# Fifa World Cup 2010



## Phaezen (Jun 1, 2010)

So 10 days till kick off of the worlds largest sporting event.

Anyone else looking forward to the tournament? And what is your favourite team?


----------



## Morrus (Jun 1, 2010)

My favourite team is, of course, England!


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 1, 2010)

England look good, especially Rooney who has been in awesome form for my favourite club side this season, just worried that he won't get the midfield support from the rest of the team.

Germany and Brazil are usually my go to teams, but I am not confident in either or this tournament.


----------



## grufflehead (Jun 1, 2010)

Bah, 22 overpaid prima donnas kicking a bag of wind about...

But I'll still be watching 

Favourite team? Got a D32 handy?


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 1, 2010)

One thing I am excited about is a lot of the top strikers have been in very good form this season, and I hope that carries through to the World Cup.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 1, 2010)

Hmm... team USA is good enough to win a few matches and possibly make a run, but not good enough to win the whole thing (barring a lot of luck) and has enough issues that not getting out of pool play is possible. Plus time zone issues mean it's almost impossible to watch anything live.

So not all that excited.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 2, 2010)

I usually root for Italy, because I like their style of play and are fun to watch. I also tend to like Germany, though, but I just like watching just about any of the top teams play.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 2, 2010)

I'll be a patriot and root for my country's team, USA!  USA! USA!

I will also be rooting for Jabulani (the ball).


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll be a patriot and root for my country's team, USA!  USA! USA!
> 
> I will also be rooting for Jabulani (the ball).




Same complaints every Worldcup - T-2 weeks complain about the ball, T-1 Week complain about the pitches.

To be expected.  The ball has been behaving itself in the warmup games.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 2, 2010)

yep

cant believe spain are the bookies favourite. If any team is more disappointing in big tournaments its spain, more so than england

at 14-1 im really tempted to have a flutter on teams like germany and argentina


----------



## Pig Champion (Jun 2, 2010)

Since my native NZ won't go anywhere and I'd rather not cheer for the country I live in, I'll probably watch a fair bit of Korea.


----------



## Sutekh (Jun 2, 2010)

*Aus to at least the semifinal*

Okay, so I dont expect Aus to go all the way. The semifinals would be a dream .. quarters more expected. It was a hard group with Germany and Ghana and Serbia.. gulp. 

However..

Ballack is gone for Germany (probably their best player)
Essen is gone for Ghana (and is easily their best player)
Serbia (well Dont know much about them .. didnt they get bombed by the UN?)

So I hoping for australia to take advantage of the injuries that are out there.

Although being in England at the moment, what is up with ALL of the local papers?

Savage your own side much? And just wait for the coach to get all the blame because wow.. we only just realised.. he isnt British!..


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 2, 2010)

I like the US, England, Portugal and Germany. I like Mexico too.

But I really enjoy rooting against Brazil and Italy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 2, 2010)

I like watching the Brazillians play...but I'm still rooting for the USA.

I may be watching some of the thugs play, though, just for giggles.  Whose bus was it that got stoned?  Albania?  I saw some footage of them playing Egypt and didn't see much diving on the part of the Egyptian players- they earned their tears.

Nevermind- I just looked at the Group listings and apparently that team didn't make it.  (Maybe there _is _some justice in the world...)


----------



## Morrus (Jun 2, 2010)

Sutekh said:


> Although being in England at the moment, what is up with ALL of the local papers?
> 
> Savage your own side much? And just wait for the coach to get all the blame because wow.. we only just realised.. he isnt British!..




I don't know about the local papers - but as for the national papers: welcome to the British Press.  That's what they do.


----------



## Jack7 (Jun 2, 2010)

It's my favorite sport and the Cup is my favorite soccer event. I also used to play in school. So really like to watch it. It's the only team sport I actually still get emotional and charged up about. 

I'll be pulling for USA.

I like to watch Italy, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, England, Korea, and South Africa play.

I also like to watch some of the smaller underdog teams play. Depends on who makes it and how they act.

I'd much rather see an American team take it (North, Central, or South American) but if they play really well I don't mind seeing Italy or Germany take it either.

Once I'd like to see somebody like Korea take it.

But it's the best sporting event in the world to me.
I love it.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 3, 2010)

TheNovaLord said:


> yep
> 
> cant believe spain are the bookies favourite. If any team is more disappointing in big tournaments its spain, more so than england
> 
> at 14-1 im really tempted to have a flutter on teams like germany and argentina




Spain ARE the European Champions, though! And they've got Villa and Torres up front - that's got to be the most dangerous partnership in the World Cup.

I am, of course, cheering for England and hoping like hell that Rooney doesn't get a) injured or b) sent off.

I'm also going to be enthusiastically cheering Aaron Lennon, the Tottenham speed-demon, and wishing him luck. He's possibly my favourite English player right now.

Argentina are either going to be spectacular, or spectacularly awful. Maradonna is an absolute lunatic, but he might just inspire them.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 4, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Argentina are either going to be spectacular, or spectacularly awful.



I picked them in 2006 and was very disappointed. They need to redeem themselves to me, a random American. 



> Maradonna is an absolute lunatic, but he might just inspire them.



There's always one naked streaker; maybe this year it will be him.  Go Argentina!

And let's hope USA gets out of the first round!


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 4, 2010)

Bah, Argentina isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jun 4, 2010)

Sutekh said:


> Okay, so I dont expect Aus to go all the way. The semifinals would be a dream .. quarters more expected.




You're going to have to do better than against us, you guys played like thugs.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 4, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Spain ARE the European Champions, though! And they've got Villa and Torres up front - that's got to be the most dangerous partnership in the World Cup.
> 
> I am, of course, cheering for England and hoping like hell that Rooney doesn't get a) injured or b) sent off.
> 
> ...




Maradonna is the weak link in the Argentina setup right now, I hope he doesn't drag the team down.

As a supporter of the host team, I am hoping we get through to the second round, the team looks good and has been playing exceptionally well recently.  I am also glad the gave Benni the boot - how can a striker be overweight and out of shape at the end of a season?


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 4, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> I
> There's always one naked streaker; maybe this year it will be him.  Go Argentina!




I am going blind at the mere thought.  Will have to keep a spoon on hand to carve out my eyes if that happens...


----------



## kotletas (Jun 4, 2010)

Are you going to gamble when the Cup begins?
__________________
viagra
seroquel


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 9, 2010)

Less than 48 Hours to kickoff, there is a real buzz developing in the streets of Cape Town


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 10, 2010)

A shade over 23 Hours till kick off of the opening game.



The excitement levels here in South Africa are crazy, even many of the nay-sayers are coming around.

There was a huge impromptu nationwide street party at Mid-day yesterday.  I will try post some links later this evening.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 10, 2010)

IT is now 11 June 2011 in South Africa, 16 hours to kick off.

Some galleries of the build up to the World Cup:

Sport24

Sport24

Sport24


----------



## Orius (Jun 11, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll be a patriot and root for my country's team, USA!  USA! USA!




Real patriots root for Team USA to lose. It's a matter of national pride, we're supposed to suck at soccer!   

And then kick ass at every other competitive team sport.  

Besides, why should Americans care about the World Cup when baseball season is heading into -ahem- _full swing_? That's more important!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2010)

Americans should be proud of our history in the sport...not proud like Brazil or Spain or what have you, but we've done pretty well, all things considered.

Personally, I'm an Army Brat, and when I was 8, we were stationed in Stuttgart, Germany.  At the time, the only "pee-wee" games in town were soccer (football) and football (American).

My Dad, being an MD, said no to the latter- especially since my best buddy broke his arm twice in one year playing it- so I took up soccer.  I played mostly Fullback and Goalie.

Funny thing- at the time, there were only a few leagues, so American kids often got to play against the Germans, so I got good _quickly._  And I played it up through college, though only as an intramural sport- I didn't want to go on team trips because I was there for study, not sport.

By way of contrast, I found Hockey when we moved to Denver and got to see the Colorado Rockies (who later became the Devils, who, with the Stars, are my 2 teams to root for), Football didn't get my attention until I was in HS, I didn't pay attention to basketball until I was in college and David Robinson was drafted by the Spurs (I was in San Antonio), and I didn't become a fan of baseball until I was in law school.  I was still damn good- the varsity players occasionally asked me to try out.

So Soccer holds a special place in my heart, and I was in tears when we lost to Brazil in the FIFA Confederations Cup last year...so_ GO USA!_


----------



## Krug (Jun 11, 2010)

I'm not a big fan of soccer, but I'm pulling for North Korea... and I hope the whole team defects after the end of their run. Coaches too.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 11, 2010)

Here's a question - how many people on this thread knew that the USA beat England 1 - 0 back in the 1950's?


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 11, 2010)

More randomness - The first international match outside of the UK was played by the USA vs Canada in Newark, New Jersey in 1885.  Canada won 1-0.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 11, 2010)

Is there any good streaming online coverage in the US?


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 11, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Here's a question - how many people on this thread knew that the USA beat England 1 - 0 back in the 1950's?




Specifically, 1950.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 11, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Is there any good streaming online coverage in the US?




The BBC are doing live text commentary:

BBC SPORT | Football | World Cup 2010


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 11, 2010)

1 - 1 Draw between Mexico and South Africa in the opening game, although either team could have taken it.

This might be slightly biased, but cracker of an opening goal, I hope it sets the standard for the rest of the tournament.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 11, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Is there any good streaming online coverage in the US?




Fifa have some decent text live streaming onsite


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2010)

> Real patriots root for Team USA to lose. It's a matter of national pride, we're supposed to suck at soccer!




I forgot to say this:

As Americans, we're supposed to think we're going to dominate in any sport.  What we're NOT supposed to have is any idea of where any of the countries we're playing against are.  In some states, being able to ID any continent other than ours is a punishable offense.  Even knowing the locations of the other states outside your own and the immediate surrounds will get you the hairy eyeball.

Heaven help you if you know any of the state capitols.


----------



## Krug (Jun 11, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> 1 - 1 Draw between Mexico and South Africa in the opening game, although either team could have taken it.
> 
> This might be slightly biased, but cracker of an opening goal, I hope it sets the standard for the rest of the tournament.




Yeah SA almost had it. It was a sluggish first half but things picked up in the second.


----------



## Punnuendo (Jun 12, 2010)

I'm supporting the Yanks as far as they'll go but my upset pick to win the whole tournament is the Oranje. Can anyone else score like the Netherlands? 

That was only slightly tongue in cheek.


----------



## Orius (Jun 12, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Here's a question - how many people on this thread knew that the USA beat England 1 - 0 back in the 1950's?




How the hell did THAT happen?  We beat England, and in the _'50s_ no less?!



Dannyalcatraz said:


> As Americans, we're supposed to think we're going to dominate in any sport.  What we're NOT supposed to have is any idea of where any of the countries we're playing against are.  In some states, being able to ID any continent other than ours is a punishable offense.  Even knowing the locations of the other states outside your own and the immediate surrounds will get you the hairy eyeball.
> 
> Heaven help you if you know any of the state capitols.




I need to know where these places are so I can avoid them like the plague.  Otherwise, I'm likely to end up on death row!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 12, 2010)

Orius said:


> Real patriots root for Team USA to lose.




