The Goal That Wasn’t
Posted: June 18th, 2010 | Filed under: Baseball | 190 Comments »
This is going to be about U.S.-Slovenia … but let’s start with baseball for a moment. I know a woman who grew up in England and came to live in America 20 or so years ago. She was fascinated by this “baseball” thing she heard her friends talking about. She was not an especially big sports fan at the time, but she wanted to experience all that our great land has to offer, and so of course she wanted to see baseball and see why people seemed to like it so much.
She had moved to Texas, so she went to Arlington Stadium on a nice May day. She tried to take it all in. The grass was lovely. The fans were loud. The place smelled of popcorn and beer. The rules were confusing to her, but her friends told her to not worry so much about the rules. The pitcher throws the ball. The batter tries to hit it. The fielders try to catch it. Just take in the whole experience. So, that’s what she tried to do. And, they told her, keep watching the guy on the mound because he’s one of the greatest pitchers to ever play the game.
“But he looks so old,” she said.
He was old — 44 at the time. Still, she watched him. He did seem to throw the ball hard. And, as the game went along, she noticed this excitement building up. Her friends tried to explain after four innings, five innings, that the man on the mound had not given up a hit. They tried to explain to her that if he kept it going, it would be called a “no-hitter,” and this was a rare thing.
The no-hitter went six innings, then seven, and still the pitcher did not give up a hit, and her friends now tried to explain the history of the moment. A no-hitter is special enough but this was even more special because that pitcher had already thrown SIX no-hitters — more than any pitcher ever. In the eighth inning, with the crowd in a frenzy, the pitcher struck out the last two batters to keep the no-hitter going. My friend was enthralled.
As he walked to the mound in the ninth, the crowd was on the edge of lunacy, and she realized that she was in the middle of a great American moment. The pitcher was Nolan Ryan, of course. The date was May 1, 1991. And my friend’s first baseball game turned out to be Ryan’s seventh no-hitter. She was not entirely sure what she saw that day — and certainly did not fully absorb the enormity of the sports moment. But she has been a baseball fan ever since.
I thought about her Friday morning as I watched the United States soccer team put together one of the most remarkable comebacks in the history of the World Cup. I thought about her and all those people in America who were watching world class soccer more or less for the first time.
And I was thinking just what an overmatched referee named Koman Coulibaly cost us all.
Understand: This was Nolan Ryan’s seventh no-hitter. This was Jerry West’s 60-foot shot. This was Montana to Clark in the end zone. This was Bobby Orr’s flying goal. This was the young Tiger Woods at Augusta. This was all those things multiplied several times because this was happening on the giant stage, in the world’s biggest sporting event. A team does not come back from a 2-0 halftime deficit to win in the World Cup. It doesn’t happen. It had NEVER happened. In soccer at the World Cup level — with its impossible mix of passion and fury and consequence and vuvuzelas — each goal is a minor miracle. Two goals is something like insurmountable, especially when a team has shut you out for an entire half.
Slovenia dominated a shaken U.S. team for an entire half. The American players looked tentative … frightened even. It was hard for a half to believe that America was the favorite coming in. In basketball, coaches talk a lot about those 50-50 balls — the loose balls or rebounds that could go to either team. These 50-50 balls are at the core of soccer, at the heart of winning. And Slovenia was getting to all of them.
Then came the second half … and a Landon Donovan goal for the ages. He dribbled toward the net a sharp angle and when got close he rifled a shot at about a 75-degree angle — not quite straight up, but close enough. The ball smacked into the top of the net — the first clean American goal of the World Cup. And that was the goal that changed the complexion of the match. The U.S. intensity level jumped up even higher. Of course, intensity does not make goals — world class goals still need a combination of timing and skill and luck and something wordless. But the U.S. team just kept playing at this spectacular level. It would take another 34 minutes of that before Michael Bradley, the coach’s son, would race in to the box after Jozy Altidore’s header and deflect the ball into net for what soccer fans like to call “the equalizer.” I tend to think we should try to fit “the equalizer” into our baseball lexicon as well — it’s just better than “tying run.”
Getting the tie was something close to miraculous. But, of course, you know by now that this should not have ended in a tie. Because four minutes later, Donovan’s free kick was cracked into the goal by teammate Maurice Edu, a beautiful play that should have given the United States a 3-2 lead … and, surely, a 3-2 victory. This comeback would have been the greatest achievement in American soccer since America’s famous 1950 victory over England. And, in many ways, it would have been even better because, frankly, there was a whole lot of fluke in the 1950 victory. That was a generally weak team (the U.S. would be outscored 8-3 in their final two games) playing way over its head for one day.
There was no fluke in this comeback. The United States team, facing all those sports death cliches — back against the wall, everything to lose, on the brink, all of them — played a magnificent half of soccer and had done something transcendent. Yes, this was Nolan Ryan’s seventh no hitter … you didn’t have to know soccer, appreciate soccer, understand soccer or even like soccer to be in the moment.
Only the winning goal was disallowed by Koman Coulibaly. And nobody knew why. Nobody. They showed the replay on television again and again … there was clearly no offside on the play. There was no foul — and if there was any foul it had to be on Slovenia. There was nothing to call. There was nothing but a brilliant goal. But the brilliant goal was disallowed anyway. Donovan would say after the game that the players asked Coulibaly for the simplest thing: Just tell them the call. Just tell they WHY he had disallowed the goal. Donovan would say that Coulibaly refused.
When you are watching a sport you don’t often watch, things happen that you don’t quite understand. Why didn’t that play count? Oh, the offensive lineman was holding. Why was that basket disallowed? Oh, that guy was standing in the lane for three seconds. Why was that home run taken away? Oh, the umpire said it went foul. This happens in every sport.
But what made Coulibali’s Call-of-Folly so maddening is that even soccer experts could not tell us why it happened. Even an honest bad call — even Jim Joyce’s imperfect game call, for instance — is something digestible. He thought the guy was safe. OK. But this … what did he see? What mistake was made? Can a referee simply disallow a goal for fuzzy reasons only he seems to know?
The world has grown used to the foggy quirks of soccer — extra time, diving, stretchers for players who immediately run back out on the pitch, calls made without explanation. But most of us are not used to these things. And, for so many, this was a lousy introduction to the fog.
In the end, the draw gives the United States an excellent chance of advancing to the knockout round. If the U.S. beats Algeria, it probably will move on. But a victory would have given the U.S. an excellent chance to win the group. And a victory would have given a lot of people all across the country a moment to remember … and a story to tell when people asked, “So, when did you become a soccer fan?”
Instead, it will baffle a lot of people who wanted something to remember. And it will give a lot of people who didn’t like soccer in the first place a chance to say: “What the heck was that?”
Loading ...
First?
Circle me, Jim Joyce’s long-lost half-brother!
Mr. Coulibaly,
Vince McMahon is on the phone for you,
It’s amazing how that call took me (and I’m guessing others) from being THRILLED about pulling out a tie, to being DEVASTATED that we were “stuck” with a tie. The worst call in a game full of iffy ones.
As an American who sort of lived this 12 years ago, when Dennis Bergkamp’s glorious goal against Argentina turned me into a football fan, I think you capture it brilliantly. Had that goal been disallowed, it would have given me a disillusionment that probably would have turned me away from the game. Which would be unfortunate, as I probably now live and die with Arsenal FC more than I do any of the American sports teams I grew up following.
The long and short is that the call was a disgrace, by a man overmatched by the moment, a match neutrals have called the best of this World Cup so far. The real misfortune will be if the US fail to qualify for the 2nd round, which is a real possibility – this match took a lot out of them, and they’ll probably need at least a 2-0 to qualify, and keeping clean sheets has not proven to be their forte.
Just a true disgrace.
a travesty
Love this post (as a big Rangers AND soccer fan), but Nolan never pitched at The Ballpark in Arlington. He retired after the 1993 season, and the Ballpark opened in 1994. The no-hitter was at Arlington Stadium (a real piece if I say so myself).
Were there many non-soccer fans watching the game? I mean, it happened at like 10am on a weekday..
Just want to reiterate how great those strikes by Donovan and Bradley were. It would have been so easy for either of them to put those shots over the bar…it was just excellent precision finishing in must-score situations.
Can’t get over the referee though. The only sort-of consolation I can think of is “well, the defense allowed two goals, so the U.S. didn’t deserve to win anyway.” The funny thing is the range of emotion throughout the match. I think the order went something like frustration, are-you-kidding-me-we’re-screwed, hope, exhilaration, ultimate exhilaration, denial, subdued brooding.
As someone mentioned on Twitter earlier: At least Jim Joyce admitted he was wrong, I get the feeling this guy won’t.
Great article, as usual, Joe!
However, I want to draw your attention to the use of “enormity.” Yes, through popular usage, it has come to mean a vastness or large scale. However, the word’s more traditional meaning is outrageousnesss or wickedness (e.g. the enormity of the BP oil spill.)
Words take on the meanings that we give them when we use them. And, Joe, you use them so well. Enormity is just one of those words. It’s not a big deal, really. Just saying…
Great story. Wonderfully written.
Still beside myself as both a player and a fan of the incredible work by our boys. In my heart the score is 3-2 America.
So if I understand this correctly, the US now must beat Algeria to have any chance of getting to the second round. If the US beats Algeria, they would be 1-0-2, with 5 points. The worst Slovenia can get is 4 points, same with England (assuming England beats Algeria).
Again, if I understand it correctly, if the US wins, and EITHER England or Slovenia wins, the US is into the second round. If there’s a England/Slovenia tie, it goes to goal differential.
