US, You're just being robbed!!! -rant

[ironman]

My God WTF!!! US deserved to win that game, can someone tell me what the fuck did the referee saw? It was a clean goal!! I'm so pissed right now, it's time to let referees use camera replays a la american football /rant

[SecretMethod70]

I didn't watch the game, but my friends who were able to are quite upset right now. It'll be tough, but the US can still overcome this.

[spindles]

Yep. Looked like a goal to me.

[Daniel_]

Speaking as an utterly unbiased Englishman, I can say "hard luck chaps".

[guy44]

We were jobbed for sure. Even worse is that the ref still refuses to even say what the call was. Even worse than that was the refereeing all game long. Even worse than that was the phantom yellow on Finley, knocking him out of our next game for no reason. Yes, I'm pissed.

Also, this:

[Jetée]

I tuned into the actual action about 20 seconds before Donovan actually kicked in the lob ball, so that was very coincidental timing on my part. The announcers already spoke all they could to say it was an atrocious call, (going so far as to just not call the referee blind and the one who may have conceived him) so I can't add much more to this.

It doesn't matter much now, as the US team still needs to actually score a win, and they're in. Nothing simpler than that (if they lose their third game, then they go home, right?).

Anyway, I'm not propagating this, but I did just come across it, so have a look at the newest internet absurdity of the day...

Awful call was awful   click to show 

-- originally spawned on Fark.

[deportes]

It is really hard to watch sports, it never fails that a Fkng referee, umpire, whaterver you would like to call the fkrs, makes huge so called "mistakes". Like the perfect game the 1st base ump took away with a terrible !not even close safe call! a couple of weeks ago...

[Strange Famous]

The bald headed guy at near post was half a yard offside

The whistle blew before the guy scored, the Slovenian's stopped playing

I didnt see the game, just a replay of that disallowed goal... I didnt see any significant holding or obstruction, but US player was offside so the right decision that goal wasnt allowed even if the foul was given for the wrong reason.

Video is on BBC and it freezes as the ball is struck, go and have a look, very very clear offside.

Slovenia 2-2 USA

[hunnychile]

WTF is wrong with the Ref in that Game!?!?

I watched it and YES, We (The USA) were ROBBED! And if that goal was not good, how come we didn't get a Penalty KIck!!!!????

Damn, I am Pissed, too.

(Someone's on "the take" IMHO).

[Xerxys]

I fucken hate that offside rule! Dang! It changes and screws EVERYTHING up!

[Strange Famous]

To be honest, looking at it again, its very tight as the ball is struck... is the furthest right Slovenian defender just playing the US striker onside?

I think he's marginally offside, but it could go either way.



I'll happily be corrected, but my understanding is that offside is judged by any part of the body which is allowed to strike the ball.. I think the strikers head is ahead of the defenders back leg as the ball is struck... but looking at it as a frame rather than in the video, it is close.

---------- Post added at 12:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

____

Edit - ok final word from me

He is off.

If you take the line from the cut of the grass and drag it towards goal, at the exact moment the ball is struck the bald guy at the near post is half a head further forward than the trailing leg of the Slovenian defender at the far post.

If the ref gave offside (and he can without the lino's flag is he wants to and he also can ignore the lino's flag if he wants to) - its a world class decision.

If he disallowed it for a foul, I cant see anything. Several US players are being held... but offside takes precedence over foul in terms of allowing the goal.

[guy44]

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

To be honest, looking at it again, its very tight as the ball is struck... is the furthest right Slovenian defender just playing the US striker onside?

I think he's marginally offside, but it could go either way.



I'll happily be corrected, but my understanding is that offside is judged by any part of the body which is allowed to strike the ball.. I think the strikers head is ahead of the defenders back leg as the ball is struck... but looking at it as a frame rather than in the video, it is close.

---------- Post added at 12:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

____

Edit - ok final word from me

He is off.

If you take the line from the cut of the grass and drag it towards goal, at the exact moment the ball is struck the bald guy at the near post is half a head further forward than the trailing leg of the Slovenian defender at the far post.