Agreed.  I'm very patriotic, and I'm rooting for the USA to lose.


----------



## Mark (Jun 12, 2010)

When US citizens don't have a team that can win in the World Cup, we root for any other New World team.  I'll root for Brazil or Argentina if the US is knocked out.


----------



## Krug (Jun 12, 2010)

Good going Korea. First win of the tournament!


----------



## Punnuendo (Jun 12, 2010)

Krug said:


> Good going Korea. First win of the tournament!





Greece was horrible. Argentina looked solid, but mortal in a win over a decent Nigeria. South Korea has a chance to not only make it out of the group stage, but maybe pull an upset and finish first in the group. Very good play from them. Good striking and a fun swarming defense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2010)

Crapity-crap-crap!

4 minutes in, and England scores...and the USA doesn't play well from behind against England.  As in, "has never won" from that position.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 12, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Crapity-crap-crap!
> 
> 4 minutes in, and England scores...and the USA doesn't play well from behind against England.  As in, "has never won" from that position.




Yeah, not a good start.....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2010)

The Softie Equalizer!


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 12, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The Softie Equalizer!




No kidding!  I can't believe that got through!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2010)

Yeah...and if the USA wins, whatever you do, don't pinch yourself until the results are final.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 12, 2010)

Another Big Spill.....at least this one benefits the USA!!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2010)

Ouch!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2010)

Geeze!  Just watching this game makes me want to sing!

England's stars, 
Look how they shine for you, 
And everything you do, 
Yeah they all got [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI8I6qcxWyU"]"Yellow"[/ame]


----------



## Mark (Jun 12, 2010)

We'll take the draw against England.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jun 12, 2010)

Mark said:


> When US citizens don't have a team that can win in the World Cup, we root for any other New World team.  I'll root for Brazil or Argentina if the US is knocked out.




I was cheering for the USA, but I drew England in our office pool, so I was at least slightly conflicted. I'll take 1:1.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 12, 2010)

Yep, I can settle for a draw.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2010)

I really feel for England's Goalie, Green.  It can be such a thankless job being the last line of defense.  I went through something like that myself.

I was on a college intramural team consisting of volunteers from a social club and the school glee club/choir/music majors (they were only in it for the participation points).  I was the only one who had played organized soccer, so I decided to play goalie.

We were up against the ROTC squad, which featured a bunch of athletes- duh! they're in training for the military!- and some actual players.

From the first whistle, it was half-field soccer.  The only time my team progressed past midfield was when I kicked a freebie across.

In 89 minutes, I stopped 45 shots...some from within the goal box.

With a minute left, one of the ROTC players kicked a weak centering pass that was dribbling right on net...and nobody from his team was following through.  I had all the time in the world...

And I saw one of my players making a break for midfield, utterly uncovered but totally onside!

So instead of just stopping the ball, I accelerated in order to boom the ball upfield, planting my foot to make the strike...and my plant foot _didn't_.

As my other foot swung towards the ball, I found myself upside down in the air as the ball continued, untouched, towards our goal.  It had just enough momentum to carry it across the line for a goal.

Stopped 45, let in a softie in the final minute.

Later on in that tournament, I watched another goalie have a similar moment.  He tried to punt the ball upfield and planted in a mud puddle.  Result: a bicycle kick own-goal (his team won, though).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2010)

And FWIW, I'm REALLY curious as to how Korea will do.  I remember how well they did in 2002- lots of exciting, quick play.


----------



## Punnuendo (Jun 12, 2010)

I'll take that result. Bradley always has questionable game plans for me though. Dempsey is probably the State's top guy for breaking games open and making chances, yet they usually have him playing a support position. It is frustrating.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> I was cheering for the USA, but I drew England in our office pool, so I was at least slightly conflicted. I'll take 1:1.





If there's money or some other prize involved, there's not a US born American who would fault you for hoping to win the pool with a blind draw.


----------



## stonegod (Jun 13, 2010)

Had fun watching the game in a German bar. Would've been better in London, though.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 13, 2010)

Punnuendo said:


> I'll take that result. Bradley always has questionable game plans for me though. Dempsey is probably the State's top guy for breaking games open and making chances, yet they usually have him playing a support position. It is frustrating.




I would say Landon Donovan is your best player.

Decent result for both sides. England took the US defence apart a number of times (and why did it have to be Heskey that got put through on goal? Argh!), and we only conceeded a very soft goal through a keeper error. Feel for Green, he's a decent keeper. Might be seeing Joe Hart in goal next time, though.

Reckon we'll see a marked improvement when Barry comes back in for the next match. The team will have a lot more balance to it, plus we won't have the "it's-never-worked-and-it-never-will" Lampard & Gerrard midfield partnership.

Very impressed with South Korea, Argentina were lucky to get 1 - 0 in my opinion and I think better teams than Nigeria will score against them. Greece were awful and may as well leave now.


----------



## Punnuendo (Jun 13, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I would say Landon Donovan is your best player.




I'd argue that Howard is the actual best player on the team, but yeah Donovan is probably a better overall player than Dempsey. The difference between them is Dempsey will try anything just to see if it works, and ends up creating more chances by his own hard work than Donovan does. So he'll have a lot not work, but then having some spectacular end up working and turning a game around. Either way I do like having them both on the team.


----------



## Punnuendo (Jun 13, 2010)

Man, Ghana/Serbia has been the best game of the tournament so far. Couple of mistakes by Serbia makes what already was one of the better and more interesting groups int he tournament even more wide open. How big is the Ghana celebration party going to be?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 15, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Here's a question - how many people on this thread knew that the USA beat England 1 - 0 back in the 1950's?



An upset, certainly, but by no means unheard of. Rank 3ish upset by a rank 28ish?

In 2006, during the World Cup, Czechia (10) was beaten 2-0 by Ghana (43).

2002 World Cup, France (1) lost 1-0 to Senegal (27).

So, US beating England in 1950? My response: statistical anomalies exist.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 15, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I would say Landon Donovan is your best player.
> 
> Decent result for both sides. England took the US defence apart a number of times (and why did it have to be Heskey that got put through on goal? Argh!), and we only conceeded a very soft goal through a keeper error. Feel for Green, he's a decent keeper. Might be seeing Joe Hart in goal next time, though.



I'll put in another vote for Howard being the best player on the US side. In fact, I think that the US team has a better goalie than England, though England has a much stronger defense. I really expected to see Hart in there instead of Green.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 15, 2010)

SO, group G aka the group of death is up today, Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast and poor North Korea, I am seriously hoping this group lives up to is potential


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 15, 2010)

I'd like to put in a mention for the Netherlands doing well yesterday with a 2 - 0 win over Denmark, not least of which because I've got them in an office sweepstake and stand to make about £40 if they win the World Cup.

Group of Death should be fun, today, although frankly I still expect Brazil to get through fairly easily.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 15, 2010)

I have to say I was really impressed with the turnouts over the weekend for the games at the various bars and pubs in this small American city on Lake Ontario that I now find myself. Monday's turnout was mostly "lunch crowd" hours, and it looks like more of the same today. The complaints I heard, which seem to echo what a lot of "middle America" is expressing, have been 1) it's boring because it plays too slow , 2) those damn horns make it annoying to listen to, 3) blowouts are even more boring (Germany/Australia), 4) ties really SUCK! 

It's also interesting to see the difference in response to Saturday's England/USA tie game and the USA's lucky goal. Let's just say the commentary from across the pond has been quite spirited, whereas here, the response of most people is still "We tied England? Oh." 

I don't hold those opinions, but of the negative stuff, that's what I'm hearing. 

Still, I'm glad people are watching around here.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 15, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> 1) it's boring because it plays too slow




But we'll watch golf or a bunch of cars going fast turning left!  



			
				jaerdaph said:
			
		

> 2) those damn horns make it annoying to listen to




The horns are pretty annoying to listen to.  They just drone on and on.  I understand it is tradition for the region, but it doesn't make it any less annoying.  I'm sort of hoping the broadcast sound mixers figure out a way to tone that down a bit for the television broadcasts.



			
				jaerdaph said:
			
		

> 4) ties really SUCK!




Yeah - folks really like their winners and losers!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 15, 2010)

Huh...the vuvuzelas don't bother me in the least.

(And no, I don't mute the sound on the games.)


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 15, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Huh...the vuvuzelas don't bother me in the least.
> 
> (And no, I don't mute the sound on the games.)




They didn't keep me from watching and I did keep the sound on, but I found myself thinking many times that the sound from the vuvuzelas was annoying.  Maybe it just hits a sensitive tone range for me....


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 15, 2010)

One game I caught part of on Friday or Saturday, they were giving me a headache, so I changed the channel. Other games, they've been annoying, but not an actual pain. They seemed louder during that one game.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 15, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> But we'll watch golf or a bunch of cars going fast turning left!




LOL! Yuck - I won't do either of those either!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 15, 2010)

Vuvuzelas vs Airhorns?  I'll take the Vuvuzelas.

Vuvuzelas vs Drums?  I'll take the Vuvuzelas.

Vuvuzelas vs assorted brass (like trumpets)?  I'll take the Vuvuzelas.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 16, 2010)

Looks like Host Broadcast Services is doubling the audio filters to help take out some of the horn sounds from the broadcast.

The Associated Press: Stop the buzz: Broadcasters filtering vuvuzelas


----------



## Krug (Jun 16, 2010)

Nice fight by North Korea. Brazil's first goal was a beauty.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2010)

I think Brazil's first was a bit of luck...but only the guy who scored it knows for sure if he was looking to pass or looking to score.

But that second one was a classic- they simply outmaneuvered the NK defense completely.

And NK's goal was no slouch either!  Look at the replay and you'll see at least one Brazilian back simply watching the play as he got fooled.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 16, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think Brazil's first was a bit of luck...but only the guy who scored it knows for sure if he was looking to pass or looking to score.



What? I saw the replay about a dozen times. He slipped it right in with spin. Nice shot.



> But that second one was a classic- they simply outmaneuvered the NK defense completely.



Agreed. Textbook-perfect. I was explaining it to people at work. But to them it looked "boring."



> And NK's goal was no slouch either!  Look at the replay and you'll see at least one Brazilian back simply watching the play as he got fooled.



Yeah, it was well played by the Korean. He worked hard for it and got it. Pretty.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> What? I saw the replay about a dozen times. He slipped it right in with spin. Nice shot.




He was also looking away- probably at the guy who was headed to the back pole.  Even the announcers were debating whether he was intending to pass to that guy for an "easy" put in or if he was looking the goalie off- a head fake, if you will- and actually intentionally shooting it where ended.

IOW, it was either a lucky shot from a botched pass or a brilliant goal involving a bit of trickery.

_Their_ conclusion: he's a Brazilian good enough to play for the national team in the World Cup, and either is perfectly likely, and no one will know for sure unless he says so.  And not even then would it be for sure!


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 16, 2010)

TheNovaLord said:


> yep
> 
> cant believe spain are the bookies favourite. If any team is more disappointing in big tournaments its spain, more so than england
> 
> at 14-1 im really tempted to have a flutter on teams like germany and argentina




Sometime my own genius even scares me!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2010)

Even though it didn't really affect the outcome of the game, I really hated that Red Card against South Africa's goalie.  The attacker grazed his toes and goes down like he was shot by a 50 caliber.

