The U.S. managed a 1-1 draw with Italy because an Italian scored a goal for them.
Although - I honestly think the offside call on what would have been the second U.S. goal was complete and utter bullshit.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
And the good thing is that if we beat Ghana we should be good to go.
Italy plays Czech so one of them has to lose, unless they tie. That's one thing about soccer that I don't like (the tie). But, then again, I don't think I want to watch soccer for 6 hours why they try and get another goal either.
Well, McBride *was* offside, but I thought it didn't matter, since he didn't touch the ball between Beasley and the goal.
Someone on the BBC site explained, though, that in that situation, McBride is considered either "actively" or "passively" offsides -- i.e. if he's active, he does something to disrupt the defense unfairly (e.g. block the goalie's view); if he's passive, then his presence in that play doesn't matter.
It's a judgement call on the part of the referee, and unfortunately, he decided it was active.
It is too bad, though, because the US really deserved that win.
Scruffy - There are only ties in the first round. In knockout rounds there can't be any ties - they'd play for up to two fifteen minute periods and then have a shootout should there still not be any further goals made.
In the Italy/US game the only decent work being done was by the referee. Sloppy, unmotivated play on both sides and three red cards? Good grief!
FWIW, US Coach Bruce Arena saw the tape and agreed with the offsides call on Beasley's goal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800917.html
He did have other things to saw about the ref, though...
7 comments:
And the good thing is that if we beat Ghana we should be good to go.
Italy plays Czech so one of them has to lose, unless they tie. That's one thing about soccer that I don't like (the tie). But, then again, I don't think I want to watch soccer for 6 hours why they try and get another goal either.
We didn't watch the game, but believe me we are hearing ALL about it! The Italian team should have won with their eyes closed. Too funny!
Cyn
Well, McBride *was* offside, but I thought it didn't matter, since he didn't touch the ball between Beasley and the goal.
Someone on the BBC site explained, though, that in that situation, McBride is considered either "actively" or "passively" offsides -- i.e. if he's active, he does something to disrupt the defense unfairly (e.g. block the goalie's view); if he's passive, then his presence in that play doesn't matter.
It's a judgement call on the part of the referee, and unfortunately, he decided it was active.
It is too bad, though, because the US really deserved that win.
Scruffy - There are only ties in the first round. In knockout rounds there can't be any ties - they'd play for up to two fifteen minute periods and then have a shootout should there still not be any further goals made.
In the Italy/US game the only decent work being done was by the referee. Sloppy, unmotivated play on both sides and three red cards? Good grief!
zardoz says:
yea , but scruff was right
KELLER was great ,,
....top notch european stuff.
good call scruff
and the world ranking 5th,,,,
might be garbage to some ,,,
but they were very very good .
in my opinion , all things considered.
.....=zardoz=..................
FWIW, US Coach Bruce Arena saw the tape and agreed with the offsides call on Beasley's goal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800917.html
He did have other things to saw about the ref, though...
I'm hoping and praying for an Italian win vs Czech and a full on slaughter of Ghana by USA and then USA vs Brazil in round 2....
Post a Comment