2010 World Cup Thread

[USSoccer]

Kyle, just admit you're wrong and get back to enjoying the result.

 

Not only was that point huge, as we were even with Slovenia on everything else, but Clint's goal was completely onside. The only thing that I can think of was that the A/R wasn't in the proper position since the ball was ping-ponging around.

 

de Bleeker wasn't the one who made the call, but he could have overruled it. This one's on the A/R, since it's not even close to borderline. His body was on and his foot was even. That's onside, again, according to the LOTG.

Edited June 23, 2010 by USSoccer

[Guest]

No there's not. Assuming the other results were the same, the US finishes even with Slovenia on everything. That leaves a 50-50 shot of going on due to drawing lots.

 

That's not pretty good.

 

So even in a situation that was unlikely at the time (England goes into a scoring slump), it's 75% that they go through without the tie (50% of it's 1-0, 100% if it's 2-1).

 

I stand by it: That tie was unlikely at the time to make a difference in advancement out of the group stage.

 

Why don't we just include 3-2, 4-3, 5-4 losses also? That will jump the percentage up to 90% they go through without the tie.

 

England shouldn't have won 2-1, they should have won 1-0 assuming Green can make an easy save. That makes it 50-50 we go through.

 

You can keep pounding your 75% number, but that's wrong.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Seems like a pretty stupid stance you're taking here.

 

Look, we can re-argue the same argument we had after the first game, in which I still feel perfectly comfortable that I was right.

 

Or we can argue that the result sort of happening proved that the result wasn't unlikely, which we both know isn't true.

 

Either way, I don't think you guys have any new arguments, so what's the point of going on about it? At the time, the U.S. getting a point against England did not significantly change their chances of advancement, which still almost entirely depended on the other two matches. Unless you have some new arguments, because the ones that have been made haven't swayed me, then it's probably best to let it go.

[bukie]

There's a decent chance of a Netherlands-Italy-Brazil-Spain quarter next to the US quarter. That's crazy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle, just admit you're wrong and get back to enjoying the result.

 

Not only was that point huge, as we were even with Slovenia on everything else, but Clint's goal was completely onside. The only thing that I can think of was that the A/R wasn't in the proper position since the ball was ping-ponging around.

 

de Bleeker wasn't the one who made the call, but he could have overruled it. This one's on the A/R, since it's not even close to borderline. His body was on and his foot was even. That's onside, again, according to the LOTG.

 

I was definitely wrong about Dempsey's goal. I've seen it a few more times and you guys are right.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seems like a pretty stupid stance you're taking here.

 

Look, we can re-argue the same argument we had after the first game, in which I still feel perfectly comfortable that I was right.

 

Or we can argue that the result sort of happening proved that the result wasn't unlikely, which we both know isn't true.

 

Either way, I don't think you guys have any new arguments, so what's the point of going on about it? At the time, the U.S. getting a point against England did not significantly change their chances of advancement, which still almost entirely depended on the other two matches. Unless you have some new arguments, because the ones that have been made haven't swayed me, then it's probably best to let it go.

 

People don't have new points to make because there's really no need, you don't make any sense.

[Guest]

We got 4 points from the last 2 games, England did too, and Slovenia ended up with 4 points. The tie mattered. The only result that was remotely surprising was England tieing Algeria, and the tie still matters even if that goes as expected.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

People don't have new points to make because there's really no need, you don't make any sense.

 

As I said before, take it up with Nate Silver, whose statistical models agreed with me at the time.

[wvcbxl]

The disallowed goal was a call that could have gone either was and remains debatable even after several stop motion viewings of the footage.

Their feet seem to be in the same position relative to the goal line, but the US player's body looks like it's over that foot, while the Algerian player is leaning forward. As the linesman was perfectly positioned, from his point of view the US player's body may have looked closer to the goal line.

 

Even with video review, you can debate this call till the cows come home. :wink:

ESPN did a pretty clear analysis of the play with their axis thingamajig showing that it was onsides. The foot was even with the defender while the body was behind. And considering all 3 parties involved were stationary (both players and the linesman), I don't know how that's missed. At worsts it's even and the benefit of the doubt should go to the US.

 

http://www.sporza.be/permalink/1.809185

Stop it at 18 seconds whit the line graphics on, then reread my post. If this had been an Algerian goal, you'd be calling blue murder using my argument.

I still say this one can get called either way. Slit second decision by the linesman that doesn't look obviously wrong even with the benefit of technology.

 

The announcer said FIFA said calls should give benefit of the doubt to attacking player, so if the call could go either way, as you say, doesn't that mean it should be not called offsides?

 

FIFA's laws of the game

Where does it say so?

The interesting bit in this context is on page 100:

“nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition

[bukie]

Kyle's point was that the chances of the US advancing after a draw was not significantly different than their chances of advancing after a loss.