THAT is one reason why many Americans dislike the sport.

Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as a "professional foul" in every sport you can name, but the way some soccer pros go down makes you wonder if they could pass a field sobriety test.


----------



## Mark (Jun 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though it didn't really affect the outcome of the game, I really hated that Red Card against South Africa's goalie.  The attacker grazed his toes and goes down like he was shot by a 50 caliber.
> 
> THAT is one reason why many Americans dislike the sport.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as a "professional foul" in every sport you can name, but the way some soccer pros go down makes you wonder if they could pass a field sobriety test.





Sometimes when I am out at a store I will see a child with his mother.  The child might be told he is not going to be getting a toy or his favorite candy on this particular trip.  This triggers a reaction in the child where he will go completely limp, like his body has suddenly ceased to function, and his face will contort as if in the most extreme pain a person could experience.  When I see an athlete do something like this to draw a foul in any sport I cringe.


----------



## Joker (Jun 17, 2010)

Mark said:


> Sometimes when I am out at a store I will see a child with his mother.  The child might be told he is not going to be getting a toy or his favorite candy on this particular trip.  This triggers a reaction in the child where he will go completely limp, like his body has suddenly ceased to function, and his face will contort as if in the most extreme pain a person could experience.  When I see an athlete do something like this to draw a foul in any sport I cringe.




It has unfortunately become a part of football's culture.  It is childish and completely disrespectful towards your opponents and the audience.

It can be and is often a wonderful sport but some people disgrace it.

Rugby > football anyway.  Science has proven it.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though it didn't really affect the outcome of the game, I really hated that Red Card against South Africa's goalie.  The attacker grazed his toes and goes down like he was shot by a 50 caliber.
> 
> THAT is one reason why many Americans dislike the sport.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as a "professional foul" in every sport you can name, but the way some soccer pros go down makes you wonder if they could pass a field sobriety test.




Worst part was the striker was offside so the freekick should have been given against him (not that we are are bitter about the indecent here or anything  )

TO be fair we were outplayed in the game.


----------



## Mark (Jun 17, 2010)

The home team is in a world (cup) of hurt.  I'm hoping Mexico knocks out France.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2010)

> TO be fair we were outplayed in the game.




Absolutely, but that was insult + injury...with a match left.



> I'm hoping Mexico knocks out France.




Right now, France is down by 2 against Mexico.

Which means that they'll need to beat South Africa to advance...

Go South Africa!


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 17, 2010)

A draw between Mexico and France would have helped us more than the 2 - 0 result (great game by the way).

As it stands

If Uruguay and Mexico draw their game, both team go through.  However the team that ends second, which would be Mexico based on goal difference, however that leaves Mexico facing Argentina in the next round.

The question is, would Mexico be willing to risk facing Argentina who are looking in ominous form, and would Uruguay be willing to risk sitting back and conceding a late goal and end second in the pool?

For South Africa to have a chance of getting through, we have to score at least 3 against France with Uruguay beating Mexico by 2.

Nearly impossible? Maybe, but as a sports fan it is what we live for


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2010)

And while we're at it...kudos to those who made history in the World Cup:

Mexico beats a European team in the world cup for the first time in...how long?  And in doing so, the youngster who scored the first Mexican goal repeats his grandfather's feat, and Mexico's geezer scores the second one!

Greece gets its first WC goal AND victory?


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And while we're at it...kudos to those who made history in the World Cup:
> 
> Mexico beats a European team in the world cup for the first time in...how long?  And in doing so, the youngster who scored the first Mexican goal repeats his grandfather's feat, and Mexico's geezer scores the second one!
> 
> Greece gets its first WC goal AND victory?




Indeed, great goal by Hernandes, who will be playing for Manchester United next season 

France looked awful throughout the game though 11 players but no team


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 18, 2010)

BTW...you know that its an official FIFA rule that any country's team that loses to the USA after the first round has to call "Football"/"Futbol" _"Soccer"_ until the next World Cup.


----------



## Orius (Jun 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though it didn't really affect the outcome of the game, I really hated that Red Card against South Africa's goalie.  The attacker grazed his toes and goes down like he was shot by a 50 caliber.
> 
> THAT is one reason why many Americans dislike the sport.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as a "professional foul" in every sport you can name, but the way some soccer pros go down makes you wonder if they could pass a field sobriety test.




Not exactly sure what you're talking about, cause I'm not watcing the games, but it sounds like that contributes to the American view of soccer being a wussy sport, rather than something more masculine and virile like football (yeah I know; but the proper American term is soccer).  Real men play football, basketball and hockey, and sometimes baseball.  Soccer is seen as a girly sport, and thus is generally hated in Middle America.  A more rational explaination on why Americans hate soccer is because they find it less entertaining to watch than other sports.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 18, 2010)

What, on earth, was the ref's call? Why? What was the call to end the US game?? And why was there no additional time after the injury during the extra time?


----------



## Joker (Jun 18, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> What, on earth, was the ref's call? Why? What was the call to end the US game?? And why was there no additional time after the injury during the extra time?




He thought one of the players was off-side.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 18, 2010)

I think ref saw Bradley as being offside.  There is a moment where he is between the defender and the goal, but he is being twisted around by the defender grabbing him and by the time the ball comes across, he is next to the defender.  In real time, the ref may have seen him momentarily offsides and didn't see how he no longer was when the goal was kicked.  Still was a blown call and it sucks for the US.


----------



## Mark (Jun 18, 2010)

Next Wednesday is going to be a big day for Group C.  Too bad the games are at the same time.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 18, 2010)

Joker said:


> He thought one of the players was off-side.




Not according to the FIFA match report. According to that it was, get this, that there was a foul. On whom? For what? No one knows. And, of course, if there was a foul, Bradley wants to know why he was in a headlock and that wasn't called.


----------



## Villano (Jun 19, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though it didn't really affect the outcome of the game, I really hated that Red Card against South Africa's goalie.  The attacker grazed his toes and goes down like he was shot by a 50 caliber.
> 
> THAT is one reason why many Americans dislike the sport.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as a "professional foul" in every sport you can name, but the way some soccer pros go down makes you wonder if they could pass a field sobriety test.





Has anyone here ever seen the Travel Channel series *Dhani Tackles The Globe*?  Dhani Jones, a football player, travels to different countries and spends two weeks learning a new sport.  He recently was in South Africa where he learned soccer.

During his training, the coach decided to let Jones teach the team in a more aggressive way, like American football training.  So, Jones paired them up and told them to go after the ball.  They were allowed to push and shove their opponent to gain control of the ball.

So, two guys rush the ball, they make contact with each other and second guy immediately drops to the ground, grabs his knee, and begins to act as if a great white shark has just torn off his leg.

What's funny is that Jones, who's a pretty big guy, just walks up to the player, picks him off the ground and tells him to "walk it off".  The kid keeps up the "But my leg's broken!" act for a few seconds before walking away.  

I'm guessing this sort of behavior has almost become a reflex with some soccer players.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 19, 2010)

Source: FIFA may sit Slovenia-U.S. referee - International Football - Yahoo! Sports

Well, that would be interesting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 19, 2010)

HOLY COW!  What a day!


An inexperienced Ref takes away a USA goal...but not without dispensing yellow cards on Slovenia like he was throwing them off of a Mardi Gras float.  He also missed at least one red card opportunity.  Slovenia may have played rough, but he tossed out so many of those things I wouldn't be surprised to see them playing their first game in the next round 11 on 4 (assuming they went through).
England gets a tie, so USA is "win and in."
Germany goes a man down to LOSE a match.


----------



## Joker (Jun 19, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Not according to the FIFA match report. According to that it was, get this, that there was a foul. On whom? For what? No one knows. And, of course, if there was a foul, Bradley wants to know why he was in a headlock and that wasn't called.




In that case the foul could have been any of the every single player near the goal pulling on or holding an opponent.  Introduce instant replay and crap like this can be avoided.

The Slovenian team was far better in the first half as it took the Americans a long time to get the molasses out of their asses so to speak.

To quote a Dutch commentator (paraphrased) :  It seems the Americans have a very tough time dictating the game by creating plays.  They only shine and challenge an opponent when said opponent is better than them.  It must be that indomitable American spirit they're talking about.  Unfortunately football requires a certain assertiveness which, strangely, the American team seems to lack on the pitch.

The third goal should have been theirs though.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 19, 2010)

Joker said:


> In that case the foul could have been any of the every single player near the goal pulling on or holding an opponent.  Introduce instant replay and crap like this can be avoided.




Oh, yeah. On replay, it looks like a rugby scrum in there, ironically with the exception of Edu, who seems to pull of a swim move to escape an entangle effect.



Joker said:


> The Slovenian team was far better in the first half as it took the Americans a long time to get the molasses out of their asses so to speak.




Oh, yes. The first half was quite dismaying. The Slovenians are really good and I hope they advance, not the English.

Watching pro sports, I've gotten used to bad calls, because they're part of the game, and game-changing bad calls happen, even if you legitimately complain about them. But no sport I watch has the ref not announce the call. NFL: announces penalty and player to fans. NBA: call labels player, announced to fan. MLB: announces call and there's a tradition of allowing managers to go on the field to scream at the ref about it. I never realized that having authorities be accountable to fans and sides was actually an American conceit.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 19, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> I never realized that having authorities be accountable to fans and sides was actually an American conceit.



It's not - there are many, many other international sports where the officials announce their decision plainly for everyone, e.g. cricket, tennis, rugby.


----------



## Mark (Jun 19, 2010)

It might just have been put in place to avoid language barrier issues which could lead to further problems on the field that delay the game.  I don't really have a problem with players not being able to challenge a call on the field, even for clarification, since it is a slippery slope.  I do agree that there would be some benefit to a 24 hour appeal process, and use during that process of instant replay, to correct the most egregious of calls on the field.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 19, 2010)

Mark said:


> It might just have been put in place to avoid language barrier issues which could lead to further problems on the field that delay the game.  I don't really have a problem with players not being able to challenge a call on the field, even for clarification, since it is a slippery slope.  I do agree that there would be some benefit to a 24 hour appeal process, and use during that process of instant replay, to correct the most egregious of calls on the field.



I agree - I think it's crazy in the biggest sport in the world that they don't have some sort of instant replay system - e.g.the captain can appeal a certain number of times per game, once the ball is out of play (like in tennis).


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 19, 2010)

nerfherder said:


> It's not - there are many, many other international sports where the officials announce their decision plainly for everyone, e.g. cricket, tennis, rugby.




I'd forgotten about tennis. The others... I'm not sure that those really count as major sports, especially as international sports without inclusion in the Olympics (although rugby joins in 2016, I understand). But still, no major competitive sports league in the US does this, with the exception of soccer.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 19, 2010)

Mark said:


> It might just have been put in place to avoid language barrier issues which could lead to further problems on the field that delay the game.  I don't really have a problem with players not being able to challenge a call on the field, even for clarification, since it is a slippery slope.  I do agree that there would be some benefit to a 24 hour appeal process, and use during that process of instant replay, to correct the most egregious of calls on the field.




Challenge, no, I agree. Know what the call _is_, well, I feel that's basic.

