Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Jun '10 15:59
    Dempsey puts the ball in the net? No goal

    Dempsey gets elbowed and bloodied in the box by a guy playing with a yellow? No foul

    Still the US finds a way.

    Better luck next time, refs.

    Oh, and suck it, haters.
  2. 23 Jun '10 16:01
    Originally posted by sh76
    Dempsey puts the ball in the net? No goal

    Dempsey gets elbowed and bloodied in the box by a guy playing with a yellow? No foul

    Still the US finds a way.

    Better luck next time, refs.

    Oh, and suck it, haters.
    What an exciting finish! I guess you have to make your own luck.
  3. Standard member Red Night
    RHP Prophet
    23 Jun '10 16:04
    obviously, the fix was on, what a scandal this will be.

    but even crooked refs couldn't keep the best team from winning the group
  4. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    23 Jun '10 16:17
    Dempsey was offside...
  5. Standard member Red Night
    RHP Prophet
    23 Jun '10 16:27
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Dempsey was offside...
    he was sort of close to being off side, if that guy hadn't been there behind him he would have been for sure
  6. 23 Jun '10 18:32
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Dempsey was offside...
    the broadcast I was watching drew a line that showed that Dempsey was clearly even with the defender at the moment the ball was being struck.
  7. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    23 Jun '10 21:08
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    the broadcast I was watching drew a line that showed that Dempsey was clearly even with the defender at the moment the ball was being struck.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb0YeJpPZxE

    Offside seen by his knee ahead of the line. Note that the arms do not count, so the Algerian defender's closest part to the goal line is his foot.

    But we're really splitting hairs here, aren't we?
  8. 23 Jun '10 21:11
    it was a 50/50 call.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Jun '10 22:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb0YeJpPZxE

    Offside seen by his knee ahead of the line. Note that the arms do not count, so the Algerian defender's closest part to the goal line is his foot.

    But we're really splitting hairs here, aren't we?
    If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).

    If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
  10. 23 Jun '10 22:49
    Originally posted by sh76
    If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).

    If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
    The problem with making an offside call is that an onside player can seem to be way offside because he gets a great jump on his defender after the ball has been hit. I'd be very surprised if the refs don't make mistakes very often on these types of calls.

    That's what happened on the Dempsey play. When I saw it live, I thought for sure that he was CLEARLY offside -- but the video showed that when the ball was hit, Dempsey was indeed even with the defender (at least even enough for it to be a 50-50 call).
  11. 23 Jun '10 22:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).

    If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
    Rules are rules. If it disqualifies a goal then it's the player's fault for committing the infraction and not the fault of the ref for calling it.

    Calls do sometimes end up deciding the result of a match but that shouldn't prevent the ref from calling the foul.
  12. 24 Jun '10 01:26
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Dempsey was offside...
    That was not offside at all. Replay it slo-mo and freeze frame it. No way it was offside.
  13. 24 Jun '10 01:29
    Originally posted by sh76
    If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).

    If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
    The rule states offense should get the benefit of the doubt. Why is this never applied? Dempsey was not offside, but should have gotten benefit of the doubt.
  14. 24 Jun '10 04:00
    I would say USA 1 Refs 1.

    The refs did change the outcome of one of the US's games.
  15. 24 Jun '10 10:23
    New Zealand knows how you feel USA