Kilmer17

US Soccer thread.

Recommended Posts

Dude. Are you serious right now?

You're talking u.s. sports on a freaking American football message board....and you're complaining that we are bias towards the u.s. get outta here.

I am sure the English message boards are the bastion of unbiased sports fans.

 

I see. 

 

So patriotism before what's actually right or wrong. Here's me thinking members here had more about them. 

 

Thank you for that insightful  logic. 

 

Hail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see.

So patriotism before what's actually right or wrong. Here's me thinking members here had more about them.

Thank you for that insightful logic.

Hail.

You can't be serious right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last note - the only reason Germany was even allowed to play yesterday is a controversial penalty called with about eight minutes to go against France. Germany levels, extra time, wins in shoot-out. If fifa doesn't call that **** we beat France yesterday.

I'm all for criticizing officials. In fact I was hard on them last night. But blaming them for a loss is ridiculous. And trying to play the officiating game is even more ridiculous. Germany got the officiating advantage Friday. The US got the calls yesterday. This is how sports works. People are imperfect by nature and make mistakes.

Edited by ixcuincle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't be serious right now.

 

No dude, you can't. 

 

I would of thought, after seeing the slow-mo replays, the line would of been 'yeah, we should never of had a penalty for the first goal, after being very fortunate to still have 11 men; but hey, that's football and you take it. We deserved it on the overall pattern of play anyways' ...... Not you defend your Country to the hilt regardless just because. 

 

That's some lame ass way of being a fan. And I'm not naive to think that is the majority fan few of someones team in this day and age. 

 

But it's still lame ass. 

 

Hail. 

Edited by Gibbs Hog Heaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's going on, GHH is that you are fixating on these two calls (one which was borderline) and the other a mistake while many other in this thread are looking at those calls and a host of non calls. For example, I think the refs turned a blind eye based on the rules you posted to at least one flagrant foul that should have resulted in a penalty kick. There were some others that were several others I didn't understand as non calls either.

 

So, if we subtract the foul that should have been a free kick and not a penalty kick, but add in the one that was clearly worthy of a penalty kick, but wasn't called.... then to coin a phrase, No harm. They fouled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's going on, GHH is that you are fixating on these two calls (one which was borderline) and the other a mistake while many other in this thread are looking at those calls and a host of non calls. For example, I think the refs turned a blind eye based on the rules you posted to at least one flagrant foul that should have resulted in a penalty kick. There were some others that were several others I didn't understand as non calls either.

 

So, if we subtract the foul that should have been a free kick and not a penalty kick, but add in the one that was clearly worthy of a penalty kick, but wasn't called.... then to coin a phrase, No harm. They fouled.

 

It just always amuses me that 'fan' line of logic up there. 

 

We read it often on this here board when the Redskins have been absolutely abysmal but somehow won, or been the recipients of some very fortuitous officiating. When someone, rightly, brings that up, whilst still being happy the 'Skins won and putting it down to **** happening and being part of the game, they get jumped all over like you have to be 100% behind everything or else your suddenly the enemy. 

 

The 'trolling' line is beyond ridiculous. Even more so when I'm killed saying the US girls thoroughly deserved their win. 

 

I don't get that line of thought at all. Never have. Never will. 

 

Nothing wrong in admitting  it when you get away with something and something goes in your favour. 

 

Hail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I readily admit I like to grouch about the refs when they intentionally and maliciously screw us... which they do all too often.

 

F Mara.

 

Edit: Besides, the way I figure it the Germans have a few centuries worth of Karmic debt to repay yet :silly: :tantrum:

 

(I miss the old smilies... back when they were smilies and not emojis)

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US penalty wasn't in the box but it certainly was a foul.  

 

 

Outside the box and a very debatable foul with no intent to begin with

 

 

 

i'm not a soccer expert, but i was watching with someone who could be considered one. 

 

he said if the contact initiates outside the penalty box but continues into the penalty box, its a penalty kick. the closest thing i could find to support that is this- "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

 

page 15.

 

anyone with anymore insight into this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I recall from the TV was that the continuation is true for holds, but not other fouls. The penalty kick was incorrectly called based on replays. It was darned close though and certainly a foul of some type.

 

Mind you, I probably know less than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. It was close enough to be a foul although in retrospect looking at the camera it wasn't. But you make that call on the field in real time. You can't challenge or overturn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be a soccer ref, that wasn't a foul on Morgan. It was obstruction, which is not a penalty—indirect free kick (inside or outside the box)

 

https://vine.co/search/alex+morgan+penalty

 

A few years ago, there was an "advice to referees" document that said that refs could consider a foul "in the box" if, in the refs opinion, a play at the edge of the penalty area the attackers momentum would have taken her into the box. I don't know if that interpretation is still in effect.

