Copa Mundial 2010 - Cuartos de Final

[Tralfaz]

Friday, July 02
Holland v Brasil 
9:00am at Port Elizabeth Stadium, Nelson Mandela Bay

I would love a Dutch upset here, but the Samba Boys are starting to feel there shirts.  This is a rematch of the '94 WC Quarterfinal, played in Dallas at the Cotton Bowl. I was there btw, it was incredible.   It was the game Bebeto did his famous "rock the baby" goal celebration.  The Dutch were down 0-2 and tied the game in the second half.  Won late by Brasil 3-2 on a free kick by Branco.

Uruguay v Ghana
1:30pm at Soccer City, Johannesburg

Gotta go with Uruguay here.  Incredibly strong defensive team and Forlan has been awesome.  Ghanaria won't be able to knock them off the ball like they did the Americans.

Saturday, July 3
Argentina v Germany
9:00am at Green Point Stadium, Cape Town

Pick 'em.  Soccer Gods say 0-0 and Germany wins on PK's.  The Hand of God will remain on the side line, but the little god on the field may finally find the net.  Who knows, he's very due.   

Paraguay v Spain
1:30pm at Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg

Next, Espana romp. 
 
 

[Limey]

Friday, July 02
Holland v Brasil 
9:00am at Port Elizabeth Stadium, Nelson Mandela Bay

I would love a Dutch upset here, but the Samba Boys are starting to feel there shirts.  This is a rematch of the '94 WC Quarterfinal, played in Dallas at the Cotton Bowl. I was there btw, it was incredible.   It was the game Bebeto did his famous "rock the baby" goal celebration.  The Dutch were down 0-2 and tied the game in the second half.  Won late by Brasil 3-2 on a free kick by Branco.

I was at that game too, and it was a blast.  Disappointed by the quality of the Brazlian totty in the crowd though, dunno where the cameras find the hot ones.  The Netherlands will huff and puff in this one, but agree that Brazil is too strong for them.

Uruguay v Ghana
1:30pm at Soccer City, Johannesburg

Gotta go with Uruguay here.  Incredibly strong defensive team and Forlan has been awesome.  Ghanaria won't be able to knock them off the ball like they did the Americans.

Ghana are too disorganised to withstand Forlan and Suaza for very long.

Saturday, July 3
Argentina v Germany
9:00am at Green Point Stadium, Cape Town

Pick 'em.  Soccer Gods say 0-0 and Germany wins on PK's.  The Hand of God will remain on the side line, but the little god on the field may finally find the net.  Who knows, he's very due.   

Not even close.  The Argies will piss this one.  The Germans have some decent players, but they have been flattered by sub-standard opposition...and I know exactly what I'm saying here.

Paraguay v Spain
1:30pm at Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg

Next, Espana romp. 

Bingo.  If Torres ever sorts his shit out, there will be a goal avalanche.  I bet he was gnawing a leg off on the side lines yesterday watching his replacement scuff sitter after sitter.  Paraguay are meat.

[Alkie]

So Brazil and Argentina in the final?

Thrilling.   I wasn't sure we'd be able to follow up Lakers/Celtics LXVII, but hey, I was wrong again.

Maybe the Yanks and Dodgers will meet in the Series.

[Limey]

I had a Spain - Brazil final in my bracket and, despite a number of early games going awry, that's how it's panning out and I have no reason to change my opinion.  Spain beats Brazil in a thriller.

[BudGirl]

I like Uruguay to be in the final.  I can see it.  I'll go them and Spain with Spain winning.

[MusicMan]

Maybe the Yanks and Dodgers will meet in the Series.

You know you want it.

[chuck]

You know you want it.

Just imagine the multitude of threads he could start bitching about it.

[Alkie]

Just imagine the multitude of threads he could start bitching about it.

I tell you what, I can't fucking stand the Yankees but I said this last year:  it's amazing how calm and normal the city is with the WS here.   You said Yankees fans consider it their birthright, and that's clearly true.  It's only really miserable when the Yankees are losing.   After they won last year, you barely heard about it after the parade.  It was just business as usual.   

[Alkie]

You know you want it.

And how.   Honestly, I don't have a problem with the Dodgers, but if the Yankees never won another title as long as I lived here, it would be worth it to put up with the Yankee fans.

[MusicMan]

I tell you what, I can't fucking stand the Yankees but I said this last year:  it's amazing how calm and normal the city is with the WS here.   You said Yankees fans consider it their birthright, and that's clearly true.  It's only really miserable when the Yankees are losing.   After they won last year, you barely heard about it after the parade.  It was just business as usual.   

That shit ain't right.

[Noe]

The Netherlands will beat the Brazilians... bank on it.  Uruguay and the Netherlands will meet and that will be an instant "classico".  In the other brackets, it is Spain versus whoever wants it more between Argentina and Germany.  It will be Germany and thus it will be a great final four.

Spain and The Netherlands will meet in the finals and Spain will final take care of business and win "La Copa Mundial".

[Tralfaz]

Spain and The Netherlands will meet in the finals and Spain will final take care of business and win "La Copa Mundial".

This is the one I want.  Holland can play with Brasil all day long offensively, but Brasil get a slight edge on defense, which is wierd to say.  Robben's goal against Slovakia is my hands down fave of the Cup. 

[Noe]

This is the one I want.  Holland can play with Brasil all day long offensively, but Brasil get a slight edge on defense, which is wierd to say.  Robben's goal against Slovakia is my hands down fave of the Cup. 

Part of me says that no way the Brazilian team can be outmatched as a complete squad, but I have a hunch that the Brazilians will push hard at midfield and expose some gaps that the Netherlands will exploit.  It's kind of what the Brazilians did against the USA in the Confederations Cup and the counter attack strategy worked to perfection for team USA.  The problem for USA is that they did not know how to stem to the Brazilian pressure and they allowed a second half 3 goals to beat them.  I don't think the Netherlands will have the problem of stemming the Brazilian attack if they get ahead.  If the Netherlands is able to score a goal within the first 20 - 30 minutes of play (on a counter attack), they can pull back the midfield and wait for another opportunity to strike while the Brazilians are trying to pressure the defense.  A couple of quick clearances and a great finish will do the Brazilains in... at least that is what I'm hoping to see.

[Tralfaz]

I had a Spain - Brazil final in my bracket and, despite a number of early games going awry, that's how it's panning out and I have no reason to change my opinion.  Spain beats Brazil in a thriller.

Same here, but I've got Brasil winning their 6th title.  Dating back to 1962, this thing goes Euro/S. America/Euro/S. America...

1962 Brasil
1966 England
1970 Brasil
1974 W. Germany
1978 Argentina
1982 Italy
1986 Argentina
1990 W. Germany
1994 Brasil
1998 France
2002 Brasil
2006 Italy
2010 ...

I'm going on record here and say Brasil break's the trend at WC'14 and wins numbero 7 too.  Remember where we're going?

Rio.

[HudsonHawk]

Friday, July 02
Holland v Brasil 

That's THE NETHERLANDS v Brasil.

[Tralfaz]

You are correct sir, old habits die hard. The actual FIFA country code for the region is NED, for Nederland.  Holland has become more of a nickname, like the Azzuri for Italy or Yanks for Americans.  Depending on how it's used, Holland can actually be an insult to some, sorta like calling a Texan a Yank.

[AtascAstro]

You are correct sir, old habits die hard. The actual FIFA country code for the region is NED, for Nederland.  Holland has become more of a nickname, like the Azzuri for Italy or Yanks for Americans.  Depending on how it's used, Holland can actually be an insult to some, sorta like calling a Texan a Yank.

Reset.

[Bench]

You are correct sir, old habits die hard. The actual FIFA country code for the region is NED, for Nederland.  Holland has become more of a nickname, like the Azzuri for Italy or Yanks for Americans.  Depending on how it's used, Holland can actually be an insult to some, sorta like calling a Texan a Yank.

So where does the term "Dutch" come from?

[subnuclear]

So where does the term "Dutch" come from?

Its a different form of "Deutch" as in "Deutchland".

[Bench]

Its a different form of "Deutch" as in "Deutchland".

I figured it was from the Pennsylvania region of Holland.

[Tralfaz]

The El Mundo newspaper refers to it as Holanda.  Is that how it's commonly refered to/spelled in Spanish?

[Noe]

The El Mundo newspaper refers to it as Holanda.  Is that how it's commonly refered to/spelled in Spanish?

Si.  Nickname is "La Machina Naranja".  There is nothing in Spanish that translates to The Netherlands.

[Limey]

Same here, but I've got Brasil winning their 6th title.  Dating back to 1962, this thing goes Euro/S. America/Euro/S. America...

1962 Brasil
1966 England
1970 Brasil
1974 W. Germany
1978 Argentina
1982 Italy
1986 Argentina
1990 W. Germany
1994 Brasil
1998 France
2002 Brasil
2006 Italy
2010 ...

I'm going on record here and say Brasil break's the trend at WC'14 and wins numbero 7 too.  Remember where we're going?

Rio.

The pattern of which you write is driven entirely by the location of the tournament finals.  Brazil is the only country ever to have won the tournament when it's been played away from their home continent.  And they've done that once (technically twice, if you go by the new math of north and south america being separate continents, but you get the point).

[Limey]

Si.  Nickname is "La Machina Naranja".  There is nothing in Spanish that translates to The Netherlands.

In Spanish, my netherlands are referred to as "El Gringo Grande".

[HudsonHawk]

 Depending on how it's used, Holland can actually be an insult to some, sorta like calling a Texan a Yank.

It's like calling a Texan a "New Yorker".

[Bench]

The German-Argentina match is already starting to heat up.

There is some residual bitterness over a post-match scuffle between the two sides after Germany eliminated the Argies in the 2006 quarter-finals, and the Germans haven't forgotten:

Schweinsteiger in classic teutonic fashion:  "You could see their behavior at halftime of the game against Mexico. When you look at their body language and gesticulations, the way they try to influence the referees, they have no respect. It's their mentality and character and we'll have to adjust."

[MRaup]

Its a different form of "Deutch" as in "Deutchland".

Not to be confused with Doucheland, which is another name for Chicago.

[Duke]

The German-Argentina match is already starting to heat up.

Schweinsteiger in classic teutonic fashion:  "You could see their behavior at halftime of the game against Mexico. When you look at their body language and gesticulations, the way they try to influence the referees, they have no respect. It's their mentality and character and we'll have to adjust."

The Mexicans were the ones that were pissed.  Interesting comment on the Argentine's mentality comming from a German.

[Limey]

This Brazil-Netherlands game is going to get out of control in a hurry.  No way it ends 11 vs 11. 

[Limey]

That didn't take long.

[Bench]

This Brazil-Netherlands game is going to get out of control in a hurry.  No way it ends 11 vs 11. 

And it ain't.

[Limey]

I'd send off Robben for being a cheating, greedy, one-footed a-hole.

[AtascAstro]

Amazing how this tournament started out to look like a South American romp could very quickly turn into a Euro triumph featuring the Dutch, Spanish, and Germans, with Uruguay being the South American representative.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I'm impressed with the Netherlanders.

[Bench]

I'm impressed with the Netherlanders.

Wanna go dutch?

[JaneDoe]

Take that Brazil!

[Limey]

Amazing how this tournament started out to look like a South American romp could very quickly turn into a Euro triumph featuring the Dutch, Spanish, and Germans, with Uruguay being the South American representative.

The door has swung wide open for Spain, who have never even made the semis, to win the whole fucking thing.  Viva Espana!

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

They got cities in Brazil more populated than the entire country of Ducthland.

[Noe]

I'd send off Robben for being a cheating, greedy, one-footed a-hole.

Concur, but Melo should know better than to spike him when he is in mid-antics.  I mean the ref is running to the play to call something and Melo spikes him?  Oh my deere lowered, that was stupid.  As far as the match itself, I'd say the winner of this match was the pitch itself.  It was horrible and it basically was akin to a groundskeeper deciding to wash down an infield to keep Maury Wills from stealing bases or growing grass high to keep the ball from skipping through the infielders.  Or in others words, what they do at Wrigley Field every day.

This was a World Class matchup with a urban park in some third world pitch.  Awful.

One thing I will mention, Julio Caesar was exposed this match.  He had been less than impressive in all the other matches (the little he was challenged).  That back brace he was wearing should have told anyone that was paying attention that the man did not have the ability to react quickly to a well struck ball.  I think the Dutch attack was not that great, but they got enough shots at Caesar to make it obvious Brazil had a problem at keeper.

Not on this day, not when the other side is World Class like your squad.

[Matt]

Concur, but Melo should know better than to spike him when he is in mid-antics.  I mean the ref is running to the play to call something and Melo spikes him?  Oh my deere lowered, that was stupid.  As far as the match itself, I'd say the winner of this match was the pitch itself.  It was horrible and it basically was akin to a groundskeeper deciding to wash down an infield to keep Maury Wills from stealing bases or growing grass high to keep the ball from skipping through the infielders.  Or in others words, what they do at Wrigley Field every day.

This was a World Class matchup with a urban park in some third world pitch.  Awful.

One thing I will mention, Julio Caesar was exposed this match.  He had been less than impressive in all the other matches (the little he was challenged).  That back brace he was wearing should have told anyone that was paying attention that the man did not have the ability to react quickly to a well struck ball.  I think the Dutch attack was not that great, but they got enough shots at Caesar to make it obvious Brazil had a problem at keeper.

Not on this day, not when the other side is World Class like your squad.

Okay I was noticing the shitty field today as well but didn't know if it was just me. Julio Caesar made odd choices on his approach and angles of play for sure.

[austro]

The Dutch keeper's save on Kaka's drive was tremendous. Without that the Dutch are down 2-0 and in deep trouble.

[AtascAstro]

So this Ghana team.  They are pretty good.

[BudGirl]

Ugh.  I feel like every team I root for loses.  I hope it doesn't happen again with Uruguay.

[Bench]

So this Ghana team.  They are pretty good.

From the Guardian's minute by minute:

But when Ghana got into the game, they didn't get out again. By the whistle, they had owned the last 20 minutes. They had bestrode those minutes. They had tamed them, and ridden them bareback through town.

[austro]

So this Ghana team.  They are pretty good.

I don't know: I think they can be baited into mistakes by a more sophisticated team. And they really ought to have given up two goals already except for miracle plays by their keeper.

The game changed completely when the Uruguayan defender got injured (and then left the game). We'll see if they can regroup in the second half.

[austro]

From the Guardian's minute by minute:

But when Ghana got into the game, they didn't get out again. By the whistle, they had owned the last 20 minutes. They had bestrode those minutes. They had tamed them, and ridden them bareback through town.

"I'm on a horse."

[Matt]

I don't know: I think they can be baited into mistakes by a more sophisticated team. And they really ought to have given up two goals already except for miracle plays by their keeper.

The game changed completely when the Uruguayan defender got injured (and then left the game). We'll see if they can regroup in the second half.

I agree. Uruguay could be up 2-0 if it weren't for the keeper playing well. I think they'll break through in the second half.

[Matt]

Uruguay is starting to complain too much about fouls.

[AtascAstro]

Uruguay is starting to complain too much about fouls playing futbol.

FIFY

[Matt]

FIFY

I just hate it when they spend more time pointing and yelling at the ref then trying to reform and get back to playing. Not all teams play like that.

[Bench]

I just hate it when they spend more time pointing and yelling at the ref then trying to reform and get back to playing. Not all teams play like that.

Right.  The other teams are playing soccer.

[AtascAstro]

I just hate it when they spend more time pointing and yelling at the ref then trying to reform and get back to playing. Not all teams play like that.

I agree, the problem is that "Not all teams play like that" is a distinct minority, especially among the perenial powers of the game.

[Matt]

I agree, the problem is that "Not all teams play like that" is a distinct minority, especially among the perenial powers of the game.

Definite minority but it seems like over the past few years that style of play has been openly attacked and criticized so maybe that's a start to curtailing it.

[BudGirl]

OMG what an ending

[AtascAstro]

Holy Crap!

[hostros7]

WOW!!!!!

[AtascAstro]

Blatant Handball.  And he misses the PK!

[matadorph]

I picked the perfect time to tune in online. Thank you, ESPN 3.

[AtascAstro]

Ghana deserves to win this.  They brought all the pressure in the extra periods and the handball is the only reason that they aren't into the next round right now.

[Noe]

This match has worn me out!  Incredible match, Ghana has all the respect here!

[Matt]

Ghana deserves to win this.  They brought all the pressure in the extra periods and the handball is the only reason that they aren't into the next round right now.

That Red card could end up paying off if Uruguay wins this shootout.

[BudGirl]

It is total insanity.

[AtascAstro]

That Red card could end up paying off if Uruguay wins this shootout.

absolutely, that is a situation where the handball is the right strategic move.

[AtascAstro]

Man, two weak PKs by Ghana.

[BudGirl]

Ghana missed 3 out of 5 PK. 

[Matt]

And the gamble paid off!

[BudGirl]

Can Suarez play the next game?

[Bench]

Can Suarez play the next game?

Nope.  He martyred himself for the good of the team.

[austro]

Can Suarez play the next game?

No. So, missing him, the other guy who got his second yellow, and the injured defender (captain), they're going to be putting out a pretty makeshift lineup for the semifinal.

[BudGirl]

I was hoping since he got the red and out of this game he'd be available.  Here's to him playing in the final. 

[Matt]

Huge gamble for the team but he did the right thing.

[BudGirl]

I have no doubt they would have lost otherwise.

[Limey]

I have no doubt they would have lost otherwise.

That was the whole point.  If he lets that ball go in the net, they're done.  If he palms it away, he's done, but the team lives on, at least until the taking of the guaranteed penalty.  In many US-based sports, that would be called a smart foul.  In a sport dominated by retarded fouls, it was genius.

I feel sorry for Ghana, but they coughed that game up when it was already won.

[BudGirl]

That was the whole point.  If he lets that ball go in the net, they're done.  If he palms it away, he's done, but the team lives on, at least until the taking of the guaranteed penalty.  In many US-based sports, that would be called a smart foul.  In a sport dominated by retarded fouls, it was genius.

Exactly what I meant.

I feel sorry for Ghana, but they coughed that game up when it was already won.

I feel bad for Ghana also, but they had their chance and missed it.  

[Limey]

I feel bad for Ghana also, but they had their chance and missed it.  

...and missed it...and missed it.

[MusicMan]

Here's my question: why is the goal not simply allowed on a play like that?  Seems like the soccer equivalent of goaltending.

[Bench]

Huge gamble for the team but he did the right thing.

It's not a gamble at all.  It's either that or go home.

[Limey]

Here's my question: why is the goal not simply allowed on a play like that?  Seems like the soccer equivalent of goaltending.

It's just the point of the game, and the missed penalty, that make it look unfair.  There's nothing in the rules to award a goal for anything other than the ball in the net (and sometimes not even then). 

[austro]

Here's my question: why is the goal not simply allowed on a play like that?  Seems like the soccer equivalent of goaltending.

Not trying to be contrary, just curious: what happens in the NHL if a defenseman (or anybody but the goalie) smothers a puck that is clearly headed into an otherwise open net?