The referee was rubbish, he wasn’t in the right place to even make that decision, he handed out yellow cards like confetti for incidents that wouldn’t even have been called in the Premier League.
Ireland were denied the right to play in the World Cup because a French player (Thierry Henry) pushed the ball in the net with his hand, to win a vital qualifier, and he openly admitted that he did so and nothing happened.
In the opening game Mexico had a perfectly good goal disallowed for offside and the whole bleeping world could see the South African standing on the line playing EVERYBODY onside. That error was so blatant that FIFA originally didn’t even mention it in the match report on their website, but later did re-write the report to mention the howler but didn’t call it an error.
Footie can never have video assistance, they might increase the number of officials watching the game but over the decades there have been human errors made by referees that have “stolen” games from deserving teams.
In the old days when I stood on the terraces of freezing cold Northern England watching 2nd division Carlisle United, the refs were old men, over weight and as belligerent as a cop discovering he’d left his gun at home. He couldn’t keep up with the game and made decisions on infringements (love that ESPN word) 30 yards away.
So, The governing bodies made referees pass stringent physical tests along with rule book exams so they could keep up with the action. They still must get sweat in their eyes or the yellow card gets stuck to the thumb…etc but not as often as they did before.
The open fact here is that The US conceded 2 goals, you want to win? Don’t do that…. Best game so far though!
FIFA said it was a call on Edu, but damn if I saw ANYTHING he did that resembled a foul.
Nice analogy Joe and good article.
Nothing much to say other than I am incredibly disappointed that the goal was disallowed.
I appreciate soccer a lot, but am not a big fan if that makes any sense. The officiating today and some of the things you mentioned above are reasons why soccer doesn’t become a bigger part of my life, and I suspect many other Americans.
“as I watched the United States soccer team put together one of the most remarkable comebacks in the history of the World Cup”
come on, it is a match in the group phase. It probably won’t be one of the best comebacks in this world cup alone.
However, this debacle illustrates a big problem with the world cup: They try to bring refs from every continent, and some of them are simply subpar. The spanish press still brings up regularly the ref from the Spain – South Korea 2002. It is incredible that the FIFA refuses to fix anything. They give the word ‘incompetence’ a new meaning.
[...] [...]
Awesome. I work in an office full of sports nuts where we have about two people that follow soccer. EVERYONE was watching today, and the floor was going crazy during the second half. For 45 minutes, everything stopped. I have never been a soccer fan, but I am thisclose to becoming one, in large part because of today’s second half. Now I understand why some of my friends love it so much. And I think they now also understand why I haven’t been able to get it yet.
[...] [...]
#13 has it right. Even more specifically, a 2-goal victory (or better) over Algeria guarantees advancement. And a high-scoring 1-goal victory will probably work as well.
Prize winning analysis! Thank you.
I hope everyone in america reads this.
At least part of the moral of the story is: don’t fall behind 2-0 to Slovenia.
Patrick @ 5: The US does not necessarily need a 2-0 to get through. Not by any means. If England beats Slovenia, then any win by the US will give them 5 points to Slovenia’s 4, and they will be through. If Slovenia beats England, then any win by the US will give them more points than England and they will be through.
The only circumstance in which the goal differential vs. Algeria will matter is if England beats Algeria this afternoon and England and Slovenia draw. If that happens then the US would need a 2 goal margin against Algeria to advance over Slovenia on goal differential.
The announcers were incredulous in the first half over the call that gave finley a yellow card and suspends him for the next game. FIFA must use the same formula to decide World Cup refs as baseball uses to decide playoff umps.
Wow Joe. I am normally a great admirer of your columns, but this one is very inaccurate. Getting a tie after a 2-0 lead in football (as it should be called) is not historic by any means. There are many “miracles” and great matches in football history , and this one will not be considered historic by any measure. Sorry to be so blunt, but a first round game in the world cup is never — almost by definition — a historic event. And you never… never… never… should compare getting a draw against Slovenia — a fourth rate football country — with the other events you described (Nolan ryan´s seventh no-hitter, etc.). A more fit comparison would be comparing it to defeating the current LA Clippers in overtime after being down 12 points at the beginning of the fourth quarter…
I got to hear it on the radio in the car, in the midst of a combination of static (low-powered AM station several counties away) and vuvuzela buzz that barely allowed me to hear the call of the goal and of it being disallowed. Though I did hear enough to catch Tommy Smith’s disgust (and when the Leprechaun himself gets disgusted, you know it is an awful call).
I’m reading ESPN’s “World Cup Companion” book right now, and one thing that is mentioned a few times is how a particularly bad call or poorly-officiated game can destroy the career and even the life of a referee. We talk about Don Denkinger and how he still is known 25 years later for a single awful call, but he still umpired for years afterwards, including more big games I’m sure. The referee from this game may never even official a Malian Première Division match again.
It could be argued that when you fail that egregiously, and act in such a way to make it sound like a dishonest call, you deserve it. But we likely just saw a career end today.
Don’t expect any replies from FIFA either, they prefer to keep their heads buried uhhh, in the sand.
@14: The offside call in the Mexico-South Africa game was correct. To be in an on-side position, there must be two defenders (including the keeper) between the offensive player and the end line when the ball is played. When the ball was played, the keeper had come off his line, past the last offensive player, leaving only the one South African defender between the offensive player and the end line. Thus, the correct offside call.
@Gabe #25
No team has ever won a World Cup match after coming back from 2-0. That is what is being reported.
So a victory would have been historic, especially for a United States team.
The point of the article is that history was robbed, and a game that could have converted fans to soccer may not have that kind of weight anymore.
I agree, the call was a mistake — flat out. An overmatched ref just blew it. What makes me able to accept (in a karmic sense) is that I really felt the US did not, in the first place, deserve the free kick that led to the controversial play. I thought it was quite the flop — and I can’t stand flopping! So, in my mind, the tie is just and can be celebrated as an amazing accomplishment without the feeling of being cheated out of something.
@17
I understand that its still just the group stage, but Joe did mention that this had never happened before in a World Cup game, coming back from 2-0 at half, so I would say that justifies calling it an incredible comeback.
Having not seen the key excerpt from the US-Slovenia soccer match, I can’t comment on it.
But with respect to the Jim Joyce thing: did Joyce ever say he thought the runner beat the throw, or that the pitcher missed the bag?
What I think is that Joyce saw Galarraga catch the ball at the end of his glove, like a snow cone. And though Galarraga seems to have had full control of the ball out there at the end of his glove, it’s a whole lot easier to make the “out” call if the ball has disappeared into the pocket of the fielder’s glove and you can’t see it. Galarraga may have held the ball firmly as Jason Donald crossed first base, but maybe that was apparent to Joyce only when he watched a replay.
Ok, I’ll say it if no one else will: What the heck was that? Now, I’m the son of a Brazilian and lived in Spain for 6 months so I have developed an appreciation for soccer/football. However, just as Joe points out, this is the reason I’m not a fan. Understandably, I’m drawn to sports with little room for subjectivity – swimming, track, etc. – but if you can’t even require your refs to give a reasoning for a call, you don’t have a sport. You simply have a form of entertainment with loose guidelines… like improv shows. Terrible.
Patrick, a win will almost certainly see us through to the next round.
We are on two points, and let’s assume that England wins here in a bit so both England and Slovenia have four.
If we win, we will be on five points. If either team wins the England – Slovenia match we advance. If it finishes a three way tie on five points, we are in a pretty good position. We know that Slovenia’s goal differential would be +1. So any two-goal win sees us through. The next tie-breaker is total goals scored, so again Slovenia’s win is the worst possible win (1-0).
And, obviously, if England doesn’t win today, the situation is more favorable for us.
The bad call hurt us today. A win today meant a draw against Algeria would have seen us through, and now we need the win. But if we win, we are almost sure to advance.
“… and a story to tell when people asked, ‘So, when did you become a soccer fan?’”
________
And now it’s a story to tell when people ask, “So, why do you hate soccer so much?”
I’m shocked, SHOCKED that in an international sporting event was decided by inexplicable officiating.
[...] think Joe was politely implying the horrible ref job on the US’s last goal – the one was waved off without explanation [...]
Bud Selig HAS to step in and overturn this call. I don’t know why David Stern even assigned that ref to this game in the first place.
@steven in 14
Just to clear up the offsides rule, the call in the Mexico/South Africa game was correct. Under the rule there must be two players from the opposing team between the player and the end line for the player to be onsides. It is never stated like this because one of the opposing players is always the keeper so people only pay attention to the second player. In the Mexico match the keeper had come out so there was only one player between the goal scorer and the end lind, thus he was in fact offsides.
Dear Soccer,
Please go away.
Thanks DJ for your reply. Not only overcoming a 2-0 happened, but it happened in a World Cup Final (1954). Hungary was the best team in that world cup and was defeating Germany 2-0 in the first 8 minutes of the game, only to lose 2-3. It was the first world cup that Germany (then West Germany) won. And that´s the only example that comes to my mind now… I´m sure there are others. Best, Gabe
Congrats to the U.S. for their clutch performance to come up with an exhilarating, epic TIE!
What a stupid, silly sport this is. I can’t wait til its over.
Steven #14 – Your last question:
“The open fact here is that The US conceded 2 goals, you want to win?”
Answer: YES. Conceding two goals is irrelevant when you legally score THREE. The referee cost us this game, regardless of the two Slovenia goals.
As a die hard Celtic fan who lives in Los Angeles I just want to thank the World Cup scheduling Gods for the USA – Slovenia game this morning. Kobe’s ascension to Basketball Heaven and the workers anxious to build his 100 ft golden statue will have to wait a minute.
