[mike777]

Usa needs to learn how to score for 2 reasons.
1) to win
2) to attract more than the very hard core immigrant fans.

I really blame the coaches and USA football administrators.

Look even if the top 5000 athletes go into the huge usa money sports that leaves 300 million to get rich in soccer. The USA was ready to embrace an American born or an immigrant who could score and raise the excitement quota in World 'Cup soccer. There is enough endorsement money out there for many immigrants to strike it rich here in America, come visit us. .

There must be some coaches out there who know how to teach scoring goals? I do not expect us to win..just score some goals.

[jdonn]

cphastrup, on Jun 18 2006, 11:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 18 2006, 11:10 PM, said:

The first red against the US was a joke, an absolute joke. Anyone who thinks that was worthy of a anything more than a yellow card either had their mind already made up or simply wasn't watching. The tackle was late from behind, but it was merely hard, not vicious (the spikes were down, which is crucial).

You must be mixing up the two red cards (Which were both direct red as far as I can tell from the highlights). The first red card I can't see why anyone would dispute. Spikes down? You must thinking about the second red card, which is maybe more "orange", but it's still a reckless, risky challenge from behind.

2 minutes of higlights - including the red cards:
http://youtube.com/w...rch=usa%20italy

Edit: The second one was a yellow-red, according to the match reports. So now I can't disagree with any of the red cards at all.

Thanks for the clip.

I feel like I have woken up in Bizarro world where the whole world but me has gone mad. The first was a yellow, though not even an eggregious one, it is miles from a red card. It is so far from red that I can't for the life of me even believe anyone is disputing that. The second was more eggregious but still a yellow as far as I'm concerned, though the point is moot since I accept that the second was given as a yellow/red, which was the correct call.

Yellow cards are the normal call for hard tackles that are late or from behind. Red cards are for elbows to the head, late slide tackles with the spikes up that are intended to injure, things like that. These were just hard, late, bad tackles, completely normal yellow cards.

Mike, soccer is just not a big deal here to most people. I could say all the same things about almost any sport in most countries, like say basketball in England. It would be like criticizing our national table tennis team in the same way. But you share the same quality as almost all sports fans, which is thinking the coaches and administrators do a lousy job. And I suppose I also share that quality as regards the referees

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Jun 19 2006, 07:19 AM, said:

cphastrup, on Jun 18 2006, 11:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 18 2006, 11:10 PM, said:

The first red against the US was a joke, an absolute joke. Anyone who thinks that was worthy of a anything more than a yellow card either had their mind already made up or simply wasn't watching. The tackle was late from behind, but it was merely hard, not vicious (the spikes were down, which is crucial).

You must be mixing up the two red cards (Which were both direct red as far as I can tell from the highlights). The first red card I can't see why anyone would dispute. Spikes down? You must thinking about the second red card, which is maybe more "orange", but it's still a reckless, risky challenge from behind.

2 minutes of higlights - including the red cards:
http://youtube.com/w...rch=usa%20italy

Edit: The second one was a yellow-red, according to the match reports. So now I can't disagree with any of the red cards at all.

Thanks for the clip.

I feel like I have woken up in Bizarro world where the whole world but me has gone mad. The first was a yellow, though not even an eggregious one, it is miles from a red card. It is so far from red that I can't for the life of me even believe anyone is disputing that. The second was more eggregious but still a yellow as far as I'm concerned, though the point is moot since I accept that the second was given as a yellow/red, which was the correct call.

Yellow cards are the normal call for hard tackles that are late or from behind. Red cards are for elbows to the head, late slide tackles with the spikes up that are intended to injure, things like that. These were just hard, late, bad tackles, completely normal yellow cards.

Mike, soccer is just not a big deal here to most people. I could say all the same things about almost any sport in most countries, like say basketball in England. It would be like criticizing our national table tennis team in the same way. But you share the same quality as almost all sports fans, which is thinking the coaches and administrators do a lousy job. And I suppose I also share that quality as regards the referees

Sorry Josh, the first was a clear red card. Sliding with both feet straight ahead into the opponent from behind has been a guarantueed red card for quite some time. There is no chance to prevent a foul, and it's extremely likely to cause injuries. (Even if you succeed with the tackle, i.e. aren't late, you might still get a free-kick and a yellow card for dangerous play.)

I admit the red card for Italy would have been worth sending the whole team off, preferably for all the matches.

Arend

[han]

I disagree Arend. I think the US tackle that got the red card was far worse than the elbow by the Italian player. Sure, the elbow was terrible and the red card was deserved. The player who did it should not be allowed to play for the rest of this tournament.

But the tackle that the US player made was far worse. Such a tackle can injure a player for the rest of his career, it is far more dangerous than an elbow. I'm glad that the referee was there too see this.

I'm dissapointent in the US players who made these atrocious attacks on the Italian players. I'm disappointed in the reactions of the US coach. And I'm very surprised that someone on this forum is defending this US player.