[BudGirl]

Not trying to be contrary, just curious: what happens in the NHL if a defenseman (or anybody but the goalie) smothers a puck that is clearly headed into an otherwise open net?

whistle blown then a faceoff. 

[austro]

whistle blown then a faceoff. 

No penalty?

[BudGirl]

No penalty?

faceoff is in that end but no penalty. 

[HudsonHawk]

It's just the point of the game, and the missed penalty, that make it look unfair.  There's nothing in the rules to award a goal for anything other than the ball in the net (and sometimes not even then). 

I kind of have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, the Uruguay player did anything he could to try to help his team.  On the other hand, that thing he did was a flagrant and intentional violation of the rules, above and beyond reasonable in-game strategy.  It was one of the most unsportsmanlike things I've ever seen on a playing field.  But then again, unsportsmanlike behavior seems to be a requirement for soccer.

[BudGirl]

I kind of have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, the Uruguay player did anything he could to try to help his team.  On the other hand, that thing he did was a flagrant and intentional violation of the rules, above and beyond reasonable in-game strategy.  It was one of the most unsportsmanlike things I've ever seen on a playing field.  But then again, unsportsmanlike behavior seems to be a requirement for soccer.

I can equate the play to a defensive back in football with a beyond obvious passing interfernce when he knows he is beat.

And there is unsportmanslike behavior in all sports.

[Bench]

I can equate the play to a defensive back in football with a beyond obvious passing interfernce when he knows he is beat.

That's the best analogy I've seen about the situation.  

[Alkie]

I can equate the play to a defensive back in football with a beyond obvious passing interfernce when he knows he is beat.

Except that in football, the DB's non-interference is still dependent on the receiver catching the ball.   In this case, the non-interference was 100% a goal; not dependent on something else. 

I don't see how you can even have mixed feelings about it.  It's another stupid rule that seems like could be exploited.   If the ball going into the net is a (as Limey points out) 99.9% chance of being a goal, but a PK is only a 69% chance of a goal, seems like it would make sense to always keep someone back in goal in the last 10 minutes of a game exactly for this.   

It's goaltending, like in basketball, not PI like in American football.   And the goal should count.  Period.

[Alkie]

That's the best analogy I've seen about the situation.  

I'm not just taking this out on BG (seriously), but I disagree.   In football, PI in the endzone just brings the ball out for a new set of downs essentially on the goal line.   This makes sense because, again, if the DB hadn't interfered, the receiver still had to have caught the ball.  So you have to account for the, say, 1% chance the WR drops it.   You can't just award the points. 

But in this case, if there was no handball, the ball WOULD have scored, no question. 

[HudsonHawk]

I can equate the play to a defensive back in football with a beyond obvious passing interfernce when he knows he is beat.

I disagree.  This goes well beyond that, IMO.  To me, it's more akin to a player running down the field for a clear game-winning touchdown, and an opposing player running off the bench onto the field tackling him.

And there is unsportmanslike behavior in all sports.

True, but in no other sport is it celebrated like it is in soccer.  And I don't like it in any sport.

[HudsonHawk]

It's goaltending, like in basketball, not PI like in American football.   

Exactly. 

[Alkie]

Head.  Exploding.  Again.

I just read that IF Uruguay moves on to the Final (they won't), Suarez has been arbitrarily banned from that game as well.

Wait just a motherfucking second.   If the rule is that a handball in the box is a PK and a red card, and the red card means that you're banned from the NEXT game, why does FIFA get to just "decide" that this red card is worth TWO games?   So not only are the rules a jumbled mess of caca (Kaka?), they can be changed in the middle of the tournament?   What the fuck?

[HudsonHawk]

Head.  Exploding.  Again.

I just read that IF Uruguay moves on to the Final (they won't), Suarez has been arbitrarily banned from that game as well.

Wait just a motherfucking second.   If the rule is that a handball in the box is a PK and a red card, and the red card means that you're banned from the NEXT game, why does FIFA get to just "decide" that this red card is worth TWO games?   So not only are the rules a jumbled mess of caca (Kaka?), they can be changed in the middle of the tournament?   What the fuck?

I didn't think it was possible for FIFA to become a bigger laughing stock than it already was.  But if this is true, I clearly underestimated them.

[Alkie]

Hey, here's something I hadn't considered before:

Are the Premier Leagues more organized than FIFA?   Or is it identical? 

I mean, are there clearer if-then rules-punishments?   Is the officiating better?

[Rebel Jew]

I kind of have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, the Uruguay player did anything he could to try to help his team.  On the other hand, that thing he did was a flagrant and intentional violation of the rules, above and beyond reasonable in-game strategy.  It was one of the most unsportsmanlike things I've ever seen on a playing field.  But then again, unsportsmanlike behavior seems to be a requirement for soccer.

exactly.  there's nothing "smart" about being an unsportsmanlike bitch.  i'd rather lose on the level like a man than win like a coward.  if i'm playing pickup basketball and i foul a guy i'm going to call it.  if i'm playing tennis and i hit a shot that's out i'm going to call it even if my opponent doesn't see it.  how is it fun or satisfying in any way to win like that?

[Bench]

Head.  Exploding.  Again.

I just read that IF Uruguay moves on to the Final (they won't), Suarez has been arbitrarily banned from that game as well.

Wait just a motherfucking second.   If the rule is that a handball in the box is a PK and a red card, and the red card means that you're banned from the NEXT game, why does FIFA get to just "decide" that this red card is worth TWO games?   So not only are the rules a jumbled mess of caca (Kaka?), they can be changed in the middle of the tournament?   What the fuck?

So you have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" play, and you also have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" player being punished?

That makes sense.

[Alkie]

I didn't think it was possible for FIFA to become a bigger laughing stock than it already was.  But if this is true, I clearly underestimated them.

I don't see how you can uphold the "integrity" of this game on shit like obvious goals, obvious disallowed goals, etc, but then just have no problem with changing the punishment for a rule that is most certainly in place; just because your sport doesn't factor the shortcoming of another rule.

[HudsonHawk]

So you have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" play, and you also have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" player being punished?

That makes sense.

I don't have a problem with punishing unsportsmanlike behavior, I have a problem with FIFA changing the rules mid-tournament.  If the rules call for a penalty, enforce the penalty, not something else. 

[Limey]

Head.  Exploding.  Again.

I just read that IF Uruguay moves on to the Final (they won't), Suarez has been arbitrarily banned from that game as well.

Wait just a motherfucking second.   If the rule is that a handball in the box is a PK and a red card, and the red card means that you're banned from the NEXT game, why does FIFA get to just "decide" that this red card is worth TWO games?   So not only are the rules a jumbled mess of caca (Kaka?), they can be changed in the middle of the tournament?   What the fuck?

Red card means suspension for at least one game.  The two-game ban is rare, but justified in this case IMHO.   

[Rebel Jew]

So you have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" play, and you also have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" player being punished?

That makes sense.

he has a problem with the officials just arbitrarily changing the rules mid-tournament, which is even more ridiculous because if you're going to change the rules to punish this guy because he what he did was so flagrant then change the rules to allow the goal and give ghana the win.

[Bench]

I didn't think it was possible for FIFA to become a bigger laughing stock than it already was.  But if this is true, I clearly underestimated them.

Sepp Blatter has actually said that all the "controversy" in soccer was good for the sport.  That is one of the greatest defenses of one's own institutional incompetence I've ever seen.

[Limey]

I kind of have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, the Uruguay player did anything he could to try to help his team.  On the other hand, that thing he did was a flagrant and intentional violation of the rules, above and beyond reasonable in-game strategy.  It was one of the most unsportsmanlike things I've ever seen on a playing field.  But then again, unsportsmanlike behavior seems to be a requirement for soccer.

Don't disagree, but you can't make rules for one-off, in-game moments, otherwise you're Bud Selig.

[Limey]

Fork...stuck.

[HudsonHawk]

On an non-Uruguay note:

Germany is beating the living shit out of Argentina. 

[Alkie]

So you have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" play, and you also have a problem with the "unsportsmanlike" player being punished?

That makes sense.

No, but if you want to play the role of Music Man this morning and pretend to be obtuse, that's cool.   

There are clearly rules in place, right?  We can agree on that, yes?   I'm saying the rules are fucked because they, in this case, rewarded the team (and thereby rewarding even the banned player).   That they decided AFTER THE FACT (meaning after the offending play allowed the offending team to WIN, inexplicably) that they should make up a punishment that wasn't in place before the infraction is insanity. 

I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be punished, and you know that.   I think he should get the red card and the one game suspension per the rules IF we're agreeing that current-rules-must-be-upheld.   Beyond that point, I'm saying the current rule is fucking stupid and a handball in the box should be a goal, not a penalty kick.

[Alkie]

Red card means suspension for at least one game.  The two-game ban is rare, but justified in this case IMHO.   

If that is correct, then I apologize.  I was wrong, carry on.

[Rebel Jew]

Red card means suspension for at least one game.  The two-game ban is rare, but justified in this case IMHO.   

of course it's justified, but there is no deterrent short of a lifetime ban that would make all the future pussies think twice about doing what this pussy did.

[Bench]

he has a problem with the officials just arbitrarily changing the rules mid-tournament, which is even more ridiculous because if you're going to change the rules to punish this guy because he what he did was so flagrant then change the rules to allow the goal and give ghana the win.

I think he shouldn't be suspended for the second game (because I think one game is an appropriate enough punishment), but I don't see what's novel or out of the ordinary about a player being suspended by the league under special circumstances.  Lord knows Roger Goodell lives by that rule.

[HudsonHawk]

Don't disagree, but you can't make rules for one-off, in-game moments, otherwise you're Bud Selig.

Oh I'm not complaining about enforcing the rules, I'm just saying it's a bullshit rule in the first place.

[Alkie]

he has a problem with the officials just arbitrarily changing the rules mid-tournament, which is even more ridiculous because if you're going to change the rules to punish this guy because he what he did was so flagrant then change the rules to allow the goal and give ghana the win.

Yes.   Exactly.   Thank you for saying it in a way that wasn't nearly as dickish as my response.

[HudsonHawk]

Red card means suspension for at least one game.  The two-game ban is rare, but justified in this case IMHO.   

If a two-game suspension is within the rules, then nothing more to see here. 

[Limey]

Sepp Blatter has actually said that all the "controversy" in soccer was good for the sport.  That is one of the greatest defenses of one's own institutional incompetence I've ever seen.

The day Blatter chokes on a bratwurst will be the day soccer takes a giant leap forward.

[Alkie]

If a two-game suspension is within the rules, then nothing more to see here. 

Right.   In which case, I admit that's my fault for not knowing the rule and again, apologies all around.

[Limey]

If that is correct, then I apologize.  I was wrong, carry on.

No worries, but t'is correct. 

[Alkie]

So, off the complaining for just a second (I know, I know)...

Just how young is this Germany team?   Are we looking at a dynasty here?

[Rebel Jew]

Don't disagree, but you can't make rules for one-off, in-game moments, otherwise you're Bud Selig.

i actually wish more commissioners would do stuff like this.  seems like one of a commissioner's primary duties is to arbitrate loopholes and anomalies in the league's rules.  what's wrong with, for instance, bud selig saying, "hey, this was a perfect game, everybody including the ump knows it was a perfect game, and so i'm declaring it a perfect game.  changing a game result is the commissioner's equivalent of a nuclear option, so it is no easy thing that i use it here.  we will not reevaluate any past games, but will work to develop an efficient replay system to ensure that this never happens again."

wait, that would require too much leadership and common sense.

[Limey]

Oh I'm not complaining about enforcing the rules, I'm just saying it's a bullshit rule in the first place.

The rules are clear.  Deliberate handball anywhere on the field = yellow card.  Foul denying obvious goal scoring opportunity anywhere on the field = red card.  Foul in the penalty area = penalty.  These are all codified rules. 

I see no reason to append those with in-game situations, because you'll never think of all the shit the players can come up with, and the point of these rules is to take the ref's judgement out of the equation in a search for consistency.   

[Bench]

So, off the complaining for just a second (I know, I know)...

Just how young is this Germany team?   Are we looking at a dynasty here?

Schweinstager Pudolski and Klose have all been around for a while (Klose passed Pele this tournament for most all-time world cup goals and now sits one behind Ronaldo who has the most). 

[Alkie]

i actually wish more commissioners would do stuff like this.  seems like one of a commissioner's primary duties is to arbitrate loopholes and anomalies in the league's rules.  what's wrong with, for instance, bud selig saying, "hey, this was a perfect game, everybody including the ump knows it was a perfect game, and so i'm declaring it a perfect game.  changing a game result is the commissioner's equivalent of a nuclear option, so it is no easy thing that i use it here.  we will not reevaluate any past games, but will work to develop an efficient replay system to ensure that this never happens again."

wait, that would require too much leadership and common sense.

And you want the gov't to be in charge of education for people under 18, retirement money, and security against crime.

[HudsonHawk]

The rules are clear.  Deliberate handball anywhere on the field = yellow card.  Foul denying obvious goal scoring opportunity anywhere on the field = red card.  Foul in the penalty area = penalty.  These are all codified rules. 

I see no reason to append those with in-game situations, because you'll never think of all the shit the players can come up with, and the point of these rules is to take the ref's judgement out of the equation in a search for consistency.   

Again, I have no problems with the ref on this.  He enforced the rule as it is.  I think it's a bullshit rule and exceptionally unsportsmanlike.

[Limey]

i actually wish more commissioners would do stuff like this.  seems like one of a commissioner's primary duties is to arbitrate loopholes and anomalies in the league's rules.  what's wrong with, for instance, bud selig saying, "hey, this was a perfect game, everybody including the ump knows it was a perfect game, and so i'm declaring it a perfect game.  changing a game result is the commissioner's equivalent of a nuclear option, so it is no easy thing that i use it here.  we will not reevaluate any past games, but will work to develop an efficient replay system to ensure that this never happens again."

wait, that would require too much leadership and common sense.

This wasn't a loophole situation.  It's only because it happened as time ran out that it's highlighted.  If Ghana slot the PK, there's no debate.  Can't blame the rules for player error.

[Alkie]

Schweinstager Pudolski and Klose have all been around for a while (Klose passed Pele this tournament for most all-time world cup goals and now sits one behind Ronaldo who has the most). 

So....probably not. 

In the meantime, Der Machine scores again.

[Limey]

So, off the complaining for just a second (I know, I know)...

Just how young is this Germany team?   Are we looking at a dynasty here?

Yes.

[Bench]

Schweinstager Pudolski and Klose have all been around for a while (Klose passed Pele this tournament for most all-time world cup goals and now sits one behind Ronaldo who has the most). 

And now he is tied with Ronaldo for the most goals (15).

[Bench]

So....probably not. 

In the meantime, Der Machine scores again.

Everyone else is young.

[Bench]

And now he is tied with Ronaldo for the most goals (15).

The announcers say he has 14.  I believe wikipedia.

[HudsonHawk]

Germany's up by 3 goals with 1 minute to play...they're still pouring it on.  Is this normal or a message to that little fuck who manages the Argentines?  Is this considered "running up the score" in soccer?

[Limey]

Fuck Maradonna.

[Alkie]

The announcers say he has 14.  I believe wikipedia.

Me too.  It's why I think it's so impressive that he's scored all 15 goals with the brain of an ox and three testicles.

[Bench]

Germany's up by 3 goals with 1 minute to play...they're still pouring it on.  Is this normal or a message to that little fuck who manages the Argentines?  Is this considered "running up the score" in soccer?

Germans never stop searching for a final solution.

[Rebel Jew]

And you want the gov't to be in charge of education for people under 18, retirement money, and security against crime.

as everybody knows, the government is full of nothing but bud seligs-- timid, self-serving, rich assholes.  of course our president and interior secretary are going to shrug their shoulders while an oil spill ruins our shit.

[Alkie]

Germany's up by 3 goals with 1 minute to play...they're still pouring it on.  Is this normal or a message to that little fuck who manages the Argentines?  Is this considered "running up the score" in soccer?

Wait, you think sportsmanship shows up in the last 3 minutes of a blowout?   Why would it show up now?

[Limey]

Germany's up by 3 goals with 1 minute to play...they're still pouring it on.  Is this normal or a message to that little fuck who manages the Argentines?  Is this considered "running up the score" in soccer?

AFAIK, running up the score has never been considered bad form.  Crystal Palace once, famously got beaten 9-0 in the Premiership. 

[Bench]

as everybody knows, the government is full of nothing but bud seligs-- timid, self-serving, rich assholes.  of course our president and interior secretary are going to shrug their shoulders while an oil spill ruins our shit.

"No no no.  I'm the secretary of the INTERIOR.  Totally not my department."

[HudsonHawk]

Wait, you think sportsmanship shows up in the last 3 minutes of a blowout?   Why would it show up now?

Well, I don't know.  That's why I'm asking.  Is there such a concept as "running up the score" in soccer?

[Limey]

Klose looks like Frank Lampard and James Cromwell had a love child.

[Rebel Jew]

This wasn't a loophole situation.  It's only because it happened as time ran out that it's highlighted.  If Ghana slot the PK, there's no debate.  Can't blame the rules for player error.

it is a loophole.  an obvious, indisputable game-winning goal was prevented because of an obvious, intentional manipulation of the rules.  the rule is intended, i imagine, to take into account that certain handballs are not deliberate in the same way as this one, much like pass interference in football.  the rule as written is basically saying that a handball in the penalty area is not a guaranteed goal but it's close so we'll give the offender a yellow or red and do a PK.  when it's like in the ghana game there's a 100% that it would have been a goal, and so the defender is deliberately bringing that 100% down to 70% (maybe less when you take into account the pressure of a world-cup quarterfinal-deciding penalty kick).  as alkie said before, this opens up a strategy for a team to literally instruct its players to hover around the goal and act as extra goaltenders in the last 5 or ten minutes.

the fact that it was at the literal last seconds of the game allows the commissioner to step in and do the right, common sense thing without opening up further controversy.

[Alkie]

Well, I don't know.  That's why I'm asking.  Is there such a concept as "running up the score" in soccer?

According to Limey, no.

So, I guess put that on our suddenly book-sized list.

[HudsonHawk]

as everybody knows, the government is full of nothing but bud seligs-- timid, self-serving, rich assholes.  of course our president and interior secretary are going to shrug their shoulders while an oil spill ruins our shit.

Right.  If only the President would come out and condemn the oil spill, it would stop. 

[Rebel Jew]

Right.  If only the President would come out and condemn the oil spill, it would stop. 

"condemn" is the kind of thing that bud seligs do.  "i condemn this steroid use and promise a blue-ribbon panel to investigate it."  general washingtons and andrew jacksons see a problem and start kicking ass.

[HudsonHawk]

"condemn" is the kind of thing that bud seligs do.  "i condemn this steroid use and promise a blue-ribbon panel to investigate it."  general washingtons and andrew jacksons see a problem and start kicking ass.

So the President should kick the oil spill's ass?  That'll teach it.