As for language, I understand that in this particular case the ref spoke English and French fluently. Of course, the US players asked him what the call was in both languages too.


----------



## Mark (Jun 19, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Challenge, no, I agree. Know what the call _is_, well, I feel that's basic.
> 
> As for language, I understand that in this particular case the ref spoke English and French fluently. Of course, the US players asked him what the call was in both languages too.





It seems the issue isn't the call but rather the details, or claification, that was being demanded, and I'm not sure allowing that should be acceptable once the ref has said to play on.  It might be good if a number of challenges can be made, in the moment, by the coach (maybe he'd base that on the request of a player, perhaps a captain), then they could be reviewed "upstairs" during the game and a ruling issued at the half or right after the game if warranted.  You could do this in conjunction with the above suggested appeals process, I suppose, for the more flagrant mistakes.  As for the language barrier, someone can speak a language and if it is not their primary language not speak it well enough, with the ability to speak in such detail, as to satisfy a listener.  Plus, it needs to be a blanket policy, I think.  If not all of the refs are capable of the same degree of language skill, in all languages necessary for any game they happen to ref, are only some required to give details on a call while others get a pass?  Another slippery slope.  It will be a shame if the US doesn't advance but the chance is still in reach and in their own control.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 19, 2010)

Mark said:


> Next Wednesday is going to be a big day for Group C.  Too bad the games are at the same time.




The final group games are always played at the same time to avoid any possibilities of cheating - for example, if Mexico and Uruguary were on first and played out a draw, the France / South Africa game would have no meaning at all.

Incidentally, England were THE BIGGEST PILE OF ARSE I've ever seen on Friday night. At the moment, unless we totally shake it up, we're out on Wednesday. Absolutely woeful performance - nearly as bad as the French.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 19, 2010)

nerfherder said:


> I agree - I think it's crazy in the biggest sport in the world that they don't have some sort of instant replay system - e.g.the captain can appeal a certain number of times per game, once the ball is out of play (like in tennis).




The whole thing about football, though, is that it _doesn't_ stop for stuff.  That's part of the very core of the game and why millions are spent on players with endurance rather than short bursts of intense energy.  Changing that literally changes the game.

The ref should never be expected to explain his decision at the time.  Sure, the media can hound him afterwards and a ref can be removed if they're not consistently competent, but football carries on immediately.

In this case - the ref wasn't wrong, but the situation really sucks for the USA and I feel for them.  It _feels _unfair.

But when it comes down to it, he blew the whistle after a foul, and the goal was scored after the whistle was blown.  The goal was scored when the game had been stopped.  Yes, the timing was tight and it was really unfortunate timing for the US (especially when the Slovenians were clearly being asshats), but the rules is the rules, and that's the game we choose to compete in.  

99% of the time it works and creates the most popular sport on the entire planet.  1% of the time we get a "Hand of God" or this game.  But pausing for replays?  Allowing players to have a cup of tea and kit-kat mid-game?  That's too much of a game changer.  It's not worth the 1%.

There's a reason why it's worked so long.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jun 19, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> The final group games are always played at the same time to avoid any possibilities of cheating - for example, if Mexico and Uruguary were on first and played out a draw, the France / South Africa game would have no meaning at all.




The infamous West Germany vs Austria game of the 1982 world cup was what prompted the change to have the final group games at the same time.  It's a good rule, although you'll have to pick which game to watch.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 19, 2010)

I really can't agree, Morrus. The call was wrong. But even if it was right, the call was not labeled for the players as a foul or as off-sides or as an inadvertent whistle. Had that happened, people wouldn't be so pissed, because every popular American sport labels the infraction for either the players or the fans to know. And this is typical policy. It's egregiously stupid as a policy when this sport RECENTLY suffered yet another serious referee corruption scandal (Italy, I believe). It comes across as institutional arrogance when an authority doesn't even need to explain itself to its customers or its employees.

Americans found a new reason to hate soccer. And that's enormously damaging to the sport when it's the biggest nation in the tournament--one that's also sports mad and has many in its populace play it as teens--can't stand to watch it. The fact that 83rd ranked China also apparently could care less is also unfortunate as well. 

Just because something has worked well in the past, doesn't mean it's worked optimally. 

Both Slovenia and the US deserved better from FIFA this week.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jun 19, 2010)

Umm, what? Soccer is huge in China.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 19, 2010)

Especially on the women's side- aren't they and the USA ranked #1 & #2 since...forever?

The last thing I'll say against the disallowed goal is that, according to ESPN, even the Slovenian coach said _he_ couldn't find the foul the ref called.

I've said a few prayers for that ref.  I know how Red Sox fans have treated Bill Buckner over the years, and I haven't forgotten that Andres Escobar was found dead after an own goal in international play...here's hoping the ref won't encounter any ultra-rabid fans.

I'm glad to see that the English fans are being so reserved in their critique of their team.

And how about the disintegration of Le Blues?  Wow...just...wow.

As for today's action...Cameroon- so many shots and so little to show for it.  Man, the Danes looked awful.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 20, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> I really can't agree, Morrus. The call was wrong. But even if it was right, the call was not labeled for the players as a foul or as off-sides or as an inadvertent whistle. Had that happened, people wouldn't be so pissed, because every popular American sport labels the infraction for either the players or the fans to know. And this is typical policy. It's egregiously stupid as a policy when this sport RECENTLY suffered yet another serious referee corruption scandal (Italy, I believe). It comes across as institutional arrogance when an authority doesn't even need to explain itself to its customers or its employees.
> 
> Americans found a new reason to hate soccer. And that's enormously damaging to the sport when it's the biggest nation in the tournament--one that's also sports mad and has many in its populace play it as teens--can't stand to watch it. The fact that 83rd ranked China also apparently could care less is also unfortunate as well.
> 
> ...




With all due respect, the World Cup has been the biggest sporting event on the planet for decades _despite _the US's disinterest. The amount of money a team like ManU generates is stupendous. Having the yanks interested would be a bonus, but it really is not necessary. 

The principle of "_the game does not stop_" makes the game play like it does. I agree that pausing it and reviewing decisions would result in a higher accuracy rate; but it would change the game. And, your own country aside, it cannot be denied that the formula works on a massive scale, and has done for decades. Viewing figures are in the billions, and the revenue is mind-bogglingly huge. A few million more viewers from America really isn't gonna make any difference.

As for whether the call was right or not - it _was_ right. Foul, whistle. And the ref is _not_ required to stop and explain it. The game keeps going. The players don't get to stop playing. Sprinting for 90 minutes is an expensive skill to train them in! But it was a perfect storm of the right call being _really_ unfortunate for the US team given the timing. It is unfortunate, and the US did lose out. ANd yes, that sucks, and I feel for you. Having been on the other end of similar situations, don't think I don't understand where you're coming from.

But "change the way the game works" so the US might become interested? That's not gonna happen. People have been arguing for and against extra tech and so forth for decades, and this is just another minor data point. There are strong arguments both for and against it, and we're not going to come up with any new argument here on EN World which hasn't already been discussed endlessly for the last 50 years.

"Americans finding a new way to hate soccer" is _not_ "enormously damaging to the sport".  I understand the temptation to wish it were so, but the truth is it just frankly ain't.  If no American ever watched a football game again for the rest of eternity, football would still thrive immensely - as it always has done.


----------



## Mark (Jun 20, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> The final group games are always played at the same time to avoid any possibilities of cheating - (. . .)





Yup.  It's still too bad.


----------



## Mark (Jun 20, 2010)

Morrus said:


> With all due respect, the World Cup has been the biggest sporting event on the planet for decades _despite _the US's disinterest.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> ...





Who said "pausing?"  There's no reason review cannot happen while the game continues or post game.  Certainly you're not arguing in favor of bad calls just to thumb your nose at supposed US disinterest?  I wonder where the US ranks in the total number of fans who are watching the World Cup?  Heck, we probably have more people within our borders watching the matches that aren't even supposed to be here than some countries have who are.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 20, 2010)

> Certainly you're not arguing in favor of bad calls just to thumb your nose at supposed US disinterest?




OK Mark.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2010)

Morrus said:


> As for whether the call was right or not - it _was_ right. Foul, whistle.




Forgive me, but you're the only person I know of- besides the ref- who has put forth this position.

I didn't see a foul.  The announcers didn't.  The _Sovenians_ haven't had one person step up and say "I was the guy who was fouled."

What is it that you saw?

As for replay:  I don't think that soccer really needs it for the most part.  Soccer, like hockey or basketball are games of flow.  But controversial goals being given or taken away in a sport where goals are soooooooo precious is one area where I don't think the game would suffer.  It works for hockey, after all.*


*  Note: according to FIFA rules, if Canada ever wins the World Cup, the game will be played on ice and called Foothockey.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Forgive me, but you're the only person I know of- besides the ref- who has put forth this position.
> 
> I didn't see a foul. The announcers didn't. The _Sovenians_ haven't had one person step up and say "I was the guy who was fouled."
> 
> What is it that you saw?




What I saw was a pile of Slovenians bearhugging American players moments before the goal.  _That_ was the foul, as far as I can tell.  

Which, as I said, made the result really unfortunate.

But that's not the point - what we're discussing here is the conept of whther or not the ref's decision should be sacrosanct.  Heaven knows refs have been shown to be wrong in the past (nobosy would ever say they haven't - least of all an Englishman, for obvious reasons), but general consensus has continued the on-the-spot decision system.

I personally believe the sport would suffer from a change from that system.  I know that many disagree.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2010)

Morrus said:


> What I saw was a pile of Slovenians bearhugging American players moments before the goal.  _That_ was the foul, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Which, as I said, made the result really unfortunate.




I got you- there was a foul by the Slovenians by the Americans which resulted in the whistle which made the play dead, resulting in no-goal.




> But that's not the point - what we're discussing here is the conept of whther or not the ref's decision should be sacrosanct.  Heaven knows refs have been shown to be wrong in the past (nobosy would ever say they haven't - least of all an Englishman, for obvious reasons), but general consensus has continued the on-the-spot decision system.
> 
> I personally believe the sport would suffer from a change from that system.  I know that many disagree




This is one where- taking into account the quickness of the play vs. the whistle- there ought to be a way for a ref to essentially overturn his own call.  Refs in American football can pick up a flag they've thrown...and for certain penalties, they can allow a play to continue until it fully resolves.  And a hockey ref can have a "delayed" penalty to allow for the flow of play to continue so the aggrieved team can press its advantage if its within the flow of play.  In either case, despite a penalty being committed and being witnessed by the ref, the aggrieved team doesn't lose a scoring opportunity.

A penalty in sports is designed to prevent the team that committed it from getting an unfair advantage.  Here, the team that got caught committing a penalty did actually benefit.

In such a situation, a quick replay review would not be truly harmful.  The ref's call wouldn't so much be overturned as deemed irrelevant.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Especially on the women's side- aren't they and the USA ranked #1 & #2 since...forever?