By the way, I also don't agree that the referees gave too many cards so far. For instance, I think that Mark van Bommel should have rececived at least a yellow card when he stepped on the ankle of the Ivory coast player. Unfortunately the referee did not see. These things are very hard to spot on the field but on tv we can see them very clearly. You can't Josh?

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Jun 19 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

I admit the red card for Italy would have been worth sending the whole team off, preferably for all the matches.

Arend

What a ridiculous comment, unless ....

1. You change the rules (it hasn't happened yet as far as I know).
2. That you, even if you could, send the whole German team off next time any German player is sent off.

It's no big deal as far as Germany is concerned anyway. They will be knocked out after the group stage. That will save the rest of us from the boring football Germany has delivered since the 70's.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Jun 19 2006, 01:10 PM, said:

It's no big deal as far as Germany is concerned anyway. They will be knocked out after the group stage. That will save the rest of us from the boring football Germany has delivered since the 70's.

Did you watch the games?

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Jun 19 2006, 01:15 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 19 2006, 01:10 PM, said:

It's no big deal as far as Germany is concerned anyway. They will be knocked out after the group stage. That will save the rest of us from the boring football Germany has delivered since the 70's.

Did you watch the games?

Both of Germany's so far, but I think I will stop now. It's waste of time really. You need to be a German if you think Germany has a good team, let alone a chance to advance much further. Home advantage is far from being enough.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Jun 19 2006, 01:29 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 19 2006, 01:15 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 19 2006, 01:10 PM, said:

It's no big deal as far as Germany is concerned anyway. They will be knocked out after the group stage. That will save the rest of us from the boring football Germany has delivered since the 70's.

Did you watch the games?

Both of Germany's so far, but I think I will stop now. It's waste of time really. You need to be a German if you think Germany has a good team, let alone a chance to advance much further. Home advantage is far from being enough.

Roland

Dunno about having a good team, but it's better than the one at the last world cup...

[cphastrup]

jdonn, on Jun 19 2006, 12:19 AM, said:

I feel like I have woken up in Bizarro world where the whole world but me has gone mad.

Quote

Yellow cards are the normal call for hard tackles that are late or from behind. Red cards are for elbows to the head, late slide tackles with the spikes up that are intended to injure, things like that. These were just hard, late, bad tackles, completely normal yellow cards.

Welcome to Bizarro world

(Laws of the game, pt. 12)
http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulat...,3527,3,00.html

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. receives a second caution in the same match.

Added:

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

[...]Decision 4
A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play

[jdonn]

I looked up the rule yesterday also. And? It's worded subjectively. What is serious foul play? Taken literally that means the foul doesn't even have to be hard or intentional, just a foul that is 'serious', whatever that means. Likewise for the safety of an opponent. Doesn't any tackle endanger the safety of an opponent since there is inherently a risk that the tackled player could fall, which could lead to broken wrists, faceplants, landing awkwardly on the head, etc?

I was watching the game when the play happened, and I have watched the clip over, and over, and over. For the life of me, it looks like it was snatched directly from an instructional referee video on yellow cards. The tackle was late but not absurdly so and clearly going for the ball (just mistimed), and from a side angle not from directly behind.

And Hannie, as much as I think multiple people here have gone crazy, what you said is the most ridiculous thing I may ever have read. A hard elbow to the head can kill a person! Or far more likely lead to a coma or serious brain damage. That is less bad than a late slide tackle?

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ap-w...ov=ap&type=lgns

[Aberlour10]

Serious Foul Play - FIFA (Law 12)
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in
play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from
the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with
excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty
of serious foul play.

http://www.fifa.com/.../LOTG2006_e.pdf

I think it clarify the whole thing.

Robert

[cherdano]

I don't think there is much point in looking up the rules. The rules are clarified by existing practice, referee training etc etc. And by that standard it's a 100% clear red card if you slide into an opponent with both legs ahead, since there is just no way you will only play the ball without seriously hitting opponent.

In fact this is such an obvious red card that I wouldn't even have US supporters expected to debate that.

[jdonn]

Aberlour10, on Jun 19 2006, 11:48 AM, said:

Serious Foul Play - FIFA (Law 12)
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in
play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from
the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with
excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty
of serious foul play.

http://www.fifa.com/.../LOTG2006_e.pdf

I think it clarify the whole thing.

Robert

It is still defined subjectively, regarding what is excessive force, and what endangering safety is (as in my last post, if you interpret that wording literally then every slide tackle in every game is a red card since they all endanger the safety of the opponent.) I admit it is telling that very few sources I can find seem to agree with me (for example BBC says "His two-footed, reckless lunge on Pirlo was deserving of a red card and left referee Jorge Larrionda with little option.") That particular description seems absurdly dramatic to me. I agree with Cherdano's last post, regarding that it isn't the exact wording of the subjective rule that matters.

I really have read and considered everything people have said, and I really really still think the whole world is bonkers. I just don't see it and don't think excessive force was used, it just seems like a hard mistimed tackle to me, but obviously no one agrees. Thus I see no point in me continuing this argument and I'm done here.