[Alkie]

So the President should kick the oil spill's ass?  That'll teach it.

No.   Obama should unleash the Oil Ninjas that W created and hid in a cave.   Only Obama has the secret password that opens the cave and by not allowing the Bush Ninjas out to stop this oil, he is to blame. 

You don't read the news at all, do you.

[Limey]

it is a loophole.  an obvious, indisputable game-winning goal was prevented because of an obvious, intentional manipulation of the rules.  the rule is intended, i imagine, to take into account that certain handballs are not deliberate in the same way as this one, much like pass interference in football.  the rule as written is basically saying that a handball in the penalty area is not a guaranteed goal but it's close so we'll give the offender a yellow or red and do a PK.  when it's like in the ghana game there's a 100% that it would have been a goal, and so the defender is deliberately bringing that 100% down to 70% (maybe less when you take into account the pressure of a world-cup quarterfinal-deciding penalty kick).  as alkie said before, this opens up a strategy for a team to literally instruct its players to hover around the goal and act as extra goaltenders in the last 5 or ten minutes.

the fact that it was at the literal last seconds of the game allows the commissioner to step in and do the right, common sense thing without opening up further controversy.

If you put an extra defender "in goal"' you play everyone on the field onside, and will be buried under an avalanche of offense because you're also a player short in the outfield.  If there was any merit to that strategy, someone would've tried it by now. 

Giving a commissioner - any commissioner - the power the change the on field result after the event is a horrible idea.

What about The Hand of God in 1986?  That game finished 2-1 Argentina, the difference being a blatant hand ball goal that was missed by all the officials.  Do we rule on that after the event?  Maybe force the teams to play another 30 minutes or go straight to a penalty shootout?

[Bench]

"condemn" is the kind of thing that bud seligs do.  "i condemn this steroid use and promise a blue-ribbon panel to investigate it."  general washingtons and andrew jacksons see a problem and start kicking ass.

Nuke the spill!

[HudsonHawk]

No.   Obama should unleash the Oil Ninjas that W created and hid in a cave.   Only Obama has the secret password that opens the cave and by not allowing the Bush Ninjas out to stop this oil, he is to blame. 

You don't read the news at all, do you.

Oil ninjas.  That sneaky bastard!

[Limey]

You are the ref

Figure this one out!

[Alkie]

Oil ninjas.  That sneaky bastard!

I'd have voted for him again, twice, if I had the chance.

[Alkie]

You are the ref

Figure this one out!

This one's easy.

Same as my answer to the ground rule fan interference double.

Sentry cannons.  Here.   Here.   And here.

[Limey]

I'd have voted for him again, twice, if I had the chance.

Easy  Move to Florida.

[HudsonHawk]

You are the ref

Figure this one out!

According to the rules you described, it's obviously not a goal.  I would guess a faceoff in the other team's end zone.  And the thirdbase coach gets a yellow card.

[Alkie]

Easy  Move to Florida.

Sentry cannons.   Here.   Here.  And here.

[Limey]

According to the rules you described, it's obviously not a goal.  I would guess a faceoff in the other team's end zone.  And the thirdbase coach gets a yellow card.

Not a goal, but I'm not sure what else happens. Maybe a drop ball. 

Make the fan leave the stadium through the opposing fans' section.

[Limey]

Sentry cannons.   Here.   Here.  And here.

I like it.

[Alkie]

Anyone kind of feel like (despite the fact that the first game ended up being an asswhooping) that after the Kentucky/UCLA morning game, we have to wait a couple hours to watch the not all that sexy Paraguay/Spain game?   Doesn't someone, anyone have some pictures of that Paraguayan chick, not all whored up via Photoshop?   Maybe some pictures of The Worlds Happiest Celly?

[HudsonHawk]

Doesn't someone, anyone have some pictures of that Paraguayan chick, not all whored up via Photoshop?

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00559/leryn16_350x475_559484a.jpg

[Alkie]

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00559/leryn16_350x475_559484a.jpg

That's the same chick?

[Alkie]

http://carneargenta.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/65785_Larissa_riquelme_Shomp_scans2_filtered_123_258lo.jpg

I win.

Disclaimer:  If your boss is a pussy, you should maybe not open this at work.   Or get a better job where you don't work for a Puritan.

[HudsonHawk]

That's the same chick?

Which hot Paraguayan chick are we talking about here?  I thought you meant the smoking hot Olympic javelin thrower. 

[Alkie]

Which hot Paraguayan chick are we talking about here?  I thought you meant the smoking hot Olympic javelin thrower.  

I seeee.   Perhaps a trip to Paraguay is in order.

ETA:  You know, to find some facts.

[Rebel Jew]

If you put an extra defender "in goal"' you play everyone on the field onside, and will be buried under an avalanche of offense because you're also a player short in the outfield.  If there was any merit to that strategy, someone would've tried it by now.  

Giving a commissioner - any commissioner - the power the change the on field result after the event is a horrible idea.

What about The Hand of God in 1986?  That game finished 2-1 Argentina, the difference being a blatant hand ball goal that was missed by all the officials.  Do we rule on that after the event?  Maybe force the teams to play another 30 minutes or go straight to a penalty shootout?

you don't have them line up at the goal, but you can instruct the defenders that if it's late and there's any kind of clear shot anywhere directly in front of the goal that you need to become a goalie and use your hands to knock it the fuck down.  obviously that's what the uruguayans knew to do, because two guys did it.

the hand of god thing sucks, but you can't change it just like you can't change the result of the oilers-steelers game with the renfro non-touchdown.  i'm talking about the rare, obvious thing that clearly decides the game on the last play of the game, like the perfect game and the ghana game.  alls i'm saying is get a commissioner with balls and common sense.

and look, stop giving shit nicknames like "the hand of god."  i don't know if that came out of an interview, but it totally romanticizes this type of cheating bullshit.  okay, i just looked it up on wikipedia:  hand of god came from a maradona quote, but check out this other quote from maradona:  "I was waiting for my teammates to embrace me, and no one came... I told them, 'Come hug me, or the referee isn't going to allow it.'"  that's the type of bullshit i'm talking about.  how can you feel good about yourself if you know you got a goal on something like that?  why not just go all the way and try some more intricate cheating shit, like dropping a nail for the goalie to step on?  why not just pay the refs off?

[Alkie]

So it's agreed then.   Soccer is hereby banned in the United States.

[Limey]

the hand of god thing sucks, but you can't change it just like you can't change the result of the oilers-steelers game with the renfro non-touchdown.  i'm talking about the rare, obvious thing that clearly decides the game on the last play of the game, like the perfect game and the ghana game.  alls i'm saying is get a commissioner with balls and common sense.

So, you want soccer to be like the NBA, where the rules are applied differently in the last two minutes than they are in the first two?

They way they have adjusted the code over the years has (almost) entirely been towards taking subjectivity out of the decision making.  It's not a flaw in the rules that a ref can't award Ghana a "penalty goal", its by design.  If you don't want to be on a knife edge with a minute to go, score more goals.

[HudsonHawk]

and look, stop giving shit nicknames like "the hand of god."  i don't know if that came out of an interview, but it totally romanticizes this type of cheating bullshit.

But everyone knows God is a huge fan of South American soccer cheats.

[Limey]

and look, stop giving shit nicknames like "the hand of god."  i don't know if that came out of an interview, but it totally romanticizes this type of cheating bullshit.  okay, i just looked it up on wikipedia:  hand of god came from a maradona quote, but check out this other quote from maradona:  "I was waiting for my teammates to embrace me, and no one came... I told them, 'Come hug me, or the referee isn't going to allow it.'"  that's the type of bullshit i'm talking about.  how can you feel good about yourself if you know you got a goal on something like that?  why not just go all the way and try some more intricate cheating shit, like dropping a nail for the goalie to step on?  why not just pay the refs off?

You're assuming that he's not a small-minded smug little bastard who does feel good about himself for doing something like that.  The "Hand of God" is what it's called - I don't believe that it is a positive nickname.

[Alkie]

I just want to go on record as saying, no.   I don't want the rules to be more like the NBA.   I think all the silly rules changes the NBA has made (the move-the-ball-to-halfcourt-on-a-timeout thing makes me want to turn the game off) makes it a ridiculous version of "basketball."  The fact that the refs all clearly have their own agendas that define the game make it worse.    The NBA is a poor excuse for sports-based entertainment.    What upsets me is that the NCAA better get it together, because they're not far behind anymore.

[Alkie]

But everyone knows God is a huge fan of South American soccer cheats.

Maybe God will stop the oil spill.   

[Rebel Jew]

So, you want soccer to be like the NBA, where the rules are applied differently in the last two minutes than they are in the first two?

fuck no.  all i'm saying is that a common sense commish who has some nuts should be able to step in on that rare, once-every-five-years type crazy situation and be able to correct the wrong.  ghana won that game, the goal would have 100% happened and it was the very last play of the game.  that's a win, but it's not because the uruguayan dude deliberately manipulated a loophole in the rules.  sure, you'll say, 'well the ghana dude shouldn't have choked on the PK or it wouldn't have mattered' but that's BS because he shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.

look, i definitely don't want some stupid committee that reviews every messed up call or strategy in every game and changes all these stupid things after the fact.  i want a leader, a non-selig who is able to stand up and say, "look you fucks!  this is wrong and i'm gonna make it right.  if you think this is gonna make me go back and review a bunch of other historical shit, or some balls and strikes bullshit from the first inning then you can go fuck a garden hose.  but i'll be goddamned if i'm gonna let some south american faggot cunt his team to an undeserved victory!"  or something like that.  and the commish doesn't necessarily have to be a drunken texas racist, but whatevs.

[austro]

You are the ref

Figure this one out!

I love the fact that the guy heads it out. You're coming out of the stands, interfering with an in-progress contest, but you're going to obey the rule about not using your hands? Classic.

[Noe]

Schweinstager Pudolski and Klose have all been around for a while (Klose passed Pele this tournament for most all-time world cup goals and now sits one behind Ronaldo who has the most). 

Had Ballack been available, Germany would have been one of the older teams (*in terms of who is on the pitch and has Caps totals*) in the tournament.  BTW - the kid Mesut Özil looks to be the next superstar in the making.  His play in midfield has been outstanding and the speed at which he plays puts all defenders on notice.  He's pretty skilled with the ball as well.

[Alkie]

the kid Mesut Özil looks to be the next superstar in the making. 

He's not already?   How is that possible?

[Noe]

This wasn't a loophole situation.  It's only because it happened as time ran out that it's highlighted.  If Ghana slot the PK, there's no debate.  Can't blame the rules for player error.

Suarez wasn't exactly acting like a hero when the PK was awared.  The fact that Gyan cannot cash in what is the easiest of goals to score in futbol is what is turning attention towards Suarez.  Believe me, he was no hero in Uruguay until Gyan decided he wanted to strike the ball so it would go through the netting.  Mental approach to playing futbol at this level has to be high in this case Gyan proved he was not prepared to do what was necessary for his side to win.  If you need a frame of reference, take a look at what Abreu (Spiderman/El Loco) did to cash in his PK.

When people say "my own grandmother can score on a PK!", well, they're not too far from the truth on that one.

[Alkie]

I sure hope Paraguay finds a way to beat Foreigner-and-Journey.

[Alkie]

I want everyone to know that I had started this post with reference to a barber shop in Sevilla; but I decided against it.

Point: everyone.

[Alkie]

If you had URU and PAR as the last two South American teams, you're a fucking liar.

[Noe]

He's not already?   How is that possible?

Many folks go by Caps and how you do in your own league play (and that depends on the league too, you get more exposure in the English Premiere, the Budasliga, etc., then you would say, the MLS or even the Mexican Premiere League).  Ozil has been a revelation of sorts, taking everyone by surprise.  I don't think anyone thought he play so positively and be one of the reasons the Germans look so good right now.

[Noe]

If you had URU and PAR as the last two South American teams, you're a fucking liar.

Uruguay, si... Paraguay... no buey!

[HudsonHawk]

Suarez wasn't exactly acting like a hero when the PK was awared.  The fact that Gyan cannot cash in what is the easiest of goals to score in futbol is what is turning attention towards Suarez.  Believe me, he was no hero in Uruguay until Gyan decided he wanted to strike the ball so it would go through the netting.  Mental approach to playing futbol at this level has to be high in this case Gyan proved he was not prepared to do what was necessary for his side to win.  If you need a frame of reference, take a look at what Abreu (Spiderman/El Loco) did to cash in his PK.

Still, it's ridiculous to make Ghana score that goal twice for it to count.

[Noe]

Still, it's ridiculous to make Ghana score that goal twice for it to count.

One goal is all they need.  They did not cash in and if you ask any Ghanian, they're not going to let Gyan off the hook and blame Suarez for what was a horrible attempt to win a game.  That would be similar to excusing a placekicker for missing a 10 yard field goal attempt with no time left on the clock.  I've yet to hear a Texan fan excuse Brown for his contributions in this manner for not winning games in the last seconds for the Texans.

[Noe]

Paraguay is committing 7-8 players in the box to defend.  Spain is going to find getting near the goal nearly impossible.  Seems the only chance to score now is going to be on a set play or a long strike from someone like Villa or Xavi.

[HudsonHawk]

One goal is all they need.

But they had to score it twice to get one to count.

 They did not cash in

They did the first time, but were asked to do it again and didn't.

and if you ask any Ghanian, they're not going to let Gyan off the hook and blame Suarez for what was a horrible attempt to win a game.  That would be similar to excusing a placekicker for missing a 10 yard field goal attempt with no time left on the clock.

No it's not.  It's not even close to the same thing.  It's like a basketball player sinking a basket at the buzzer, only to have the defender reach up through the net and push the ball back out, and then asking the shooter to make the free throws.  

[Limey]

Someone needs to teach john Harkes the rules.  Cordoza was offside from the forward pass.  He became active when he tried to head it. He's offside.  That is all.

[Alkie]

Someone needs to teach john Harkes the rules.  Cordoza was offside from the forward pass.  He became active when he tried to head it. He's offside.  That is all.

I don't need to know anything about sports to know Harkes is a terrible commentator.   What's his day job?

[Limey]

Still, it's ridiculous to make Ghana score that goal twice for it to count.

The ball never went in, therefore it's not a goal.  They had two chances, one was thwarted by a foul, and the other by nerves.

[Alkie]

No it's not.  It's not even close to the same thing.  It's like a basketball player sinking a basket at the buzzer, only to have the defender reach up through the net and push the ball back out, and then asking the shooter to make the free throws.  

For what it's worth, not only is this a good analogy anyway, the %s of both situations are almost exactly the same.   You're going from a 100% point scored to a 70% point scored opportunity.

[Limey]

I don't need to know anything about sports to know Harkes is a terrible commentator.   What's his day job?

Sitting in his underpants, waiting for TV stations to run out of people who understand futbol.  See also, Lalas, Alexei and McManaman, Steve.

BTW, we have been blessed with getting the available PBP guys from Sky (Fox).  If we had to listen to the BBC or ITV guys, I'd be muting the center channel so I could hear only the vuvuzelas.

[Noe]

But they had to score it twice to get one to count.

They did not score.  The ball did not cross the goal line, so there was no score.  However, it was a penalty because the Uruguayain player committed a fould worthy of a red card.  A penalty kick was awared.  Where are you getting that they scored a goal and it was disallowed?

They did the first time, but were asked to do it again and didn't.

No.  They didn't score.  But they were given the golden opportunity to score and Gyan misfired.  It was his own doing, no one else.

No it's not.  It's not even close to the same thing.  It's like a basketball player sinking a basket at the buzzer, only to have the defender reach up and pinch the net closed, and then asking the shooter to make the free throws. 

Again, a score is when the ball crosses the line and this ball did not.  Suarez could reach in and touch the ball all he wants once it crosses the line and it means nothing, the ball is across, it's a goal.  Suarez touched the ball *before* it went into the goal.  Where are you getting that a goal was scored and *then* Suarez placed his hands on the ball?  You're watching an entirely different game than me.  BG's anology is more appropriate and mine too.  A defensive back tackles a player *before* he scores and the ref awares the ball on the one yard line with no time left.  In comes the placekicker and he shanks a ten yard attempt wide left.

You're blaming the ref and the defensive back for making the offense earn an easy win, which they *did not*!  You're the first NFL fan in my memory who would do that too.  Most would blame a Norwood or Brown for such an easy miss.

[Noe]

Someone needs to teach john Harkes the rules.  Cordoza was offside from the forward pass.  He became active when he tried to head it. He's offside.  That is all.

Harkes suffers from the same thing most folks do when they talk offsides (and some of my friends in Mexico always argue for the sake of arguing this rule when it goes against their side or argue for the rule when it applies well for their side).  The pass seemed to be for the Paraguian forward who went up to head the ball, and he missed it so it reached the man who was in an offsides position when it arrived.

[Noe]

The ball never went in, therefore it's not a goal.  They had two chances, one was thwarted by a foul, and the other by nerves.

Thank you.  Why is this hard to understand?

[HudsonHawk]

The ball never went in, therefore it's not a goal.  They had two chances, one was thwarted by a foul, and the other by nerves.

It's absurd to argue that the ball might not have gone in, if not for the blantant violation of the rules.  It would have.  Ghana did everything required to score the goal, and Uruguay could not defend the play legally.  So they broke the rules.  I understand the play was called as described by the book.  But you cannot argue that it did not force Ghana to have to do what was necessary to score *again*.  At least not with a straight face.

[Limey]

Harkes suffers from the same thing most folks do when they talk offsides (and some of my friends in Mexico always argue for the sake of arguing this rule when it goes against their side or argue for the rule when it applies well for their side).  The pass seemed to be for the Paraguian forward who went up to head the ball, and he missed it so it reached the man who was in an offsides position when it arrived.

Cordova was offside, Piquet(?) wasn't.  Piquet put the ball in the net, but it was waived off because Cordova was active.

[HudsonHawk]

Thank you.  Why is this hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand.  Why is it hard for you to understand that had the Uruguay player not deliberately broken the rules, the ball would have gone in the goal and been counted?

[Noe]

For what it's worth, not only is this a good analogy anyway, the %s of both situations are almost exactly the same. 

Really?  Goal tending in basketball is that you cannot touch the ball when it is on it's downward arc.  IN futbol, a score is when the ball *crosses* the goalline.  How are both the same?

 You're going from a 100% point scored to a 70% point scored opportunity.

First way to sound silly trying argue a rule is not knowing the rules.

[HudsonHawk]

They did not score.  The ball did not cross the goal line, so there was no score.

It would have if not for the deliberate violation by Uruguay.  If playing by the rules of soccer, Ghana scores that goal and wins the match.  Period.  You cannot argue otherwise.

 However, it was a penalty because the Uruguayain player committed a fould worthy of a red card.  A penalty kick was awared.  Where are you getting that they scored a goal and it was disallowed?

Why are you intentionally being so obtuse?  

Again, a score is when the ball crosses the line and this ball did not.

Repeating the obvious again and again is not addressing the issue at hand.

You're blaming the ref and the defensive back for making the offense earn an easy win, which they *did not*!