If the ref gave offside (and he can without the lino's flag is he wants to and he also can ignore the lino's flag if he wants to) - its a world class decision.

If he disallowed it for a foul, I cant see anything. Several US players are being held... but offside takes precedence over foul in terms of allowing the goal.

Look at my photo I posted earlier. The only reason his head is barely offsides is because he was being fouled - that's Michael Bradley being manhandled at the exact moment in question. He's being dragged against his will towards the net as you can see if you watch the video past the moment you showed. Should a goal be disallowed because a player was fouled into being offsides? And if so, at the very least they should get a PK.

YouTube - usa slovenia disallowed goal

YouTube - usa slovenia disallowed goal

[deportes]

There is no offsides, the player that may have been offsides was not part of the play, he did not have any influence in the play. The goal came from a player that was not offsides. Shame on the referee, he sucks, and he knows it. That is why no reason has come forward.....

[Strange Famous]

Im sorry, but thats 100% wrong. The guy runs across the line of the cross, taking defenders with him. Any time a player is marked and is actively running into space or seeking posession, he will be judged as interfering with play.

There is no possible interpretation that he wasnt interfering with play. No competent linesman would ever make that call in this situation.

As for the fact he was being held - thats probably true - but the guy was pulling him backwards - not pushing him forwards into an offside position. Its one of those grey area's in football. If he was held like that outside the box, it would be a free kick, but in the penalty area people get away with holding on a routine basis. Within the rules of the game - if the guy wasnt offside a penalty could have been awarded - but given that he didnt get to the ball its unlikely that you would see it.

At the end of the day, not giving the goal was the correct decision. When a decision goes against your team its understandable to be angry and upset - and I would be too, but you have to be able to look at impartially after the event. This wasnt robbery, this was a goal disallowed in a situation where a US player is marginally offside.

If the defender is also judged to have fouled the guy the ref can book him for foul play if he wants, but the offside status of the player takes precedence over the foul committed against him.

[guy44]

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

At the end of the day, not giving the goal was the correct decision. When a decision goes against your team its understandable to be angry and upset - and I would be too, but you have to be able to look at impartially after the event. This wasnt robbery, this was a goal disallowed in a situation where a US player is marginally offside.

Just so we're clear, everyone - EVERYONE - except for you believes it was a bad call. Everyone. Did I mention it's everyone? I meant to. Because everyone does. Everyone.

I also resent the implication that we're incapable of judging what happened because it was our team. Besides the fact that it was an obviously bad call, for me personally - I'm a Cubs fan. I can handle anything bad happening to my team without freaking out about it. But this was a bad call, full stop.

Everyone.

[Strange Famous]

The thing is, it isnt something thats debatable, it isnt a judgment call.

He is offide. Look at the picture for yourself. Its very close, but he is just off.

[Xerxys]

It is a sad day that Strange Famous calls for reason ...

[Vaultboy]

Great discussion. Why isn't this in the World Cup thread? :P

[Wes Mantooth]

Originally Posted by deportes

It is really hard to watch sports, it never fails that a Fkng referee, umpire, whaterver you would like to call the fkrs, makes huge so called "mistakes". Like the perfect game the 1st base ump took away with a terrible !not even close safe call! a couple of weeks ago...

That call by Jim Joyce was AWFUL, probably among the worst I've seen in my lifetime and yet, despite no obligation to do so, he had the balls to talk to the press, admit his mistake and explain why he thought he made the right call. And what happened? He was almost universally forgiven and the issue was dropped.

What bothers me about blown calls is the insistence of almost every organized league in complete silence on the issue, as thought admitting a mistake or clarifying the call to the public some how hurts the integrity of the game. If a statement was issued explaining the call or recognizing a mistake people would probably just move on, instead they allow it fester and the integrity of the game is called into question anyway. Its silly.

In the end there is nothing that can be done and the US was robbed of points they earned but its a shame they think so little of the fans that they can't even be bothered to tell us why the goal was disallowed, I think the fans and players deserve at least that much.