No. It's the US and Canada that have been #1 and #2 forever. With Germany and Brazil knocking at the door lately (and often breaking right through it; I think Germany won the last Olympics; not sure, though), and the next tier are Scandinavians. The Chinese never got better than #3 and have fallen off a lot lately as countries with a lot athletes with serious interest in the sport have overcome the Chinese government's efforts; the same thing has happened in softball and women's hockey.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2010)

Yeah, that sounds more like it.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This is one where- taking into account the quickness of the play vs. the whistle- there ought to be a way for a ref to essentially overturn his own call. Refs in American football can pick up a flag they've thrown...and for certain penalties, they can allow a play to continue until it fully resolves. And a hockey ref can have a "delayed" penalty to allow for the flow of play to continue so the aggrieved team can press its advantage if its within the flow of play. In either case, despite a penalty being committed and being witnessed by the ref, the aggrieved team doesn't lose a scoring opportunity.
> 
> A penalty in sports is designed to prevent the team that committed it from getting an unfair advantage. Here, the team that got caught committing a penalty did actually benefit.
> 
> In such a situation, a quick replay review would not be truly harmful. The ref's call wouldn't so much be overturned as deemed irrelevant.




I understand the argument (as I said, it's one that's been raging for decades). 

Everyone will have a different opinion on it - mine is that this situation only occurs rarely. 99% of the time, it doesn't happen. That it happened this time is very unfortunate, and I completely sympathise.

I personally believe that having the ref make the call on the spot is valuable 99% of the time; and it goes wrong 1% of the time. That 1% is an acceptable loss in exchange for what I perceive as the benefits of not being able to second-guess the ref. I think that's a slippery sloap which will turn the game into a tournament of arguments - because everyone will argue everything; every single decision would be argued. 

I feel that it's better to say "the ref's decision stands, whatever", even if 1% of the time it's gonna go badly, like in this case. 

And don't get be wrong - I think you were robbed. It really was unfortunate. In my opinion, the USA won that game.  But I maintain my position of referees nonetheless.


----------



## Mark (Jun 20, 2010)

drothgery said:


> I think Germany won the last Olympics; not sure, though)





Olympic Games Winners - Reference book about all Olympics medalists of the all times


http://www.olympicgameswinners.com/...yEventsU&id=53&id_game=0&id_nation=0&page=78#

http://www.olympicgameswinners.com/...yEventsU&id=53&id_game=0&id_nation=0&page=77#

http://www.olympicgameswinners.com/...yEventsU&id=53&id_game=0&id_nation=0&page=76#


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 20, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I understand the argument (as I said, it's one that's been raging for decades).
> 
> Everyone will have a different opinion on it - mine is that this situation only occurs rarely. 99% of the time, it doesn't happen. That it happened this time is very unfortunate, and I completely sympathise.
> 
> I personally believe that having the ref make the call on the spot is valuable 99% of the time; and it goes wrong 1% of the time. That 1% is an acceptable loss in exchange for what I perceive as the benefits of not being able to second-guess the ref. I think that's a slippery sloap which will turn the game into a tournament of arguments - because everyone will argue everything; every single decision would be argued.




I am a casual soccer fan at best, but from games I do watch I do enjoy how the game just seems to flow on the field.  Things aren't stopped to question calls or stop for instant replays and the last five minutes of the game doesn't drag on forever unnecessarily as some more popular US sports are known to do.

As for the players trained to sprint for 45 to 90 minutes at a time, that's a perspective that hadn't really crossed my mind.  Likely just one of many things that would have to be considered before making any moves to change the refereeing system.

And I also agree, if the system has worked for this long with a minimal percentage of egregious errors occurring during games then I think changing the refereeing system based on a small statistical sample is not the right thing to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2010)

> if the system has worked for this long with a minimal percentage of egregious errors occurring during games




And that is something only FIFA and similar organizations knows for sure.

I wonder if they're looking at it...or thinking about looking at it.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And that is something only FIFA and similar organizations knows for sure.
> 
> I wonder if they're looking at it...or thinking about looking at it.




Definitely. The discussion hits the media every few years. 

Heck, it may even happen one day. My sense is that consensus has been gradually shifting towards it, but it's slow and over many years. There have also been discussions about electronically tagged balls and the like (to determine their exact position). 

But so far, the ref remains in charge. If it does happen, I don't think it will be any time soon, and it won't be the big sweeping changes being proposed here; tweaks at best.

Post-game changes will never happen.  Taking away that final whistle and those certain victory cheers across the world wouldn't be a good thing for the game in my opinion.  There's something about that final whistle and _knowing_ that's the result (whether you like it or not).  People don't want to sit around in the pub afterwards waiting for a decision - when it's done, it's done.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And that is something only FIFA and similar organizations knows for sure.
> 
> I wonder if they're looking at it...or thinking about looking at it.




I would imagine that they certainly keep tabs on it.  They have an interest to keep things fair and good refs out on the field.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2010)

Morrus said:


> If it does happen, I don't think it will be any time soon, and it won't be the big sweeping changes being proposed here; tweaks at best.




I wouldn't exactly call "delayed penalties" or hockey-style goal review a sweeping change- in the former, play continues to flow up until there is a change of possession, in the latter, the review is handled in under a minute.  (Well...usually.)

As for chipped balls, I don't see that happening in m lifetime.  There are enough complaints about the past 2 balls that have popped up- imagine the furor if there was some chip in there that might affect the ball's center of gravity.  Even if we're talking micrograms, someone will complain. 


> Post-game changes will never happen.




I think those only happen in NCAA football.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 20, 2010)

With all due respect, I feel like you're fundamentally misreading what I'm saying at times in this post. The points on instant replay, I understand are also towards other people, but you quoted my post while arguing that issue, so I wanted to make crystal clear what my stance is.



Morrus said:


> With all due respect, the World Cup has been the biggest sporting event on the planet for decades _despite _the US's disinterest. The amount of money a team like ManU generates is stupendous. Having the yanks interested would be a bonus, but it really is not necessary.




I've never disputed that. I've said that it harms the sport to have a massive, sports-mad wealthy nation hate your product. No matter how successful you are, you can always be more successful. That's why so many businesses are selling their souls to get into the Chinese market. As an analogy, the NFL's doing just fine, but if it could open up foreign markets, it would be doing better. Same deal here. 



Morrus said:


> The principle of "_the game does not stop_" makes the game play like it does. I agree that pausing it and reviewing decisions would result in a higher accuracy rate; but it would change the game. And, your own country aside, it cannot be denied that the formula works on a massive scale, and has done for decades. Viewing figures are in the billions, and the revenue is mind-bogglingly huge. A few million more viewers from America really isn't gonna make any difference.




First, I've never argued for replay. Second, you're not acknowledging the point I actually made, which was that just because something works, doesn't mean it couldn't work better. Otherwise, we'd still have the Model T, black and white TV, and football without the forward pass. Third, lots of media coverage indicates that FIFA is QUITE interested in the American market, so clearly they think it does make a difference. If nothing else, look to the Olympics for an example of an international sporting event that gets a huge boost from American ad dollars. FIFA clearly wants that.

Finally, just because something's going splendidly well now, doesn't mean it always will. Baseball was once the most popular sport in America. It's now fourth behind the NFL, NBA and motor sports.



Morrus said:


> As for whether the call was right or not - it _was_ right. Foul, whistle. And the ref is _not_ required to stop and explain it....




I've said before that not being required to label infractions to someone, anyone, is unusual and unfair and genuinely stupid as a policy for a sport with several massive corruption scandals. I even used the example of the inadvertent whistle in the NFL. No matter why he blew the whistle--inadvertently, to make the correct call, or to make an incorrect call--he SHOULD be required to announce the penalty.

Otherwise, you put players on "double secret probation" in ways that undermine the trust in the sport. And that's the currency that really matters for the long-term health of the sport. 




Morrus said:


> But "change the way the game works" so the US might become interested? People have been arguing for and against extra tech and so forth for decades




Again, I made no argument for instant replay. Second, while I can understand that you might think that I'm arguing that the game should be changed to accommodate the US, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that this is an example of bad practices of FIFA and that FIFA, as a self-interested body, probably is interested that in the reactions to those practices by the people of one of its last two big markets for financial growth.

And that's why Americans finding a new reason to hate watching a sport that they play a great deal is a problem. FIFA is a capitalist entity. They are ALWAYS interested in growth. Historically speaking, capitalist entities that are not good at growth get beaten by those who are. 



Morrus said:


> If no American ever watched a football game again for the rest of eternity, football would still thrive immensely - as it always has done.




Actually, that's called stagnation, not thriving. This distinction's I think central to the differences we're having over the health of the sport, which is why I call it out, and not to be snarky.

My plan's absurdly simple: FIFA refs should have to announce what the call actually _is_. There doesn't have to be reviews, do-overs, or managers running on the field to argue the call, as in MLB. There just has to be less opacity. Otherwise, you have the judging that's served figure skating so well. And no major sport wants that.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I got you- there was a foul by the Slovenians by the Americans which resulted in the whistle which made the play dead, resulting in no-goal.
> 
> ...
> 
> A penalty in sports is designed to prevent the team that committed it from getting an unfair advantage.  Here, the team that got caught committing a penalty did actually benefit.



This.

Though the call may have been technically correct, it was a bad call. There are a lot of "technically correct" calls that refs choose to call or not call--it happens almost constantly. There's an important difference between correct/incorrect and good/bad.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 20, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> I've never disputed that. I've said that it harms the sport to have a massive, sports-mad wealthy nation hate your product. No matter how successful you are, you can always be more successful. That's why so many businesses are selling their souls to get into the Chinese market. As an analogy, the NFL's doing just fine, but if it could open up foreign markets, it would be doing better. Same deal here.




But surely you have to think about _who_ it would benefit, and who would have influence in such decisions?  

Most of the money is at the club level; the World Cup in a drop in the ocean.  ManU, for example, wouldn't benefit from a strong US domestic league (it wouldn't suffer from one, either); and the top wealthy European teams no doubt have a lot of influence in these things.  But there's always a very strong resistance to change in most things, especially things which have been succesfully earning clubs insane anount of money for decades.

I think the question would have to be:  why would the top European club teams and power brokers get behind such a change?  You'd need to convince them it was in their own interest to do so.  In fact, they might resist the idea of another strong market opening up and poachng the best players.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2010)

My last point about the disallowed goal...and I _really _mean it (I may discuss this point, but I won't bring up anything else).



> What I saw was a pile of Slovenians bearhugging American players moments before the goal. That was the foul, as far as I can tell.




If that is really what the ref called, why was there a change of possession?

If he was calling the mugging of the American players by Slovenians, given where it occurred, it should have resulted in cards and either a PK or some kind of free kick.  If nothing else, the Americans should have retained possession of the ball with an indirect kick or some such.

But instead, the Americans lost both the goal AND possession.

Ergo, he must have called something against the Americans.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm starting to think that FIFA's just cheap. The Brazil game confirms my impression that having 3 refs for a game with 22 players is several too few. The NFL has 6. The MLB has 6 for its playoff games. The NBA has 3, although all of the action is occurring in a restricted area and all three can make any call, unlike soccer. Heck, tennis has more refs for just two players! The only sport with parity in the US is the NHL, which has one on-site ref who makes all the calls, although they have 3 goal judges, with less frequent calls than soccer's line judges. 

Seriously, adding more refs on the field wouldn't slow things down and would reduce the likelihood of game-altering obstructed view calls. Why, other than tradition, is one ref superior to two or three?