I just watched the NBA playoffs. I don’t need another sport in my life where incompetent refs decide the outcome of games by making baffling calls.
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l47wz7rVVJ1qzhojho1_500.jpg
Multiple Slovenes with Americans in full-on bear hugs. Egregious.
#14 (Steven): you’re wrong about the offside in the Mexico vs South Africa game. For a goal to be not anulated, there should be TWO players (usually the goalkeeper is one of them) in front of the player who gets the pass. In that play there was only one player.
Joe, I agree completely with #25 remarks. You’re totally wrong about the relevance of what USA did. It should instead be compared with the Mariners winning some April game in the 9th against the Royals scoring 5 runs in that 9th inning.
DJ, if that was an honest mistake, then I’d hate to see the ref’s career upended.
But it was so flagrantly absurd that you have to wonder about Tim Donaghy/Black Sox-type stuff.
Seriously.
I’m an American soccer fan (I know, I know), and I feel like I’ve been punched in the gut. This is the third straight World Cup we’ve had an absolutely terrible call go against us, which likely decided the game. I feel snakebit.
In 2002, the ref missed a handball on the goalline by a German defender. I was mad, but thrilled we made the quarters, so I was okay with it.
In 2006, we had a questionable red card force us to play with 10 men against Italy. then the ref disallowed a US goal on a borderline call. But, borderline calls are part of sports, and we got the draw. Besides, we didn’t really deserve to advance anyway, so I rationalized away the anger over the call.
But this one… THIS ONE gets me angry. It wasn’t just a borderline call we didn’t get, it was a complete phantom call. And it’s the third straight Cup we’ve gotten miserable officiating luck (yes, luck… I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or anything).
I’m reading these British soccer blogs and the overwhelming sentiment is… “welcome to international football, bad calls happen”. Well yes, but for those of us who have followed the US team for decades… we’re still waiting for that lousy call that gives us a goal. The straight Cups where we’ve gotten the short end of the officiating stick. If we cared about soccer, we’d invade Mali.
@Gage-
The US is 14.
FIFA world ranking for Slovenia is #25. I would think LA Clippers comparison would put them #50-#75.
Gabe @ 41: What is being reported is that nobody has ever come back from 2-0 at the HALF to win in the World Cup.
#47: Maybe to most of the world and well-established soccer fans, but not to most Americans who are just starting to get into the game (like myself).
If a perfect game in May against a non-rival with a terrible offense can be an historic event, so can a 2-0 comeback in a WC.
Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » The Goal That Wasn't…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
Have to say I like “equalizer” in soccer more than I think I’d like it in baseball. Mostly this is because an equalizer isn’t that common a thing. Most soccer games see the first team that scores not relinquish the lead, so a tying goal is a special event. Meanwhile, a single baseball game can be re-tied several times. I feel like it would water down the power of the term “equalizer”…which is an awesome term.
@51 Bill: Halftime is no benchmark for anything in football. It could have been if it was losing 2-0 in the last minute and it then achieved the tie (see Manchester United winning the European Champion League when it was down 1-0 and scored both the tie and the winning goal in injury time).
@50 Jeff: I understand what you say, but nobody really pays attention to FIFA rankings. It has the same value as any “power ranking” you can see anywhere. I believe this is the first time that Slovenia — a beautiful country by the way — qualifies for a world cup and they only have an independent football federation after the break up of Yugoslavia. No football tradition whatsoever.
My point is not to say that it was not a great match by the US — a match the US should have won 7 times out of 10 –. It´s only that what happened in the field is hardly and by any measure “football history”. Hope my point is clear.
[...] result tomorrow and is still ahead of the Serbs on goal differential, the first tie brWorld Cup Group Tiebreakers – It's not the end of the world or the World Cup, though. Germany still leads the group pending the [...]
Reason #35 why I don’t watch soccer: crappy officiating
Chris @30 writes “What makes me able to accept (in a karmic sense) is that I really felt the US did not, in the first place, deserve the free kick that led to the controversial play.”
The best explanation I’ve seen for the phantom call is that it was a pre-determined make-good call for the foul that produced the free kick. The whistle was going to be blown regardless.
It sucks, but there’s a fair chance that we’re going to beat Algeria and end up drawing Ghana instead of Germany in the first knockout game.
It would help if Bradley could get his guys to show up for the first 15 minutes of a game.
[...] result tomorrow and is still ahead of the Serbs on goal differential, the first tie brWorld Cup Tie Breakers – It's not the end of the world or the World Cup, though. Germany still leads the group pending the [...]
To the people who come to soccer threads to post about how boring the game is: Congratulations. You’ve established your superiority over the three billion people worldwide who enjoy the game. Now piss off.
Hmm methinks the New World was doing too well in this World Cup (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, and Chile all look like they will advance and the US and Paraguay could too). Meanwhile, the European teams have for the most part struggled.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, that would be my suspicion. Need to start making sure the “World” Cup continues to be, for the most part, the Euro Cup. (and I would bet if I checked out FIFA’s board, they are just as Eurocentric as the IOC voting membership, where Europe holds about 40% of the votes)
I know it makes me look like an Ugly American pointing out these facts, but most International sporting organizations are dominated by Europe. It is no surprise to me when the US loses out.
[...] to you, Joe Posnanski: When you are watching a sport you don’t often watch, things happen that you don’t quite [...]
Incredibly bad call, I feel bad for the Americans.
What I don’t understand is how the ref doesn’t have to explain himself to the captains on the field. Call, what call? Even the commentators were sure Edu was onside and didn’t see a foul either. A bit of pushing and shoving sure, but that happens in the box.
I’ve watched the World Cup since ’82, but don’t consider myself a soccer expert. I do know that in the leagues like English Premiership that if a ref makes a bad call like that he doesn’t officiate in the next week’s games.
I agree it will leave a bad taste in the mouths of people who were watching for the first time, but still there is a spectacle to an event this big and I liken well matched soccer games to a good fight, punching and counter-punching until it builds up to the eventual knockout.
The guy I feel sorry for is the Nigerian who missed the completely open net against Greece, surely to leave his team going home after the group stage.
The other thing about the standings for the US group, if you are seeded second you play the top winner in the next group. That could be a bad thing if you face Germany, not so bad if it ends up being Ghana.
Re: #57:
Then, tank jones, you shouldn’t be watching NFL, NBA, or MLB. You are now welcome to watch the WNBA, PGA, and International Cricket. Enjoy!
Maybe Joe overstated the importance a little, but even though we were a better team than Slovenia, it was still the World Cup. There’s no comparison between a WC match, even in the group stage, and a regular season baseball or basketball game.
And we aren’t THAT much better than Slovenia. This wasn’t a match we should have dominated, especially given that we don’t match up well with defensive, counter-attacking teams. The realistic best case today was probably a 1 goal win. Slovenia’s style really limits the US’s best weapon – their speed on the counter attacks.
It’s too bad the finish overshadows how great Donovan was in the 2nd half. It doesn’t often matter, since soccer is such a team game, but the US having the best player on the pitch did make the difference today.
And as a fan of both kinds of baseball and both kinds of football, I guess I don’t see much difference in the way a bad call can screw you in soccer vs how they can screw you in football & baseball. We’ve seen playoff games, Super Bowls, and World Series games turn on bad calls. And the umps are much more influential on a baseball game than the refs are in soccer, when you factor in that most every pitch has it’s “quality” determined by a judgement call by a ref. The refs in soccer aren’t ruling on whether each pass is complete or not.
And as an American soccer fan, it doesn’t really matter how popular the sport is here. Does the fact that football is much more popular make baseball less enjoyable? No. Do hockey fans care that most sports fans in the US could care less about their sport? I wouldn’t think so. As long as there’s enough viewers in the US to make it worthwhile for cable networks to televise the EPL and the rest of the European leagues/tournaments, then it’s all good.
[...] next Wednesday, but only one will see the U.S. go through to the knockout stage, England beat AlgerWorld Cup Tie Breakers – World Cup Group Tiebreakers. Presented three possible outcomes of the United States against [...]
#25, #47, the group stages of the World Cup are much more important than an early season baseball game.
If you want a baseball analogy, then today’s game was like a September regular season game against a team you’re battling with for a playoff spot.
Actually it’d be a last weekend in September-level game, since if we had lost, we’d be very close to mathematical elimination, needing to win our next one and get outside help beyond that to stay alive.
And this is all assuming that there is only one baseball season every four years.
well put sir! i’m brazilian and i agree with every word you’ve wrote. your text just gave me goose bumps. it’s so spot on! i’ve been fighting this bad mistakes on soccer for years and i’ve always quote your football as perfect example how we can overcome those human faults with some technology. as a brazilian you probably know how i’m used to this kind of wrong call. we don’t have to go back far to remember how France got to this world cup! i don’t know how FIFA keep living in the dark ages with all the technology that is available today. this is simply absurd. there is something really wrong with these old people who lives and directs the destiny of this game. this must to stop. thanx for writing such a nice piece and good luck against algeria!