Yes they did.  Ghana earned that goal, fair and square.  Uruguay deliberately went outside of the rules to prevent it, when they could not prevent it legally.

Most would blame a Norwood or Brown for such an easy miss.

A missed field goal is not in any way analogous here.

[Limey]

It's absurd to argue that the ball might not have gone in, if not for the blantant violation of the rules.  It would have.  Ghana did everything required to score the goal, and Uruguay could not defend the play legally.  So they broke the rules.  I understand the play was called as described by the book.  But you cannot argue that it did not force Ghana to have to do what was necessary to score *again*.  At least not with a straight face.

If is was Ghanaian, I'd be going bonkers. Maybe they'll change the rules...but unlikely.  Germany have profited from this very play (against the USA, no less) in previous world cup finals.   I totally understand the frustration at the clear unfairness of the situation, but I for one would object to (1) the refs getting to decide what's a likely goal and what's not (they can't even get actual goals right with anything close to competence); and (2) the rules being different in the last minutes of the game, compared to the first.

[Noe]

It's absurd to argue that the ball might not have gone in, if not for the blantant violation of the rules.

Apply the rule then.  What is the rule for touching the ball on the pitch?  That is what applies here, nothing more.

It would have.  Ghana did everything required to score the goal, and Uruguay could not defend the play legally.

I'm sorry, did I miss the penalty awared to Ghana for the violation of the rule?

So they broke the rules.  I understand the play was called as described by the book.

Because *no goal* was scored.  The ball did not cross the line.  The only rule that applies is what penalty is awared for a player touching a ball on the pitch, especially in the goal box?  What was given is exactly what should have been called.  Most if not all futbol fans pretty much knew Uruguay was hosed at the moment.  Then Gyan... not Suarez, not Blatter, not FIFA, no one else... messed up.  Suarez could not watch, most Uruguyian fans were crying and heads in hands.  It would take a miracle of Norwood proportions to save them now.

And it happened.

But you cannot argue that it did not force Ghana to have to do what was necessary to score *again*.  At least not with a straight face.

They. Did. Not. Score!  *sigh*

[Alkie]

Really?  Goal tending in basketball is that you cannot touch the ball when it is on it's downward arc.  IN futbol, a score is when the ball *crosses* the goalline.  How are both the same?

Right; we're not talking about goaltending "in general" we're talking about a situation where someone reaches up through the bottom of the net to push out a ball that is clearly going to be a basket because that's exactly what happened yesterday.   Should have been clearer about that.

[Noe]

It's not hard to understand.  Why is it hard for you to understand that had the Uruguay player not deliberately broken the rules, the ball would have gone in the goal and been counted?

They. Did. Not. Score!

The penalty awared was the call that was right and no one who watches futbol understands this as a hardship for Ghana.  In fact, it was a golden opportunity of the Norwood proportions to win a crucial game.  You should understand that being the NFL fan that you are.

[HudsonHawk]

Really?  Goal tending in basketball is that you cannot touch the ball when it is on it's downward arc.  IN futbol, a score is when the ball *crosses* the goalline.  How are both the same?

Goaltending is many things, not just this.  And in soccer, the rule is that you cannot touch the ball with your hands.  You're conflating two different rules.

First way to sound silly trying argue a rule is not knowing the rules.

Everyone knows the rules.  That the correct rule was applied is not the issue.

[Limey]

Right; we're not talking about goaltending "in general" we're talking about a situation where someone reaches up through the bottom of the net to push out a ball that is clearly going to be a basket because that's exactly what happened yesterday.   Should have been clearer about that.

The difference here is that basketball's rule is intended to stop someone standing under the basket and swatting away shots.  Soccer allows that, because every team has a goalie.   You're just not allowed to have two.

[Noe]

Right; we're not talking about goaltending "in general" we're talking about a situation where someone reaches up through the bottom of the net to push out a ball that is clearly going to be a basket because that's exactly what happened yesterday.   Should have been clearer about that.

Suarez did not catch the ball that was already a goal back into the field of play.  He touched the ball in the penalty box and a penalty kick was awarded.  It did not go unpunished and if you believe a placekicker in the NFL has no reason to miss a ten yard field goal to end a game with a win, then you would understand why this was a huge mistake by Ghana and not a hardship.  At. All.

[HudsonHawk]

Apply the rule then.  What is the rule for touching the ball on the pitch?  That is what applies here, nothing more.

I'm sorry, did I miss the penalty awared to Ghana for the violation of the rule?

Because *no goal* was scored.  The ball did not cross the line.  The only rule that applies is what penalty is awared for a player touching a ball on the pitch, especially in the goal box?  What was given is exactly what should have been called.  Most if not all futbol fans pretty much knew Uruguay was hosed at the moment.  Then Gyan... not Suarez, not Blatter, not FIFA, no one else... messed up.  Suarez could not watch, most Uruguyian fans were crying and heads in hands.  It would take a miracle of Norwood proportions to save them now.

And it happened.

They. Did. Not. Score!  *sigh*

What part of this is so difficult to understand?  No one is arguing whether or not the correct ruling was made.  All of this is deliberate misdirection on your part because you don't seem to want to discuss the issue, which is the validity of the rule in the first place.

[HudsonHawk]

They. Did. Not. Score!

We all acknowlege this.

The penalty awared was the call that was right and no one who watches futbol understands this as a hardship for Ghana.  In fact, it was a golden opportunity of the Norwood proportions to win a crucial game.  You should understand that being the NFL fan that you are.

Again, football is irrelevant.  Secondly, are you going to address the question at hand or keep shouting the obvious?

[Limey]

BTW.  This Paraguay-Spain game is intriguing, but ultimately dull.

[Alkie]

The difference here is that basketball's rule is intended to stop someone standing under the basket and swatting away shots.  Soccer allows that, because every team has a goalie.   You're just not allowed to have two.

Sure.  And I recognize the difference of course.   But I think it's the closest/best parallel we have.   You could also argue that "blocks" are allowed in basketball so "swatting a ball going toward the sky" is the legal goalie and "swatting a ball going toward the ground" is the illegal second goalie.

[Noe]

It would have if not for the deliberate violation by Uruguay.  If playing by the rules of soccer, Ghana scores that goal and wins the match.  Period.  You cannot argue otherwise.

That's the rule in futbol?  Really?  I guess I just learned something about the game.  Thanks!

Why are you intentionally being so obtuse?

Why are you enjoying being contrarian?  Or should I just use the tried and true "Fine, wallow in your ignorance for all I care!"

Repeating the obvious again and again is not addressing the issue at hand.

Listening on your part would help too.

Yes they did.  Ghana earned that goal, fair and square.

What goal?  I can't say this enough... THERE WAS NO GOAL!

Uruguay deliberately went outside of the rules to prevent it, when they could not prevent it legally.

You're acting as if they were not penalized.  Limey has mentioned the Hand of God, where a penalty was *NOT* awarded.  THAT is more in line with being robbed by incompetence or the lack of the proper application of a rule.  In this case, Ghana snatched victory right out of the jaws and suffered a defeat because of it.  And they could do better at PKs in a shootout too, they did not lose on the last play of the game.  They lost because of the sphincters getting really tight.  The way Abreu ended the match was icing on the cake to show you don't have to strike a ball hard to earn a score on a PK.  Ghana, the young Ghana, team lost because in the end they could not convert what is normally the easiest of chances to win.

A missed field goal is not in any way analogous here.

Says you and of course you know everything about everything too.

[Limey]

Sure.  And I recognize the difference of course.   But I think it's the closest/best parallel we have.   You could also argue that "blocks" are allowed in basketball so "swatting a ball going toward the sky" is the legal goalie and "swatting a ball going toward the ground" is the illegal second goalie.

Ice Hockey shoot outs allow the shooter to carry the puck.  In soccer he has one kick at a dead ball.  The hockey goalie can move around, the soccer goalie must stay on his line.  Exact same scenario, implemented differently in different codes of sport.

I understand what you're saying, and I am in favor of rule changes that would help make the game (any game) more pure in it's outcome and more entertaining.  But i truly believe that it is dangerous to tweak the code just because of one freak confluence of events.    

[Noe]

That the correct rule was applied is not the issue.

Right, the issue is you are a contrarian.  End of story.

[Alkie]

Ghana, the young Ghana, team lost because in the end they could not convert what is normally the easiest of chances to win.

No.  Ghana lost because the rules allow a team to lower their opponent's chance of scoring from 100% to 69% by breaking a rule.   Which is all we're discussing.

[Alkie]

OOOOOOH.   Guessed right.

[Limey]

BTW.  This Paraguay-Spain game is intriguing, but ultimately dull.

No sooner said...

[Noe]

Okay, so going by what is being said here, Spain's Pique just made Paraguay have to score their goal *twice* by committing the foul in the box.  Paraguay was robbed *twice*.

[Alkie]

Okay, so going by what is being said here, Spain's Pique just made Paraguay have to score their goal *twice* by committing the foul in the box.  Paraguay was robbed *twice*.

Dude.  I like you.  I respect you.   But you're seriously just pretending to not get what we're saying.   Neither HH nor I are arguing for a second that all penalties in the box should result in a goal being awarded.   

[Alkie]

Ok, I have to say, that was an incredible 5 minutes.

[HudsonHawk]

Right, the issue is you are a contrarian.  End of story.

No, the issue is you don't have a good answer so you simply shout "STOP ASKING THE QUESTION!"

[Limey]

Okay, so going by what is being said here, Spain's Pique just made Paraguay have to score their goal *twice* by committing the foul in the box.  Paraguay was robbed *twice*.

This is my point about the timing issue.  The Ghana butt-fucking is only such a big talking point because it was the last second of the game.  Of extra time, no less.  

And the incident at the other end is even more indicative.  This shit happens all the time, the rules are the rules, and there really isn't much debate to change them outside of the Beer and Queso and Ghana.  

[Noe]

No.  Ghana lost because the rules allow a team to lower their opponent's chance of scoring from 100% to 69% by breaking a rule.   Which is all we're discussing.

How many PKs did Ghana convert?  How many did Uruguay?  Use simple math to say who won and who lost the match.  Ghana plays by the same rules as anyone else and had the shoe (or boot) been on the other foot, they would have accepted the rule like Suarez did... with a great deal of pain that they had basically given the match to the other side.  Suarez did not win that match for Uruguay, Gyan gave it away.  The discussion of what ifs are nice and all, but not germaine to what actually happened on the pitch.  I was speaking to Limey about something else (basically how Suarez was not a hero for his penalty in the box).  You guys want to change futbol, go ahead.

Sometimes, it is for the better, sometimes, you get a DH rule in baseball that offends the purist in all of us.

[Noe]

No, the issue is you don't have a good answer so you simply shout "STOP ASKING THE QUESTION!"

No.  You're being a contraian and saying that Ghana had to score twice is dumb.  They never scored the first time.  At. All.

[Limey]

Puyol is the latest in a long line of viscous bastards who have played left fullback down the centuries. 

[HudsonHawk]

And the incident at the other end is even more indicative.  This shit happens all the time, the rules are the rules, and there really isn't much debate to change them outside of the Beer and Queso and Ghana.  

If soccer fans feel the type of shit that happened to Ghana is perfectly acceptable, more power to them.  That doesn't mean that the rule makes sense.

[HudsonHawk]

No.  You're being a contraian and saying that Ghana had to score twice is dumb.  They never scored the first time.  At. All.

Look, I know you're not this stupid, so I'll just accept that you have no explanation.

[Noe]

Dude.  I like you.  I respect you.

Same here.

But you're seriously just pretending to not get what we're saying.

I was called out for talking to Limey about something else.  I did not understand why anyone was saying that a goal was scored or a team was asked to score twice.  They never scored once to begin with.  If you want to argue rule changes, have at it.  I'll step away because it's not my cup of tea in futbol.  Not that I am against rule changes, but not in this regard.

Neither HH nor I are arguing for a second that all penalties in the box should result in a goal being awarded.  

Really?  Maybe I should go read that stuff about having to score twice then.  Even Limey reacted to those statements.

[Noe]

This is my point about the timing issue.  The Ghana butt-fucking is only such a big talking point because it was the last second of the game.  Of extra time, no less.  

And the incident at the other end is even more indicative.  This shit happens all the time, the rules are the rules, and there really isn't much debate to change them outside of the Beer and Queso and Ghana.  

Con-freaking-cur!

[Noe]

Look, I know you're not this stupid, so I'll just accept that you have no explanation.

And you can wallow in your own ignorance for all I care, Mr. Contraian!

[Limey]

If soccer fans feel the type of shit that happened to Ghana is perfectly acceptable, more power to them.  That doesn't mean that the rule makes sense.

The rules makes sense, if you accept that they are designed to avoid, as much as possible, a subjective judgment by the referee.  Having to imagine whether Ghana, Paraguay and/or Spain would've scored in their respective penalty award scenarios swings the door wide open for much more controversy.  In each case, the ball didn't go into the net, and in each case, a penalty kick was awarded.  That's how FIFA designed it to work.

The only thing I see wrong was that Alvarez(?) of Paraguay should've been red carded for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.   

[HudsonHawk]

And you can wallow in your own ignorance for all I care, Mr. Contraian!

I'm not the one who doesn't get it.

[austro]

If Spain keeps fucking around, Paraguay is going to get a surprise goal and Spain won't have enough time to counter.

[Noe]

The rules makes sense, if you accept that they are designed to avoid, as much as possible, a subjective judgment by the referee.  Having to imagine whether Ghana, Paraguay and/or Spain would've scored in their respective penalty award scenarios swings the door wide open for much more controversy.  In each case, the ball didn't go into the net, and in each case, a penalty kick was awarded.  That's how FIFA designed it to work.

The only thing I see wrong was that Alvarez(?) of Paraguay should've been red carded for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.   

Agreed.  Why a yellow card when that was obviously a red card penalty?  (Good use of the word opportunity, using "chance" doesn't seem to register with some folks).

[Noe]

I'm not the one who doesn't get it.

Agreed.  I don't get what you're talking about, that is very true.

[Noe]

If Spain keeps fucking around, Paraguay is going to get a surprise goal and Spain won't have enough time to counter.

This match has really turned from the very dull defensive match it started out to be.  Both sides have really opened up, but Spain looks vulnerable right now.

[HudsonHawk]

The rules makes sense, if you accept that they are designed to avoid, as much as possible, a subjective judgment by the referee.

But everything in soccer is a subjective judgement by the referee.  I don't buy the argument that something as cut and dried as this would be taking the game away from the players.

Having to imagine whether Ghana, Paraguay and/or Spain would've scored in their respective penalty award scenarios swings the door wide open for much more controversy.

You don't have to imagine that in this scenario.  You just have to recognize that the ball would have crossed the goal had the defender not swatted it away.  Honestly, of all the judgement calls in soccer, this scenario would be the easiest no-brainer.

[Limey]

Agreed.  Why a yellow card when that was obviously a red card penalty?  (Good use of the word opportunity, using "chance" doesn't seem to register with some folks).

The phrase "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity" is, I believe, a direct quote from the rule book.  The choice of words speaks volumes as to the intent of it's application.  Suarez denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and FIFA don't want the play subject to any more interpretation than that.

For once, I agree with FIFA. 

[HudsonHawk]

Agreed.  I don't get what you're talking about, that is very true.

I think you do.  But...what Alkie and I are asking is for the logic behind *why* the goal is not awarded in a scenario where a deliberate hand ball prevents an obvious goal.

[Noe]

Inesta does it again!  Beautiful run to setup Villa!!!  Vamos Espana!

[Alkie]

If Villa costs me Paraguayan t&a, I will hate the entire country of Spain for the rest of my life.   Write that down.

[austro]

Wow. How many posts can you hit for one goal?

[Limey]

But everything in soccer is a subjective judgement by the referee.  I don't buy the argument that something as cut and dried as this would be taking the game away from the players.

You don't have to imagine that in this scenario.  You just have to recognize that the ball would have crossed the goal had the defender not swatted it away.  Honestly, of all the judgement calls in soccer, this scenario would be the easiest no-brainer.

Argung that Ghana's "goal" was so obvious that it should be allowed assumes that there can be a fair and consistent line drawn between it, and Villa being hauled down (rather easily) in the box.  By making the one and only test for a goal being whether it was legally put across the line keeps the decision making pure.  

What if Suarez had been standing on the penalty spot when he.blocked a goal-bound shot?  What if the ball was rising or bending?   I'm not arguing that Ghana's effort wasn't going in, I'm arguing that you canny write rules to take into account every possible scenario.  You write rules that can be applied evenly and equally, and let the players decide the game - which is what happened, gardless of how unsatisfactory that may feel to neutrals.  

[Noe]

The phrase "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity" is, I believe, a direct quote from the rule book.  The choice of words speaks volumes as to the intent of it's application.  Suarez denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and FIFA don't want the play subject to any more interpretation than that.

For once, I agree with FIFA. 

Right, you can knock down a, say, Klose running on to score a goal from behind and that is a penalty kick award if it's in the box.  It is clearly to avoid defenders from using such tatics and if they do, the easiest of goals to score is the PK.  Today, both keepers guessed right, but yesterday I saw nothing in the way Ghana and Uruguay tried to cash in their penalty kicks to make me say that they used the World Class methods to score.  In fact, it looked for all the world as if Ghana had the nerves shocked trying to gain their advantage (and in Gyan's attempt, a win).

[Limey]

If Villa costs me Paraguayan t&a, I will hate the entire country of Spain for the rest of my life.   Write that down.

Don't worry.  Here's some Spanish queso.

[HudsonHawk]

Argung that Ghana's "goal" was so obvious that it should be allowed assumes that there can be a fair and consistent line drawn between it, and Villa being hauled down (raer easily) in the box.

I have no idea what the latter is.  But yes, I think  the "goal" by Ghana is an exceptionally easy call.

  By making the one and only test for a goal being whether it was legally put across the line keeps the decision making pure. 

So then you never have a situation where the ball actually crosses the line but no goal is awarded anyway?

What if Suarez had been standing on the penalty spot when he.blocked a goal-bound shot?  What if the ball was rising or bending?   I'm not arguing that Ghana's effort wasn't going in, I'm arguing that you canny write rules to take into account every possible scenario.

I'm not asking for that.  I'm saying that when something is as obvious as that, there should be a provision for it.  

[Alkie]

Don't worry.  Here's some Spanish queso.

Well, and that IS awesome, but all it does is make me like you more.  It doesn't make me like Spain any more.

[Noe]

I think you do.  But...what Alkie and I are asking is for the logic behind *why* the goal is not awarded in a scenario where a deliberate hand ball prevents an obvious goal.

Obvious goal opens up all sorts of subjectivity.  Being the purist in baseball that you are, you should know that introducing subjectivity is akin to changing the game not for the better but for more controversy.  You've decided you can be the arbriter of what is obvious in this case, that is why you say it was about making Ghana score *twice*.  You stand by your own subjective interpetation of obvious.  Others would take what you are saying and apply it to a striker in the open who has a clear shot on goal and then is pulled down from behind by a defender.  In the World Class stage, those are not goals that will be denied in many minds, so if a Klose, for example, is pulled down, they would argue as vehemently as you and Alkie have for a goal award instead of a penalty.

