conclusion.
-
That's what I mean.
He was clearly between the defender and the goal. That's simply a matter of geography. You say it doesn't constitute "offside" as either the defender's hands or his penis may have extended past Bradley...and I believe you.
Limey already explained it to you, but you're too busy arguing and thumping your chest to understand why YOU ARE WRONG.
Bradley was not actively involved in playing the ball. The Brit announcer said as much when he said, "it can't be offside unless it was Edu because he was the only one who was active in the play."
Go watch the youtube replay again. Even if you are right about this "matter of geography," you're still wrong about the matter of the offside rule itself. Bradley stopped and didn't make a play on the ball, hence no offside.
-
Limey already explained it to you, but you're too busy arguing and thumping your chest to understand why YOU ARE WRONG.
I'm not wrong, I just didn't know the answer. That's why I asked the question.
-
On another tack, I watched the England/USA game at a party, so couldn't hear the tv, but now watching England v Algeria, I think it's kind of funny to have the Sky Sports regular crew of Martin Tyler and Andy Grey (well, the last time I was there they were). Millions of Americans are watching this and hearing Andy Grey and going "What the fuck is that guy saying?"
-
So here's a partial list of the most ridiculous things about soccer:
1. It's played against a clock, but no one knows exactly how long a game will last.
2. The referee can call anything he wants and does not have to explain what he called to anyone.
3. There doesn't have to be, and frequently isn't, a winner in the game.
And this sport is popular exactly why?
Because it's cheap. That's it. You can make a soccer ball out of just about anything and can play it just about anywhere. Sport of the people.
-
Because it's cheap. That's it. You can make a soccer ball out of just about anything and can play it just about anywhere. Sport of the people.
When *I* was a kid, we used a cardboard box for a glove. We made our balls out baling wire and dog turds...
-
When *I* was a kid, we used a cardboard box for a glove. We made our balls out bailing wire and dog turds...
Right. But if you were playing soccer, you could skip the cardboard and bailing wire and just use turds for balls and be a sports star.
-
Because it's cheap. That's it. You can make a soccer ball out of just about anything and can play it just about anywhere. Sport of the people.
And if you live in one of those unfortunate parts of the world where a child picks up the shiny land mine, the kid can still play.
-
How ya doin' Limey? Deep breaths, buddy.
-
How ya doin' Limey? Deep breaths, buddy.
I assumed the odometer rolled over on their 10th goal, no?
-
Carragher? Hesky? Gerrard? Lampard? Cole? Didn't these guys play in '66? Shouldn't the score be 5-0 by now?
-
On another tack, I watched the England/USA game at a party, so couldn't hear the tv, but now watching England v Algeria, I think it's kind of funny to have the Sky Sports regular crew of Martin Tyler and Andy Grey (well, the last time I was there they were). Millions of Americans are watching this and hearing Andy Grey and going "What the fuck is that guy saying?"
I love all the crazy soccer slang I don't understand at all. When being shouted by a guy with an accent I don't understand, it's even more entertaining.
-
How ya doin' Limey? Deep breaths, buddy.
What are you talking about? England is/are/vosotros tied. This is the first round, baby.
-
Wow...USA gets a boost there. 2-2 tie > 0-0 tie. Plus, USA plays last and will know what they need to advance.
-
What are you talking about? England is/are/vosotros tied. This is the first round, baby.
A 0-0 tie with Algeria puts more pressure on them against Slovenia.
-
What are you talking about? England is/are/vosotros tied. This is the first round, baby.
So, it is now entirely possible that someone will get out of this group into the next round without a single win. Just good ties. Awesome.
-
Wow...USA gets a boost there. 2-2 tie > 0-0 tie. Plus, USA plays last and will know what they need to advance.
The games are played simultaneously. But still, win and in.
-
So, it is now entirely possible that someone will get out of this group into the next round without a single win. Just good ties. Awesome.
and that would most likely be us, unless the Englad v Slovenia is a 3-3 (or greater) tie. Hooray Futbol!
-
The games are played simultaneously. But still, win and in.
ahhh...important to read times and not just look at sorted order.