I am astounded by the fact that no 2-o advantage has ever been reverted in a World Cup match. I have been following the game all my life and did not know that. I think that is more of a statistical anomaly than anything else, but I find it surprising. Yet, I remember being in a bar with a bunch of US soccer fans when they were drawing the teams, and I remember people rejoicing when Algeria and Slovenia were drawn in the same group as the US. Then, after the rejoicing following a tie with a very unimpressive British side, we rejoiced yet again after watching an awful display between Algeria and Slovenia, which gave us the impression that we would easily progress beyond the group stage. And now, we’re saying that we’ve been robbed of history because we were disallowed a goal against a mediocre team? Yes, the referee blew it (lets not forget the red card he did not issue when Jozy was knocked by the last defender), but we shouldn’t try to turn this game into something that it isn’t, especially when the USMNT is not very strong (solid offense, horrible defense, null midfield). I also don’t think it’s fair for someone to say soccer sucks because the US were stripped of a goal when in the nascent stages of the same tournament Switzerland beat a favored Spain, North Korea held its own against Brazil, New Zealand scored a beautiful equalizer in the 92nd minute against Slovakia, Mexico destroyed a yet scoreless French side, Serbia shocked Germany, etc.
@Brent
if anything, the FIFA would love for USA to do well. They have been pushing football there for a long time. The awarded them a world cup, even though the USA has pretty much zero football tradition.
As for the *New World* thing, both South America and Europe have a similar number of world cup wins. These are the regions with the most interest, tradition and the best players, so it is no surprise that they usually end up winning
“But with respect to the Jim Joyce thing: did Joyce ever say he thought the runner beat the throw”
I believe he was on record as saying he thought the runner beat the throw, until he saw the replay.
Thomas Blanton just apologized to Coulibaly.
@ brent.
If FIFA was out to get the US, then they would have red carded Dempsey early. Or just disallowed bradley’s goal. Or they wouldn’t have given them that free kick that setup edu’s goal.
[...] and the leader of the group and was responsible for his fate. Unfortunately fate would be otherwiWorld Cup Tie Breakers – World Cup Tiebreaker. June 18 2010. By admin. The United States should stand at 4 points in the [...]
@Poseur #49, you missed the most egregious call against us in 2006. Against Ghana, Markus Merk gifted Ghana a penalty on a play where there was no foul or possibly even a foul committed against the U.S.
[...] Over to you, Joe Posnanski: [...]
It is amazing how one sentence, out of dozens, can bring back so much pain and misery: “This was Montana to Clark in the end zone,”
Damn you, Kaiser Sosay. I mean, Damn you, Joe Posnanski.
I wonder if Jim Joyce and this guy are long lost cousins or something…
I’m strangely not upset with this though. The way I look at it, this is a righting of the wrong. We shouldn’t have tied that game against England, but lo and behold we did.
Now we’re sitting just fine with 2 points and a great chance to move on. As long as we beat Algeria on Wednesday, this will be forgotten. So, in other words, our destiny is still in our players’ hands. Don’t blow it. And don’t cop out to “we should have had those points.” If we can’t beat Algeria, we don’t deserve to move on.
Well the English just helped your lot by not beating Algeria, so there you go!
GABE, on this thread, is why Americans don’t like futbol. Do you smell your own farts, buddy?
followers of the greatest game in the world do not give a rats @** whether this game was the turning point or not. yes unfortunate, yes ridiculous. but despite that, ‘soccer’ remains by far the only entertaining team sport on the planet. if people in this great country of ours dont choose to get into it, that is their problem, it is not the problem of proper football fans. im glad us yanks as a whole are getting into it late, or else it would have already have been ruined with 4 quarters, commercials every 3 minutes, and all that other nonsense that infects the big 3 sports in this country.
viva football, viva team USA.
soccer: love it or leave it.
@Mike (78)
I would agree with your karmic retribution for the lucky goal against England statement if it weren’t for the absolutely idiotic point system used in the group stage where games that are won or lost are somehow worth more than games that are tied. (A win against Slovenia and loss to England would have given the US 3 points, while the two ties have only given the US 2 points.) Is there any good explanation for why only a total of two points are awarded for a tie, while the winner of a match gets 3 points?
Nice article Joe, but the US still has a long way to go. I wonder if corporate sponsorship is what’s holding soccer back. There are two 45 minute halves without commercial interruption. How can they possibly get as much money as football, baseball and basketball, which have a ridiculous amount of commercials.
As a follower of the greatest team sport in the world, I agree with Phil – this game doesn’t change who won the Stanley Cup.
And speaking of the greatest sport on earth, in NHL games (as in many others), the ref calls the penalty by making the proper symbol for the call and then pointing at the player he’s sending to the box. There is wailing and gnashing of what few teeth remain. Then the ref gives the penalty to the scorers table, and by rule the penalty has to be announced over the PA. The other “ruined” big three sports have similar “nonsense” rules “infecting” the game: make the call, point at the guilty party, wail, gnash, continue play.
Soooo – what’s with this “I won’t tell you what I called” nonsense in footy? I’m more accountable making calls in my house league. This is weapons-grade malarky.
@ Mike 78 I’m strangely not upset with this though. The way I look at it, this is a righting of the wrong. We shouldn’t have tied that game against England, but lo and behold we did.
Yes but the England goal was effectively worth 1 point while the loss of this was was worth -2. Trading those goals would actually give USA 3 points instead of two. More importantly about the England goal is that Slovenia only has to not lose to advance.
Poseur (#49) and Craig (#75) are spot on. I have watched most of the US World Cup matches since 1990. I’ve come to expect the bad calls to go against us. True, there are blown calls at every level of soccer, but, in the World Cup, the incorrect calls just don’t seem to favor the United States.
I’ve come to view this phenomenon as being deeply intertwined with the widespread international resentment of the United States imperialistic policies, both actual and perceived, throughout the past century. The US will get no favors in the World Cup, and that’s the way the rest of the world likes it.
Soccer = EPIC FAIL
@tarlinian 82 FIFA changed the rule in the early 1990s from 2 points for a win to 3 points for a win in order to encourage teams to go for the victory rather than settling for a draw.
Speaking of the best sport on Earth, am I the only one who thinks Albert Haynesworth is an ass-tronomical jerk?
Latch-Key Kid (4) is right. I was so ecstatic when Michael Bradley toe flicked the ball in to tie. But when the ref disallowed the goal I was infuriated. The only foul I saw was the Slovenia defender who was literally hugging Bradley. Looks like in Africa incumbent Presidents aren’t the only thing who get paid off.
@ Justyo (44)
Amen. Lest we forget dude’s a rapist. A flat-out rapist.
Wow, that Billy (91) fucker has more ignorance than Lynyrd Skynyrd CD’s.
@92
arrogant yes, ignorant no. try this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0924041kobea1.html
Just because he didn’t serve time doesn’t mean he’s innocent.
Agree with #69.
Terrible call for the US. But to say that the whole Cup has been bad is an ignorant statement. There have been a bunch of great games and good surprises already.
Can’t wait for the elimination rounds, where things get more exciting…
@ tarlinian (82)
3 points was introduced in the English league system to encourage attacking play, and gradually spread elsewhere; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_points_for_a_win
Some interesting discussion here; having a persecution complex towards referees is ingrained behaviour for soccer supporters across the world, pretty much. I can think of at least half a dozen possible reasons for this, but I’ve always accepted it and also accepted the (sometimes enormous) fallibility of referees as part of the fabric of the game, both culturally, and also implicitly due to the interpretative nature of the rules.
Anyway, it really doesn’t matter. Algeria are abysmal, USA should qualify regardless.
@93
Oh this looks like a reliable website. Sure he commited adultry no doubt about it, but he didn’t rape her. I mean come on. KObe Bryants is one of the highest paid and worldly renowned athletes in the world, any woman would not say no. Hate to say it but it’s true.
Koman Coulibaly already had the whistle to his mouth to blow the call before the play matured. His country is 70 to 80% Muslim. Go figure.
To all you Kobe haters out there: There was no rape. She bled because Kobe has about five more inches than she was used to, if you can pick up what I’m putting down. All the rest of you Celtic fans sound like a bunch of pussies. I thought you micks were tough. How disappointing.
#47 The offside rule relates when the ball is played to you not when you receive it (there have to be two players between you and the end line). Sometimes people look at where the players are when the ball is received; that is incorrect. Otherwise, breakaways would be extremely limited.
Herbert Ashe (#95) — Well, it’s good to know I fit right in with soccer fans the world over! Far be it from me to deny something so ghastly as a persecution complex. Just to be clear, however, I was speaking only of the US World Cup games of the past 20 years — 20 Games, I believe. If we wanted to know the answer to the question, “Has the USA been subject to more bad calls than one would expect in the 20 World Cup Games from 1990 – today?”, we might actually be able to find out with a relatively high degree of certainty. If John Dewan were born on the steps of Old Trafford, we’d probably already know.
ok, i stepped in poop on purpose and hijacked a thread i shouldn’t have, but the Kobe apologies are sickening sickening stuff. it’s not about the celtics, either. it’s how easily people are able to delude themselves into plugging their ears, discarding facts, and the smarmyness of the NBA for refusing to part ways with their favorite little felon. lets all rejoice that that criminal’s face is off the front page for another year, unless of course he crosses paths with another innocent girl and does his thang. all publicity is good publicity when you’re as low as the nba.
Glad to see the NBA Game 7 officials were able to make it to South Africa in time for our match today.
@ 3rd Period Points (#100)
Heh, believe it or not I meant that persecution complex thing self deprecatingly, reading it back… yeah, looks a bit blunt. Oops.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the USA had been a little unlucky, actually, even allowing for selection bias and sample size. I’d guess that the frequency of significant referee events is small enough that you’d expect a few countries to have a bunch of bad luck over a period of a few tournaments (see also Italy maybe, and England). Also, if you’re going into World Cups as a lower ranked team and having to work hard for results then you’re more vulnerable than a side who gets to beat 3 smaller nations by a bunch of goals whilst having most of the possession.