 

What Kyle is conveniently neglecting is the effect on the US winning the group, which in fact made all the difference in the group.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle's point was that the chances of the US advancing after a draw was not significantly different than their chances of advancing after a loss.

 

What Kyle is conveniently neglecting is the effect on the US winning the group, which in fact made all the difference in the group.

 

If by "conveniently neglecting" you mean acknowledging repeatedly, then you are correct.

 

But just in case the first few times weren't enough, I'll say it again: The U.S. tying England significantly improved the U.S.'s chances of winning the group.

[jersey cubs fan]

People don't have new points to make because there's really no need, you don't make any sense.

 

As I said before, take it up with Nate Silver, whose statistical models agreed with me at the time.

 

Nate Silver's statistical models for these games are incredibly meaningless.

[jersey cubs fan]

FIFA's laws of the game

Where does it say so?

The interesting bit in this context is on page 100:

“nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition

 

I have no idea where it says, all I know is that the announcer said FIFA decreed years ago that the benefit of the doubt in such a situation should go to the attacking player.

[brinoch]

No there's not. Assuming the other results were the same, the US finishes even with Slovenia on everything. That leaves a 50-50 shot of going on due to drawing lots.

 

That's not pretty good.

 

So even in a situation that was unlikely at the time (England goes into a scoring slump), it's 75% that they go through without the tie (50% of it's 1-0, 100% if it's 2-1).

 

I stand by it: That tie was unlikely at the time to make a difference in advancement out of the group stage.

 

It's significant because the point is what allowed the US to win the group.

[Banedon]

The guy on the ESPN chat said he thinks that the slate is wiped clean as far as yellow cards after the round of 16. Is that right? Doesn't that mean the only reason to avoid a yellow card next game is to avoid getting two in the same game?

[Guest]

The guy on the ESPN chat said he thinks that the slate is wiped clean as far as yellow cards after the round of 16. Is that right? Doesn't that mean the only reason to avoid a yellow card next game is to avoid getting two in the same game?

 

If a player gets a 2nd yellow in the 3rd game, they are still suspended for the first knockout game, but no cards are carried over. So nobody is carrying a yellow for the US going into the round of 16(otherwise, at least Altidore would).

[Prizefight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ4T39AbR3E'

 

Let's just watch the goal over and over and enjoy :clapping: :clapping:

 

Especially before you tube yanks this video

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ4T39AbR3E'

 

Let's just watch the goal over and over and enjoy :clapping: :clapping:

 

Especially before you tube yanks this video

\:D/

[USSoccer]

 

FIFA's laws of the game

Where does it say so?

The interesting bit in this context is on page 100:

“nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition

 

Since none of Clint was nearer to the goal line than the last defender, the goal should have stood.

[Banedon]

The guy on the ESPN chat said he thinks that the slate is wiped clean as far as yellow cards after the round of 16. Is that right? Doesn't that mean the only reason to avoid a yellow card next game is to avoid getting two in the same game?

 

If a player gets a 2nd yellow in the 3rd game, they are still suspended for the first knockout game, but no cards are carried over. So nobody is carrying a yellow for the US going into the round of 16(otherwise, at least Altidore would).

 

Thanks...I either need to read better or he didn't explain it very well. Much clearer now.

[Mark Priors Calves]

Donovan's goal broke the Internet.

Today's web traffic passed the 2008 election.

[jersey cubs fan]

Howard gratefully claims it

 

distribution brilliant

 

 

there are things on here for the usa

[CubInOK]

The guy on the ESPN chat said he thinks that the slate is wiped clean as far as yellow cards after the round of 16. Is that right? Doesn't that mean the only reason to avoid a yellow card next game is to avoid getting two in the same game?

Nope, cards don't carry, but players can still be suspended due to yellow card accumulation from the group stage.

[Guest]

The guy on the ESPN chat said he thinks that the slate is wiped clean as far as yellow cards after the round of 16. Is that right? Doesn't that mean the only reason to avoid a yellow card next game is to avoid getting two in the same game?

 

If a player gets a 2nd yellow in the 3rd game, they are still suspended for the first knockout game, but no cards are carried over. So nobody is carrying a yellow for the US going into the round of 16(otherwise, at least Altidore would).

 

Thanks...I either need to read better or he didn't explain it very well. Much clearer now.

 

They do carry over in the knockout rounds though. So if you got a yellow in your round of 16 game and one in your quarterfinal game, you would miss the semifinal (if your team advanced).

 

But if you get a yellow in the group stage and a yellow in the round of 16, you won't miss the quarters.

[jersey cubs fan]

On a related note, tweets containing "USA" spiked to 6% of total tweet volume.