soccer10k

Agreed. I suspect we'll see another goal or two though seeing as both teams have had chances thus far in the first half. Good call, eh? Got that post in a minute before the goal.

Agreed. I suspect we'll see another goal or two though seeing as both teams have had chances thus far in the first half.

If Beltran was subjected to Baker, Clines, etc for the last few years, there's no telling how bad he'd be now. But Beltran would still have his speed. And you know what people say about speed...

1-0 Spain on a penalty kick. Good call by the referee.

Wow. Two French players had a shot there and neither could get a decent touch on the ball. Decent game so far.

Does Marcelo Balboa hate Brazil? Because he keeps suggesting that maybe the players don't all like each other and aren't passing well. So either he doesn't like Brazil or he isn't watching the same game I am. EDIT: Most of these accusations were in the last 10 minutes of the game when Brazil was already up 2-0 and then 3-0. Wouldn't you think that when a game is in the bag a player might start to think about personal accomplishment a little more knowing that even if they screw up it isn't going to cost their team a chance to win the game?

I agree, it's taking up almost half of my screen.

Neifi might actually hit better in the Yankee lineup since they actually have players that can, you know, hit the ball.

I wanted Beltran as well and thought they should have given him the money he wanted. They would have only had Sosa and Beltran on the books for one year and then Sosa would have been gone.

I would rather keep Ronny. More of a chance for improvement and he's only 23.

I don't really understand the offer. Either way, buy Safeway Select soda.

That was extremely close to being offsides. It looks like it could have gone either way. I'll have to see another replay before making a final decision.

Congrats to Ronaldo for becoming the all time leading World Cup goal scorer. (I overslept a bit and missed the first 35 minutes of the game)

I can't pull against the Cubs and will always hope that they win. But I am not disappointed in the least when they lose because I expect them to lose. That is the difference this year. But no I can't pull for the Cubs to lose.

Exactly the same for me.

What's the '1337' joke? I don't get it.

"Get me another beer so I don't remember this crap." Also, change "morons" to "morans" and the sign above is perfect.

I don't buy that. Neill slid well before Grosso even touched the ball sideways. Then he touched it and let himself fall over Neill, who again was there before he changed his dribble, instead of following the ball. There was another defender coming towards the side dribble, so it's not like he was alone with the keeper if he doesn't fall. Like USS said with regards to the US-Ghana PK, you're essentially saying he had a clear go at goal without the "foul". That's not true in this case, it was a bad call. All that said, in the brief replay I saw of the red card, that didn't look like a red. I could care less if Neill had been shot and was writhing on the ground in pain, the fact remains that Neill impeded the progress of Grosso. It's highly likely that Grosso would have had a decent chance at goal or could have passed to a teammate that had a decent shot at goal. Neill prevented that from happening. It doesn't matter in the least whether the foul was accidental or on purpose - the referee dealt with that by not handing out a card which he likely would have had Neill pulled him down - a foul occurred on the play. And please, don't use the US-Ghana PK as a corollary because absolutely no foul occured in that game. Sure, Grosso likely embellished the play a bit but there have been hundreds of more pathetic dives with less contact than this play in the World Cup this year. A foul, albeit not a bad one, occured on that play and the referee definately made the correct call. Grosso doesn't have the right to go anywhere on the field. Neill slid in front of him, beat him to the spot. Neill made it to the spot first, so Grosso is keeping himself from a decent chance at goal. If Grosso doesn't touch the ball in the other direction then there's no fuss at all. Just because he chose to run into the guy who was already at the spot instead of following his dribble doesn't earn him a PK, especially in the 93rd minute. So you're saying that Neill has the right to be there but Grosso doesn't? This isn't basketball. It's not who beat who to the spot on the field. The advantage goes to the player that has the ball. Neill impeded the progress of Grosso and ended up tripping him. That's a fact. Intentional or unintentional, Grotto was tripped by Neill. You may ask where the careless/reckless/excessive force part of the equation is and I ask you, did Grosso force Neill to slide? No. Neill chose to attempt to slide tackle to get the ball and didn't get it which basically put him in a no man's land. He couldn't go anywhere and was careless and tripped up Grosso. Foul in the box = direct free kick = penalty kick. The referee had no choice but to call a penalty kick. Sure, the point in the game made it seem unfortunate, but a foul is a foul and the time of the game shouldn't come into play when determining whether an infraction is called or not. Also, is this the player coming out of you or are you truly offering an unbiased opinion? As a former player I can easily see your point of view but as a former referee as well I can see the referee point of view.