Trust me, that would be the pandora's box you're trying wedge open.

[Limey]

So then you never have a situation where the ball actually crosses the line but no goal is awarded anyway?

I'm in favor of goal line "technology" (which is just a fucking camera that's already there), but there is nothing in any part of the rule book that allows a referee to award a goal when the ball hasn't gone in.  I'm happy about that because the opposite is a can of worms I never want to see opened.

[Alkie]

Trust me, that would be the pandora's box you're trying wedge open.

I will grant you that this is probably true.   

[HudsonHawk]

Obvious goal opens up all sorts of subjectivity.

Of course.  But what's wrong with that?  Fouls are subjective.  Cards are subjective.  Hell, even whether or balls crossing goal line actually being goals is subjective.

 Being the purist in baseball that you are, you should know that introducing subjectivity is akin to changing the game not for the better but for more controversy.

Baseball is probably the most subjective game there is when it comes to officiating.  I have no problems with official subjectivity.  Why would you think that?

 

Others would take what you are saying and apply it to a striker in the open who has a clear shot on goal and then is pulled down from behind by a defender.

Then they'd be stupid, and I'd have to ask if they've ever even seen a soccer match before.

[Alkie]

From ESPN's front page right now:
Suarez's suspension limited to 1 match

So, nothing to see here.  Everyone go home.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm in favor of goal line "technology" (which is just a fucking camera that's already there), but there is nothing in any part of the rule book that allows a referee to award a goal when the ball hasn't gone in.  I'm happy about that because the opposite is a can of worms I never want to see opened.

But it does allow the referee to not award a goal on a ball that clearly has.  Why are you ok with that subjectivity, but not the other way around?

[Limey]

I see someone in the crowd who needs consoling...

[Limey]

But it does allow the referee to not award a goal on a ball that clearly has.  Why are you ok with that subjectivity, but not the other way around?

That's not a subjectivity, that's an error.  

By that, I mean, the referee isn't allowed to award a goal because he thinks it went in or he thinks it would've gone in but for some infraction by a defending player.  He can award a goal if he is certain that the whole of the ball has crossed the whole of the line.  If he's not certain, he has to waive it off.  

[HudsonHawk]

That's not a subjectivity, that's an error. 

An error that happened because it's a judgment call.

[Noe]

I'm happy about that because the opposite is a can of worms I never want to see opened.

Yup, I can see a free kick awarded to Argentina (for example) and the wall is set up just inside the box.   Messi strikes it and it is *obviously* headed to the right corner of the net, the keeper nowhere in sight.  But a member of the wall raises his arm out from his body and knocks the great strike from Messi down.  If the subjectivity of *obvious goal* is put in place, then there would be many, many, many fans of Argentina (and even fans who dislike the opposing side) who would argue in favor of the call and those who would argue that a penalty kick should have been awarded instead.

As the rule stands *now*, all agree that a penalty kick should be awarded.  All fans and teams are satisfied and now it's about Messi converting the chance to score from ten yards out.

[Alkie]

I see someone in the crowd who needs consoling...

I'll be in her bunk.

[HudsonHawk]

Yup, I can see a free kick awarded to Argentina (for example) and the wall is set up just inside the box.   Messi strikes it and it is *obviously* headed to the right corner of the net, the keeper nowhere in sight.  But a member of the wall raises his arm out from his body and knocks the great strike from Messi down.  If the subjectivity of *obvious goal* is put in place, then there would be many, many, many fans of Argentina (and even fans who dislike the opposing side) who would argue in favor of the call and those who would argue that a penalty kick should have been awarded instead.

As the rule stands *now*, all agree that a penalty kick should be awarded.  All fans and teams are satisfied and now it's about Messi converting the chance to score from ten yards out.

Basically, your entire argument boils down to "soccer referees are idiots, incapable of making even the easiest of calls."

[Limey]

An error that happened because it's a judgment call.

Correct, but my ETA (which I presume you hadn't seen) makes the difference between a judgement call, and leeway in interpretation and application of the rules.  The rule as to what is a legal goal is very strict and unambiguous.  Not open to interpretation at all.

In England's case, if none of the officials saw the ball in the net, they cannot award the goal (and they should be fucking fired).  They can't decide that it looked ok so they'll give it.  That's the strictness of interpretation.   

[Limey]

Basically, your entire argument boils down to "soccer referees are idiots, incapable of making even the easiest of calls."

Clearly, you haven't been watching the matches.

[HudsonHawk]

Clearly, you haven't been watching the matches.

Oh I have.  And I agree that the officiating has been horrible.  But I don't think that the rules should be contingent upon that fact.

[Limey]

Oh I have.  And I agree that the officiating has been horrible.  But I don't think that the rules should be contingent upon that fact.

But can you see how FIFA might want to remove as much decision-making from their job as possible?

[Noe]

Of course.  But what's wrong with that?  Fouls are subjective.  Cards are subjective.  Hell, even whether or balls crossing goal line actually being goals is subjective.

I have no problem, as many futbol fans, to introduce technology that closes the line on ball crossing the goal line.  That doesn't have to be subjective.  But to introduce *more* subjectivity than you already have in the game is a slippery slope.  A striker with complete control of a futbol is as close to a goal as you're going to get, so introducing a "obvious goal" scenario will mean many will argue for and against the application of that rule beyond what you're thinking of here.

Baseball is probably the most subjective game there is when it comes to officiating.  I have no problems with official subjectivity.  Why would you think that?

I would think that you being a purist would not argue for rule changes just because they seem obvious to you.  Somewhere, someone thought the DH rule was an obvious change we all could live with.  Luckily, the NL did not adopt it, which made my baseball watching much more enjoyable because of it.  I was talking about calling for rule changes without thinking about all the ramifications is a dangerous thing, especially if you've seen what has happened in this beautiful game for the last half century.

Then they'd be stupid, and I'd have to ask if they've ever even seen a soccer match before.

Pot calling the kettle black?

[HudsonHawk]

But can you see how FIFA might want to remove as much decision-making from their job as possible?

No, I can see how they might want to remove a few officials, however.  Rules shouldn't be made on the assumption that there will be poor officiating.   

[Noe]

Basically, your entire argument boils down to "soccer referees are idiots, incapable of making even the easiest of calls."

Actually, they sometimes apply the rules effectively, including yesterday.

[HudsonHawk]

I would think that you being a purist would not argue for rule changes just because they seem obvious to you.

I'm not asking FIFA to change rules.  I couldn't care less.  I'm asking someone to explain to me why this is a good rule.  So far, the only real explanation has been "because the officials are terrible and would fuck it up."  I think that's lousy reasoning.

Pot calling the kettle black?

No, because *I* can recognize the difference between a deliberate handball at the goal line and a foul on a breakaway.

[Noe]

No, I can see how they might want to remove a few officials, however.  Rules shouldn't be made on the assumption that there will be poor officiating.   

Ironic statement given the right application of the rule by the official yesterday.  But introducing *more* subjectivity is introducing more chances to make mistakes, that everyone would have to live with.  Many would rather live with what is being applied now, but I get it that you and Alkie do not.

Cool.

[HudsonHawk]

Actually, they sometimes apply the rules effectively, including yesterday.

I agree that the referee applied the rules *correctly*.  I'd argue, however, that it was far from "effective".  But that just reinforces my argument.  The referee saw the obvious, recognized the situation, pulled out the red card, awarded the penalty...all just like the rules say he should.  Yet you want me to believe that had be been given the discretion to award a goal, he'd somehow have fucked it up.

[Limey]

No, I can see how they might want to remove a few officials, however.  Rules shouldn't be made on the assumption that there will be poor officiating.   

I am arguing that they are designed to promote consistency in a worldwide game, by leaving as little as possible to intprrtation. 

[Alkie]

Ok, I'll fan some flames.

I've been thinking about it and I think the rule should be that the goal counts; exactly like goaltending in basketball.   I think you'd be a lot less likely to handball in the box if you knew it meant a 100% goal, instead of just a 69% goal.   I understand that most players already assume the PK is as close to a sure thing as can be, but I bet after a half season of automatic goals, you'd see some coaches making goddamn sure you don't see shit like yesterday.   I mean, for one, it would have worked yesterday; the correct team would have won the game, the guy who touched the ball would have just been a desperate guy who did what he could but failed because what he did was against the rules, and you have a better punishment in place.   

As it stands right now, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[Limey]

I agree that the referee applied the rules *correctly*.  I'd argue, however, that it was far from "effective".  But that just reinforces my argument.  The referee saw the obvious, recognized the situation, pulled out the red card, awarded the penalty...all just like the rules say he should.  Yet you want me to believe that had be been given the discretion to award a goal, he'd somehow have fucked it up.

The argument isn't about that one incident, it's about har far back from that one incident do you draw the line if you decide to add a "penalty goal" to a referees arsenal.   All you do is move the point of contentiousness.

[Noe]

I'm not asking FIFA to change rules.

Really?  Okay, cool.

I couldn't care less.

Meaning you're arguing for the sake of arguing?

I'm asking someone to explain to me why this is a good rule.

Because it is applied fairly?

So far, the only real explanation has been "because the officials are terrible and would fuck it up."  I think that's lousy reasoning.

You mean, like going back to allowing umpires to rule on homerun balls and take away the replay cameras?  I don't think umpires are stupid (blind maybe, but not stupid), but taking subjectivity away from that seems to be what was expected of the implementation of the replay video.  I guess someone won the argument that "the umpires are terrible and would fuck it up" on that one.

No, because *I* can recognize the difference between a deliberate handball at the goal line and a foul on a breakaway.

You, however, cannot recognize an "obvious goal" though and that is what you said you want to introduce into the interpretation of the official.  If you cannot see how a striker with complete control of a ball within the penalty box being taken down is not an obvious goal, then you're not watching the game as closely as you should.

[Limey]

Ok, I'll fan some flames.

I've been thinking about it and I think the rule should be that the goal counts; exactly like goaltending in basketball.   I think you'd be a lot less likely to handball in the box if you knew it meant a 100% goal, instead of just a 69% goal.   I understand that most players already assume the PK is as close to a sure thing as can be, but I bet after a half season of automatic goals, you'd see some coaches making goddamn sure you don't see shit like yesterday.   I mean, for one, it would have worked yesterday; the correct team would have won the game, the guy who touched the ball would have just been a desperate guy who did what he could but failed because what he did was against the rules, and you have a better punishment in place.   

As it stands right now, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

I would proffer my reply to HH immediately under your question (obviously crossed on the nets) as an answer here.  If you move in this direction, where do you stop?  And, if you draw the line, that will be the line where the controversy occurs, instead of where it does currently.

[HudsonHawk]

The argument isn't about that one incident, it's about har far back from that one incident do you draw the line if you decide to add a "penalty goal" to a referees arsenal.   All you do is move the point of contentiousness.

And I'm ok with that.  Everything is subjective now anyway.  I can see where you might think this will lead to more officiating fuckups, but that is because you have idiot officials, not because it's a bad rule. 

[Limey]

And I'm ok with that.  Everything is subjective now anyway.  I can see where you might think this will lead to more officiating fuckups, but that is because you have idiot officials, not because it's a bad rule. 

I don't believe that it will lead to more fuck ups.  I believe that there will be the same number of controversial calls or non-calls (actually, more) but they simply will be further down the field. 

[Noe]

I agree that the referee applied the rules *correctly*.  I'd argue, however, that it was far from "effective".  But that just reinforces my argument.  The referee saw the obvious, recognized the situation, pulled out the red card, awarded the penalty...all just like the rules say he should.  Yet you want me to believe that had be been given the discretion to award a goal, he'd somehow have fucked it up.

Nope.  But where is the door close on said interpretation?  You cannot argue against other scenarios because many are "obvious goal" situations.  And yes, some will be missed and some will be wrongly applied.  Pandoras. Box.

[HudsonHawk]

I would proffer my reply to HH immediately under your question (obviously crossed on the nets) as an answer here.  If you move in this direction, where do you stop?  And, if you draw the line, that will be the line where the controversy occurs, instead of where it does currently.

On a different note...knowing you're a golfer, where sportsmanship is considered paramount...do you have any problem, morally/ethically, with winning a match in this manner?

[HudsonHawk]

Nope.  But where is the door close on said interpretation?  You cannot argue against other scenarios because many are "obvious goal" situations.  And yes, some will be missed and some will be wrongly applied.  Pandoras. Box.

I'm ok with the pandora's box.  The reasoning for not opening it being "because the referees suck" is not a good one.

[Limey]

On a different note...knowing you're a golfer, where sportsmanship is considered paramount...do you have any problem, morally/ethically, with winning a match in this manner?

Yes.  Tons.

[Alkie]

I would proffer my reply to HH immediately under your question (obviously crossed on the nets) as an answer here.  If you move in this direction, where do you stop?  And, if you draw the line, that will be the line where the controversy occurs, instead of where it does currently.

Well, I think it would be easy.   Handball in the box is a goal.   Will there still be missed calls and arguing about it?  Of course.   But it solves the problem that occurred yesterday.   

I think the rule as-is underpunishes the handball in the box such that someone can do what they did yesterday.   I think automatic-goal would be a lot more useful as a punishment than the current PK.   The proof, to me, is the Ghana game.   

[HudsonHawk]

I don't believe that it will lead to more fuck ups.  I believe that there will be the same number of controversial calls or non-calls (actually, more) but they simply will be further down the field. 

But do you agree then that the controversy would at least be less obvious than it was yesterday?

[Noe]

Ok, I'll fan some flames.

I've been thinking about it and I think the rule should be that the goal counts; exactly like goaltending in basketball.   I think you'd be a lot less likely to handball in the box if you knew it meant a 100% goal, instead of just a 69% goal.   I understand that most players already assume the PK is as close to a sure thing as can be, but I bet after a half season of automatic goals, you'd see some coaches making goddamn sure you don't see shit like yesterday.   I mean, for one, it would have worked yesterday; the correct team would have won the game, the guy who touched the ball would have just been a desperate guy who did what he could but failed because what he did was against the rules, and you have a better punishment in place.   

As it stands right now, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Handballs in futbol have been argued for ever (see Hand of God).  Saying that a hand ball in the penalty box would be automatic goals is saying you're going to aware a team for striking the ball into the midsection of another player and then scream that a handball goal should be given. Or something similar.

Again, why does the rules have to change in order to make the game what you expect it to be?

[Limey]

Well, I think it would be easy.   Handball in the box is a goal.   Will there still be missed calls and arguing about it?  Of course.   But it solves the problem that occurred yesterday.   

I think the rule as-is underpunishes the handball in the box such that someone can do what they did yesterday.   I think automatic-goal would be a lot more useful as a punishment than the current PK.   The proof, to me, is the Ghana game.   

This is a rule-change I could support, because it's pure and unambiguous. 

The argument from this rule would be over deliberate handball, which is a foul, and accidental/incidental handball, which is not.  It also doesn't address the myriad other ways in which a goal can be prevented by foul play.

[Alkie]

Handballs in futbol have been argued for ever (see Hand of God).  Saying that a hand ball in the penalty box would be automatic goals is saying you're going to aware a team for striking the ball into the midsection of another player and then scream that a handball goal should be given. Or something similar.

Right.  I agree with that and considered it.   So if this leads to an endless game of open ended "where does it stop?!"s then we're right back to the problem (I think) HH and I initially had 3 weeks ago.......that this game just isn't very well put together. 

Again, why does the rules have to change in order to make the game what you expect it to be?

Because as it is, breaking this rule exactly as it was yesterday gives your team a better chance (31%) to win than not breaking it (0%).   And as you saw, 31% was enough yesterday to win.   

[Limey]

But do you agree then that the controversy would at least be less obvious than it was yesterday?

Not always, and that's what were trying to get away from. 

[Alkie]

What's the penalty in organized soccer for having a 12th man on the field?

[Noe]

This is a rule-change I could support, because it's pure and unambiguous. 

The argument from this rule would be over deliberate handball, which is a foul, and accidental/incidental handball, which is not.  It also doesn't address the myriad other ways in which a goal can be prevented by foul play.

Players argue all incidental handball scenarios all the time.  I can see the matches in some far away country where a handball goal is awarded and the referee and all the players are attacked by the fans running into the pitch.  Not that they do not do that already, but adding more fuel to the fire is not the best idea that I think anyone can have.

[Alkie]

Players argue all incidental handball scenarios all the time.  I can see the matches in some far away country where a handball goal is awarded and the referee and all the players are attacked by the fans running into the pitch.  Not that they do not do that already, but adding more fuel to the fire is not the best idea that I think anyone can have.

Well, sure, but now you're making two arguments:

1) The old one -- the refs cannot be trusted to do their jobs
2) Everyone, from the players to the coaches to the fans of soccer are uncontrollable, immature lunatics.

[Noe]

Right.  I agree with that and considered it.   So if this leads to an endless game of open ended "where does it stop?!"s then we're right back to the problem (I think) HH and I initially had 3 weeks ago.......that this game just isn't very well put together.

Yes, agreed.  You and HH aren't fans and will never like futbol because it's a flawed and obviously whacked game.  Nothing wrong with that. 

Because as it is, breaking this rule exactly as it was yesterday gives your team a better chance (31%) to win than not breaking it (0%).   And as you saw, 31% was enough yesterday to win.   

Yup, being given a penalty kick that is akin to kicking a ten yard field goal to win a Super Bowl is just horrible.

[Limey]

What's the penalty in organized soccer for having a 12th man on the field?

Haven't the foggiest.  But I do know that players and managers not on the field can still be red carded.  If a sub interfered with play, I think a red card would swiftly follow.

[Noe]

What's the penalty in organized soccer for having a 12th man on the field?

Suspension.

[HudsonHawk]

Not always, and that's what were trying to get away from. 

So you think if you don't address it, the controversy will go away or be lessened?

[Noe]

Well, sure, but now you're making two arguments:

1) The old one -- the refs cannot be trusted to do their jobs

Actually, those words are being jammed into our mouths as it were.  A great debate/arguing strategy when you *really* don't care about what you're saying.  But the argument is *why* would you introduce more responsibility in terms of subjective rulings.  If that isn't as *obvious* as a goal that is going in, then say anything you want about stupid referees and all, it doesn't really matter at that point.

2) Everyone, from the players to the coaches to the fans of soccer are uncontrollable, immature lunatics.

Sorry, I guess I'm not good at making a funny as you are.  I'll stick to being obtuse and argumentative.

[Alkie]

Haven't the foggiest.  But I do know that players and managers not on the field can still be red carded.  If a sub interfered with play, I think a red card would swiftly follow.

I have to say, if that's right, I'm spending all night trying to figure out how to exploit that.   31% is not an insignificant chance to gamble on in certain situations.   I'd spend weeks trying to figure out all the scoring possibilities in soccer that are worse than 31% and find a way to take the red card/PK every single time one of those comes up.

And I'm willing to admit that there may just not be that many situations.    I don't know.

[Alkie]

Suspension.