[Seaver]

Look... I don't see any offsides.

That being said, I think this is one of those few instances where we should allow the soccer commentators who have re-watched and analyzed this over and over again to have the say. Every single one I've found from the English speaking world says there's nothing worth the call. They essentially said if anyone deserves the call it's multiple penalties towards Slovenia, but it'd be right to let it play out.

Hey SF... do you agree with the call (by the same ref) that carded the American for a handball when it clearly hit him in the face? If you do it's clear you're just trolling at this point. He was a shitty ref and hopefully gets kicked out of any future FIFA competitions.

[YaWhateva]

Arguing with SF is like talking to a wall. He will see whatever he makes up in his mind and there is no dissuading him from that no matter how wrong he is.

[Daniel_]

In football, for reasons I cannot fathom, FIFA have for years argued against video referees. It works really well in rugby and I'd like to see it in football. If nothing else, it would stop the ridiculous dives and fake injury calls.

[Strange Famous]

I am sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous to call me a "troll" or try and make personal comments about this.

I really am starting to get up of almost every time I post on this website I seem to get insulted.

I posted a picture... you can see that the strikers head is marginally ahead of the trailing foot of the furthest defender. There is nothing to argue about... there is no variable interpretation involved....

It is very close, and if it wasnt given the Slovenians would have little to complain about, but the facts are very clear

1 - The US striker has only one player between him and the goal line, when the ball is struck forwards by another US player. He runs across the line of the ball, he takes a defender with him, he is offside.

You dont have to believe me, or have an argument with me about it. Go to Youtube, screenshot the video just as the ball is struck as I did, and paste it into an image viewer and look at it closely. I drew lines between the 6 yard line and the 18 yard line, dragged the line forward parellell to the two. Do the same thing, and you can see for yourself he is just offside.

As I said before, you must judge offside from any part of the body that can legally play the ball - so you have to compare the head of the US striker and the trailing foot of the Slovenian defender.

2 - There is a case for a penalty if he was onside, he clearly is being held. You dont often see holding blown up for in the penalty area (although it was in the NZ vs Italy game today), but the fact the player was offside (and was being pulled backwards, not pushed forwards) means that the foul against him is secondary to his offside status.

3 - The goal wasnt disallowed for offside, but for foul play by an American player. I cant see any evidence of foul play by a US player on the replay, but the fact that there was an offside means it was the right decision to disallow the goal, even if it was done for the wrong reasons.

I said already I didnt see the game, because I was at work, so I cant comment on any other decision. But in this case, the decision is correct.

Originally Posted by Seaver

Look... I don't see any offsides.

That being said, I think this is one of those few instances where we should allow the soccer commentators who have re-watched and analyzed this over and over again to have the say. Every single one I've found from the English speaking world says there's nothing worth the call. They essentially said if anyone deserves the call it's multiple penalties towards Slovenia, but it'd be right to let it play out.

Hey SF... do you agree with the call (by the same ref) that carded the American for a handball when it clearly hit him in the face? If you do it's clear you're just trolling at this point. He was a shitty ref and hopefully gets kicked out of any future FIFA competitions.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------

Originally Posted by YaWhateva

Arguing with SF is like talking to a wall. He will see whatever he makes up in his mind and there is no dissuading him from that no matter how wrong he is.

Rather than just insult me, why dont you explain simply why you dont believe the player is offside?

Since it is apparently obvious to you and everyone else that I am wrong, it should be quite simple for you to show, with reference to the rules of the game, why he is onside.

[Wes Mantooth]

Originally Posted by Daniel_

In football, for reasons I cannot fathom, FIFA have for years argued against video referees. It works really well in rugby and I'd like to see it in football. If nothing else, it would stop the ridiculous dives and fake injury calls.

Its the same here in the States with Baseball, while they have very recently adopted replays for home runs, they've fought tooth and nail to keep video replay out of every other aspect of the game, instead taking the position that "the human element" is part of what makes the sport great. I don't really understand the position myself, I would think getting the call right should trump whatever benefits human imperfection brings.