-
So, it is now entirely possible that someone will get out of this group into the next round without a single win. Just good ties. Awesome.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzBOOM
Could you all hear that, or was it just inside my head?
-
2-2 tie > 0-0 tie.
NO.
NO. NO. NO.
No.
How is it more awesome that I gave up 2 goals than you did?
-
How is it more awesome that I gave up 2 goals than you did?
I scored 2 more than you did, and chicks dig the long ball.
-
You know merry ole England's football tradition is on a downward slide when the super special offensive weapon the team subs in once the game gets to a critical point is the moral equivalent of Hunter Pence.
-
So here's where we are now, right?
SLOVENIA IN IF:
1) Slovenia win
2) USA win and Slovenia tie
3) USA tie
USA IN IF:
1) USA win, England win
2) USA win, England tie
3) USA tie, England tie and inexplicably England doesn't have at least 2 more goals in their match than USA has in theirs (W. T. F.)
4) USA tie, Slovenia win
ENGLAND IN IF:
1) England win
2) England tie, USA tie and inexplicably England has at least 2 more goals in their match than USA has in theirs
ALGERIA IN IF:
1) Algeria win, Slovenia tie or win
Right?
ETA: So the winner of the England/Slovenia match is in. Slovenia is the only team that could possibly lose and still make the next round. The loser of USA/Algeria is done.
-
I scored 2 more than you did, and chicks dig the long ball.
But.......you gave UP two more goals than I did. Your defense is exactly as much worse than my offense is better.
-
But.......you gave UP two more goals than I did. Your defense is exactly as much worse than my offense is better.
Its all about goals scored.
-
A little late to this party, but isn't jobbing the Americans a favorite pastime of World Cup refs? [Was looking for the news of the '02(?) gaffe and ran across this 'timeline.' LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-gude/usa-robbed-mystery-call-r_b_617553.html) ].
-
But.......you gave UP two more goals than I did. Your defense is exactly as much worse than my offense is better.
I assumed it was a rule put in to encourage scoring, in response to, yu know, folks like you.
-
I assumed it was a rule put in to encourage scoring, in response to, yu know, folks like you.
Show me one time where I suggested that that problem with this game was a lack of goals. Show me.
-
On another tack, I watched the England/USA game at a party, so couldn't hear the tv, but now watching England v Algeria, I think it's kind of funny to have the Sky Sports regular crew of Martin Tyler and Andy Grey (well, the last time I was there they were). Millions of Americans are watching this and hearing Andy Grey and going "What the fuck is that guy saying?"
It's actually Ally McCoist. Different person, same level of incomprehensibility.
-
It's actually Ally McCoist. Different person, same level of incomprehensibility.
yeah I found that out later. They sound amazingly alike. Somebody should investigate.
-
At least FIFA is looking into sitting the ref (http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/source-fifa-may-sit-slovenia-u-s-referee--fbintl_ro-referee061810.html).
-
I am not sure that I have ever been so angry and embarrassed at something outside my control. If it was up to me, I would send the entire fucking lot home and replace them with fat cunts like myself who actually gave a shit. A more bland, going through the motions event I have not seen in a very long time.
My solution: execute Tony Heyward by firing squad before the Slovenia game, and tell the players "You're next!"
What a fucking disaster. The England team deserves nothing. The formation sucked, the organisation blew and clealry...and I mean punch in the fucking face clearly...didn't give a shit. Put 'em all on a slow boat back to England...via Somalia.
I hate Emile Heskey. He's rubbish. A reporter once said that he wished he could kick the ball as far as Emile Heskey can trap it. Think about that. It's a huuuuge insult. I think Emile Heskey was England's only functional player today. And he got taken off half way though the turgid pile of dogshit that was the second half.
In case you were wondering, I have calmed down significantly since the final whistle.
-
Ok Limey, I'm getting mixed signals here. Are you saying you're *not* happy with England's performance?
-
The idiot who refereed today's US-Slovenia match is likely to get shitcanned:
http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/source-fifa-may-sit-slovenia-u-s-referee--fbintl_ro-referee061810.html
"Coulibaly appeared to rule that American midfielder Michael Bradley had impeded a Slovenian defender, even though video replays showed no infringement."