For whom?

[Noe]

So you think if you don't address it, the controversy will go away or be lessened?

*Obviously* this so-called controversy means a whole lot more to you than anyone else.  Why?

[HudsonHawk]

Yup, being given a penalty kick that is akin to kicking a ten yard field goal to win a Super Bowl is just horrible.

Ghana weren't "given" anything.  It was awarded as consolation for a goal being taken away from them by the other team flagrantly violating the rules.  That's like your insurance company saying "sure someone stole your new Porshe, but we replaced it with a Chevy Malibu, you should be happy to get a free car".

[Alkie]

I'll stick to being obtuse and argumentative.

Well it makes for a better read when everyone comes back to the site on Tuesday morning.

[HudsonHawk]

*Obviously* this so-called controversy means a whole lot more to you than anyone else.  Why?

I seriously doubt that I care about this more than the Ghana players.

[Noe]

For whom?

Whoever sent him in without getting the referee's approval.  If he runs on himself, the ref will stop the game, even if there is an attack, and waive the player off the stadium (red-card).  He'll never get a chance to effect play because the side judge will probably tackle him as well as the official who signals for a player change.  Quite possibly, the coach will be asked to leave the stadium as well.

[Alkie]

Ghana weren't "given" anything.  It was awarded as consolation for a goal being taken away from them by the other team flagrantly violating the rules. 

Well, no, I mean I don't even see it that way.   They were most certainly punished for the other team breaking the rules.   They did nothing wrong (in fact, scored what would have been a clean goal to win the game) but had their chances of winning the game reduced from 100% to 69% because the OTHER team broke the rules.   That's crazy.

[Noe]

Ghana weren't "given" anything.  It was awarded as consolation for a goal being taken away from them by the other team flagrantly violating the rules.  That's like your insurance company saying "sure someone stole your new Porshe, but we replaced it with a Chevy Malibu, you should be happy to get a free car".

You don't understand a penalty kick *obviously*.

[Alkie]

Whoever sent him in without getting the referee's approval.  If he runs on himself, the ref will stop the game, even if there is an attack, and waive the player off the stadium (red-card).  He'll never get a chance to effect play because the side judge will probably tackle him as well as the official who signals for a player change.  Quite possibly, the coach will be asked to leave the stadium as well.

Gotcha.  Cool.  I like that.   That sounds more like effective punishment for breaking a rule.   This makes me happy.

[Noe]

Well it makes for a better read when everyone comes back to the site on Tuesday morning.

Having fun?  I sure am.  So we're doing this for *our* fans obviously!

[Alkie]

Having fun?  I sure am.  So we're doing this for *our* fans obviously!

If I wasn't, I would be playing with my kid on the nicest day of the year and not sitting here in my parent's basement with you guys, trying to test my wife's patience.

[Limey]

So you think if you don't address it, the controversy will go away or be lessened?

It would just be moved, and perhaps expanded.

[HudsonHawk]

You don't understand a penalty kick *obviously*.

I know it's not 100% guaranteed, so it's less than what they earned.

[Noe]

Gotcha.  Cool.  I like that.   That sounds more like effective punishment for breaking a rule.   This makes me happy.

For a minute there, I thought there was an argument coming for a sniper fire taking him down.  Only in South America.

[HudsonHawk]

It would just be moved, and perhaps expanded.

So why is moving it such a bad thing, if it corrects obvious injustice such as yesterday?

[Alkie]

I know it's not 100% guaranteed, so it's less than what they earned.

Just for the record, I didn't make up 69%.  I looked it up.  That's the real number.

[Noe]

If I wasn't, I would be playing with my kid on the nicest day of the year and not sitting here in my parent's basement with you guys, trying to test my wife's patience.

Same here.  I have a party to go to with my wife in 10 minutes, but I'd much rather play to the crowd in here who wants to read this stupid shit.  Especially my own stupid shit.  Later Alkie, here is to explaining why volleyball is my third favorite game later this year.  I'll even post tournament information from Beach Volleyball for you to get the juices flowing on that one.  Oh, and I mean *MENS* volleyball too.

[Noe]

Just for the record, I didn't make up 69%.  I looked it up.  That's the real number.

That's probably why Gyan missed it.  He was thinking glass half empty and not half full.  He was defeated before it even happened.

[Alkie]

 Oh, and I mean *MENS* volleyball too.

I honestly don't even know what you're talking about.   Why would men be playing a woman's sport?   Why isn't some woman making me a sandwich right now?   Why am I left to caress my own balls?   

[Limey]

So why is moving it such a bad thing, if it corrects obvious injustice such as yesterday?

Injustice happens all the time in all sports.  Teams who should've won, don't and teams who shouldn't do.  That's part of the entertainment value of sports. It's why the Cubs exist at all.

[HudsonHawk]

Injustice happens all the time in all sports.  Teams who should've won, don't and teams who shouldn't do.  That's part of the entertainment value of sports. It's why the Cubs exist at all.

But when there is an easy fix, I don't see why it shouldn't be applied.

[Limey]

But when there is an easy fix, I don't see why it shouldn't be applied.

This is our disconnect.  I don't see the fix as being easy.   

[HudsonHawk]

This is our disconnect.  I don't see the fix as being easy.   

Sure it is.  Just award Ghana the goal.  Injustice corrected.  I get that there will be other instances where it isn't as obvious.  But this one was.  It's an easy call, an easy fix.

[Limey]

Sure it is.  Just award Ghana the goal.  Injustice corrected.  I get that there will be other instances where it isn't as obvious.  But this one was.  It's an easy call, an easy fix.

The rules don't allow for that. So you have to rewrite the rules to allow it.  In the rewriting of the rules lies the peril, because you have to have a universal application of a rule written for a very, very individual event. 

[HudsonHawk]

The rules don't allow for that. So you have to rewrite the rules to allow it.  In the rewriting of the rules lies the peril, because you have to have a universal application of a rule written for a very, very individual event. 

If this is the only time it's ever happened, then I don't see where it would lead to the chaos you describe.  If it's a regular occurence, then this is a moot point.

[Limey]

On another topic entirely; the reworking of Star Wars by Adidas, is infinitely better than the reworking of Star Wars by George Lucas.

[Limey]

If this is the only time it's ever happened, then I don't see where it would lead to the chaos you describe.  If it's a regular occurence, then this is a moot point.

It happens, but it's rare that it happens at such a moment in such a game.

What you are asking is that one particular brand of handball is punished more severely than any other, and that one particular type of foul in the box is punished more severely than any other, just because of the time of the game.   

[Alkie]

On another topic entirely; the reworking of Star Wars by Adidas, is infinitely better than the reworking of Star Wars by George Lucas.

Only on technicality because that Adidas commercial is a disjointed mess of head scratching stupidity.   

[Limey]

Only on technicality because that Adidas commercial is a disjointed mess of head scratching stupidity.   

See Quels, Pre.

[HudsonHawk]

It happens, but it's rare that it happens at such a moment in such a game.

What you are asking is that one particular brand of handball is punished more severely than any other, and that one particular type of foul in the box is punished more severely than any other, just because of the time of the game.   

No I'm not.  A deliberate handball at the goal line, should be a goal, whether it's in the 1st or 90th.  This has nothing to do with the time of the game.  It has everything to do with not punishing the team that *didn't* willfully violate the rules.

[Limey]

No I'm not.  A deliberate handball at the goal line, should be a goal, whether it's in the 1st or 90th.  This has nothing to do with the time of the game.  It has everything to do with not punishing the team that *didn't* willfully violate the rules.

What if you're 1 yard in from the line?  Or 2?

[HudsonHawk]

What if you're 1 yard in from the line?  Or 2?

If the ball is behind the goal keeper and on goal, it doesn't matter where the defender is. 

[Limey]

If the ball is behind the goal keeper and on goal, it doesn't matter where the defender is. 

It is SOP to put a defender on the line at each post for corner kicks.  The goalie is often on the line too. What now?

[HudsonHawk]

It is SOP to put a defender on the line at each post for corner kicks.  The goalie is often on the line too. What now?

Well the defender still has the option to *not* use his hands, does he not?  A corner kick doesn't *require* a defender to deliberately reach out and swat the ball.

[Limey]

Well the defender still has the option to *not* use his hands, does he not?  A corner kick doesn't *require* a defender to deliberately reach out and swat the ball.

Right. There's already a rule against that, and defined punishments.  Not one of them involves the referee awarding a goal when the ball didn't cross the goal line. 

[HudsonHawk]

Right. There's already a rule against that, and defined punishments.  Not one of them involves the referee awarding a goal when the ball didn't cross the goal line. 

Right.  We established that days ago.  But it should.


On another soccer note...how does World Cup qualifying work?  I assume there is some preliminary tournament(s) that determine who actually goes?

[Alkie]

Right.  We established that days ago.  But it should.


On another soccer note...how does World Cup qualifying work?  I assume there is some preliminary tournament(s) that determine who actually goes?

Oh, you didn't see the whole story about Ireland and France?   You'll fucking love this.

[austro]

Right.  We established that days ago.  But it should.


On another soccer note...how does World Cup qualifying work?  I assume there is some preliminary tournament(s) that determine who actually goes?

The globe is divided into different regions, and countries are apportioned to regions. All of the teams in a region play one another in a home-and-home arrangement accumulating points in the same fashion as the tournament (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, zip for a loss). Highest point totals advance to the "finals", which is the tournament that we've been watching.

Sometimes there is an inter-region playoff required, as was the case between Uruguay (from the South America region, whatever that's called) and Costa Rica (CONCACAF, the Central/North America region). I don't know what circumstances brought that about, but it's kind of amusing to think that one of the eventual semi-finalists almost didn't make the final tournament at all.

[HudsonHawk]

The globe is divided into different regions, and countries are apportioned to regions. All of the teams in a region play one another in a home-and-home arrangement accumulating points in the same fashion as the tournament (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, zip for a loss). Highest point totals advance to the "finals", which is the tournament that we've been watching.

So when do these preliminary matches take place?  Earlier in the year in which the "finals" are played, ie every four years?

[HudsonHawk]

Oh, you didn't see the whole story about Ireland and France?   You'll fucking love this.

Soccer hasn't been on my radar screen since 2006.  What was the deal?

[chuck]

SEVEN BILLION RESIDENTS OF THE THIRD WORLD AND EIGHTY MILLION GERMANS LIKE FOOTBALL JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS, BUT TWO AMERICAN ICONOCLASTS CHALLENGE THE ODDS AND DEFY ALL LOGIC TO      MAKE           THEM          CHANGE          THEIR             MINDS.

ERIC STONESTREET AS HUDSON HAWK AND JALEEL WHITE AS ALKIE IN........ THE RULES.

OPENING THE FOURTH OF JULY IN SELECTED CITIES.

[HudsonHawk]

SEVEN BILLION RESIDENTS OF THE THIRD WORLD AND EIGHTY BILLION GERMANS LIKE FOOTBALL JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS, BUT TWO AMERICAN ICONOCLASTS CHALLENGE THE ODDS AND DEFY ALL LOGIC TO      MAKE           THEM          CHANGE          THEIR             MINDS.

ERIC STONESTREET AS HUDSON HAWK AND JALEEL WHITE AS ALKIE IN........ THE RULES.

OPENING THE FOURTH OF JULY IN SELECTED CITIES.

Actually, the proposed changes are quite logical.  I know you think everything has been exactly perfect this Cup, but trust me...we can make it even better.

[austro]

So when do these preliminary matches take place?  Earlier in the year in which the "finals" are played, ie every four years?

Over the course of the year two years in advance of the tournament, I think. The US played in the Confederations Cup a year ago, which was essentially a shakedown run for the World Cup in South Africa. (That's where they defeated Spain and should have beaten Brazil.) The contestants in that tournament were the victors of the various regions, so qualifying play must have been completed by then.

[HudsonHawk]

Over the course of the year two years in advance of the tournament, I think. The US played in the Confederations Cup a year ago, which was essentially a shakedown run for the World Cup in South Africa. (That's where they defeated Spain and should have beaten Brazil.) The contestants in that tournament were the victors of the various regions, so qualifying play must have been completed by then.

So the World Cup is not really just an "every four years" tournament, it's essentially an ongoing tournament with just the "finals" every four years?

[austro]

So the World Cup is not really just an "every four years" tournament, it's essentially an ongoing tournament with just the "finals" every four years?

Yes, although I think it's more accurate to think of it as off-year/qualifying-year/rest-regroup-refine-year/finals-year. You have to keep in mind that these guys are all playing in various leagues around the world, too, and the tournament has to take care not to compromise the integrity of those leagues.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, although I think it's more accurate to think of it as off-year/qualifying-year/rest-regroup-refine-year/finals-year. You have to keep in mind that these guys are all playing in various leagues around the world, too, and the tournament has to take care not to compromise the integrity of those leagues.

Cool.  I'm trying to understand how quickly a team can improve and what sort of window of opportunity they might have with a certain group of players.  For example:  say the US has some really good young players that, if developed, could really do well at the 2014 Cup, but in 2012, are just too raw to qualify.  That means that these said players wouldn't have the opportunity to compete in the Cup until 2018, a good 6 years later, at which point they might not be as good as they are in 2014.  So if I understand it, you could theoretically have the best team in the world in a "finals" year, but still not even qualify.  Ergo, the whole process rewards teams that are consistently strong, and don't have a "Florida Marlins/win every four years" approach.  Which I can appreciate. 

[austro]

Cool.  I'm trying to understand how quickly a team can improve and what sort of window of opportunity they might have with a certain group of players.  For example:  say the US has some really good young players that, if developed, could really do well at the 2014 Cup, but in 2012, are just too raw to qualify.  That means that these said players wouldn't have the opportunity to compete in the Cup until 2018, a good 6 years later, at which point they might not be as good as they are in 2014.  So if I understand it, you could theoretically have the best team in the world in a "finals" year, but still not even qualify.  Ergo, the whole process rewards teams that are consistently strong, and don't have a "Florida Marlins/win every four years" approach.  Which I can appreciate. 

Yes, that's exactly right. That's why the Germans are so interesting this year: they qualified with several different team members, but their run in this tournament is being fueled by a number of players from their under-21 team that won the under-21 championship last year (or the year before, I'm not sure). Plus Schweinsteiger and Klose, to be sure, but they're getting a strong showing from their "farm system", too. They seem to have a bright future.

[Alkie]

Soccer hasn't been on my radar screen since 2006.  What was the deal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_vs_Republic_of_Ireland_2010_FIFA_World_Cup_play-off

France only got in over Ireland because of a handball that was admitted on the field of play as a handball by the guy who did it.   So we're not even talking about wins and losses here.   A guy cheated, admitted during the game he cheated, and it kept an entire nation out of the biggest sporting event on the planet.

[Alkie]

SEVEN BILLION RESIDENTS OF THE THIRD WORLD AND EIGHTY MILLION GERMANS LIKE FOOTBALL JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS, BUT TWO AMERICAN ICONOCLASTS CHALLENGE THE ODDS AND DEFY ALL LOGIC TO      MAKE           THEM          CHANGE          THEIR             MINDS.

ERIC STONESTREET AS HUDSON HAWK AND JALEEL WHITE AS ALKIE IN........ THE RULES.

OPENING THE FOURTH OF JULY IN SELECTED CITIES.

You want to convince me of something, anything?   Tell me it's how "most people" do it.  Because me?  I like most people.   I believe the world is full of smart, well intentioned, logical people.

[Alkie]

Also, do you think it's weird that this is the third fucking time Jaleel will play me?

[Gizzmonic]

Also, do you think it's weird that this is the third fucking time Jaleel will play me?

Well, he did have to hit the gym a little in order to match your physique.

[AtascAstro]

May have been covered in the last 17 pages, I dunno, but my biggest gripe about the Suarez red card is that due to the amount of time remaining in the game, Uruguay only suffered half of the penalty normally associated with a handball.  Goal saving handballs like that don't happen earlier in the game because teams don't want to play a man down.  However, with only seconds left that is not a consideration at all.  I think it wouldn't be a horrible idea to consider modifying the punishment associated with a goal denying red card in stoppage time, due to the fact that the amount of time remaining doesn't allow the same level of deterrence associated with a red card at any point earlier in the game.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I had to look up Eric Stonetreet because I couldn't place name with a face. That guy is fantastic. That show was one of the few highlights to prime time television viewing this past year. Also Sofia Vergara. 

[Alkie]

Well, he did have to hit the gym a little in order to match your physique.

He appears to have put on weight in his bicep area and not as much in his pregnant-man area; so I don't think he did it right.

[MRaup]

My only question is: How is a shot that didn't go in goal considered a 100 percent shot?

[HudsonHawk]

My only question is: How is a shot that didn't go in goal considered a 100 percent shot?

Same way a basketball player reaching up as a shot goes through the net and pushing it back out is considered "100%".  Same way as a baseball outfielder standing at the wall and throws his glove 10 feet in the air to knock down a ball is considered a home run.

[chuck]

Same way a basketball player reaching up as a shot goes through the net and pushing it back out is considered "100%".  Same way as a baseball outfielder standing at the wall and throws his glove 10 feet in the air to knock down a ball is considered a home run.

It's a different sport and has different rules. Quit fucking bitching about it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Motherfucker, this shit it is tired. Why don't you change the subject to how terrible Matt Schaub is?

[Limey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_vs_Republic_of_Ireland_2010_FIFA_World_Cup_play-off

France only got in over Ireland because of a handball that was admitted on the field of play as a handball by the guy who did it.   So we're not even talking about wins and losses here.   A guy cheated, admitted during the game he cheated, and it kept an entire nation out of the biggest sporting event on the planet.

Hitler's never wanted to invade France as much as he does now.

[HudsonHawk]

It's a different sport and has different rules. Quit fucking bitching about it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Motherfucker, this shit it is tired. Why don't you change the subject to how terrible Matt Schaub is?

Why don't you stick it up your ass.  Or better yet, quit fucking reading it.  I'm answering the fucking question.

[Noe]

I'm answering the fucking question.

Technically, that was not an answer considering the rules of futbol, but carry on.

[Noe]

My only question is: How is a shot that didn't go in goal considered a 100 percent shot?

If you go by the rules of fairness, apple pie, goodness, honesty, grandma's cooking, pollyanna, and chevrolets, then it's 100% because your heart tells you so.  But if you go by the rules of futbol, you know, that game that is one huge clusterfuck, then no, you're correct, it is not 100% until it crosses the goalline.

Technically, you have to transfer over to "All that is right and holy in this world" for a minute to understand 100% in this case.

[Bench]

My only question is: How is a shot that didn't go in goal considered a 100 percent shot?

Because Hudson is in charge of making sure the Earth continues to rotate on its axis. 

[Noe]

Because Hudson is in charge of making sure the Earth continues to rotate on its axis. 

We need him on that wall, we want him on that wall.  I sleep better at night knowing he is there saying "Not on my watch".

[HudsonHawk]

Technically, that was not an answer considering the rules of futbol, but carry on.

We all know that.  We were speaking theoretically.