Do you think FIFA holds the same position on instant replay or video refereeing?

[Strange Famous]

Video evidence kind of is used to a degree - in that red cards can be reviewed and taken back retrospectively in terms of bans, and also people can be banned on basis of video evidence if the referee requests it.

The main argument against using video evidence in football is that because its a fluid game, video replays will make it too stop start, but I dont really agree. It works perfectly in rugby. I think in the next couple of years they will bring in goal line technology, and from there hopefully extend it. You'd have the 4th official reviewing video (in games where its available of course), rather than just holding up the substitute board as now, and mic'd up to the ref. He would have the ability to call play back, answer disputed calls, spot foul play missed by the ref (such as diving or off the ball incidents)

Youd have to think about how you managed issues in open play (ie - I wouldnt personally use it for offsides, because if the linesman knows every decision can go back to the video ref he'll tend to not flag if there is any doubt at all) - but ultimately seasons, tournamounts, games can turn on one call, and the game has a responsibility to do everything to make it the right call when it does.

There is a case for the human element I guess, but I think most people are in favour of giving the refs all the technology and the tools to make the right decisions.

[spindles]

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The main argument against using video evidence in football is that because its a fluid game, video replays will make it too stop start, but I dont really agree. It works perfectly in rugby. I think in the next couple of years they will bring in goal line technology, and from there hopefully extend it. You'd have the 4th official reviewing video (in games where its available of course), rather than just holding up the substitute board as now, and mic'd up to the ref. He would have the ability to call play back, answer disputed calls, spot foul play missed by the ref (such as diving or off the ball incidents)

There is huge reason right here as to why not to use the video ref. In Rugby (and Rugby League) there are very limited parameters into how the video can be used, specifically relating to the play leading up to a try, and whether it is scored or not. League don't allow the video ref to go back before the previous 'play the ball', and Rugby is pretty much limited to checking grounding of the ball and touchlines.

The issue in soccer is how far back do you go? There can quite often be several minutes of play since the last stoppage - what is the parameters used to determine? The last minute? The last 5 passes? Of course as soon as you bring in a hard rule like this, a few 6 passes ago gets ignored and people complain. Soccer has few enough goals (especially at this level), and I'd suggest that any video ref would actually reduce the numbers. I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the game.

RE the 'offside' - that is too close to call, and no sane linesman would put his flag up for that. The referee is in no position to call that. It is clear he stuffed up in rewarding a free kick, which was obviously NOT for offside.

[Wes Mantooth]

Originally Posted by spindles

There is huge reason right here as to why not to use the video ref. In Rugby (and Rugby League) there are very limited parameters into how the video can be used, specifically relating to the play leading up to a try, and whether it is scored or not. League don't allow the video ref to go back before the previous 'play the ball', and Rugby is pretty much limited to checking grounding of the ball and touchlines.

The issue in soccer is how far back do you go? There can quite often be several minutes of play since the last stoppage - what is the parameters used to determine? The last minute? The last 5 passes? Of course as soon as you bring in a hard rule like this, a few 6 passes ago gets ignored and people complain. Soccer has few enough goals (especially at this level), and I'd suggest that any video ref would actually reduce the numbers. I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the game.

RE the 'offside' - that is too close to call, and no sane linesman would put his flag up for that. The referee is in no position to call that. It is clear he stuffed up in rewarding a free kick, which was obviously NOT for offside.

I agree with you to a point spindles, and to be honest I don't watch enough soccer to probably have a valid opinion about it, but it seems like using replays to look at weather or not a goal should count seems reasonable. In this case they could have examined weather or not there was indeed a foul or offsides and made sure the call was correct. After a goal play has stopped so it wouldn't influence the what happened next, would it?

[Seaver]

If it was the right call... why was he given a poor rating by FIFA and pulled from games?