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 21, 2010)

Morrus said:


> But surely you have to think about _who_ it would benefit, and who would have influence in such decisions?
> 
> I think the question would have to be:  why would the top European club teams and power brokers get behind such a change?  You'd need to convince them it was in their own interest to do so.  In fact, they might resist the idea of another strong market opening up and poachng the best players.




So, because the Americans might be in favor of a rule change of requiring refs to actually announce the calls to the fans/players, it would get voted down... even though the rule change would benefit and harm everybody equally? Can we say we hate having ANY refs in the hopes that they'll add more of them just to spite us?

That's as bad as the NFL owner shenanigans around voting for whatever will harm Raiders' Davis or Cowboys' Jones. One would hope that a congregation of billionaires would have more acumen than that, but then, that's why you have governing bodies and commissioners in the first place, I guess.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 21, 2010)

Seven goals? 7?? Against a team that drops back 9? Anyone see the NK-Portugal game, tell me what happened?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 21, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> So, because the Americans might be in favor of a rule change of requiring refs to actually announce the calls to the fans/players, it would get voted down... even though the rule change would benefit and harm everybody equally? Can we say we hate having ANY refs in the hopes that they'll add more of them just to spite us?




Big changes do happen sometimes - it was as a result of problems in the 1966 world cup that yellow and red cards were introduced - to make it crystal clear to everyone on and off the pitch that a warning/booking had been made.

However. 

Arguably the USA having a bad decision against them pales into insignificance compared to the referee missing the blatant French handball which put Ireland out of the world cup - and FIFA didn't make any changes or respond to the issues on that occasion, so it isn't worth holding breath!


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 21, 2010)

Oh, agreed. They must be feeling a great deal of schadenfreude watching the French fall apart so badly.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 21, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Seven goals? 7?? Against a team that drops back 9? Anyone see the NK-Portugal game, tell me what happened?




Portugal were just too strong, creative and accurate for DPR Korea today.

Here are the goals:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQrm0NMENEs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQrm0NMENEs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Really looking forward to the Brazil vs Portugal game on Friday, hoping to catch it at a 3d cinema

EDIT: found a better quality video


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Big changes do happen sometimes - it was as a result of problems in the 1966 world cup that yellow and red cards were introduced - to make it crystal clear to everyone on and off the pitch that a warning/booking had been made.
> 
> However.
> 
> Arguably the USA having a bad decision against them pales into insignificance compared to the referee missing the blatant French handball which put Ireland out of the world cup - and FIFA didn't make any changes or respond to the issues on that occasion, so it isn't worth holding breath!




And the Hand of God goal and the...well, the list DOES go on.


----------



## Orius (Jun 22, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Arguably the USA having a bad decision against them pales into insignificance compared to the referee missing the blatant French handball which put Ireland out of the world cup - and FIFA didn't make any changes or respond to the issues on that occasion, so it isn't worth holding breath!




Honestly, I don't think enough Americans really care about soccer to really get worked up over a bad call.  Those who do hear about it will just feel they have another reason to be dismissive toward the sport.


----------



## Joker (Jun 22, 2010)

Orius said:


> Honestly, I don't think enough Americans really care about soccer to really get worked up over a bad call.  Those who do hear about it will just feel they have another reason to be dismissive toward the sport.




And truthfully, almost no-one cares.

Poor Koreans.  I heard a rumor some players were smart and "disappeared."


----------



## Mark (Jun 22, 2010)

Less than 24 hours until the Group C final pairings.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 22, 2010)

Group A final Standings -

Uruguay - 7 Points
Mexico - 4 Points
South Africa - 4 Points
France - 1 Point

Mexico go through on goal difference, despite a fighting last game by Bafana Bafana (South Africa) beating France 2 - 1

Disappointment for us? Yes, but most also proud for a good performance against teams rated much higher.


----------



## Mark (Jun 22, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> Group A final Standings -
> 
> Uruguay - 7 Points
> Mexico - 4 Points
> ...





Considering the early odds, I think SA has done very well.

World Cup Odds | Bookmakers Betting for the Football WorldCup in South Africa | Draw


Slovenia has been the big surprise in our group.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 22, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Seven goals? 7?? Against a team that drops back 9? Anyone see the NK-Portugal game, tell me what happened?



They dropped 8 back in their first game. In their second, it looked like they tried to have a few midfielders, so they changed their strategy a bit.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm hoping England comes second in Group C.

Saturday's my birthday, and I want to watch Doctor Who, then go out for dinner, then go out afterwards.  A football match will totally screw that evening up!  We'd have to get to the pub 2 hours before to make sure we'd be able to sit down (so 5.30pm), then that match would finish at about 9.15-9.30.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 22, 2010)

If we don't screw up tomorrow's game against the Ozzies, we'll be going to the next round for sure, regardless of Ghana and Germany's final score. Still, we've been known to screw up easy matches, so anything's possible...


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 23, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I'm hoping England comes second in Group C.
> 
> Saturday's my birthday, and I want to watch Doctor Who, then go out for dinner, then go out afterwards.  A football match will totally screw that evening up!  We'd have to get to the pub 2 hours before to make sure we'd be able to sit down (so 5.30pm), then that match would finish at about 9.15-9.30.




So if both the US and the UK win tomorrow, we can both progress, right? And as long as you don't score more goals than us, you'll be 'second in Group C,' right?


----------



## drothgery (Jun 23, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> So if both the US and the UK win tomorrow, we can both progress, right? And as long as you don't score more goals than us, you'll be 'second in Group C,' right?




Right. And despite the bizarre results of the first two games for everyone group C, that really should happen. There's no way Slovenia should draw England, let alone beat them. The same goes for Algeria vs. team USA. And since it's international soccer and it's not an amazing vs. hopelessly bad game, they're not going to outscore us by more than 2.


----------



## Mark (Jun 23, 2010)

drothgery said:


> Right. And despite the bizarre results of the first two games for everyone group C, that really should happen. There's no way Slovenia should draw England, let alone beat them. The same goes for Algeria vs. team USA. And since it's international soccer and it's not an amazing vs. hopelessly bad game, they're not going to outscore us by more than 2.





Yup, and precisely why there is no single elimination at this level of play.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 23, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> Group A final Standings -
> 
> Uruguay - 7 Points
> Mexico - 4 Points
> ...




Congratulations, seriously. If you hadn't given up a second half goal, the goal differential would have been one... which means that a late goal for 3-0 could have tied it up. Not bad at all for 83rd in the world. As France shows this year, it's the size of the fight in the dog, not the size of the dog in the fight.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm amazed that Germany is in a must-win situation...not as surprised as they are in Berlin, of course, but still surprised.

I have to give props to both South Africa and Nigeria for playing some damn good soccer today.  Heck, if Nigeria had been a little more accurate, they'd have WAXED South Korea- their goalie was rarely near where the ball was going.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm amazed that Germany is in a must-win situation...not as surprised as they are in Berlin, of course, but still surprised.
> 
> I have to give props to both South Africa and Nigeria for playing some damn good soccer today.  Heck, if Nigeria had been a little more accurate, they'd have WAXED South Korea- their goalie was rarely near where the ball was going.



Indeed, this World Cup is certainly not a bore to watch. There have been lots of good, interesting games, and impressive teams.

Well, you know, except France, the third-to-last team to score at all this World Cup. What a let down.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 23, 2010)

drothgery said:


> Right. And despite the bizarre results of the first two games for everyone group C, that really should happen. There's no way Slovenia should draw England, let alone beat them.



Though, it should be pointed out, that such an unexpected result from Slovenia would not be the strangest thing to happen this World Cup. Bizarre results have not been limited to Group C.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 23, 2010)

Okay, _that_ was pretty thrilling.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm very glad for the result in the Algeria game, but it also confirmed that the NHL system of goal review is necessary for FIFA, as is explaining the calls made. What was the call that got the Algerians so upset at the end of the game? Not that they could have advanced at that point, but I'd still be very upset after all the effort expended. Announce the calls, it's just that simple.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 23, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 23, 2010)

Now _that's_ drama.

Fantastic!

EDIT:
If the US avoids playing Germany, making it to the quarter finals is a strong possibility.


----------



## Mark (Jun 23, 2010)

Huzzah!


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 23, 2010)

W00t!


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 23, 2010)

the USA match intense

well done

_so much more exciting than baseball_


----------



## Morrus (Jun 23, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> So if both the US and the UK win tomorrow, we can both progress, right? And as long as you don't score more goals than us, you'll be 'second in Group C,' right?




It all worked out _perfectly_!

I'll spend Saturday night ceebrating my birthday, and then Sunday afternoon watching England play.  Albeit with a hangover - but that can't be helped.  I've stocked up on Nurofen.

I declare myself pleased that the teams took my birthday into account.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 23, 2010)

Morrus said:


> It all worked out _perfectly_!
> 
> I'll spend Saturday night ceebrating my birthday, and then Sunday afternoon watching England play.  Albeit with a hangover - but that can't be helped.  I've stocked up on Nurofen.
> 
> I declare myself pleased that the teams took my birthday into account.



I'm just stunned that either England or Germany will be out after that round.

-O


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 23, 2010)

Hmmm SO USA Vs Ghana and England Vs Germany, tasty  although it does leave two of my favourite teams against one another in the round of 16  either way I win but I would prefer it to have been in the Semi's or the final...


----------



## Morrus (Jun 23, 2010)

It does kinda suck that we get Germany and you guys get Ghana, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the interests of birthday celebrations.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 23, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I'm just stunned that either England or Germany will be out after that round.
> 
> -O




The knockout stage always flies by, and teams drop off like flies.  Bear in mind there's only Quarter, Semi, and Final.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 23, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Bear in mind there's only Quarter, Semi, and Final.




Those, and the "eighth final". 

Glad, that at least one african team made it. They deserved it. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 23, 2010)

Great, great games!  I sort of feel sorry for the Socceroos- one of the best names out there!

And while most of the world was watching the World Cup, sports history was being made- the kind that will probably stand for...well, eternity!


----------



## drothgery (Jun 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Great, great games!  I sort of feel sorry for the Socceroos- one of the best names out there!
> 
> And while most of the world was watching the World Cup, sports history was being made- the kind that will probably stand for...well, eternity!




Especially if Wimbledon has some sense and allows final-set tiebreaks after this year. They should have after the Roddick-FedEx final, but this is getting absurd. The eventual winner of the match gets to play a guy who had to win 16-14 in the 5th.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jun 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Great, great games! I sort of feel sorry for the Socceroos- one of the best names out there!
> 
> And while most of the world was watching the World Cup, sports history was being made- the kind that will probably stand for...well, eternity!




I tuned in around the 52-52 mark.  Both of them looked dead on their feet.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 24, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Definitely. The discussion hits the media every few years.



About every four years, actually....



Morrus said:


> I'm hoping England comes second in Group C.
> 
> Saturday's my birthday, and I want to watch Doctor Who, then go out for dinner, then go out afterwards.  A football match will totally screw that evening up!  We'd have to get to the pub 2 hours before to make sure we'd be able to sit down (so 5.30pm), then that match would finish at about 9.15-9.30.