[HudsonHawk]

Because Hudson is in charge of making sure the Earth continues to rotate on its axis. 

Look, you don't want to participate then don't participate.  It's not that fucking complicated.

[Bench]

Look, you don't want to participate then don't participate.  It's not that fucking complicated.

Not complicated at all.  Awarding a "penalty goal" is a simple, straight-forward, stupid idea.

[HudsonHawk]

Not complicated at all.  Awarding a "penalty goal" is a simple, straight-forward, stupid idea.

It's simple alright.  Simply the right thing to do.

[Alkie]

So what's the deal with yellows/reds for the Final?   Is the slate clean and everyone is full strength?

[Noe]

So what's the deal with yellows/reds for the Final?   Is the slate clean and everyone is full strength?

Nope.  Suarez (Uruguay) is out for the next match.  Thomas Mueller (Germany) is out for the next match because he recieved a yellow card in his match (his second of the tournament).  I'm not sure, but for the actual final, unless you recieve a red card, the yellow card accumulation is wiped clean.

[Noe]

We all know that.  We were speaking theoretically.

Oh, sorry, I thought MRaup was speaking specifically and so were you on your answer.  Carry on.

[MusicMan]

Nope.  Suarez is out for the next match.  Thomas Mueller is out for the next match because he recieved a yellow card in his match.

But for the final, all cards thru the quarters are eliminated.

[Noe]

But for the final, all cards thru the quarters are eliminated.

Yeah, just ETA's myself.  Unless it is a red card in the semi-finals, you can have your card accumulation wiped clean for the tournament.

[Noe]

Not complicated at all.  Awarding a "penalty goal" is a simple, straight-forward, stupid idea.

But it is righteous and holy.  Therein lies the difference between the evil game called futbol (soccer) the rest of the right-thinking and glorious sports loving world!

[Limey]

But for the final, all cards thru the quarters are eliminated.

Well, at that point, it's moot.  There is no next game for which you can be suspended.  The only notable punishment that can be meted out in the final is a red.  The yellows still have power - if wielded early enough in the game to cause concern over picking up a quick second yellow - but as the game goes on that becomes less and less of a worry.

If it's close as the clock ref's watch ticks down, expect some shenanigans.

[Bench]

If it's close as the clock ref's watch ticks down, expect some shenanigans.

It's helpful if one player insults an opposing player's mother and/or sister.

/headbutt

[chuck]

Why don't you stick it up your ass.  Or better yet, quit fucking reading it.  I'm answering the fucking question.

Suarez didn't cheat and his behavior wasn't unsportsmanlike. What he did is no different from a basketball player deliberately fouling someone about to make an uncontested layup. He didn't do anything any of the other participants in the Cup would not have done if faced with the same scenario. There is nothing remotely disgraceful about what he did and there is absolutely no need to alter the complexion of the game simply because you think there is.

[HudsonHawk]

Suarez didn't cheat and his behavior wasn't unsportsmanlike. What he did is no different from a basketball player deliberately fouling someone about to make an uncontested layup. He didn't do anything any of the other participants in the Cup would not have done if faced with the same scenario. There is nothing remotely disgraceful about what he did and there is absolutely no need to alter the complexion of the game simply because you think there is.

It's decidely different than an intentional foul.  In fact, it's remarkably like goaltending.  Hmmm.

[chuck]

It's decidely different than an intentional foul.  In fact, it's remarkably like goaltending.  Hmmm.

Exactly like goaltending. Except the score is not awarded and the player goaltending gets thrown out and his team has to play four on five for the rest of the game.

[Limey]

From the Guardian's Fiver today (which includes a scarily TZesque Tom Betenger reference):

When Uruguay striker Luis Suarez fisted a goal-bound shot off the line in the closing seconds of his team's World Cup quarter-final against Ghana, a number of things happened before everyone in the world completely lost the run of themselves and started bleating self-righteously and wailing: "But what about the children? The children, dammit!"

Suarez was sent off and Ghana were awarded a penalty, as the rules of football dictate. Asamoah Gyan mistook his spot-kick for Soccer AM's cross-bar challenge, won a T-shirt and prompted a shoot-out in which two of his team-mates also missed spot-kicks and his goalkeeper showed a demonstrable lack of research, resulting in Ghana's exit from the tournament.

The blame for all this Ghanaian self-harm was laid squarely at the door of Suarez, who demonstrated his obvious remorse much as you'd expect: Riverdancing a celebratory jig in the tunnel, before getting carried shoulder-high around the pitch by tut-tutting team-mates and flipping metaphorical Vs at the sanctimonious hordes of mouth-foaming imbeciles who are now calling for football teams to be awarded goals when the ball hasn't crossed the line. Because they do a similar thing in rugby, see? A sport where constant knee-jerk tampering with the rules has completely destroyed the sport in the past 12 months.

Yesterday, Uruguay manager Oscar Tabarez denounced detractors of his heroic/disgraced (tick according to personal levels of hysteria/moral fortitude), saying it was "shameful" that his player's character was being traduced for performing "a football action foreseen in the laws of the game". Perhaps more sinisterly, Sebastian Abreu, who won the tie for Uruguay with a ice-cool chip down the middle from 12 yards that Ghana goalkeeper Richard Kingson would have seen coming if he'd bothered doing 10 minutes pre-match homework on YouTube, has revealed that Uruguay's manager has drawn up a fiendish plan to "neutralise" Arjen Robben in tonight's semi-final against Holland.

"Tabarez has been talking to us about Robben and how to stop a player like him," said Abreu. "But it's always different when you are on the field. So we know how to do it but whether the actual execution actually comes off is another thing."

Assassinating Arjen Robben to win a football match? It's difficult to know how such a desperate wheeze could prompt much more handwringing and gnashing of teeth than Uruguay's last dastardly act. That said, the scheme is so crazy it might just work.

Should the Dutch winger go down with a shrill cry of agony and arms flailing after taking a bullet in the head, the Fiver estimates that Luis Suarez will have the two minutes it takes everyone to realise it isn't just another trademark Robben dive to fold away his Weatherby Vanguard Varmint Special synthetic stocked heavy barrel sniper's rifle and hot-foot it back down from his nest at the roof of the stand to the dugout before folk become any the wiser.

What could possibly go wrong?

[HudsonHawk]

From the Guardian's Fiver today (which includes a scarily TZesque Tom Betenger reference):

Right.  Soccer is nothing, if not a stronghold of princely gentlemen.

[subnuclear]

It's decidely different than an intentional foul.  In fact, it's remarkably like goaltending.  Hmmm.

I would prefer fouls in the last 2 minutes of a basketball game to be an automatic 2 or 3 points.  All those intentional fouls are annoying.  Also, I would get rid of intentional spikes to stop the clock in football.

[HudsonHawk]

Also, I would get rid of intentional spikes to stop the clock in football.

This used to be the case.  It was in the 1990's, I believe, when they liberalized the intentional grounding rule to allow for spiking the ball.  Some of the old schoolers complained like they were awarding a goal on a handball.

[Limey]

Right.  Soccer is nothing, if not a stronghold of princely gentlemen.

Just like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL...

BTW, the point of the article, IMHO, is to highlight the fact that while Suarez is the "bad guy" de jour, Arjen Robben has been a monumental cheat and douchebag his entire career.

[HudsonHawk]

Just like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL...

BTW, the point of the article, IMHO, is to highlight the fact that while Suarez is the "bad guy" de jour, Arjen Robben has been a monumental cheat and douchebag his entire career.

Isn't the old saying something like...football is a barbarian's sport played by barbarians, rugby is a barbarian's sport played by gentlemen, and soccer is a gentlemen's sport played by barbarians.

[Limey]

Isn't the old saying something like...football is a barbarian's sport played by barbarians, rugby is a barbarian's sport played by gentlemen, and soccer is a gentlemen's sport played by barbarians.

Rugby is a sport for thugs, played by Gentleman; Football is a sport for Gentlemen, played by thugs.

FWIW, Rugby was always played by Gentlemen-Thugs, i.e. those with the blessing of a moneyed-birth.

[HudsonHawk]

FWIW, Rugby was always played by Gentlemen-Thugs, i.e. those with the blessing of a moneyed-birth.

Is rugby considered a hi-brow, elitist sport?

[Limey]

Is rugby considered a hi-brow, elitist sport?

It was played almost exclusively at high-brow, elitist schools and universities.

[HudsonHawk]

It was played almost exclusively at high-brow, elitist schools and universities.

Kind of like soccer is here in the US.  I listened to someone's (Jurgen Klinsman?) remarks on a broadcast earlier in the Cup about how soccer is a sport of the poor villagers, and the US needs to cultivate it as such.  It was an interesting contrast to the way soccer is portrayed here.  I also recently read a discription where it described soccer as having "a knit sweater sort of panache, usually reserved for polo".  It's defintitely considered an upper-middle class sport. 

[hostros7]

Kind of like soccer is here in the US.  I listened to someone's (Jurgen Klinsman?) remarks on a broadcast earlier in the Cup about how soccer is a sport of the poor villagers, and the US needs to cultivate it as such.  It was an interesting contrast to the way soccer is portrayed here.  I also recently read a discription where it described soccer as having "a knit sweater sort of panache, usually reserved for polo".  It's defintitely considered an upper-middle class sport. 

Don't know if I agree with this characterization of soccer in America.  Soccer seems to be a suburb sport to me...not an elite high school/college sport.  It's not exactly crew or squash.  Definitely middle class and not a "village sport" but also not analogous to Limey's description of rugby in the UK.

[MusicMan]

Kind of like soccer is here in the US.  I listened to someone's (Jurgen Klinsman?) remarks on a broadcast earlier in the Cup about how soccer is a sport of the poor villagers, and the US needs to cultivate it as such.  It was an interesting contrast to the way soccer is portrayed here.  I also recently read a discription where it described soccer as having "a knit sweater sort of panache, usually reserved for polo".  It's defintitely considered an upper-middle class sport. 

This is why the success of MLS, and advertising the success (ie, salaries) of US players abroad is critical to soccer's further development in the US: it has to be viewed as a road to success- a way "out", the way basketball and football are.

[Limey]

This is why the success of MLS, and advertising the success (ie, salaries) of US players abroad is critical to soccer's further development in the US: it has to be viewed as a road to success- a way "out", the way basketball and football are.

By way of example, Brazil's Kaka is considered anomalous because he's not a kid from the slums. 

[MusicMan]

By way of example, Brazil's Kaka is considered anomalous because he's not a kid from the slums. 

See also: "Landycakes" vs. Clint Dempsey.  In related news, Dempsey is reportedly about to land a transfer to AC Milan.

[HudsonHawk]

Don't know if I agree with this characterization of soccer in America.  Soccer seems to be a suburb sport to me...not an elite high school/college sport.  It's not exactly crew or squash.  Definitely middle class and not a "village sport" but also not analogous to Limey's description of rugby in the UK.

Well, I agree it's not quite "elite" in the same sense as crewing, but I think it's definitely viewed as a white, upper-middle class sort of thing.  It's certainly not seen as a way out of the ghetto.

[subnuclear]

Well, I agree it's not quite "elite" in the same sense as crewing, but I think it's definitely viewed as a white, upper-middle class sort of thing.  It's certainly not seen as a way out of the ghetto.

Well, soccer is pretty popular in the Latino-American community which is not exactly upper middle class, but for language and cultural reasons there is a disconnect between them and the non-Latino-American soccer enthusiasts.   

[HudsonHawk]

Well, soccer is pretty popular in the Latino-American community which is not exactly upper middle class, but for language and cultural reasons there is a disconnect between them and the non-Latino-American soccer enthusiasts.   

Right.  I mean within "mainstream" America.  Though I guess that definition is changing as well.  But let's face it...your typical American's exposure to soccer is the local 6 year old team, the TV in the corner at the Mexican restaurant, and the World Cup.  It's just not ingrained into our collective cultural consciousness like other sports.

[hostros7]

Well, soccer is pretty popular in the Latino-American community which is not exactly upper middle class, but for language and cultural reasons there is a disconnect between them and the non-Latino-American soccer enthusiasts.   

I've never understood why there isn't a greater proportion of American-born hispanics on the US national team. 

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I've never understood why there isn't a greater proportion of American-born hispanics on the US national team. 

We're busy going to college, taking corporate jobs, and moving into the middle-class where we don't have to worry about soccer as a way to escape poverty.   

[MusicMan]

We're busy going to college, taking corporate jobs, and moving into the middle-class where we don't have to worry about soccer as a way to escape poverty.   

In addition to this, anyone with dual citizenship can play for the other country (see: the striker who chose to play for ITaly whose name escapes me).

[HudsonHawk]

We're busy going to college, taking corporate jobs, and moving into the middle-class where we don't have to worry about soccer as a way to escape poverty.   

As opposed to the white folk who haven't figured this out yet?

[Duman]

In addition to this, anyone with dual citizenship can play for the other country (see: the striker who chose to play for ITaly whose name escapes me).

Giuseppe Rossi --who btw didn't make the Italian WC roster. 

[Noe]

I've never understood why there isn't a greater proportion of American-born hispanics on the US national team. 

There was a movie a few years back about a kid who comes from the barrios of East LA and makes it all the way to the English Premiere Leagues because he was a futbol prodigy discovered by an amatuer coach who had connections.  Unless real life follows script in a movie, it's hard for American Hispanics to be involved in a sport that is organized to an extent to ignore that there are some really good talent to mine at that level.  It's not the fault of the organization nor the kid, but the two will never connect unless it's happenstance that makes it so. 

It is similar to baseball in many regards from a few years back.  If you were a young black or Hispanic boy playing for an inner-city school, you have to be lucky to get noticed by a scout.  Carl Crawford was the exception, not the rule, but he also got exposure playing for amateur teams who played in tournaments that featured suburban all-star/select teams.  My young brother was a great centerfielder with a awesome left handed bat playing for Reagan High School and he went largely un-noticed.  He didn't want to pursue baseball any way, he wanted to go to college to get a degree, but a scholarship would have been nice.  I tried to convince him to go to tryouts and I would foot the bill for any expenses he would incur, but he decided he wanted to just concentrate on studying and getting his degree and not worry about playing baseball any more (except for fun on amateur teams).  He reminded me of me.

Any way, the MLB did a great thing when they created the Urban Baseball Academies to bridge the gap between inner city and suburban born athletes.  If the MLS and the USMNT organizations had any sense, they would listen to Klingsman and create a similar program.  The under 17 program is great, but still does not tap into the Hispanic community of kids who have tremendous skills to play the game.  Some in-roads are being made, but more needs to be done in this regard.

[Limey]

In addition to this, anyone with dual citizenship can play for the other country (see: the striker who chose to play for ITaly whose name escapes me).

Dunno about that guy, but the brothers Boateng both appeared at this World Cup, one for Ghana and one for Germany.

Players are grandfathered under FIFA rules - literally - in that you can play for any country for which you have a naturalised grandparent.

[HudsonHawk]

Dunno about that guy, but the brothers Boateng both appeared at this World Cup, one for Ghana and one for Germany.

Players are grandfathered under FIFA rules - literally - in that you can play for any country for which you have a naturalised grandparent.

I'm surprised that this is the case with FIFA, as soccer is a long established sport across the globe.  I understand such thinking with things like the World Baseball Classic, as baseball is relatively new to much of the world, and baseball wants to encourage countries like Italy or Germany to field a team. 

[MRaup]

We're busy going to college, taking corporate jobs, and moving into the middle-class where we don't have to worry about soccer as a way to escape poverty.   

[South Park] THEY TOOK OUR JOBS! [/South Park]

[AtascAstro]

I'm surprised that this is the case with FIFA, as soccer is a long established sport across the globe.  I understand such thinking with things like the World Baseball Classic, as baseball is relatively new to much of the world, and baseball wants to encourage countries like Italy or Germany to field a team. 

Whereas baseball is just trying to field teams, FIFA is aiming to raise the overall talent level of the tournament by allowing the second and third tier talent of the super-powers to be redistributed to the rest  of the world.  The quality of this year's first round matches is a testament to the success of that policy.

[Jacksonian]

We're busy going to college, taking corporate jobs, and moving into the middle-class where we don't have to worry about soccer as a way to escape poverty.   

Not to hijack, but it isn't like that in my neighborhood.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Not to hijack, but it isn't like that in my neighborhood.

I simply posted a wise-ass remark to a question I don't think can be answered in any meaningful way. 

[MusicMan]

Paraguay may have lost, but they're still winners.

[Guinness]

Paraguay may have lost, but they're still winners.

"a present to all of the players, and for all the people in Paraguay to enjoy."  Not that she thinks too highly of herself...

I really thought Paraguay was going to pull that one out (pardon me) at the last minute.

So is today's match the "real" final?  By happy circumstance, I had to do an unplanned overnight last night, and can watch this one.  Looking forward to it, but it's too bad Muller is out.

[HudsonHawk]

Paraguay may have lost, but they're still winners.

I'd say we're all winners today.

[Alkie]

"a present to all of the players, and for all the people in Paraguay to enjoy."  Not that she thinks too highly of herself...

Yeah, she just went from being hot to just being every other fucking attention whore.   Have her killed.

[MRaup]

Yeah, she just went from being hot to just being every other fucking attention whore.   Have her killed.

Don't like being lumped in with super hot chicks?

[Guinness]

Yeah, she just went from being hot to just being every other fucking attention whore.   Have her killed.

sorry, just thought it was amusing.

[Alkie]

Don't like being lumped in with super hot chicks?

It's a different kind of attention whore.   She uses big fake tits and I have to just use my gigantic cock.   It's really not the same thing.

[Alkie]

sorry, just thought it was amusing.

No, I agreed with you.  I thought to myself "man, must be nice; if she wanted to just show off all the money she spent on the World's Most Awesome Blackberry Holster, she didn't need to pretend it had anything to do with the World Cup."

And I lost interest in her over the last few days when I found out the entire thing was a stunt for Nokia (or whoever) anyway.   She wasn't just some hot chick that made cell phones and Paraguay suddenly sexy, she's just a fucking marketing tool.   I can find better things to jerk off to, thanks.

[Andyzipp]

She uses big fake tits and I have to just use my gigantic cock.   It's really not the same thing.

Especially since one of those things is imaginary.

[MusicMan]

Especially since one of those things is imaginary.

You think she has only one fake tit?

[Guinness]

No, I agreed with you.  I thought to myself "man, must be nice; if she wanted to just show off all the money she spent on the World's Most Awesome Blackberry Holster, she didn't need to pretend it had anything to do with the World Cup."

And I lost interest in her over the last few days when I found out the entire thing was a stunt for Nokia (or whoever) anyway.   She wasn't just some hot chick that made cell phones and Paraguay suddenly sexy, she's just a fucking marketing tool.   I can find better things to jerk off to, thanks.

Cool.  Note the AXE logo on her left...um...mass of saline....in the link posted.

[Alkie]

Cool.  Note the AXE logo on her left...um...mass of saline....in the link posted.

I know.

That didn't help.

It's an instant turn off for me when any hot chick starts using her hotness to sell some other entity's wares.   I honestly don't see how that is any different than just being a prostitute (the sex for money kind). 