Embattled ref to miss upcoming matches - International Football - Yahoo! Sports

.... revealed on Friday that Coulibaly was “highly unlikely” to take any further part in the tournament after being given a poor evaluation by assessors following his decision to disallow Maurice Edu’s 85th-minute goal. FIFA confirmed Sunday that Coulibaly will not play any part in Tuesday or Wednesday’s matches, which will include the USA’s critical Group C finale against Algeria.

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by Seaver

If it was the right call... why was he given a poor rating by FIFA and pulled from games?

Embattled ref to miss upcoming matches - International Football - Yahoo! Sports

That one's easy - the controversy means that he has lost his authority with the players; the journalists calling his judgement unsound means that players will argue with him more than they would have. This undermines his ability to do the job until an investigation has given him a clean bill of health.

[Strange Famous]

Its true that he didnt signal for offside. But you yourself say the offside is too close to call, on those grounds surely you admit there is a chance it was the right call for the wrong reason?

On video technology, I think it depends on how its used if it is good for the game.

It isnt controversial now that if you punch someone and the ref doesnt see it, you can retrospectively be banned

I would be happy for the use of goal line technology. If the ref is in doubt, as soon as the threat to goal passed, he blows up - refers to the technology and you either give a goal or a goal kick. Decision should normally be possible in 1 minute.

But video technology can also be negative. I like using it for run outs in cricket for example, but it is wrong imho to use it for LBW's for example.

Originally Posted by spindles

There is huge reason right here as to why not to use the video ref. In Rugby (and Rugby League) there are very limited parameters into how the video can be used, specifically relating to the play leading up to a try, and whether it is scored or not. League don't allow the video ref to go back before the previous 'play the ball', and Rugby is pretty much limited to checking grounding of the ball and touchlines.

The issue in soccer is how far back do you go? There can quite often be several minutes of play since the last stoppage - what is the parameters used to determine? The last minute? The last 5 passes? Of course as soon as you bring in a hard rule like this, a few 6 passes ago gets ignored and people complain. Soccer has few enough goals (especially at this level), and I'd suggest that any video ref would actually reduce the numbers. I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the game.

RE the 'offside' - that is too close to call, and no sane linesman would put his flag up for that. The referee is in no position to call that. It is clear he stuffed up in rewarding a free kick, which was obviously NOT for offside.

[Seaver]

Its true that he didnt signal for offside. But you yourself say the offside is too close to call, on those grounds surely you admit there is a chance it was the right call for the wrong reason?

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz0rWaJpu8c

I didn't say it was too close to call... I had an opinion but I chose to differ to the experts... all of which state it was an obvious blown call.

That one's easy - the controversy means that he has lost his authority with the players; the journalists calling his judgement unsound means that players will argue with him more than they would have. This undermines his ability to do the job until an investigation has given him a clean bill of health.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz0rWaexe6D

That's an easier one to shoot down. The ref who allowed Henry to catch the ball and set it down before the goal allowing France to beat Ireland (just as big blown call, and more obvious) got no punishment.

[pig]

As far as this call is concerned, I went back and looked at the video that strange posted earlier, and which seems to be the predominant camera angle available. Based on that angle, I'd say its impossible for me to say definitively that Michael Bradley is offsides - to my eye he looks even at worst, and even is on. Secondly, I'm certain that without video replay and without the linesman showing the flag, there's no way the referee would be in position to make an offsides call regardless...and in cases where its close, the advantage goes to the player. Of course, offsides is notoriously missed in competitions, but I think in this case it would have been the wrong call...

but that's not even what the guy called, so its moot. I think the guy either straight up screwed up, or else he got caught up in the emotion realizing that an american victory would pretty much seal algeria out of it. the us should have taken the 3 points.

[Strange Famous]

Have a goal not given when its a foot and a half over the line and then come back and complain.

I think its a great thing that the world cup brings new fans into football - but if you dont understand the offside law then calling me a "troll" because I do is a bit rich.

USA went as far as they could in any case... they are a solid and well organised team but limited. It wil be interesting in the next few years to see if the country will get behind an internationally popular sport rather than one that they are the only ones who play seriously. With USA's sporting history and quality, if they started taking football seriously they could become a world force.