I think referee culture is a big factor as well. I’ve no idea what the playing style in MLS is like, but I guess that it’s broadly northern european? Get a ref (or have a couple) from a very different area and you’re suddenly committing fouls without that were legitimate for your league. For example, notoriously, Spanish refs.
I love soccer, and the games in the last couple of days in particular have been very exciting, even with the blown call(s).
I agree with Joe though about bringing in the stretcher for anyone who stays on the ground for more than a few seconds – that’s just goofy.
Also strange – using a plural noun for a singular team name – “Slovenia are in first place in the group,” or “the U.S. are making a comeback.”
Oops, that should be plural verb, not plural noun, in #104.
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » The Goal That Wasn’t [...]
@billy – Go troll somewhere else! That garbage has no place here.
I’ve never understood the attitude of “well we played poorly so it all evens out” or “you can’t go down 2-o and expect to win” or “if you play like that against an inferior team you deserve to lose” and things like that. It doesn’t matter. What matters is the US scored a third goal and it was disallowed, thereby costing them a victory and 2 points. That’s it. That’s all there is. I also don’t buy any of this kharmic retribution nonsense – every event stands on its own and needs to be judged on its own merits. The ref blew it, and worse, had no explanation. He single-handedly cost the US a victory and it doesn’t make anyone feel better to simply say “welcome to international soccer.”
@ tampa mike
My sincere apologies – I shouldn’t have brought up such a touchy topic. It won’t happen again!
I would like to apologize to Joe Posnanski and every single person who posted to this thread. My comments @98 were inappropriate and offensive. I lost my sense of decency and I also broke the unwritten rule of Joe’s blog that says we Brilliant Readers are brilliant, perhaps, because we don’t resort to the crass and crude ramblings so prevalent on other sites. I also would like to apologize to Celtics fans. It was a great series that could have gone either way.
I apologize for my foul mouth and overdefensive behavior. Let’s just agree to root for USA on Wednesday!
@65 — Two types of football I get, but what are the two types of baseball? There’s baseball, and….what, Cricket?
@112…
Oops, typo. But now that I think of it, there’s more than two kinds of football. I’m not a fan of Gaellic football or Australian Rules football.
@ 108…
You’re right that we did score more goals, and so deserved to win. But the US should not have put themselves in a position where one bad call/missed call could cost them a win. Just like England last week. They didn’t bang in a second goal, and so they were vulnerable to a single goalie mistake costing them 2 points.
Watching the match again, I think we can take heart in how well the US carved up a good Slovenia defense. We got three goals, and JUST missed on a number of others (Torres’ free kick, the easy tap-in that was knocked away at the last second, the sublime longball that Gooch just missed, and Finley’s brain freeze when he elected not to shoot as he was coming in alone against the Slovenian keeper). We easily could have lost that game, without Bradley’s and Donovan’s great finishes, but we also could have easily blown them out 4-1. Overall the US played much better against Slovenia than the Three Lions did against Algeria – with significantly less talent.
Another reason to love soccer – the team >>> the individual.
[...] There! Welcome! The World Cup is pain, princess. Which is why I’m delighted to see people like Joe Posnanski or Peter King as just the first of the many insufferable sports buffoons we’re going to be [...]
Gabe @ #25
This “football (as it should be called)” gets right up my nose.
“Should be called” by whom?
Modern football kicked off in nineteenth century Britain when various sets of laws were codified. Different clubs went their different ways; the biggest schism occurring because of disputes over whether the ball could be handled and whether players could be physically dragged to the ground.
When the dust settled, two main bodies were left – association and union. When union suffered its own schism, the new body searched for a word to describe a grouping and came up with “league”.
The word “soccer” is a bastardisation of “association”.
Other offshoots of football also came into being, the most notable Australian Rules and American football.
Now, all of these versions are “football”. To claim that soccer is the only code with a claim to that title is a nonsense. Soccer may be the biggest but it definitely isn’t the only version — pretty much like catholicism may be the biggest version of Christianity but, for all that its adherents may claim, it’s not the only version.
Most of the world plays the round-ball code exclusively because, quite frankly, they’re not up to playing the other sorts. I’d love to take one of these diving, ankle-grabbing, gesticulating prima donnas to a rugby league match, put a ball in his hands and say, “Let’s see how far downfield you can carry this. Those other guys are going to try and stop you.”
Most of them would crap themselves silly and run off crying to their mothers.
Soccer is okay to watch every four years at World Cup time as the combination of jingoism, egotism, athleticism and ineptitude clash in a wonderful month of pure theatre.
Occasionally, something resembling sport breaks out.
Just some thoughts on various of the comments to this thread.
“No team has ever won a World Cup match after coming back from 2-0. That is what is being reported. So a victory would have been historic, especially for a United States team.”
If an event is “historic,” it cannot be “especially” historic for a particular party.
“[Various comments saying that this game is like an April, May, June, July, August, September baseball game]”
World Cup qualifying matches go on for like three years. If a country does not get past the qualifying games they do not play in the World Cup, ie, this is not comparable to a non-playoff September baseball game. This is the playoffs.
“[Various comments stating that this call will "cause" people to hate soccer.]”
Do blown calls ever happen in the “traditional” “major” US sports?
“[Various comments stating that this call will cause all the first time viewers never to view again.]”
If people were watching a world cup game on a Friday at 7am Pacific time how certain are we that either: a) it was their first game watched; or b) a bad call will cause them to stop watching World Cup games.
“Is there any good explanation for why only a total of two points are awarded for a tie, while the winner of a match gets 3 points?”
The most succinct explantion is: a draw is not awarded two points.
“Looks like in Africa incumbent Presidents aren’t the only thing who get paid off?”
I know (sad face). How much money did Obama receive from Goldman Sachs and BP? Oh, you’re not talking about that African president? I see. USA! USA! USA!
“@ Justyo (44)Amen. Lest we forget dude’s a rapist. A flat-out rapist.”
Eight-year-olds, dude. (Shut the fuck up, Donny.)
“Algeria are abysmal”
I’m not sure if it’s standard European or soccer convention that holds country names are counting nouns that thus take the plural form of ‘to be.’ But it is not standard US convention. So why will US sources say, e.g., “the US are in a good position to advance,” but will not say “Los Angeles are in a good position to re-sign Phil Jackson.”?
I’ve watched both US matches with as open a mind as I can as a once every 4 years fan of the US, and Ireland, because my father-in-law is from Belfast and commandeers our plasma for all their qualifiers(and this year not any tourney matches as below) .
This sport has serious problems.
1. Refs should be the best, period. Diversity uber alles is nonsense. A good ref means we don’t even know he’s doing a good job because it’s a given, as is his or her integrity. If FIFA cannot get that basic thing right how can you trust them? And it’s a thread from Maradona’s and Henry’s hands to today’s debacle. It’s not the WWE but it’s worse than Tim Donaghy. At least Donaghy had a monetary motive, no matter how scummy. This is simple incompetence.
2. Penalty time is total mischief. It doesn’t pass the smell test. It frankly is a joke.
Great column, but now more people watch the U.S.-Algeria match and with more interest/intensity.
If the U.S. plays well there, and it’s a fun game, I submit that this debacle has the opportunity to translate to *more* net fan conversions.
I dont like people who let celebrities get by with any illegal behavior because s/he is their player.
IMO (and I stress it is just my opinion but based on all the facts that have been made available) the young lady in question probably agreed to do kobe but changed her mind when it turned rougher than she liked.
And then she said “no” and kobe ignored her.
That is rape as long as the witness cannot be wrecked by the standard attack the victim defense. Or as long as the press doesn’t deify the attacker and castigate the victim because one is a celebrity. Or as long as the jury isn’t spending more time being a fan than a jury.
It isn’t hard to understand why she might give it up, especially if she got paid to do so; it was pretty much a lose/lose position for her.
Doesnt make his talent any less but it sure does make him less of a good person – again in my opinion.
The goal was clear and I dont care if they should have been down 2 or not (not) or if it is the most important game in soccer history (not) or US history (probably not unless they dont make it) – it was a horrible call and there ought to be something to explain why it was made.
If there isn’t, Joe is precisely correct that it could indeed cost some people from having his friend’s reaction and becoming fans.
Joe is also correct to report that it is being said that no team has come back from 2-0 at the half to win a WC match. That to me smacks of being historic for the WC
and even if it isn’t, it certainly would have been historic for the US soccer effort. But then the ref decided – for some unknown reason – that it wasn’t a goal at all.
Shame indeed.
I bow down in the dirt to all who rightly pointed out my offside mistake, in 45 years of watching the beautiful game I don’t remember EVER seeing a case of the keeper not playing someone on (with the help of a defender)…wow!
Later contributors hit on the diversity theme, that will always rankle, the best referee ever was an Italian and they made him retire! Once we get out of the group phase the best refs will not be so stretched over such a large area and it’s easy to forget but they put in a lot of miles on the pitch and need a break too!
No sport is perfect, football is full of liars. cheats and social misfits, ignoramuses and the players aren’t too good either…lol
To the person who didn’t understand my English irony about wanting to win and not letting in 2 goals, I’m sorry…for you
[...] says what I was thinking far better than I could articulate it myself. Read his whole post here. An excerpt: Only the winning goal was disallowed by Koman Coulibaly. And nobody knew why. [...]
@82 – “Is there any good explanation for why only a total of two points are awarded for a tie, while the winner of a match gets 3 points?”