Ortiz 2006 Overall .264 .374 .551 Runners on .298 .388 .583 RISP .279 .398 .523 Close and late .231 .286 .667 2003-2005 Overall .297 .383 .600 Runners on .309 .409 .575 RISP .328 .425 .555 Close and late .326 .408 .724 When you are a really good player, and you player for a really good team that is really popular and really emphasizes OBP, you are going to have a lot of chances to have meaningful hits. All it takes is a handful of walk offs or other heroics to give you the label (just as Jim Leyritz), and the more chances you get more likely you'll cash in on a few. As long as your failures don't stick out too much, and your team enjoys success, they will forget those and concentrate on the big ones. This explains why Jeter is excused for coming up short so often and considered clutch, even though his postseason numbers mirror his regular seasons and he has come up short repeatedly in recent postseasons. What exactly does close and late mean? I wouldn't consider a hit to be clutch in a game in which your team is up by one in the ninth inning. That same hit would fall under "close and late" though. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm saying that your "close and late" stats are vague.

Did you really mute Steve Stone?

I just hit the pitcher 16 times but didn't hit a single home run. I don't think I'm going to play again.

I don't buy that. Neill slid well before Grosso even touched the ball sideways. Then he touched it and let himself fall over Neill, who again was there before he changed his dribble, instead of following the ball. There was another defender coming towards the side dribble, so it's not like he was alone with the keeper if he doesn't fall. Like USS said with regards to the US-Ghana PK, you're essentially saying he had a clear go at goal without the "foul". That's not true in this case, it was a bad call. All that said, in the brief replay I saw of the red card, that didn't look like a red. I could care less if Neill had been shot and was writhing on the ground in pain, the fact remains that Neill impeded the progress of Grosso. It's highly likely that Grosso would have had a decent chance at goal or could have passed to a teammate that had a decent shot at goal. Neill prevented that from happening. It doesn't matter in the least whether the foul was accidental or on purpose - the referee dealt with that by not handing out a card which he likely would have had Neill pulled him down - a foul occurred on the play. And please, don't use the US-Ghana PK as a corollary because absolutely no foul occured in that game. Sure, Grosso likely embellished the play a bit but there have been hundreds of more pathetic dives with less contact than this play in the World Cup this year. A foul, albeit not a bad one, occured on that play and the referee definately made the correct call. That being said, it's too bad for Australia that the game had to end like that but I can't say I feel sorry for them. They played up a man for the whole second half and couldn't break through.

Why did he have to? Because futbol would fail to exist without pansy boys flopping and getting calls? Because he got fouled. It wasn't an intentional foul but Grosso tripped over Neill. I'll give you that Grosso sold it and may have tried to trip over Neill but the fact remains that he tripped and Neill preventened, albeit unintentionally, a shot at goal. It's not like Grosso jumped over Neill and went down. There was contact and Grosso sold it well. The referee had no choice but to call it. A foul or infraction doesn't have to be intentional to get called.

Wow. Unbelievalbe penalty kick call for Italy. The referee had to call that foul. Totti to win the game and send Italy to the quarterfinals... GOAL!! WOW.

I need somebody to score in this game. I have to be at work at 1030 (Pacific Time). I'll probably have time to watch the overtime if the game goes that far but definately won't be able to watch the penalty kicks.