Sure, Bradley impeded a Slovenian defender a lot like that Tech kicker impeded Tony Brackens.
The refereeing in futbol is always frustrating but I really don't see why it should be so bad at the World Cup level. That Greek fuck the other day who fell to the ground writhing around in agony like someone had told him he couldn't retire until 70 like the rest of us got the poor Nigerian kid a red card for swinging his foot in that Greek fuck's general direction. Get the fuck up you goddam broke-ass sodomist.
-
Ok Limey, I'm getting mixed signals here. Are you saying you're *not* happy with England's performance?
At this point, I wish we didn't have another game.
-
Check out the heat map of World Cup related Internet traffic (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/18/british-are-biggest-online-slackers-during-world-cup-and-u-s-east-coast-residents-arent-far-behind/). Central Texas hot spot
-
At this point, I wish we didn't have another game.
The Astros or England?
-
The Astros or England?
Excactly.
-
The Astros or England?
Everybody knows the Astros don't have much, so that's easier to take. The English side are like the Cubs: lots of hype, not many results.
-
So what is the ruling when a 16 inch penis comes in contact with the ball? Illegal use of penis or is it considered another type of header?
-
Univision is doing its part to make me like soccer more.
I highly recommend their pre/post game to ABC and ESPN.
-
From Limey's precious Guardian:
While New Zealand have been fibrous, to say the least, some of the Italian histrionics have been a wee bit unpalatable. After a foul by Killen, De Rossi wears the grimace of a man who has just lost his Dawson's Creek boxset.
Now that's some funny shit.
-
From Limey's precious Guardian:
While New Zealand have been fibrous, to say the least, some of the Italian histrionics have been a wee bit unpalatable. After a foul by Killen, De Rossi wears the grimace of a man who has just lost his Dawson's Creek boxset.
Now that's some funny shit.
After watching Bradley (and others) get assaulted in the box, it's pretty annoying to see the Italians get a penalty kick because somebody touched DeRossi.
And somebody needs to tell HH that Lucy Lawless is in the stands.
-
Oh man that was close. NZL would erupt
-
Well, I hate to admit this, but this NZL/ITA match may have changed some things for me.
1) God help me, I'm rooting for a tie. Dammit.
2) This is easily the most excited I've been 89 minutes into a match so far.
3) I think I'm starting to get the fouls and some of the rules that I clearly didn't get before.
-
It's been a fantastic effort from the Kiwis.
-
The French team is the gift that keeps on giving. After Anelka got kicked off the team for telling his coach to go get ass-fucked during the last game, the rest of the team has refused to practice. Now, the team director has resigned from the French football federation.
-
The French team is the gift that keeps on giving. After Anelka got kicked off the team for telling his coach to go get ass-fucked during the last game, the rest of the team has refused to practice. Now, the team director has resigned from the French football federation.
Classic. They're surrendering to THEMSELVES.
-
Bob Ley just interviewed a French reporter live on ESPN and he explained what was said by flat out quoting "Go to fuck yourself you son of a bitch"
-
Pardon his French?
-
I like how Bob apologized for the "frankness" of the comment.
No pun intended
-
Well, I hate to admit this, but this NZL/ITA match may have changed some things for me.
1) God help me, I'm rooting for a tie. Dammit.
2) This is easily the most excited I've been 89 minutes into a match so far.
3) I think I'm starting to get the fouls and some of the rules that I clearly didn't get before.
i was rooting for new zealand to win. they interviewed the new zealand player after and even he said that he was disappointed they couldn't get the win. whoopie! we played for the tie and got it! yay!
-
i was rooting for new zealand to win. they interviewed the new zealand player after and even he said that he was disappointed they couldn't get the win. whoopie! we played for the tie and got it! yay!
Right, let me rephrase, I wish NZ had won OBVIOUSLY, but with 2 minutes to go in the match and it was clear the ball was going to be Italy's the rest of the time, I was just hoping it would end in a tie (rather than a NZ loss; not over a NZ win).
-
Bob is apologizing again in case you were "disturbed" by the comments made by the French reporter.
This country is full of Puritan vaginas.
