World Cup 2010 is over (spoilers)

[beagledave]

I can't believe that no one has mentioned the worst part of the Dutch loss.

No BJs from Dutch pr0n stars!

http://twitter.com/BobbiEden/status/17881022874

[davester]

(vikm) wrote:
Yeah, it was a perfectly called game. Oh, I mean except for that one call. Oh, and that other call and... Everyone above that noted one of what they interpreted as a bad/wrong or even gray area call must not know what they are talking about (I assume that includes the announcers MAVIC mentioned).

There's no such thing as a perfectly called game, and so long as the calls aren't so imperfect that they change the outcome to rob a superior team of victory then it doesn't matter. Soccer is too fast a sport to have perfect calls, and intervention of technology would destroy the flow of the game, with the possible exception of review of goals for line errors and offsides. Millions of soccer fans accept that this is the way it is. To win at soccer you need to be a clearly superior team. If you are not clearly superior then lady luck may intervene (in the form of bad calls, an own goal, etc) to reward a slightly poorer team with the win. C'est la vie. All the moaning about bad officiating is a bunch of noise from people who for the most part seem to know little to nothing about soccer.

As far as bad/wrong/grey calls mentioned above, only one of them was an error and was not a match-costing one. The rest of the calls were judgement decisions of the ref. I think the ref played as perfect a match as can be.

As far as the announcers MAVIC mentioned who said Iniesta's goal was offsides, I want some of what they were smoking. The rest of the soccer world disagrees with them and the replays show that he is onside by at least a couple of feet. It wasn't even a close call.

[Grace62]

davester wrote:
All the moaning about bad officiating is a bunch of noise from people who for the most part seem to know little to nothing about soccer.

And quite a bit from the losing teams and their fans. There's no better salve for a loss than "the referee liked the other team better."

The head of officiating is claiming that the tournament's officiating was 96% accurate, after a review of the first 62 matches. Granted, he is Spanish...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/s...ys?cc=5901&ver=us

[M A V I C]

davester wrote: All the moaning about bad officiating is a bunch of noise from people who for the most part seem to know little to nothing about soccer.

Considering I am one of the people who have mentioned that officiating in soccer is bad, it's easy for me to see how incredibly false your statement is. You don't even know anything about my experience with the game. Aside from that, all I have to do is find one person who knows the game who says officiating has problems, and it debunks your statement. That's what you get when trying to use rash generalizations to prove a point.

As it is, all you've been able to do is result to personal attacks.

[Spock]

M A V I C wrote:
You don't even know anything about my experience with the game.

At what level do/did you play the game?

[Billybob]

(vikm) wrote:

I thought the guy was offside (barely) as well but to hear the commentators on ABC, he was declared "clearly" onside. Yeah, it was obvious 8-)

I wasn't sure either, so I went to the rule book to refresh my understanding of the offside's rule.

The rule is actually straightforward: at the time the ball is kicked/passed to the offensive player, there needs to be at least two defenders (usually one is the goaltender) between him and the opposing goal box. How this rule works in practice, draw an imaginary line parallel to the goal through the second defender. The offensive player receiving the ball must not be ahead of this line at the time his teammate initiates the pass.

Looking at replays of the Spanish goal, at the time the ball was kicked to Iniesco, he was easily 4-6 feet away from this line (on the "onsides" side). However, when he received the pass, he may have been 2-3 feet ahead of the penultimate defender. That's okay. Offsides is determined at the initiation of the pass not the reception.

Note too, it's theoretically possible for a striker to be offsides (at the initiation of the pass) but appear to be onsides when he receives the ball. This player should be called offsides, but to the casual fan, it could look like a blatantly blown call.

So, the goal was legit, and the ref made a good call.

[Mac1337]

Never quite knew what offside was. Until now. Thanks.

[davester]

Exactly Billybob. It had not occurred to me that people would be arguing about offsides calls without understanding the offside rule. When playing striker, one of the best feelings in the world is when I time my run so that I am at full speed running through the offside line at exactly the moment the ball is kicked. With inertia this puts me a long ways past the defenders when I receive the ball and then all I have to do is not choke and win the one-on-one with the goalie. Many goals are scored this way, as it is the only possible way to get into a one-on-one.

[Mac1337]

Interesting in that Wiki says different,

"Note that this does not necessarily mean he is committing an offside offence; it only becomes an offence when he receives control of the ball while still in the offside position"

[Grace62]

I wonder if people watching the game got confused because right after Spain's goal, the Dutch players started complaining to Howard Webb that there should have been an offside call. Coming from them, after the way they behaved during the match, this is not unexpected. The announcer I was listening to mentioned that, and then immediately said "no way."

I agree that it's a confusing rule and for newbies to the sport it would take a while to figure out. But I would be really surprised if anyone hired to announce soccer's biggest match made that type of mistake.