OT: US Soccer, Highway Robbery
I know there's an open thread, but, this was such an outrage it deserves it's own thread so everyone can bitch about this horrible atrocity.
Seriously, what the hell was that!?
They took a perfectly legitimate goal, and for no reason whatsoever said, "Nope, doesn't count." Completely ridiculous. Not only did the US not commit a foul, but, there were at least 2 Slovenian players holding ours.
Not only was this an affront to sport, but, will probably once again set back the popularity of soccer in the US. I finally actually started to care about US soccer, but, now I'm like damn, what's the point of even becoming invested in a sport where the result of a game can hinge on something like *that* rather than the performance of the players on the field?
Calling shenanigans on the disallowed goal!!
So are they going to start that instant replay should be used chant?
Is there such a thing as a Slovenian fan that can explain me their case of what they thought? Is there a way a Slovenian could justify this (Michigan State style, if you will)?
If you look at the 59 second mark, Bradley appears to be offside by a step: he is behind one defender, and his shoulder and head and foot (visible through the front defenders legs) are behind the second defender -- from the angle where the ref was standing, you can at least see some sort of basis for the call. The ref's mistake was not deferring to his linesmen, who had definitive views from the ideal angle.
... was only in front of his man because his man was bear hugging him instead of actually covering him
In the current interpretation of the offside rule, Bradley's position is irrelevant, since he's not involved in the disposition of the play. The way FIFA has interpreted the rule, a player has to be directly involved in the play, either by playing the ball or by obstructing the keeper.
What he did call, he refuses to say.
I may be in the minority, but it was very close. It may very well have been offsides. I am not sure you call it offsides in that situation (depends on whether FINA judges value defense over offense as a rule on 50/50 plays). The game, as I have been following it, would rather have a play that is close be called for the defense in a situation like that.
In this circumstance though Bradley is thrown "offside" by the defender so if you recognize it as offside then you should also recognize the play as a penalty kick.
Was the call for sure on Bradley? The player who scored the ball was the one a step offsides. I don't see how Bradley could have been called offsides there as his defender was between him and the goal. That play (the wrestling going on with Bradley and his defender) will never get a penalty kick though. I believe the call was on the shooter being a step offsides. Again, very very close call, but the refs seem to be reffing with defense in mind (ie. 50/50 balls go to the defense). Just my opinion.
Relative soccer newb here - is it the ref's place to call offsides when he is so far out of position to make that call? I thought the lineman made those calls?
I am not certain that it was an offside call or not, but I believe if the ref can make the call whenever he/she sees fit (as they are the head ref). There are times when a head ref has a better angle on it, I would imagine, though not often.
The latest I've heard is that he whistled a foul on Bocanegra for pulling a defender. Which is crazy given everything else going on, but not an offside call.
1. If the linesman called offsides then it's a legitimate call.
2. If the head ref called offsides it's egregious and he should NEVER ever call that.
3. If the head ref called a foul on someone then it wasn't terribly awful either.
Need more information.
did he? Anyway, Bradley wasn't in the play, from my perspective, so it doesn't matter if he was offside.
It was a bad call, but at the same time, if the US had played with the same intensity in both halves, it wouldn't have come down to a disallowed goal. Not trying to overlook the mistake, but this great comeback only occurred because the US allowed Slovenia to dominate the first half.
The good news is that the stupid second yellow card against Findley forces us to start Edson Buddle next match, who is better by virtue of having more than Findley's only move: speed
I know this is my first post, but as someone who has reffed soccer from the youth level to the high school and college level, I think I can speak with some degree of experience. Now, I do not know what the referee called on the field, but it should have gone something like this:
When the ball was played, Michael Bradley was in an offsides position. He started his run early and crossed the last defender before the ball was played, with a man draped on his back no less.
Whether the referee calls offsides depends on both the judgment of his linesman and whether he felt that Bradley's offsides position would have a detrimental effect on the Slovenian defense. This is what happened in 2006 when US had a goal disallowed against Italy on a shot by DaMarcus Beasley because Brian McBride was screening the goalkeeper, Gianluigi Buffon. This is kind of a judgment call for a referee because Bradley did not explicitly touch the ball, but he was close to it, and had a defender occupying him that would have otherwise been able to clear it. If it were me, I probably would not have called it. However, it is the prerogative of the referee and, it is not so egregious for him to make an offsides call there. It is important to note that Edu was not offsides, rather, it was Bradley's positioning and its subsequent effect on the play that makes the offsides call warranted.
However, regardless of whether it should have been offsides or not, the referee should have blown this play dead before that and awarded a penalty kick to the United States for the bear hug that the defender placed on Michael Bradley. He had been warning both teams about it all game long and the United States had been called for the foul in the box on so many occasions. It was an obvious foul and should have been whistled dead on the spot.