Happy Birthday. Although if the "first game" Germany shows up, I think they'll beat the Three Lions.



Sammael said:


> If we don't screw up tomorrow's game against the Ozzies, we'll be going to the next round for sure, regardless of Ghana and Germany's final score. Still, we've been known to screw up easy matches, so anything's possible...



Sammael, are you Serbian?



roguerouge said:


> I'm very glad for the result in the Algeria game, but it also confirmed that the NHL system of goal review is necessary for FIFA, as is explaining the calls made. What was the call that got the Algerians so upset at the end of the game? Not that they could have advanced at that point, but I'd still be very upset after all the effort expended. Announce the calls, it's just that simple.



And why was the Algerian captain given the yellow card? I saw him pull his complainers away (one of who was talking/spitting very close to the ref's face) and ask "What was the call?" rather calmly. It sure looked to me like he didn't deserve a card.

IMHO today's offsides call against the US was a worse call than the disallowed goal vs. Slovenia. Terrible call. Clearly onsides as replays showed.

If the US beats Ghana, can they take all the vuvuzelas away?


----------



## Sammael (Jun 24, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Sammael, are you Serbian?



Yup. And as it turned out, we _did_ screw up.

Incidentally, I wasn't aware that we were supposed to be playing rugby. Australians committed *twenty-five* fouls against our team; and yet, they got only a couple of yellow cards. The mind boggles.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 24, 2010)

Great stuff from England yesterday, and most importantly a better performance, never mind the win. Given us a bit of hope against Germany.

Morrus - us finishing second in the group actually messes up my weekend! I've got rehearsal at 4pm on Sunday, so I'm going to have to be aware of the second half via the magic medium of phones and internet, unless they put it back an hour or call us an hour late. Bugger.

Still, enjoy your day and let's hope for some more excellent football over the next few games!


----------



## Thanee (Jun 24, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Although if the "first game" Germany shows up, I think they'll beat the Three Lions.




Yep, the first game was really, really good. You almost get to wonder, what happened between that game and those other two. 

Hopefully (for us ) they will find back to that kind of form soon enough.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mark (Jun 24, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> (. . .) us finishing second in the group actually messes up my weekend! I've got rehearsal at 4pm on Sunday, (. . .)





A birthday trumps rehearsal.  btw, you look to be coming down with a 24 hour bug of some sort . . .


----------



## Morrus (Jun 24, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> About every four years, actually....




A lot more often than that.  The World Cup is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Krug (Jun 24, 2010)

Congrats Slovakia! You deserved your berth.

Well Italy learns there are no give-mes...


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 24, 2010)

The knockout stage really does fly by. The England-Germany game looks to be the best game of the round of 16 so far, too. It'll be a fun watch!


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 24, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> About every four years, actually....






Morrus said:


> A lot more often than that.  The World Cup is just the tip of the iceberg.




Naturally, from mid-July there is the post World Cup transfers before August when the various national leagues get started, as well as the various knockout cups and the all important Champions League 

In 2012 the is the African Cup of Nations and European Championships to look forward to as well 

should tide us over till Brazil 2014...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2010)

The Japanese today looked like hungry piranhas against the Danes...


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> Naturally, from mid-July there is the post World Cup transfers before August when the various national leagues get started, as well as the various knockout cups and the all important Champions League
> 
> In 2012 the is the African Cup of Nations and European Championships to look forward to as well
> 
> should tide us over till Brazil 2014...




Well, and far more importantly, the constant club football which goes on in between; much of which is at a far higher standard than these international games.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 25, 2010)

Japan's two Free Kick scores made me wonder if they've been studying old Beckham film.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2010)

Or old films about Beckham.


----------



## Orius (Jun 25, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Well, and far more importantly, the constant club football which goes on in between; much of which is at a far higher standard than these international games.




Unless you're an American, in which case you go back to ignoring soccer full time.  Assuming you even cared about the World Cup in the first place.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 25, 2010)

Mark said:


> A birthday trumps rehearsal.  btw, you look to be coming down with a 24 hour bug of some sort . . .




Sadly, playing the part of Cogsworth in Beauty and the Beast means that missing rehearal is not really on. I'll watch the first half and have to keep up with the second half via other people's phones, I guess. 

My sweepstake pick of the Netherlands is looking good at the moment. Three wins out of three and getting better all the time.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 25, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Japan's two Free Kick scores made me wonder if they've been studying old Beckham film.




Or just practising set pieces with the ball instead of complaining about it.

some good games coming up today - Brazil vs Portugal should be a great game, both teams are looking good, and later Spain need a win to go through to the next round after their shock loss to Switzerland in their first game.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 25, 2010)

I will be watching the Portugal/Brazil game in a 3d cinema, looking forward to the experience


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2010)

Orius said:


> Unless you're an American, in which case you go back to ignoring soccer full time. Assuming you even cared about the World Cup in the first place.




It's still happening everywhere - even when you don't know about it!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2010)

*1:55PM CS*T

WTF was Chile's goalie _doing?_

The Spanish player had a player on him and nobody (on either team) was close...until the goalie cleared it right to another Spanish player!

And is Chile TRYING to collect Yellows?

To quote The Dead Weather..."Is that you choking?"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2010)

And now Chile's a man down...yeah, it was a bad call, but as the announcers pointed out, the man who got ejected got away with one 10 minutes before.

_*KABOOM*_

That was the sound of Chile imploding.

If the results stand, it looks like Chile, with _11 players booked_, are going to get to play Brazil.  IOW, enjoy South Africa while you can, guys, because you're going home _very soon._


----------



## Thanee (Jun 25, 2010)

They were lucky enough, that switzerland was so weak against honduras. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 25, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Well, and far more importantly, the constant club football which goes on in between; much of which is at a far higher standard than these international games.




I did mention the various leagues and what not.

As for the quality, the players do spend more time training with their clubs than with their national teams, so I guess that is to be expected?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And now Chile's a man down...yeah, it was a bad call, but as the announcers pointed out, the man who got ejected got away with one 10 minutes before.
> 
> _*KABOOM*_
> 
> ...



They snuck in a goal there even being a man down, but they need to turn it around in time for the round of 16.

... Which I'm pretty excited about. Spain/Portugal and Germany/England will be great.


----------



## Mark (Jun 26, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Sadly, playing the part of Cogsworth in Beauty and the Beast means that missing rehearal is not really on. I'll watch the first half and have to keep up with the second half via other people's phones, I guess.





_Call the understudy,
I can't go on tonight.
I'm drinking with my buddy,
I'm getting good and tight.
Before they raise the curtain,
I'll be higher than a kite.
So, call the understudy,
I can't go on tonight.

Tell the cast and crew to break a leg. (break a leg!)
Roll me out another bloody keg. (bloody keg!)
I need to ease the pain that life can bring.
And liquor is what will hit the spot,
The play is not the thing!

So call the understudy,
I think it's only right.
My diction will be muddy,
I'll never find my light.
Before the intermission,
I'll be pissin' on a sprite.
So call the understudy,
I can't go on, (he can't go on!)
I won't go on, (he shan't go on!)
I can't go on tonight! (damn right!)_


----------



## Mark (Jun 26, 2010)

As for today . . .

















USA! USA! USA!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 26, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> I did mention the various leagues and what not.
> 
> As for the quality, the players do spend more time training with their clubs than with their national teams, so I guess that is to be expected?




Plus they aren't limited to players from their own country; they (the richer teams, at least) recruit the best players around the world.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 26, 2010)

Another early goal.

I'm beginning to think that the USA can't stand 0-0 as a score, and will do anything to change it.

Either that, or they *really* believe in stories of self-made men, underdogs, bringing yourself up by your own bootstraps, and other fairy tales.


----------



## Joker (Jun 26, 2010)

Oh well.  Better luck in 4 years guys.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 26, 2010)

Rats.


----------



## Mark (Jun 26, 2010)

I think there's a baseball game on somewhere . . .











Go, New World!


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 26, 2010)

2 great games of football today I thought.  Pity a team has to loose, but well played USA and South Korea, Brazil 2014 is just round the corner


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 26, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Rats.



Exactly.

However, the Ghanian goal in Extra Time was very pretty. Despite what the announcers say about it being a lucky bounce, the Ghanian controlled it with his chest and made a good hard shot.

I'm just glad the US didn't lose on a wrongfully disallowed goal.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 26, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> However, the Ghanian goal in Extra Time was very pretty. Despite what the announcers say about it being a lucky bounce, the Ghanian controlled it with his chest and made a good hard shot.




Yeah, I agree - the goal was pretty impressive and despite what looked a bit awkward he ended up getting the ball set up for a very hard shot.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 27, 2010)

it was essentially the same situation Jozy Altadore had in regular time...just well finished.

I saw the way Ghana played Germany, and I was actually hoping that they'd win...so we could have played Germany instead.  I think it would have been a better matchup for the USA.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 27, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> ... the Ghanian goal in Extra Time was very pretty. Despite what the announcers say about it being a lucky bounce, the Ghanian controlled it with his chest and made a good hard shot. ...




Absolutely.  It was one hell of a shot.  He was able to get a lot of control and finesse into what looked like a very difficult shot.

Also, other than playing the clock in extra time (although I guess it's quite common), I thought Ghana played a very classy and clean game.  Definitely different than the way Algeria comported themselves.  The Ghanian players were always the first to raise a hand in a "my bad" kind of way when they made a foul, and never resorted to thuggery and "enforcers".  Class act Ghana...well played.


----------



## Joker (Jun 27, 2010)

If England loses because of that goal I'm gonna have a hissy fit and possibly throw something.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 27, 2010)

Yeah, that was really bad for them... but with the current 4:1 it's not deciding, I suppose.

Go, Germany! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Joker (Jun 27, 2010)

Yeah, I have to nuance what I said.  England was outplayed.  While you might wonder whether or not that 2nd goal would have changed the dynamics and game of the second half, I doubt Germany would have left it tied anyway.

Germany played with control and great awareness of their teammates.  England played like America (no disrespect, how u doin').


----------



## Thanee (Jun 27, 2010)

If they continue like that, beating Argentinia (who I suppose will be the opponent in the quarterfinals) might actually be possible. 

We will see what's in for them...

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 27, 2010)

Joker said:


> Yeah, I have to nuance what I said.  England was outplayed.  While you might wonder whether or not that 2nd goal would have changed the dynamics and game of the second half, I doubt Germany would have left it tied anyway.
> 
> Germany played with control and great awareness of their teammates.  England played like America (no disrespect, how u doin').




When you tie a game, there's a double effect for you: you are energized because you've just tied the game...but you also _conserve_ more of that energy because you're not _chasing _as much.  England ties with that disallowed goal, and they probably have a lot better chance to stay competitive.

...though I'm not sure Germany would have actually lost that game.  The disallowed goal aside, Germany's play made England look bad.  Or England's play made Germany look stellar.  Or both.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 27, 2010)

Best game of the World Cup, without a doubt. I cheered for Germany, but it was actually painful to watch at times - English defense was non-existent.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 27, 2010)

I left for my rehearsal after England went 2 - 0. That was a diabolical performance.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 28, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> When you tie a game, there's a double effect for you: you are energized because you've just tied the game...but you also _conserve_ more of that energy because you're not _chasing _as much.  England ties with that disallowed goal, and they probably have a lot better chance to stay competitive.
> 
> ...though I'm not sure Germany would have actually lost that game.  The disallowed goal aside, Germany's play made England look bad.  Or England's play made Germany look stellar.  Or both.