-
Right, let me rephrase, I wish NZ had won OBVIOUSLY, but with 2 minutes to go in the match and it was clear the ball was going to be Italy's the rest of the time, I was just hoping it would end in a tie (rather than a NZ loss; not over a NZ win).
agreed, but i can't see how this is the greatest world cup upset ever or whatever the announcer was intimating unless the team actually wins.
-
agreed, but i can't see how this is the greatest world cup upset ever or whatever the announcer was intimating unless the team actually wins.
Yeah, I said the exact same thing out loud here. It may be a massive shock, but it's not a fucking upset.
-
In case you missed it, the clip's already on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKc5U5ut-vM
-
Ghana vs. Australia and Italy vs New Zealand were very exciting matches. Those were fun to watch!
-
...Sure, Bradley impeded a Slovenian defender a lot like that Tech kicker impeded Tony Brackens...
YTIFY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zorwg3ZtGEg)
-
Ghana vs. Australia and Italy vs New Zealand were very exciting matches. Those were fun to watch!
And if you don't like draws, speaking frankly, you can go to fuck yourself.
-
And if you don't like draws, speaking frankly, you can go to fuck yourself.
I do and I will. That being said, I do hate draws, but I felt much better about them today. I was definitely happier to see NZ tie than lose after that match was over.
Plus...fuck Italy.
-
And if you don't like draws, speaking frankly, you can go to fuck yourself, you son of a bitch.
FIFY.
-
Goddam Italian couldn't organize a fuck in a brothel, how the hell are they supposed to be any good at team sports?
-
Goddam Italian couldn't organize a fuck in a brothel, how the hell are they supposed to be any good at team sports?
Here's an explanation (http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/funny-graphs-talents-of-the-italian-team-in-the-world-cup.png).
-
Here's an explanation (http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/funny-graphs-talents-of-the-italian-team-in-the-world-cup.png).
Yeah, I'll grant everyone that Mexico doesn't seem to field a team of the most likable characters on Earth, but how could anyone not from Italy root for the Italians? They manage the almost impossible; they're both pussies AND dicks.
-
Yeah, I'll grant everyone that Mexico doesn't seem to field a team of the most likable characters on Earth, but how could anyone not from Italy root for the Italians? They manage the almost impossible; they're both pussies AND dicks.
They only got past Australia last time around by "falling over" a (stupid) defender who'd been on the ground for about 5 minutes. The juxtaposition of Italy's "penalty" with the US' disallowed goal is enormous.
-
Yeah, I'll grant everyone that Mexico doesn't seem to field a team of the most likable characters on Earth, but how could anyone not from Italy root for the Italians? They manage the almost impossible; they're both pussies AND dicks.
Oh, and meanwhile, the only thing overshadowing the discord in the English camp, is the discord in the French camp. If you're ever only slightly less discordant than the French over anything, you're pretty much fucked.
-
Nice gem from the CHI-SUI announcer:
"It's a rare Swiss attack!"
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xLn-X8YJRg&feature=youtube_gdata
-
If anyone's interested, Switzerland just broke Italy's record for time between conceding goals in the World Cup FInals. The kept clean sheets in 4 games in 2006, plus whoever much in a tournament prior to that, plus 1 full game here, plus 68 minutes. They broke it, then conceded a goal three minutes later. I wonder if they knew.
-
Because I'm finally starting to figure out soccer and "what's important" I imagine the post game will go something like
Well, we didn't win, but we did get the longest scoreless streak for goals against and that's what we're really out here for. If we had gotten a win, that would have been fine, but it really meant nothing without the goalless streak.
-
Because I'm finally starting to figure out soccer and "what's important" I imagine the post game will go something like
Well, we didn't win, but we did get the longest scoreless streak for goals against and that's what we're really out here for. If we had gotten a win, that would have been fine, but it really meant nothing without the goalless streak.
Only if the post game is being handled by Alan Ashby.
-
Because I'm finally starting to figure out soccer and "what's important" I imagine the post game will go something like
Well, we didn't win, but we did get the longest scoreless streak for goals against and that's what we're really out here for. If we had gotten a win, that would have been fine, but it really meant nothing without the goalless streak.
If you ever actually watch Switzerland play in the finals, the scoreless streak appeared to be exactly their target.