The fact that the referee allegedly did not give a reason to the players for the call evidences a serious lack of resolve and big game exposure. In referee school, they teach you that if you blow a call, you sure as hell better sell it. Players will respect you more if you are affirmative and strong-willed about it, regardless of whether you are correct. In short, the referee blew this call and his error was compounded by the fact that he didn't give a reasoned explanation for it. I can understand the goal being disallowed but, if that is so, the least you can do is give the US a penalty kick.
Quality analysis. Thank you.
Sorry
No ref in his right mind will all a PK there for the USA in stoppage time for someone that is not egregious.
And anyways your whole post is wrong because it wasn't offsides it was a foul on Edu.
I hate to agree with you, but I don't feel that a PK would be awarded there either.
Sorry about the "I hate to agree with you" thing, but you post a crap ton of pics on here that are super wide format and it makes it so I can't see the right links. It is McFarlin-esque on my madness meter. You are no where near Magnus levels, though, so there is that.
1. I never post pics
2. They are always videos
3. They are always re-sized to fit between the margins (I generally change it to about 340 width)
I figured that it was because I'm just a dumbass. :-p
I'm fucked up.
/probably
If you don't consider a bear hug in the box during a set play "egregious", then you have a different definition of the word than I do.
having said that, I don't care that the bear hug wan't called because I don't think the ref could see it anyway - its a non-issue. The point is, there shouldn't havve been a call either way. The fact that no one knew who the call was on (per Donovan's post game comments) is a complete joke. It is the referee's obligation to clearly communicate to the players what he is calling. The fact that he didn't, shows how uncertain he himself was about the call. Hence, he should have swallowed his whistle in this instance and allowed the goal.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=264045&cc=5901&ver=us
Look at the match stats, it says the USA had 0 offsides calls. Which means the goal-call could not have been called because of an offsides.
It was not offsides. Per FIFA
... since Edu never even made contact with another player.
Again the ref was not terribly awful.
~Fin
I agree with the OP. I've never been much of a soccer fan, but in this WC I've been getting pretty into it, waking up early and watching games, including today (it was at 7AM for me). After that game, it makes me want to say "fuck soccer" just like I was saying 2 months ago.
Sure, there are bad calls in every sport. But in soccer, a goal is worth more than a score in any other sport, including hockey since goals are scored at double to triple the rate. The other thing that bothers me so much about soccer, or maybe this call in particular, but why don't the refs announce what the call is? In a real sport, the ref walks to the 50, announces "personal foul, late hit out of bounds against the defense, 15 yard penalty, first down." Whether or not you like the call, you (as the fan, as the player, as the f-ing coach) know exactly what the ref is calling.
I'm not sure what bothers me more, the fact that the US got jobbed out of a goal, or the fact that no one knows why.
Actually very few sports have announced calls. NHL announces calls and NFL, but not NBA or any of the other international sports I can think of.
they also have clear signals so that everybody can (usually) know what was called.
Agree to disagree. There are plenty of international sports where the ref doesn't have to explain the call at all. A turnover is a turnover and that is it. The ref is the the ultimate controller of the game and there is no arguing a call.
I do think it's a good idea to have the most basic level of information made available at the time of the call. Is it really asking that much to ask a ref to indicate what he's calling?
Not if it slows down a restart. I think that's the main reason for a lack of explanation. You'll often see some teams (especially Argentina, Messi's great at this) quickly set the ball and restart to catch the defense off balance. Same way restarts work in international basketball.
said that this was the ref's first world cup game. He just seemed to be one step behind all game and made a couple of absolute blunders - the disallowed goal at the end was terrible, but I think the yellow on Findley for touching the ball with his hand (aka the side of his face and the top of his shoulder) was just as brutal.
Jim Joyce is an apt comparison, but the one that came to mind for me was the Sun Belt refs in the Alamo Bowl against Nebraska.
Trying to forget about the Sun Belt fiasco. Now I will have to start that process all over again. Thanks (not sarcasm). Your comparison is quite accurate.
Hopefully USA loses so you soccer queers will go fuck off.
I heard about a bad call on the radio. When i got to the bar to see the highlights, I thought that the bad call was the no-call on the offsides for Slov.'s second goal. Then when I saw the goal taken away for no reason I was blown away. Yes, this is a shame that this happened. I truly hope that the U.S. can still advance despite this.
This is the most popular tournament in the world. Still, FIFA mandates the use of a ball that doesn't act like any other soccer ball and allow officials like those that worked the U.S. game and the Germany game today. Unbelievable.
they only have like 2 refs and no replay of any kind (even on goals).
Shit happens.
If you noticed Slovenia's second goal, the guy was totally offside, so the score actually should have been 3-1. Plain and simple. And yeah one-step offside is BS. i watched the replay and he would have to take 5 strides in order to be offsides. So USA was toatlly robbed -.-
Slovenia's second goal was completely onside. Onyewu was five yards out of position, and as a result the guy was onside. (He would have been offside by a mile if Onyewu was where he was supposed to be.)
"Koman Coulibaly, the Malian referee whose calls are dominating discussion of Friday’s 2-2 draw between the United States and Slovenia, is no stranger to big-game controversy."
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/referee-again-in-center-of-con…
It's the big one!