 

Per Law 12

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

• impedes the progress of an opponent

• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

 

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

• jumps at an opponent

• charges an opponent

• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

• pushes an opponent

• tackles an opponent

 

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent

• spits at an opponent

• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steady E, that might constitute 'trolling' in some circles. 

 

*I know, let it go. 

 

Hail. 

Mate, you say "steady" to me again and yer'll be on the first plane back. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the shame is that the discussion has shifted from the the girls controlling the game to discussion about a questionable call. I challenge you to find one game where you can't find a call that was questionable. The real story is the refs did not bail either team out. The team that controlled the game won the game. Was it a foul or wasn't it? Was it a red or wasn't it? Did the ref allow the Germans to play a very physical game? I don't think the refs or luck decided this game. The US were better and they are moving on. Correct me if I am wrong, but no one has scored on the US as of yet. They have been very impressive…I think it's time to move on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be a soccer ref, that wasn't a foul on Morgan. It was obstruction, which is not a penalty—indirect free kick (inside or outside the box)

 

https://vine.co/search/alex+morgan+penalty

 

A few years ago, there was an "advice to referees" document that said that refs could consider a foul "in the box" if, in the refs opinion, a play at the edge of the penalty area the attackers momentum would have taken her into the box. I don't know if that interpretation is still in effect.

 

Per Law 12

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

• impedes the progress of an opponent

• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

 

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

• jumps at an opponent

• charges an opponent

• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

• pushes an opponent

• tackles an opponent

 

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent

• spits at an opponent

• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

I've never seen obstruction called on a player defending the attacker ON the ball.  I've ref'ed too, coached & played a long time, but IMO it was a foul b/c she really just went to clean the player out without making a play on the ball.  "Ball or player can get by, but not both" defending technique.  IMHO, I would say she was guilty of either charging or jumping at a player from your list above. 

 

And this is from someone who doesn't like Morgan.  :)

 

Could care less about "bad call, didn't deserve, etc", as there were other calls that could have been made and weren't.  In the end, better team won, and calls balanced out.  Johnston's got to freaking head that back to Hope though....routine play.  Her and Brian however are two really good young players that have stood out to me this WC.

 

Good game that was fun to watch.

BTW... was I the only one who said WTF when Abby went in?  Worked out, but that really surprised me given her immobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen obstruction called on a player defending the attacker ON the ball.  I've ref'ed too, coached & played a long time, but IMO it was a foul b/c she really just went to clean the player out without making a play on the ball.  "Ball or player can get by, but not both" defending technique.  IMHO, I would say she was guilty of either charging or jumping at a player from your list above. 

 

 

 

i think this view, and the fact that the contact was initiated just outside the box, but carried into the box, as El alluded to, is what the refs would probably cite as the reason for the call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2c ... could have been a red against the US defender on the German penalty. Sometimes they are given for that, sometimes not.

 

The foul on the US attacker was outside the box so no PK, but to me it looked like the German defender intentionally moved into the path of the attacker. I was OK with the yellow card for that challlenge. No attempt to play the ball. For it to be impeding I thought the attacker can't be able to retain possession, which I think she would have without the challenge. Impeding might have applied if the movement of the fouling German defender intentionally blocked the attacker but the ball was in someone else's possession. I know I haven't articulated that quite right but hoepfully you get the intent.

Edited by Corcaigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of the fundamentals of 1v1 defending. An attacker will try to push the ball past you. Once he/she pushes that ball past, you pivot and separate attacker from the ball. When you're team defending your teammate will pick up the ball. The key is that it must remain in playing distance of the defender. The ball or the player can go past you, not both. 

 

If you watch that vine video, it also looks like Morgan leaves her/jumps into the defender to initiate contact. 

 

I don't see it as the defender trying to clean out Morgan Sean Taylor style. It's just a matter of opinion.


My 2c ... could have been a red against the US defender on the German penalty. Sometimes they are given for that, sometimes not.

 

The foul on the US attacker was outside the box so no PK, but to me it looked like the German defender intentionally moved into the path of the attacker. I was OK with the yellow card for that challlenge. No attempt to play the ball. For it to be impeding I thought the attacker can't be able to retain possession, which I think she would have without the challenge. Impeding might have applied if the movement of the fouling German defender intentionally blocked the attacker but the ball was in someone else's possession. I know I haven't articulated that quite right but hoepfully you get the intent.