I believe the logic is intended to push teams towards playing more aggressively. If a win is worth 3 points, and a draw only 1, more managers will push their players to attempt to actually score.
There’s nothing more boring than two teams playing totally defensive soccer, and most managers are so conservative they make Chuck Knox look like Mike Martz. There’s already one group with a final match where both teams will advance if they draw… expect the world’s most boring game that day.
Horrible call. And interestingly on the highlights of match on the fifa web site that particular incidnt is not included. I don’t think they view it as a proud moment.
Despite that, how much fun is this World Cup? It’s brilliant!
And I’m sure it’s been scientifically proven that the bad calls by the ref are always againt the team you are rooting for. Everyone knows that’s a fact.
#65: While refs in other sports might make decisions on the many discrete, nicely packaged plays, refs can have an inordinate effect on soccer games, as both the Germany game and US game shows. A ref starts dishing out cards like candy early and soon you have a guy kicked out of the game and the team is playing with 10 guys…no other major sport forces a team to play a man down if a player is ejected. A ref makes a phantom call on a relatively rare goal producing opportunity (soccer games average between 2 and 3 goals per game) and it has a huge swing on the game.
All in all, an amazing game unfortunately tainted by a ref who wasn’t up to the challenge. And for those who poo-poo Slovenia, while they weren’t highly rated going into the World Cup, they have one of the top ranked keepers in the world and gave up the fewest goals of any European team in WC qualifying, so to score three goals against them is pretty damn good.
“…no other major sport forces a team to play a man down if a player is ejected.”
Should clarify “for the remainder of the game” for all you hockey and lacrosse fans out there.
@116 It’s interesting how often internet know-it-alls have poor reading comprehension:
——————-
(Joe:) “Is there any good explanation for why only a total of two points are awarded for a tie, while the winner of a match gets 3 points?”
———————–
(A.Bides)The most succinct explantion is: a draw is not awarded two points.
——————
Uh, no. Each team is award a point — so, two points. That’s why he wrote, “total.”
Mike G @ #124
“no other major sport forces a team to play a man down if a player is ejected. ”
Define “major”.
Thanks.
and Cardinal Mike @ #119
I’ve read just the first three paragraphs and WTF has this to do with the World Cup, soccer, refereeing, seminal moments in American sport or . . .
Oh, got it.
This call reminded me a lot of Tim Donaghy’s egregious calls. I wonder if just maybe money had to do with this. It could just as well be an inadvertent whistle. This article really put things in perspective for me. I enjoyed reading,
The refereeing was equally bad in the German game. The Germans had to play a man down for 60 minutes!
How can you let a ticky-tack foul give a team a 60 minute power play? If you’re going to decide the game on a foul call a quarter of the way in, I want to see blood — genuinely reckless play or completely unacceptable personal conduct. A slightly mistimed tackle doesn’t make the cut.
I hate to say it, but maybe it’s time for the comments to be disabled on Joe’s blog. It’s consistantly gotten uglier and less civil over time.
I know that I can always skip reading the comments, but I hate that such ugliness is even tangentially related to a classy guy like Joe.
Has anyone considered that some of the international referees simply hate the U.S. so much that when they have a chance to stick it to us, they do? … Of course, FIFA and the whole soccer establishment are at fault for maintaining the utterly ludicrous proposition that one ref can handle a soccer game. I think maybe 4 on-field officials with the same level of power as baseball umps are needed. Finally FIFA should show some guts (as should all sport governing bodies) and require officials to meet the press and answer questions after games/matches, under penalty of summary dismissal.
Well, the great thing about the World Cup is that, really, just about every single game played is the most important game in the history of at least one of the countries involved. Even without the win, the US x Slovenia game is historic; I know I’ll be talking about it for decades to come. That’s the beauty of it. You can vividly remember details from specific games, some preceding the days of live TV. And the US has been slowly etching its place in the pantheon of WC history; the 1950 win over England, the 1994 tournament and the tough July 4 loss to Brazil in the round of 16, the 2002 quarterfinal when they were robbed against Germany. In the grand scheme of things, the Slovenia game won’t make it there, but should they beat Algeria, something more interesting might happen.
If US fans appreciated soccer as much as fans from all over the world, I’d support Team USA Soccer more. Instead, it seems like maybe 5% of Team USA Soccer fans are true soccer fans. The other 95% are like, “Woo Hoo, Soccer! I love Soccer! this is my first game, woo hoo!”
I’m rooting for Spain (due to family heritage), Argentina (due to gambling), and whomever plays USA. Again, other countries’ fans appreciate soccer accomplishments more than Americans, so let them win.
I’ll keep rooting for Team USA in Basketball, Baseball, etc.
My friend said it after the game and I tend to agree…
At the end of the day, the greatest impediment to the United States becoming a soccer power is anti-Americanism.
@113 “But the US should not have put themselves in a position where one bad call/missed call could cost them a win. ”
—————-
You do know the other team is trying?
You do know that it’s difficult to put yourself in a position to be up by multiple goals because that’s a position where one call wouldn’t cost a team a win?
And you do know that players aren’t robots so they don’t just beat a team because they’re supposed to (assuming the US was even “supposed to beat Slovenia).
I’m all for the attitude of “Don’t make mistakes, play our best, and don’t worry about the officials”; however, that’s a pre-game and in-game attitude. After the game, you look back and say why were the biggest mistakes made by the officials? The two teams have an on-field adversary. The officials adversary is only their own incompetence. And when that’s the case, own up to your mistakes and get rid of him.
@135 Bobby A, I’m glad I read your comment Now I’m rooting against Spain because of your poor stock (nice job against Switzerland by the way), against Argentina so you’ll be out $$, and for the USA even more because I want you to be upset. I can be irrational as well.
I don’t know who you’re talking to where 95% of US supporters are the “Woo-hoo” ignorant soccer blow hards. Most people I know that are really into the World Cup are soccer and EPL fans. Not that your percentages can’t be true, but I doubt they are, and even if they are, why root against the US team solely for that reason?
@136 Scott — “At the end of the day, the greatest impediment to the United States becoming a soccer power is anti-Americanism”.
Can you explain this a little more please? I understand the easy appeal of taking the “blame the foreigners” approach. But if your argument has more to it than that please lay it out.
@139 Frog
It’s more than just blame the foreigners.
But, lets put it this way. The last thing many foreigners want to see is the USA become great at “their” game. Even though we have become a respectable side, capable of beating even Spain on a given day, we are looked down upon and at best looked at as cute plucky outsiders.
Couple that with the smugness of most Americans (myself proudly included), we rub people the wrong way.
We will never get the benefit of the doubt on calls. Whereas if a team like Argentina, Spain, or Brazil, attempting to complete a 2 goal comeback would not have had that goal called back when the USA has that goal it seems impossible. Something must’ve happened. Something isn’t right, and thus the phantom foul.
@135 Bobby A – Honestly, what do you expect? It takes generations for a sport to become deeply embedded in a culture. You have to start somewhere.
The 1990 World Cup was barely shown on American television. Last week’s USA-England game did a rating roughly equal to a baseball LCS game. That’s incredible progress in 20 years, but it will take another 20 (at least) until the average American soccer fan is as well-versed as the average European fan.
@136 Scott:
I suspect, at the end of the day, the greatest impediment to the United States becoming a soccer power is that only a tiny fraction of our best athletes actually play soccer. Can you imagine what we’d be like if our top studs like Kobe and LeBron, or all those RBs and WRs in the NFL, had devoted their 10,000 hours of training to soccer rather than basketball or football? Dear God.
Top athletes in this country play football and basketball, predominantly. Middle class white kids and immigrants play soccer. And that’s not going to change substantially unless soccer can make the very best incredibly rich in America, as the NBA and NFL do.
Sort of related to Scot’s point at 140, doesn’t it seem like when the US plays smaller countries in the WC those countries get as pumped up as they would if they were playing Germany or Italy? Our side has a bulls-eye on its back even though we’re not a soccer power.
IMO, our guys don’t seem to get this and it contributes to us consistently coming out flat-footed in the opening minutes of games like yesterday’s and Czech Rep in 2006 and Poland in 2002. When you give those countries a chance to kick the mighty USA’s ass in anything they’re going to want to take it.
@142
That’s part of it, definitely.
But honestly, look at where we are now. We are already there. Our national team built with many guys who started careers in MLS making less in salary than your average non-for-profit laborer has already thrown England into disaray and can match up with any side in the world on a given day.
Would I like to someday have a Kobe type choose to be a striker for the US, instead of choosing basketball? Sure. Absolutely. But we’re developing world class players right now as is.
@ Mikey
You couldn’t be more correct.
@128 graphite – it has nothing to do with the WC – what a shocker that is. Well it may be more of a shock that it took you almost 2 lines to figure it out.
Of course had you read all the comments, you might have noticed that there had been numerous comments on that particular issue. Maybe you don’t have any issue that can sidetrack you from another issue but I do – and people saying athletes like kobe and big ben are poor innocent athletes is one of mine.
You could have just ignored my comment, much as you apparently ignored all the others you know
@ A Bides (116)
“I’m not sure if it’s standard European or soccer convention that holds country names are counting nouns that thus take the plural form of ‘to be.’”
In English it’s the convention in the UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, SA and commonwealth countries in general I suspect (Canada?). and for all sports (cricket, rugby, …). I can’t speak for other languages though.
“But it is not standard US convention.”
I’m well aware of this, being an enormous baseball fan, which is why I’m here.
Anyway. I have no problem with the USA becoming a strong soccer nation, I don’t buy this idea that the whole world is against it. Maybe some of the old guard in Europe, but that’s just chauvinism. I’m sure CONMEBOL can see the benefits a strong USA and MLS would bring.