[Bench]

It's an instant turn off for me when any hot chick starts using her hotness to sell some other entity's wares.   I honestly don't see how that is any different than just being a prostitute (the sex for money kind).  

Sure.  Because any time you simply look at a woman you have basically just had sex with her.

Objectify much?  

[JackAstro]

I know.

That didn't help.

It's an instant turn off for me when any hot chick starts using her hotness to sell some other entity's wares.   I honestly don't see how that is any different than just being a prostitute (the sex for money kind). 

The distinction between being written on with a marker and having a penis jammed in you is a subtle one, I'll grant you that. But no matter how nuanced, I think there is a difference.

[Alkie]

The distinction between being written on with a marker and having a penis jammed in you is a subtle one, I'll grant you that. But no matter how nuanced, I think there is a difference.

Not trying to be funny, I disagree with you.  It's exactly the same thing; especially for this woman.   

[OregonStrosFan]

I'd say we're all winners today.

You too could be a winner if the Netherlands win the World Cup...

[MRaup]

You too could be a winner if the Netherlands win the World Cup...

Well, that's ONE way to get your twitter follower numbers up.

[JackAstro]

Not trying to be funny, I disagree with you.  It's exactly the same thing; especially for this woman.   

Just to make sure I'm following along here... Victoria's Secret models are, by your definition, doing the exact same thing as a cheap hooker getting plowed by a fat, sweaty stranger for money?

[HudsonHawk]

Just to make sure I'm following along here... Victoria's Secret models are, by your definition, doing the exact same thing as a cheap hooker getting plowed by a fat, sweaty stranger for money?

That way he can tell people he's banging a Victoria's Secret model.  More or less.

[Alkie]

That way he can tell people he's banging a Victoria's Secret model.  More or less.

Right, because after 13 years together, if there's one thing everyone here knows about me, it's that I am the sort of person who brags about sticking my dick in a meat popsicle with a lot of make up on her.   Nothing says "accomplishment" like mating with a woman who needs handlers to get out of bed or eat a meal.   Why don't you just put lipstick and silicone tits on a goat, fuck it, and call it a good night.

[HudsonHawk]

Why don't you just put lipstick and silicone tits on a goat, fuck it, and call it a good night.

Cause I'm not an Aggie?

[Alkie]

Cause I'm not an Aggie?

Exactly.

Ex.  Act.   Ly.

[Alkie]

Just to make sure I'm following along here... Victoria's Secret models are, by your definition, doing the exact same thing as a cheap hooker getting plowed by a fat, sweaty stranger for money?

That is correct.

I'm saying it is the exact same sacrifice of personal dignity and integrity for the exact same reward.

[HudsonHawk]

That is correct.

I'm saying it is the exact same sacrifice of personal dignity and integrity for the exact same reward.

Actually, I find much more dignity in having sex for money than for letting men snap pictures of me in lingerie.

[Ebby Calvin]

Actually, I find much more dignity in having sex for money than for letting men snap pictures of me in lingerie.

HH, it is WAY too early for that mental image.  Seriously.

[Alkie]

Actually, I find much more dignity in having sex for money than for letting men snap pictures of me in lingerie.

Right, the sex is over and then that guy goes off and brags online about pounding your ass raw but at least there's no proof.

Still, my point is...lowering your personal standards to the bottom to make a quick buck is exactly the same whether a penis is physically being inserted in you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now and putting on silly fucking doilies for other men to imagine having sex with you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now.

The fact that I'm cumming into a sock instead of into your cold, unlubed vagina is meaningless.   Either we're not really having sex in either case or we're having the exact same level of sex in both cases; I'll leave that for you to decide.

Unless of course, we're talking about this from a baby making perspective; in which case you should be evolved out of the species for wanting to breed with the coke skeleton who couldn't think her way out of a doily. 

[MusicMan]

Alkie: living proof that romance is not dead.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Cause I'm not an Aggie?

To be fair, the goat's implants are so good now, you can't tell that they're fake.

[HudsonHawk]

HH, it is WAY too early for that mental image.  Seriously.

Just be glad the image is only mental.

[HudsonHawk]

Right, the sex is over and then that guy goes off and brags online about pounding your ass raw but at least there's no proof.

Still, my point is...lowering your personal standards to the bottom to make a quick buck is exactly the same whether a penis is physically being inserted in you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now and putting on silly fucking doilies for other men to imagine having sex with you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now.

The fact that I'm cumming into a sock instead of into your cold, unlubed vagina is meaningless.   Either we're not really having sex in either case or we're having the exact same level of sex in both cases; I'll leave that for you to decide.

Unless of course, we're talking about this from a baby making perspective; in which case you should be evolved out of the species for wanting to breed with the coke skeleton who couldn't think her way out of a doily. 

So what you're saying is, I should give up doing porn?

[Alkie]

Alkie: living proof that romance is not dead.

Well it isn't even that.  I'm saying that if you want to pretend that you need romance for sex, but both parties agree that that's the game you're playing, more power to you.  Romance it is.

But if we're talking about Victoria Secret models, come on, not one of you is talking "romance."  You're talking about banging these chicks in the back of your El Camino so that you can brag to the rest of the guys in 1st Period on Monday.   If we all lived in caves and needed to breed with the most physically fit LOOKING woman, I could see wanting to bang a porn star in your car.   But we don't live in fucking caves.

Either you're fucking for fucking's sake, which goes back to my contention that I'd rather fuck a 7 (physically) who is interested in making me cum harder than I ever have in my life than fuck a 10 (physically) who just fucking lays there, wondering when you'll be done.   

Pretty only gets you into the bed.  Then the lights are down or off and you better know what the fuck you're doing.  I'm not here to teach you how to get me off.   That's what high school was for.   I've fucked a chick who modeled (not in Victoria's Secret and not for a living) and she was, without question, not even close, the worst lay I've ever had.   So what, so I got to brag to my roommates?   Who cares.

[Alkie]

So what you're saying is, I should give up doing porn?

Not at all.  I'm 100% for porn; everyone knows that.

Here's the difference.   I'll jerk off to porn star chicks all fucking day.  The sluttier the better.  The white trashier the better.   But would I actually have real sex with one in real life?   Yeah; no, thanks.

[HudsonHawk]

Either you're fucking for fucking's sake, which goes back to my contention that I'd rather fuck a 7 (physically) who is interested in making me cum harder than I ever have in my life than fuck a 10 (physically) who just fucking lays there, wondering when you'll be done.   

Let's be realistic here...say she was a 3...

[HudsonHawk]

Not at all.  I'm 100% for porn; everyone knows that.

Here's the difference.   I'll jerk off to porn star chicks all fucking day.  The sluttier the better.  The white trashier the better.   But would I actually have real sex with one in real life?   Yeah; no, thanks.

Not even if they paid you $60?

[Rebel Jew]

Right, the sex is over and then that guy goes off and brags online about pounding your ass raw but at least there's no proof.

Still, my point is...lowering your personal standards to the bottom to make a quick buck is exactly the same whether a penis is physically being inserted in you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now and putting on silly fucking doilies for other men to imagine having sex with you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now.

The fact that I'm cumming into a sock instead of into your cold, unlubed vagina is meaningless.   Either we're not really having sex in either case or we're having the exact same level of sex in both cases; I'll leave that for you to decide.

Unless of course, we're talking about this from a baby making perspective; in which case you should be evolved out of the species for wanting to breed with the coke skeleton who couldn't think her way out of a doily. 

I worked for Claudia Schiffer's manager back when I lived in Los Angeles.  She made, no fooling, $200,000 an hour to do what you're talking about.  And from having met her in the brief times I did, I'm pretty positive that she'd be incapable of doing anything else, even lubing her own vagina.

[Alkie]

Let's be realistic here...say she was a 3...

No, because I know I can do better.

[Alkie]

Not even if they paid you $60?

At my hourly rate, we're assuming this sex is lasting, what, 3 seconds?   

Which I guess at my age is about right.

[MusicMan]

Still, my point is...lowering your personal standards to the bottom to make a quick buck is exactly the same whether a penis is physically being inserted in you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now and putting on silly fucking doilies for other men to imagine having sex with you while you gaze longingly into the distance, completely divorced from what's happening to your body right now.

So what if you're staring at a computer all day, completely divorced from what's happening to your mind right now and putting on silly fucking ties?

[Alkie]

I worked for Claudia Schiffer's manager back when I lived in Los Angeles.  She made, no fooling, $200,000 an hour to do what you're talking about.  And from having met her in the brief times I did, I'm pretty positive that she'd be incapable of doing anything else, even lubing her own vagina.

I know there are some models who are actually fairly bright people who just made the conscious decision to model instead of getting a job because, hey, $200,000/hr.   That ain't the majority though.

I'm saying dumb chicks who are attractive have a place as models and porn stars and strippers and greeters in Vegas.   But when we cross the line of actually putting our cocks in them, not one of us (sorry, none of us but chuck) would actually do it because 1) the risk is higher than the reward and 2) you know you can do better.

[Alkie]

So what if you're staring at a computer all day, completely divorced from what's happening to your mind right now and putting on silly fucking ties?

I won't say it in a forum like this because I have no need to insult everyone else again (I know, it's never stopped me before) but I have a level of disrespect for that too.

If you hate what you do and you just show up to be a meat popsicle in a tie so someone else can make 97% of the profit while you do 97% of the work AND you find the work completely unrewarding or unsatisfying, you are a whore.

[HudsonHawk]

No, because I know I can do better.

Who said anything about you?

[HudsonHawk]

At my hourly rate, we're assuming this sex is lasting, what, 3 seconds?   

Which I guess at my age is about right.

$72,000/hour is your normal hourly rate for sex?  Wow, glad you've been giving me a "hometown discount".

[MusicMan]

Wow, glad you've been giving me a "hometown discount".

I do NOT want to see this turn up on Urban Dictionary.

[Alkie]

Who said anything about you?

Oh, I was assuming you were talking to me.

[Alkie]

$72,000/hour is your normal hourly rate for sex?  Wow, glad you've been giving me a "hometown discount".

When drugs are involved, payment is always lower.

[JimR]

holy cow, what a turn this thread took.

[MusicMan]

holy cow, what a turn this thread took.

That escalated quickly.  I mean, that really got out of hand.

[Bench]

holy cow, what a turn this thread took.

And, really, cows are exactly the same as street walking prostitutes.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

A friend of mine, after finding out his wife of 23 years was leaving him for one of the guys she had been fucking behind his back, budgeted a trip to Amsterdam. He broke the budget down for me before he left, besides hashish, it included whores. He budgeted $100.00 a day for the whores. Apparently competition there keeps the prices lower.

He said on his fist visit to a whore house, he felt like a kid in a candy shop. He pondered fucking an Asian whore, a Black whore, a Scandinavian whore, A French whore, a Spanish whore, an Italian whore, some Eastern Bloc whore (Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian?), and a Middle Eastern whore. All beautiful.  He said the first one, the Spanish whore, was great. He was full of fury and gusto, was working out his frustrations and had a hell of a time.

The next day he went back and upon arrival he went flush with shame, guilt and regret. He thought of his mom and how disappointed she would be at her son's whoring. Just to be sure it wasn't temporary state, he chose to fuck the Asian whore. She was great and fulfilled his always-wanted-to-fuck-an-Asian fantasy. 

The next day he felt even more shame, guilt, regret, and an overwhelming loss of dignity. He spent the next three days of the trip enjoying the coffee shops and museums. Anyway, it didn't bother him that his mom wouldn't have approved of all the hash he was smoking while there.

[HudsonHawk]

Oh, I was assuming you were talking to me.

I was...but I assumed it was understood who specifically would be considering the 3's and who would be considering the 7's.

[HudsonHawk]

That escalated quickly.  I mean, that really got out of hand.

Noe stabbed a guy with a trident.

[JackAstro]

Noe stabbed a guy with a trident.

Possibly a euphemism.

[BizidyDizidy]

So what if you're staring at a computer all day, completely divorced from what's happening to your mind right now and putting on silly fucking ties?

Why did you have to bring Neil into this?

[chuck]

(sorry, none of us but chuck) would actually do it because 1) the risk is higher than the reward and 2) you know you can do better.

I object to the notion that you have standards but I do not. You have a wife and I do not, that is true, but unlike you I have never, ahem, dated a model, a stripper, a Hooters girl, hat eh al.

[Noe]

That escalated quickly.  I mean, that really got out of hand.

Took a hard jerk to the left...

[Alkie]

I object to the notion that you have standards but I do not. You have a wife and I do not, that is true, but unlike you I have never, ahem, dated a model, a stripper, a Hooters girl, hat eh al.

Right.   Now we're going to spend 3 pages debating the definition of "dating."  Great.  Good job.

[Alkie]

He said on his fist visit to a whore house

Tee hee.  You said fist.

Before anyone gets the impression I'm knocking whores or whoring; that's not what I'm saying either.  I'm glad it exists.  I'm glad it's there.   It's not my thing (I'd pretty happily admit it if it was) but I don't have any moral issue with it and think it serves a valuable purpose.  I'm just saying that if we take that next step, I imagine not one person on this website would voluntarily date and/or marry one.

[Noe]

Tee hee.  You said fist.

Before anyone gets the impression I'm knocking whores or whoring; that's not what I'm saying either.  I'm glad it exists.  I'm glad it's there.   It's not my thing (I'd pretty happily admit it if it was) but I don't have any moral issue with it and think it serves a valuable purpose.  I'm just saying that if we take that next step, I imagine not one person on this website would voluntarily date and/or marry one.

Correct.  Pretty Woman was just a whack movie, not a documentary, you freaks!

[AtascAstro]

I object to the notion that you have standards but I do not. You have a wife and I do not, that is true, but unlike you I have never, ahem, dated a model, a stripper, a Hooters girl, hat eh al.

Brilliant inclusion of the Fredian lexicon.  Funk & Wagner worthy...but who will write the definition?

[Ty in Tampa]

Brilliant inclusion of the Fredian lexicon.  Funk & Wagner worthy...but who will write the definition?

The admins. You know, Noe, HH, hat eh al.

[Bench]

Tee hee.  You said fist.

Before anyone gets the impression I'm knocking whores or whoring; that's not what I'm saying either.  I'm glad it exists.  I'm glad it's there.   It's not my thing (I'd pretty happily admit it if it was) but I don't have any moral issue with it and think it serves a valuable purpose.  I'm just saying that if we take that next step, I imagine not one person on this website would voluntarily date and/or marry one.

Are we talking about spokespersons or actual prostitutes?

[Andyzipp]

The admins. You know, Noe, HH, hat eh al.

Dammit.

[Alkie]

Are we talking about spokespersons or actual prostitutes?

Right, bringing it all back together.......at the level of the Paraguayan chick, it's the same thing.

If you marry that Paraguayan chick, I'm taking the UNDER on that marriage every time.

[Bench]

If you marry that Paraguayan chick, I'm taking the UNDER on that marriage every time.

Isn't that same for the vast majority of people that any one has ever dated?  That's why you don't end up marrying everyone you date. 

[Ty in Tampa]

Dammit.

Don't hat eme.

[MRaup]

Don't hat eme.

Hat eme todah. Hat eme tomoreh.

[AtascAstro]

Dammit.

Backing up to chuck's original context, are you...

a) upset to not be included in the illustrious list of admins

or

2) disappointed to learn that chuck is apparently out of your league

[AtascAstro]

The admins. You know, Noe, HH, hat eh al.

So "hat eh al" refers to admins, but a specific class of admins (i.e. those admins not named Noe, HH).  Here you are supplying the definition along with its proper usage in a sentance, right?

No wonder Andy's pissed.  And apparently chuck has left the door open for Noe and HH, but does that make chuck a 3 or HH a 7?  I'm confused again.  hat eh al!?!

[Ty in Tampa]

hat eh al = mysterious fredia-speak closely resembling latin but apparently meaning a dislike of the DH.

[Outlawscotty]

So "hat eh al" refers to admins, but a specific class of admins (i.e. those admins not named Noe, HH).  Here you are supplying the definition along with its proper usage in a sentance, right?

No wonder Andy's pissed.  And apparently chuck has left the door open for Noe and HH, but does that make chuck a 3 or HH a 7?  I'm confused again.  hat eh al!?!

Is it the bush league admins only?

[JackAstro]

hat eh al = mysterious fredia-speak closely resembling latin but apparently meaning a dislike of the DH.

2. Whores, both figurative and literal
3. Zipp

[Andyzipp]

2. Whores, both figurative and literal
3. Zipp

Screw you guys, I'm goin home.

[JackAstro]

Screw you guys, I'm goin home.

Oh, a bit sassy are we? Watch it, or I'll get one of the admins to ban your ass.

[Andyzipp]

Oh, a bit sassy are we? Watch it, or I'll get one of the admins to ban your ass.

I'll bet you can't even name 3 admins.

[Noe]

I'll bet you can't even name 3 admins.

Noe
Noe in HTown
Noe in Austin

[MusicMan]

Noe
Noe in HTown
Noe in Austin

Shortest Noe post ever.

[Alkie]

Shortest Noe post ever.

Yeah, but you're just seeing the final edit.  He worked on that post for almost 5 hours and rewrote it 57 times before you saw the end result here.

[AtascAstro]

I'll bet you can't even name 3 admins.

It isn't that hard to pick them out of a crowd

**Audio Link Warning**

Bonus - probably the most useful thing on the internet

[Guinness]

It isn't that hard to pick them out of a crowd

**Audio Link Warning**

Bonus - probably the most useful thing on the internet

I believe you have just opened Pandora's Box onto OWA SnS

[Lurch]

I believe you have just opened Pandora's Box onto OWA SnS

Agreed.

[OregonStrosFan]

Agreed.

I'll bite. What was the theme song for the 2010 Astros (pre Castro and Johnson)?

[VirtualBob]

The Netherlands will beat the Brazilians... bank on it.  Uruguay and the Netherlands will meet and that will be an instant "classico".  In the other brackets, it is Spain versus whoever wants it more between Argentina and Germany.  It will be Germany and thus it will be a great final four.

Spain and The Netherlands will meet in the finals and Spain will final take care of business and win "La Copa Mundial".

Nice call ... I can't believe I missed the whole set of WM threads.  Nor can I believe that I have killed the last 90 minutes or so reading through them all.  They would have been a lot longer had I noticed them before.

I really thought Germany/Argentina winner would breeze through, but Germany was uninspired against Barca Spain ... they seemed intimidated by the more experienced squad.  Watched Germany/Ghana at the Fanmeile in Berlin with 300,000 others.  What a blast.  Was also in Berlin for Germany/England, Germany/Spain and Germany/Uruguay.  Unless you have experienced world cup fever somewhere where it matters, you just cannot imagine it.

[Bench]

A montage the worst (and thus best) dives in soccer.

The coach diving after headbutting the player at the end is classic.

[Limey]

A montage the worst (and thus best) dives in soccer.

The coach diving after headbutting the player at the end is classic.

Simple rule:  player (or coach) writhing in agony - card him; player lays still - call for the stretcher.