No, I have to agree with Joker. England played terribly from start to finish, before they were down 2-0, when they 'tied' it (should have, at least), and afterwards. Germany looked much more put together for the entire 90 minutes.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 28, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I left for my rehearsal after England went 2 - 0. That was a diabolical performance.




Too bad, then you missed the 15~20 minutes (end of 2nd half), where England played well (and scored their two goals, of which only one was counted, unfortunately). 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2010)

_HolycrapBrazilisscary!_


----------



## Joker (Jun 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _HolycrapBrazilisscary!_




Yeah, the Dutch are gonna have an interesting time on Friday.  I don't agree with some experts who say they don't stand a chance but it should and will be a tough fight.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _HolycrapBrazilisscary!_




I have the feeling Brazil haven't quite peaked yet, but watching them play is amazing one of the few teams to play as a team in the tournament so far.

And the speed with which they turn defence into attack is astounding.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2010)

Uruguay vs Paraguay for the final.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2010)

I'm sorry to see Japan go...I loved their speed and damnit, Honda was a joy to watch.

_Especially _on those free kicks.  Whew!


----------



## Mark (Jun 30, 2010)

It's shaping up to be a New World vs Old (and older) World Quarter Finals.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm sorry to see Japan go...I loved their speed and damnit, Honda was a joy to watch.
> 
> _Especially _on those free kicks.  Whew!



Agreed. Which is why it was so surprising that they lost on penalty kicks.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm sorry to see Japan go...I loved their speed and damnit, Honda was a joy to watch.
> 
> _Especially _on those free kicks.  Whew!



I was pretty impressed by their goalie, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2010)

Yeah, he was pretty doggone good.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 2, 2010)

So is anyone else upset about the draw? How did Portugal _not_ get into Pot 1? It's certainly made for some interest early knockout stage matches. #2 in the world versus #3 in the round of 16? #1 vs #4 in the quarters? Wow. Paraguay and Ghana are in some very good company.


----------



## Joker (Jul 2, 2010)

VICTORY!!

Completely undeserved but we'll take it anyway.

Bye Brazil.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 2, 2010)

Brazil eliminated - always my favorite World Cup moment.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 2, 2010)

LOVE the result! The Netherlands are a very underrated team.

Two top 5 teams play, one loses, and everyone is shocked. If it were Spain, Portugal, Argentina, or Germany, the shock would have been less.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Joker said:


> Completely undeserved but we'll take it anyway.



I'm not sure why you say this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2010)

I think it was said because of the combination of:


A Brazillian own-goal
Sloppy first half (and some intermittent 2nd half) play by the Orange
Brazil's mental implosion hot-fudge sundae with the Red Card cherry on top.


----------



## Joker (Jul 2, 2010)

Jdvn1 said:


> I'm not sure why you say this.




Yes, the poor awareness of Melo and the fortunate bounce that led to the second goal is why I say that.  Brazil played very well in the first half.

While the Dutch can play extremely well, today's game didn't show it.  Had the Brazilians played like they did against Chili today's result would have been different.  Maybe they underestimated the Dutch or overestimated their ability.

It doesn't matter at the end of the day.  The Dutch won.  I'm glad for them, but do feel sorry for the cleaning crews tomorrow.

Edit:  I worded my earlier statement a bit too strongly.  It wasn't completely undeserved.  Especially considering the amount of fouls by the Brazilian team in the first half.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 3, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Brazil eliminated - always my favorite World Cup moment.



Pistols at dawn, sir!

Brazil played like it was bipolar. A great first half, followed inexplicably by an apathic second half, which devolved into frantic, mindless derangement.

And the Orange had a lot of fouls as well, specially as the game started.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 3, 2010)

Joker said:


> Yes, the poor awareness of Melo and the fortunate bounce that led to the second goal is why I say that.




Wouldn't that ball have hit the goal, nonetheless? It didn't look like it was really brought off-course by Melo's head. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Joker (Jul 3, 2010)

Thanee said:


> Wouldn't that ball have hit the goal, nonetheless? It didn't look like it was really brought off-course by Melo's head.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




It looked like Melo is pushing up against the goalie.  If he hadn't been there the goalie should have knocked it out of harms way.  www.dumpert.nl - Nederland vs. Brazilië 2-1 from 30 seconds.

But it doesn't matter.  Brazil has won enough.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 3, 2010)

Go, germany! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Joker (Jul 3, 2010)

Thanee said:


> Go, germany!
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




You and us.  Finals.  Payback.


----------



## Krug (Jul 3, 2010)

Boy Argentina blew it.. Good job and excellent execution Germany.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 3, 2010)

Paraguay/Spain - Spain wins! That was a great game played by two fantastic teams, but the refereeing really left something to be desired. It was a shame someone had to lose. My hat's off to both teams.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 3, 2010)

Man, I've had fun watching all the games, nonetheless!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 4, 2010)

I drew Holland in the office sweepstake - now they're in the last four I'm up by at least £2 (yay me and my big dreams!). Every game they win now gets more me money!

Germany were awesome today against Argentina, and Spain just worked and worked to get their game won. Awesome stuff from both.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 4, 2010)

Germany just steamrollered Argentina...but the Spain/Paraguay match was tight.  Nice day for a game!


----------



## Phaezen (Jul 5, 2010)

Semis start tomorrow, hoping for a Germany vs Netherlands final om Sunday, but we shall see 

The Germany Spain game should be a good match, the Germals will be missing Muller, but I think they are to disciplined for Spain in defence and their attacks, both counter and slow build up have been devastating this year.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 6, 2010)

I think the Spainish tiki-taki will be too much for them.

Plus, David Villa is the best striker at the tournament, bar none, for me. Barcelona signging him up before it all got started was a masterstroke!


----------



## Joker (Jul 6, 2010)

OMGWTFBBQ - What's up, Van Bronckhorst?  You going for the goal of the tournament trophy?  Well, you're eligible.

Very exciting game.  Both teams deserved to win this but the Dutch did that much more to get a spot in the final.
I almost thought Uruguay was going to equalize there.  Luckily for my old man, they didn't.

Whoever the Dutch play, it'll be tough as hell.  Both Spain and Germany are playing some great football.

Looking forward to tomorrow's game.

G'night.

P.S.  Oh yeah.  A contender for the "BOOM HEADSHOT" trophy:  Carceres' foul against de Zeeuw.  [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2sVrh7uqso[/ame]


----------



## Thanee (Jul 7, 2010)

Too bad. But a deserved victory for spain! 

EM champion and soon WM champion, too. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 7, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> ...striker...




Hmm... Goalkeeper, Defender, Controller, Leader, Striker... 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Joker (Jul 7, 2010)

Well that was a boring game.  Spain played well though.  Despite their performance, I'm quite sure the Dutch have a good chance at winning this.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 7, 2010)

Looks like Paul the Octopus knew what he was talking about!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2010)

And thus was discovered the first true disciple of Cthulhu!

Spain v Netherlands.

I don't care which one wins, really, but I sure do wish I could be there for the post-Cup party in _whichever_ country wins.  WHEW!

What about the consolation game?  Germany v Uraguay?  That could be pretty cool too!  I just hope the Germans aren't too angry...  You wouldn't like them when they're angry.


----------



## Krug (Jul 7, 2010)

Well that Octopus sure knows his stuff.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What about the consolation game?  Germany v Uraguay?  That could be pretty cool too!  I just hope the Germans aren't too angry...  You wouldn't like them when they're angry.




What's the history of the WC consolation game like? Generally speaking, outside of the Olympics (where it's the bronze medal game, and so seems more meaningful), consolation games in most tournaments tend to be won by whichever team hasn't decided to completely blow off the game. That's why the NCAA basketball tournament got rid of its consolation game. I mean, the Germans clearly should be huge favorites in the consolation game, but strange things can happen when one team cares and one doesn't (and I've got to think winning the consolation game would mean a lot more to Uruguay).


----------



## Sammael (Jul 8, 2010)

3rd place means more money for the country (and, likely, the players).


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 8, 2010)

New World = All Gone.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 8, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> The Germany Spain game should be a good match, the Germans will be missing Muller, but I think they are too disciplined for Spain in defence and their attacks, both counter and slow build up have been devastating this year.



As one article pointed out, every team has looked bad against Spain for two years* so perhaps it isn't a coincidence that Germany did, too.



*Except Switzerland in the first round and the USA previously.


----------



## Krug (Jul 8, 2010)

Looking at the highlights on fifa.com it was almost all Spain except for one Germany attack which resulted in a great save. 

Well I just hope it's going to be an exciting final.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2010)

Simply put, while teams like Brazil, Argentina and Germany had put on good shows but also tossed out some clunkers, Spain has played solid, all-around soccer the whole tournament.  They didn't really have a game where they weren't in it- either by score or by attitude.


----------



## Phaezen (Jul 10, 2010)

3 Place play off was a great game I though, plenty of opportunities both ends, with the Germans looking slightly more hungry and coming out 3 - 2 winners.

Only 1 more match left though


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 11, 2010)

What a game!

91:59 and Uruguay draws a penalty in makable distance.  Diego Fourlan- tied for the lead for the Golden Boot; whose every goal this Cup has been a thing of beauty and awe- bends the HELL out of it and puts it off the corner bars.

End of game.

Simply epic.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 11, 2010)

As previously noted, I have Holland in the office sweepstake - if they win I earn about £40!

C'mon the Oranje!


----------



## roguerouge (Jul 11, 2010)

I see Americans are watching more soccer this year, with almost 3 million tuning in on average. Of course, regular season NFL games average more than 4 times that audience every year since 1989.


----------



## Joker (Jul 11, 2010)

What an ugly ugly game.  Spain deserved the win I guess.  The teams were pretty evenly matched.

I think Robben's first try should have been a goal and his second one a penalty but I can see how no ref saw that.

Damn octopus.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jul 12, 2010)

I gotta agree with the dirty game comment.  De Jong should've been sent off after that stupid flying kick.


----------



## Joker (Jul 12, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> I gotta agree with the dirty game comment.  De Jong should've been sent off after that stupid flying kick.




Maybe he thought everybody was kung-fu fighting.

Edit:  Not only De Jong, but also van Bommel and if Heitinga got his second yellow for his foul, Puyol should have gotten a red card and a penalty against for his foul against Robben.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 12, 2010)

I rescind my earlier comments. I am very glad Spain won.

I still got £15 for Holland coming second, so it's not all bad. The goal was excellent, and it was fantastic to see how much it meant to the Spainish players.

I suspect large parts of Spain have yet to go to bed...


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 12, 2010)

And Paul the Octopus had again picked the winner correctly!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2010)

FWIW...those expecting a quieter World Cup when Brazil hosts will be disappointed: they have the corneta, which is pretty much the same instrument.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 13, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> FWIW...those expecting a quieter World Cup when Brazil hosts will be disappointed: they have the corneta, which is pretty much the same instrument.




Hopefully the broadcasters are already tweaking their audio filters.


----------