Think I’ll repeat Brad (Nerd)’s comment here:
“I’m glad I read your comment Now I’m rooting against Spain because of your poor stock (nice job against Switzerland by the way), against Argentina so you’ll be out $$, and for the USA even more because I want you to be upset. I can be irrational as well.
I don’t know who you’re talking to where 95% of US supporters are the “Woo-hoo” ignorant soccer blow hards. Most people I know that are really into the World Cup are soccer and EPL fans. Not that your percentages can’t be true, but I doubt they are, and even if they are, why root against the US team solely for that reason?”
Amen to that and I too will now be rooting against Spain and Argentina (the first will be hard cause I like Spain and the 2nd fairly easy because I don’t like maradona but so be it)
There has been a lot of talk of the US needing to win by 2 or more to move on, but I don’t understand this point.
Slovenia: 4
England: 2
US: 2
Algeria: 1
If the US wins and ends up with 5 points they should move on no matter what happens in the England v. Slovenia game.
Graham @149
That “win by two” talk is no longer relevant. It was made under the assumption that England would beat the crap out of Algeria, in which case a possible scenario would be that ENG-SVN would tie their final match to finish with 5 points, and the US would need to beat ALG by two goals to leapfrog SVN on goal differential.
That is no longer a concern since England tied Algeria. Now, if the Yanks win by any margin, they advance no matter what.
At the risk of sounding like a Jayhawk or a Cardinal fan, it really seems that this team will have to overcome officiating to ever do well in the World Cup. From the yellow card given out when the guy got hit on the cheekbone with the ball, to the egregious phantom call on the goal, it did mar an historic comeback.
However, I am reminded of something Marty Schottenheimer said when a bad call cost the Chiefs a game. Instead of blaming the official, he said the team needed to put themselves in a position where they could overcome a bad call and still win. They needed to forget this game and win the next one.
In other words, don’t let up a 3o yard goal early, and you win anyway. Beat Algeria, and you advance anyway.
Great game. Ref was erratic all game, but the complaints about the free kick should be balanced by the dive that led to it. Live blogs by NY Times and Guardian noted the dive at the time. So the calls went both ways. Still a great game by both sides.
[...] was lost more than just those two points and a lead in the group was a chance for this World Cup to really become a part of the American sports landscape. With the England match, one of the most hyped contests ever, and the Green Gaffe seared in our [...]
The amazing thing to me is that Joe Posnanski, one of the best writers of this era, and one of the most horrendous calls in the history of sport STILL couldn’t make me give a crap about this sport.
This was a fun read, but throughout everything (after the Nolan Ryan stuff) I just kept thinking “So what?”
and the ref calls a foul, sends Kobe to the free throw line again
Whenever you get involved with the “international community” you have to expect chaos, duplicity and incompetence on a grand scale.
I’m an Englishman who became engrossed with baseball while working in the US. I am also a fan of Joe Posnanski’s writing.
However, Joe is incorrect to say a 2-0 deficit has never been turn around and into a win at a World Cup. After the group stage, all games go to extra-time in the event of a tie and England, for one, once ended up losing 2-3 to West Germany after leading 2-0 (in 1970).
Furthermore, while Joe’s frustration with the lack of accountability about why the referee disallowed the goal is understandable, it is not different to any other sport in which the officials are required to make a opinionated call. The strike zone is a matter of opinion. When a tag was administered is a matter of opinion. Whether a batter swung or held up is a matter of opinion.
At the heart of the matter is that in football, unlike in some other sports (such as baseball), the decision-making doesn’t centre solely around where the ball is at a particular moment. A foul committed off the ball, and away from the action -
such as obstruction – is still a foul. A player shouting ‘Mine’ can constitute a foul.
Ultimately, the US team and the wider audience deserve to know why a official gave a decision, if it is not obvious (there are some signals football referees use, but not enough to cover all eventualities). I believe, but am not sure, that FIFA prevent officials from commenting to the media, which is clearly naive, frustrating and self-defeating.
While Joe has administered a huge amount of poetic licence in writing that the US come-back from 2-0 would have been the greatest achievement in the history of US soccer (Slovenia are the smallest country to ever participate at a World Cup finals and have no footballing pedigree to speak of), I do sincerely hope both England and the US make it out of the group.
@156 “However, Joe is incorrect to say a 2-0 deficit has never been turn around and into a win at a World Cup. After the group stage, all games go to extra-time in the event of a tie and England, for one, once ended up losing 2-3 to West Germany after leading 2-0 (in 1970).”
That would be why Joe said a 2-0 HALFTIME deficit has never been turned around into a win at a World Cup.
The factoid as he reported it is correct, I think. However, the larger point it’s meant to illustrate isn’t really sustained. In the West Germany-England match, England was up only 1-0 at the half, meaning Germany overcame only a one goal halftime deficit, but since England scored again after the break, West Germany actually came back in less than a half, which should make the comeback more impressive, not less.
Cardinal Mike @ #145
#128 was a piece of obscure word-play on the meaning of “seminal”; which I had introduced on the back of Joe’s reference to Woods at Augusta &c.
My apologies for that.
The WTF stands though.
Ireland didn’t make this years World Cup finals mostly due to this incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiwFvsHmr_4
France’s Thierry Henry cheated by controlling the ball with his hand (twice if you look closely) to enable him pass to another player who scored. Even worse, both players had been in an offside position. This happened late in overtime and the Irish team who had battled brilliantly all night were crushed and caved in conceding another goal minutes later.
So the referee, Mart Hansson, who clearly blew this call was punished right? No way, he was selected to officiate at the finals.
FIFA, who had rigged the play-offs in an attempt to ensure the bigger TV market countries made it to the finals, resisted all calls for the game to be replayed. As did the French. FIFA also flatly refuse to use any kind of technology to prevent this kind of travesty ocurring again.
To add insult to injury now France and their multi-millionaire players are stinking up the competition and clearly don’t give a rat’s arse about representing their country. One of them was today sent home early from the competition for misbehaving.
Joe this is my first time to post, I’ve been reading and loving your blog for a long time.
This is way off-topic, but I really hope Joe somehow knows enough about Manute Bol, who died today, to write a good post about him. RIP, Manute.
[...] * Still mourning the goal that wasn’t. [...]
Chris in comment #30 nailed this. Coulibaly realized that he was fooled with the Altidore ‘flop’, and tried to pull a ‘make-up call’.
Here is a post on the NY Times that also claims this:http://community.nytimes.com/comments/goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/referee-again-in-center-of-controversy/?sort=newest
My assessment (written by overzealous American fans wanting replay review):
I looked at the entire sequence of plays over and over, and my conclusion is that that a board of experienced referees would negate the free kick call. Jozy Altidore played the ball down the field beyond his reach where it was corralled by a Slovenian defender. Then the replay shows as clear as day that Altidore ran into a Slovenian defender and grabbed him, who in turn grabbed Altidore. Then Altidore threw his hands up in the air, turned and flopped on the ground with his hands in the air.
No one, but no one falls like that. YOU always put your hands down to break the fall. It was a good thing the Slovenian was slightly under Altidore to help break the fall and prevent injury during the flop!
Coulibaly was on the other side of the pitch, and made the call from a distance, but when he ran up, he got an earful from the Slovenians complaining about the acting job by Altidore.
If this was reviewed on replay, not only would the USA not get the goal, Altidore would stand a good chance of being awarded a yellow card (after the fact). BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!
I second that — RIP Manooooot
Manute, when you played in Philly with Barkley and Mahorn — the three of you provided some laughs I will never forget.
@162- It’s a decent point. Except for the fact that Jozy’s exaggeration is just about normal in every game. He probably received a foul through contact but needed to over exaggerate it so the ref would pay attention. I don’t agree with the spirit of the strategy but it happens all the time. Theoretically, a board of refs would overturn that call. But they’d over turn about half of all similar calls in a single game. Happens all the time. That’s why football/soccer can’t have replay. The game would get too bogged down and totally transform into something different.
And what is the deal with the idiotic soccer haters that go out of their way to bash the game? Why are Americans who don’t like it so zealous in their hatred of the world’s game? It’s ridiculous. IT IS A GAME. We’re not comparing the size of our members here. We get it. You like your sport better. Who the flip cares? It’s not anti-American or anti-sports to love soccer. It’s a game of pace, fluent strategy, teamwork, and improvisation. Of course there are diving divas and nil-nil draws. But American football has subtle cheating, morally repugnant “divas,” 12-9 games, constant stoppages, and quarterbacks who get more protection than any soccer player on any pitch in the world. Does that make American football a terrible game? NO! It’s a great game. So quit your whining and go back to your holes.
@162 said:
“Then the replay shows as clear as day that Altidore ran into a Slovenian defender”
I live in Los Angeles. The weather is almost always beautiful, but the day is rarely clear. Mind your metaphors!
stephen (160) – Manute Bol lived in KC and I thought Joe had written something about him before, but it isn’t in the archives here. Maybe it was in the Star. In any case, I think Joe will write about him now. It’s sad, we’ve lost some really good ones this year.
[...] was continuing for another 3 weeks – no hurry. But then that Posnanski guy, in the middle of a post about the US-Slovenia tie game, drops this [...]
Can We Bomb a country for a bad call.Just thinking aloud.