If you all think I'm crazy, you should have been watching the US broadcast of the game. Commentator Marcelo Balboa, a former captain of the US team, was absolutely apoplectic at both calls, swearing the referee should never be allowed to call another world cup match again. Even I can admit that is ridiculous and far too biased

[the saint]

The Italian elbow deserved a red, but I didn't think there was intent behind it. Try jumping without moving your arms to gain leverage and notice the difference.

Personally, I thought that the US first red was a yellow, but then I would only expect that tackle to get a yellow in the Premiership. To get a red, the player would have to be jumping into the tackle, whereas he was only sliding into it.

The second US red was deserved for two yellows.

On the other hand, the US received leniency on several fronts. Onyewu was extremely fortunate not to be booked on several occasions and the Italians had 3 or 4 offsides incorrectly ruled against them that would have left a forward 1 on 1 with the keeper.

I think FIFA have got the refereeing wrong. There should be some physicality to the game. I want to see all the sneaky underhand stuff - diving, shirt-pulling, blocking and holding at set-pieces and feigning injury eliminated. You wouldn't catch an American Footballer or Rugby player staying down after challenges that are orders of magnitude more physical, so why should a footballer? As I write this, the British Ref of the Ukraine-Saudi match has (so far) been easily the best of the tournament, using common sense. The one other thing I would like eliminated is the deliberate obstruction defenders are allowed to get away with when shielding balls out for goal-kicks/throw-ins.

The refs that have annoyed me the most? The Mexican who reffed the England-Paraguay match. Any ref that looks and acts like he wants to be the centre of attention is bad. If you know an official has been there, then he has had a bad game. The good ones do their job efficiently, quietly and correctly so you don't notice them. The other one who annoyed me was the one in charge of Australia-Brazil who was absurdly one-sided. Cafu committed a couple of bookable offences but I think the ref was more interested in getting all their autographs after the match.

[han]

I'd say that you can't find many people outside of the US that agree with you on this issue Josh.

On the elbow vs tackle from behind issue: I've never heard of any soccerplayer getting injured by an elbow. But I know of several soccer players who could never play again after being kicked to the ankles many times. But perhaps you are right, maybe I underestimated the damage an elbow can do.

I have only seen about 8 games so far, but I've seen more offenses that deserved yellow cards then yellow cards that were wrong. I think that the defenders constantly pull the shirts of the strikers. It seems that this is no longer an offense when it happens near the goal or right before a corner. I think that the game would be more attractive to watch if the referees would consistently stop the game for such things.

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Jun 19 2006, 08:01 PM, said:

I don't think there is much point in looking up the rules. The rules are clarified by existing practice, referee training etc etc. And by that standard it's a 100% clear red card if you slide into an opponent with both legs ahead, since there is just no way you will only play the ball without seriously hitting opponent.

In fact this is such an obvious red card that I wouldn't even have US supporters expected to debate that.

I used to play soccer back in high and into college

I only drew 4-5 red cards during my carreer (Most would say that this is too few for a sweeper).
Two were for (essentially) the same play.

If you go and pull this time of *****, you need to expect to draw a red card.
If not, you're gonna start seeing a lot more serious injuries.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Jun 19 2006, 12:49 PM, said:

I'd say that you can't find many people outside of the US that agree with you on this issue Josh.

On the elbow vs tackle from behind issue: I've never heard of any soccerplayer getting injured by an elbow. But I know of several soccer players who could never play again after being kicked to the ankles many times. But perhaps you are right, maybe I underestimated the damage an elbow can do.

http://www.soccerhal...s/Tab_Ramos.htm

Tab Ramos started every match for the United States at the 1994 FIFA World Cup, but suffered a skull fracture against Brazil in the quarterfinals after being caught by elbow from Leonardo.

I was watching that. It was pretty gruesome, though not even intentional I don't think. Leonardo was suspended for the rest of the tournament.

It has already become clear very few agree with me though of course the moment I say I'm done with this argument, a supporter steps forward. I agree with everything said in the saint's post, except for the intent of the Italian player. It's not just that his elbow was up, it's that it was swinging.

[the saint]

Of course, watch footage of the last World Cup held in Germany in 1974, and notice the difference!! That was pure thuggery compared to what goes on these days!

[the saint]

Hannie, on Jun 19 2006, 05:49 PM, said:

On the elbow vs tackle from behind issue: I've never heard of any soccerplayer getting injured by an elbow. But I know of several soccer players who could never play again after being kicked to the ankles many times. But perhaps you are right, maybe I underestimated the damage an elbow can do.

I can think of several instances in the UK game of players suffering broken cheekbones and eye-sockets from swinging elbows. In the 1994 world cup a Spanish player had his nose broken by a deliberate elbow from Italian defender Mauro Tassotti, which was missed by the ref at the time, but he was banned for 8 games when the footage was reviewed later on.

[han]

OK, perhaps my statement that the elbow was not as bad as the tackle was far off, I intented it as somewhat controversial.

But on a different note, did anybody see Spain-Tunesia yesterday? What a beautiful game! Too bad for Tunesia, they played a very nice game and got nothing, but Spain was really great.