-
If you ever actually watch Switzerland play in the finals, the scoreless streak appeared to be exactly their target.
Hey man, everyone's gotta aim for something.
-
Only if the post game is being handled by Alan Ashby.
It's funny because I can hear him saying it.
-
Jeff Bradley writes about watching his nephew score the equalizer (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/columns/story/_/columnist/bradley_jeff/id/5304570/ce/us/watching-us-brought-all-sorts-emotions-jeff-bradley?cc=5901&ver=us)
-
So, even you third world communists here are tired of talking about this tournament, huh?
-
Just waiting for the third round of games. Should be a good one.
-
So what does happen in the next round when the game is tied at 90 min?
Is there an extra period? Is it sudden death? PKs? Rock-paper-reacharounds?
-
So what does happen in the next round when the game is tied at 90 min?
Is there an extra period? Is it sudden death? PKs? Rock-paper-reacharounds?
Two extras and the winner is the one who scores the most goals at the end (you can win by more than just one goal). Not sudden death, it is who is on top after two extra time periods. If no one is on top after two extras, then they go to penalty kicks, the worse way to win a match (*IMHO*), but that is what you come down to if you cannot settle things on the pitch.
-
So what does happen in the next round when the game is tied at 90 min?
Is there an extra period? Is it sudden death? PKs? Rock-paper-reacharounds?
Two 15 minute periods of extra time (not sudden death). If still tied after that then it's on to penalty kicks.
-
So what does happen in the next round when the game is tied at 90 min?
[low hanging fruit]
An indefinate amount of stoppage time will follow the 90th minute.
[/picked]
-
Two extras and the winner is the one who scores the most goals at the end (you can win by more than just one goal). Not sudden death, it is who is on top after two extra time periods. If no one is on top after two extras, then they go to penalty kicks, the worse way to win a match (*IMHO*), but that is what you come down to if you cannot settle things on the pitch.
Cool, now I'm getting excited.
How long are the extra periods?
-
Two 15 minute periods of extra time (not sudden death). If still tied after that then it's on to penalty kicks.
Sorry, I saw this after posting my response to Noe.
-
Two extras and the winner is the one who scores the most goals at the end (you can win by more than just one goal). Not sudden death, it is who is on top after two extra time periods. If no one is on top after two extras, then they go to penalty kicks, the worse way to win a match (*IMHO*), but that is what you come down to if you cannot settle things on the pitch.
No extra time in the third round of group play. Game ends at 90+ mins, even if (gasp) it's a draw. Groups are then sorted by points plus assorted tie-breakers, the last of which is the equivalent of rock-paper-scissors.
Extra time - two 15-minute periods, no sudden death - and then, if still tied, a penalty shoot-out. This applies to all further rounds of play up to and including the final.
-
No extra time in the third round of group play. Game ends at 90+ mins, even if (gasp) it's a draw. Groups are then sorted by points plus assorted tie-breakers, the last of which is the equivalent of rock-paper-scissors.
Yes. I thought Alkie was talking about the next round as in the knock out rounds and not this group play round (one match remaining).
Extra time - two 15-minute periods, no sudden death - and then, if still tied, a penalty shoot-out. This applies to all further rounds of play up to and including the final.
Yup, and if the other teams scores a goal on you, you still have whatever time is remaining in the extras to catch up or pass them up and win or tie to go to penalties. Just about everyone I know hates penalty shots to see who wins. It's better to win on the pitch and most great matches do. By the time you reach the second extra time start, the legs are just not there any more. Wild things can and will happen.
-
Yes. I thought Alkie was talking about the next round as in the knock out rounds and not this group play round (one match remaining).
I was.
-
I didn't realize until just now that Rossini had written half the national anthems in South America.
-
Big day brewing on Thursday: Slovakia meets Italy in Johannesburg, Paraguay meets New Zealand in Polokwane, Camaroon meets Holland in Cape Town, Denmark meets Japan in Rustenburg and England meets France in the airport.
-
England meets France in the airport.
Too funny, and obviously the French surrender to them.
-
Too funny, and obviously the French surrender to them.
A few will, the remainder have flown to Johannesburg to sit on the German bench.