Thumbs up to #’s 25, 39, 41 and a couple of others. In the quarterfinal 1970 in the blistering heat of Leon Germany was down 2:0 to reigning World Champion England after 50 minutes and went on to win it. Nothing historic in a USA-Slovenia Group match. Just because it happened to the US doesn’t make it any more important. Even if the US Team would have won, this game wouldn’t be mentioned among the most notable comebacks/WC-achievements. There a quite a few other games, this one will be forgotten by, like tomorrow.
Portugal went down 3:0 in the quarters 1966 before winning 5:3. Uruquay came back in front of over 200 000 fanatic brazilians to beat Brazil and win the World Cup in 1950. True all those teams weren’t down exactly 2: 0 at the exact halftime point, but those wins and some others are way bigger achievements than a potential 3:2 US win over a country of 2 million people.
Don’t claim to be a soccer fan.
Not sure why all the angst over (yet another) World Cup tie (do any teams actually WIN these games, or do they seem to all end in ties?).
The solution: don’t fall behind 2-0 to a country named Slovenia.
Soccer is a sport. Just not a very good one.
Paul
Joe’s factoid about it being the first time a team came back from 2-0 at the half is almost certainly correct and it is equally as certain that he didn’t create the factoid concept. I have seen it written exactly that way by Grant Wahl as well.
So the facts are correct no matter how many other 2-0 deficits were overcome and since I heard yesterday that there have been 9 in all of WC history, I suspect that makes coming back from 2-0 “historic.”
Ray it may not be more important on a cosmic scale but obviously it is more important in the US (and it may have eluded you that this blog is a basically US blog) just as a similar play versus whoever would be more important in whoeverland.
Finally the size of the country is a completely bogus factoid – there are 32 teams that qualify and Slovenia is one of them. Beating any of the final 32 after being down 2-0 IS historic.
@Graphite I didn’t take offense, saw no insult and so needed no apology. It would have been nice however, if you had read and understood my comment before, well, commenting on it. There are a lot of things I just let go without comment but I NEVER let people give pampered athletes a pass on their behavior just because of their talent. NEVER.
Which is why I commented on Kobe after many others came in and did just that.
So the first “WTF” is understandable but after I explained why, you can feel free to agree or not but “WTF” should no longer apply. Perhaps you just didn’t read the comments?
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » The Goal That Wasn’t [...]
@168 Weve bombed countries for less
Just want to point out that bad calls go both ways, for the U.S. just like any other team. In the U.S.-Mexico round of 16 match in the 2002 World Cup, a big U.S. win in a big match vs. a big rival, the U.S. scored early, held a 1-0 lead most of the match, and scored again late to win 2-0. But there was a moment, between the 60th and 70th minute with the score 1-0, when Mexico took a corner kick and it looked for all the world like the ball hit a U.S. defender’s hand in the penalty box. If the ref sees and calls that, it’s a penalty kick for Mexico, probably 1-1, and it’s a completely different match. It was one of those things that happened so fast, in a crowd of so many players, that it was easy for the ref to miss. These things happen in soccer — see the Brazil handball goal today. Sometimes they have gone against the U.S. in big moments, and sometimes they have gone for the U.S. in big moments.
JimA @ 159: Ireland didn’t get “crushed” and give up another goal minutes later. The goal immediately after the handball was it.
I’m as a big a fan of Ireland as there is but one thing that does not get said enough is that if the goal had been disallowed it would not have assured Ireland of anything. Most likely, it would have come down to penalty kicks after 15 more scoreless minutes.
It’s hard to say for sure that it would have been scoreless, of course. Perhaps Ireland would have gotten the winner if France were not able to play “protect the lead” style soccer. On the other hand, perhaps France would have scored if they had been trying to score. But most likely, it would have come down to penalty kicks. So the egregious non-call on the handball robbed Ireland of what would most likely have been a coin flip to go to the WC.
What stung so much for Ireland is that they are Ireland. If the same thing had happened to France or Germany or Spain or England or Italy, etc…well sure it would suck but in four years’ time they’d most likely be right back in contention for another World Cup title. Ireland has only qualified 3 times ever. It may be many years before they get back to a world cup.
Also, I know this is not the thread for this, but relative to the latest poll…for all the talk about how Tiger’s game is in the crapper, he’s now finished Top 5 in both of the majors held this year. Assuming physical health, and I realize nobody can know that, I don’t see any reason why anyone would think Tiger wasn’t going to round in form and start winning tournaments all the time again.
@ Scot 139. Your point from 135 was that US is not a powerhouse because everyone hates the US. But your explaination seems to be that US doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on calls because everyone hates the US.
So I think in summary what you’re saying is that the US isn’t a powerhouse because some of the close calls go against the US. Right?
Well a couple of quick points on that things… everyone things their temam is persectuted. The sample size is tiny.
The reason the US is not a powerhouse is because the kids don’t play soccer, or at least don’t stay with it beyond little league. It’s NOT to do with dodgy calls, it is simply that for whatever reason soccer does not draw players. Those reasons – competition from other established sports, and a lot more money to be made in those sports. Elephant in the Room at 141 is spot on here.
And your point “The last thing many foreigners want to see is the USA become great at “their” game” I’m not so sure about. I think from the governing body perspective they would love Soccer to be a big deal in the US. Remember, they gave the US the World Cup to host in 1994 in the hope of drumming up interest.
Elephant @ 141 and Frog @ 178:
I think the notion that the US is not a powerhouse in soccer because our best athletes play other sports is a straw man argument.
First of all, we have 300 million people and the best team in the world, Spain, has 40 million. If our best 200 million athletes all did not play soccer, we’d still have a population to select our team from that would be more than double the size of Spain.
That’s a silly example of course but the point is that we have so many more total athletes that it should not matter if our very best are playing other sports. There are more than enough athletes to go around.
Player development has suffered here not because of a lack of athletes, but because our best players have usually gone to college which is a terrible feeder system compared with the system in Europe which develops players in their teens and has the best players training with the pros from a much earlier age and not going to college. The competition at the NCAA level just is not good enough to develop elite talents.
That has only recently changed in the US, as the USSF has started to encourage top players to turn pro earlier and we’re starting to see the fruits of it, but it still hasn’t changed enough and it takes time. Time as in decades, not years. I would think by World Cup 2030 we might see a US team that is perennially among the World’s best though of course a good run before then (perhaps even this year) is possible.
If the free kick on which the go-ahead goal was scored resulted from a dive by Altidore, then I actually commend the referee for disallowing the goal. That goal and game was too important to be decided by chicanery.
As for the future of American soccer, I can’t imagine America ever competing internationally when its best athletes don’t play the sport. It’s the world’s best athletes against America’s very good but not very best athletes.
@ 179 Bill C.
Player numbers are not the ONLY reason (if it was only about number of potential participants then China and India would be facing off for World Cup glory). But I still maintain that it is the most significant factor.
Your math is a bit wrong too, but I think you’re just being playful. From your 300 mil you have to remove all the people who are too old, too young and too sick, you have to remove all the people who have no inclination to play an active sport, you have to remove all the people who do not like team sports, you have to remove people who do not like ball or bat and ball sports, you have to remove all the people who are not fantastically excellent. The slim remainder represent atheletes who COULD be world class soccer players. But then those people have their choice of sports, and soccer it seems is far down the list.
Now compare that to Spain, as your example, after you have whitled down their population to potential World class players they ALL want to play soccer.
So I contend that the US has more potential ATHELETES who could be world class players than Spain. But when you remove the players who do not want to play soccer (for whatever reason), Spain has more atheltes competing to be world class soccer players. –all numbers are wild guesses and I take no resonsibility for their accuracy–.
You’re probably right that the College system is not helping. If might well be one of the factors that reduces the numbers of the great atheles from pursuing soccer.
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » The Goal That Wasn’t [...]
[...] between a flop and a foul when he is twenty yards away from the action? How is he supposed to see what’s going on when there are ten guys between him and the [...]
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Tһе Goal Tһаt Wasn't [...]
[...] I’d wager, much less why — it strikes me as cheap and lazily arrogant. When Joe Posnanski lamented “what an overmatched referee named Koman Coulibaly cost us all,” I bet he didn’t spend a lot [...]
Ivory Coast came back from a 2-0 deficit after 45 minutes in World Cup 2006. Granted, they did score a goal in stoppage time of the first half, but close enough, right?
Maybe I am too cynical but I’m surprised that no one has suggested that the bad call was intentional. The U.S. is not loved around the world and is downright hated in many. Surely, some of you have considered this a possibility?
It’s not just the USA getting the bad calls–there have been plenty of others too. The red card received by Ka Ka after D. Drogba ran into him from behindis one egregious example. Or how about the unpunished slap to the face David Villa delivered to the Honduran defender (41st minute, Spain vs. Honduras) prior to a re-start? I don’t remember is it was a corner ore a free kick.
The lack of sportsmanship displayed by these high-caliber big-name players, especially those who have club contracts in the top European leagues, is appalling. Don’t they realize how idiotic they appear with their simulated fouls and injuries as well as the intentional instigation of extra-curricular altercations? What David Villa did would get him immediate expulsion, a very long suspension and fine in ANY U.S. sport, even MLS soccer. I expect to see real men competing at this level, not full grown infants who cheat every chance they get. It’s somewhat understandable that the referees have their hands full when they have to mediate the infractions of players that don’t respect their opponents, officials, the game, its rules or its governing body. FIFA is the problem, and the way these games are being conducted is disgraceful.
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » The Goal That Wasn’t [...]
[...] Illustrated’s Joe Posnanski sees in Coulibaly’s call a terrible missed chance. For the Americans to lock up a spot in the second round; for Edu to achieve a legacy-defining [...]