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2015/6/30/8874205/usa-germany-score-update-2015-world-cup-celia-sasic

 

In this replay, I think a red would've been harsh. There's not much to it. I don't think Fraulein would've gotten to the ball in a meaningful way. But in real time, it looked like a horse collar. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But just to comment on the game as a whole, I'm super critical of US teams because they play like ****. But last night, after the initial German assault, there was some fantastic short, triangle passing build-up. It was probably the best I've seen an American team (mens or womens) play a passing game. And they sustained it for the whole game. Then when they needed to close out the game—they went into a shell. It was a very mature and saavy way to play the game.

 

Germany pressed high early and I thought that was great but the US was able to work out of it. Props to them for that. After the first ten minutes, the Germans didn't really have any/many serious attacking chances. 

 

To chalk the game up to two calls and penalties, takes something away from the really nice game the US women played. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the call against the US in the box was correct.  She pulled on her shoulder, got the yellow and Germany got the free kick...

 

And blew it. 

 

Should not have been a red.  There was nothing malicious or dangerous.

 

I also think that speculating that the US might have lost "if" a red card was given is ridiculous.  Many teams have played with 10.  The way our defense has been, I think it ends up PKs at worst. But you can't speculate what would have happened.

 

Hell, someone just mentioned DC United lost 2-1 when they were a "man up." 

 

The game happened the way it did and the besides the 2 calls, the US women contolled play throughout and had FAR more scoring chances.  They deserved to win. It wasn't "Luck" which is the only problem I'm having with the way the rest of the world percieves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

The game happened the way it did and the besides the 2 calls, the US women contolled play throughout and had FAR more scoring chances.  They deserved to win. It wasn't "Luck" which is the only problem I'm having with the way the rest of the world percieves it.

 

Don't know why they'd be saying that. Certainly not how it's being reported in England FWIW. 

 

Hail. 

Edited by Gibbs Hog Heaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But just to comment on the game as a whole, I'm super critical of US teams because they play like ****.

 

This cracks me up.  Have you been stuck under a rock the last 4 years? Are you stuck with 2010 Bob Bradley soccer?

 

Please elaborate on why exactly you think US soccer "plays like ****".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This cracks me up.  Have you been stuck under a rock the last 4 years? Are you stuck with 2010 Bob Bradley soccer?

 

Please elaborate on why exactly you think US soccer "plays like ****".

Actually I kind of agree with the assessment.  US soccer has struggled to have creative, technical players that can work the ball out of the back, through the midfield and challenge teams back line without playing direct.  One of the weaknesses of USWNT has been, IMO, that when Abby was playing they looked to just launch balls towards her and hope she wins it.  But...this tournament they have been much more dynamic, better touches & possession and some very nice runs off the ball.  Doesn't hurt that Johnston has played solidly in the back line and can also look like a CM with the ball at her feet as well. 

 

Men's team has made strides, but don't think they have enough pieces in starting 11 to play fast-paced 1&2 touch possession soccer the length/width of the field.

 

Edit:  Actually I don't think they play like **** necessarily, just not the kind of soccer they need to play to win WC (for women) and for the men how they need to advance another round.  The women this year have a chance if they play like they did last night.

Edited by pointyfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I kind of agree with the assessment.  US soccer has struggled to have creative, technical players that can work the ball out of the back, through the midfield and challenge teams back line without playing direct.  One of the weaknesses of USWNT has been, IMO, that when Abby was playing they looked to just launch balls towards her and hope she wins it.  But...this tournament they have been much more dynamic, better touches & possession and some very nice runs off the ball.  Doesn't hurt that Johnston has played solidly in the back line and can also look like a CM with the ball at her feet as well. 

 

Men's team has made strides, but don't think they have enough pieces in starting 11 to play fast-paced 1&2 touch possession soccer the length/width of the field.

 

Edit:  Actually I don't think they play like **** necessarily, just not the kind of soccer they need to play to win WC (for women) and for the men how they need to advance another round.  The women this year have a chance if they play like they did last night.

I was thinking mainly for men. But as for the women, I think without Wambach in the lineup, like you said, they are a lot less predictable. In the first game when she started, the US had the mentality to just kick the ball over the top, and hope that Abby would be able to control and hold up, or flick on to another team. This is actually very similar to how the US men use to play under Bob Bradley. Kick it up top to Altidore, hope he is able to settle and maintain possession until teammates are able to support.

 

But the US team under Klinnsman has been completely different. You don't have to look past the last friendly that we had against Germany. During the second half, we controlled possession, and mainly dictated the pace of play. Even going back to their goal in the first half, it consisted of a 30 pass build up that culminated in a fantastic over the top through ball from Bradley.

 

I use to be critical about how the US use to play in the past, because it did seem to consist of very high school like kick and run style. But to imply that the team has not improved in the team aspect over the last four years with Klinnsman is naïve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.