NYCGOBEARS;842324297 said:

---

Is Bahia still there?

---

http://www.yelp.com/biz/bahia-restaurant-san-francisco

Looks like it closed a few years back. It is now called Cava 22.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/cava-22-san-francisco

510Bear;842324284 said:

---

On a different topic....anyone have any suggestions for good places to watch World Cup games in SF, LA, or elsewhere?

Seems like this event is becoming a bigger deal in sports bars all over the country......

---

Article in SFGate yesterday on places in the Bay Area to watch the World Cup: LINK

sycasey;842324368 said:

---

And this Mexico game reminds me of the other annoying thing about soccer: the damn offside rule.

---

Offsides on a corner? TERRIBLE call.

This world cup just keeps getting more FIFA-y all the time.

Phantomfan;842324383 said:

---

Offsides on a corner? TERRIBLE call.

This world cup just keeps getting more FIFA-y all the time.

---

It CAN happen, but I've never seen a call like that made on any level. the worst ever.

and finally...GOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!

calumnus;842324380 said:

---

Article in SFGate yesterday on places in the Bay Area to watch the World Cup: LINK

---

Looks like they expanded that article (actually now a slideshow) to include a bunch of East Bay spots. I'm guessing the things I said about SF apply to Berkeley and Oakland in terms of WC-friendliness.

Phantomfan;842324383 said:

---

Offsides on a corner? TERRIBLE call.

This world cup just keeps getting more FIFA-y all the time.

---

I mean, based on the slow-mo replays I can see how the rule applied and it might have been the right call.

I just think it's stupid that the rule applies to a situation like that. The offside rule is meant to prevent cherry-picking -- teams just sitting a striker near the opposing goal all the time and lofting passes to him. They want to keep the flow going, and I get that. I don't get how erasing a goal because of a guy being one inch ahead of the last defender on a corner kick helps anything. There must be some way of adjusting the offside rule based on proximity to the goal or something, like if the initial pass into the box comes with everyone onside, there is no offside for any further action.

sycasey;842324400 said:

---

I mean, based on the slow-mo replays I can see how the rule applied and it might have been the right call.

I just think it's stupid that the rule applies to a situation like that. The offside rule is meant to prevent cherry-picking -- teams just sitting a striker near the opposing goal all the time and lofting passes to him. They want to keep the flow going, and I get that. I don't get how erasing a goal because of a guy being one inch ahead of the last defender on a corner kick helps anything. There must be some way of adjusting the offside rule based on proximity to the goal or something, like if the initial pass into the box comes with everyone onside, there is no offside for any further action.

---

The worst part of the World Cup is people who don't like soccer complaining about soccer rules/officiating, as if every rule in football/baseball/basketball makes sense, and the officiating in those sports is flawless.

It's the rule. Everyone knows it's the rule. Play by the rules.

grandmastapoop;842324402 said:

---

The worst part of the World Cup is people who don't like soccer complaining about soccer rules/officiating, as if every rule in football/baseball/basketball makes sense, and the officiating in those sports is flawless.

It's the rule. Everyone knows it's the rule. Play by the rules.

---

Not every rule in baseball or football always made sense either. For example, I didn't like that the rules (until last year) basically allowed the runner to barrel over the catcher to try to dislodge the ball when you couldn't do that to a fielder at any other base. Then they changed the rule.

The offside rule in soccer could also use some tweaking.

sycasey;842324403 said:

---

Not every rule in baseball or football always made sense either. For example, I didn't like that the rules (until last year) basically allowed the runner to barrel over the catcher to try to dislodge the ball when you couldn't do that to a fielder at any other base. Then they changed the rule.

The offside rule in soccer could also use some tweaking.

---

I'm not saying it makes sense or doesn't make sense. What's tiring is the complaints of non-soccer fans, every World Cup. "Geeze, this rule/aspect of the game is dumb, I can't like soccer." And yet they are fans of other sports that also have dumb rules. If you don't like the sport, you don't. I don't understand the constant need of non-soccer fans to complain about why they don't like it.

grandmastapoop;842324405 said:

---

I'm not saying it makes sense or doesn't make sense. What's tiring is the complaints of non-soccer fans, every World Cup. "Geeze, this rule/aspect of the game is dumb, I can't like soccer." And yet they are fans of other sports that also have dumb rules. If you don't like the sport, you don't. I don't understand the constant need of non-soccer fans to complain about why they don't like it.

---

That's not what I'm saying. I like soccer. It's not my favorite sport, but I enjoy watching games from time to time. The World Cup is a lot of fun.

This rule and how it's applied is something that always bothers me. There are also rules in my favorite sports (football/baseball) that bother me. It's not about saying one sport is better than the other.

grandmastapoop;842324405 said:

---

And yet they are fans of other sports that also have dumb rules.

---

Worst football rule is that a fumble out of the back of the end zone by an offensive player gives the ball to the defense, but not a fumble on the side of the end zone. We benefitted from it against Oregon in 07 but I still think the rule is dumb. Happened to the niners as well this year.

The thing about soccer isn't that all these people don't like soccer and hate the rules, it's that a lot of them think the rules and officiating are bad for the game. No different from people complaining about Pac-12 refs.

What is the actual rule for the disallowed goal by Gio on the corner? There's no rule that you have to be onside if the opponent touches it towards the GK right? If so, yah that was a horrible call. The PBP guys though thought since the Cameroon guy flicked it on goal that Gio had to be onside. He would not have been on the flick if the PBP guys were correct - but I doubt that is the rule.

unit2sucks;842324410 said:

---

worst football rule is that a fumble out of the back of the end zone by an offensive player gives the ball to the defense, but not a fumble on the side of the end zone. We benefitted from it against oregon in 07 but i still think the rule is dumb. Happened to the niners as well this year.

---

huh???

grandmastapoop;842324402 said:

---

The worst part of the World Cup is people who don't like soccer complaining about soccer rules/officiating, as if every rule in football/baseball/basketball makes sense, and the officiating in those sports is flawless.

It's the rule. Everyone knows it's the rule. Play by the rules.

---

Replays show that it was not offside. "Everyone knows the rules" and the players played by them...he was not offside when the ball was kicked, and the officiating called back a goal.



The second offside call was maybe touched by a Yellow shirt and should not have been called. If it was not touched by a yellow shirt the ball was kicked while a man was on the near post, and should not have been an called an offside.



In a game that is typically decided by one goal in this, these kinds of mistakes are not the same as mistakes in football/basketball/baseball. To even try to introduce that a bad call in those sports has the same effect as a bad call in the box that gives a PK or takes away a goal in this sport is ... ridiculous.


It is just flat out unacceptable to have multiple calls taking and giving goals in a game in the world cup. The entire world except you seems to agree.




Also, That Japanese ref is apparently the only ref in the World Cup who does not speak English (and before some goof tries to say "why should they speak English hurrrdurr" something like 94% of the players speak English and ~75% come from Euro leagues that speak English, that is why), so he cant communicate with 31 of the teams. That is also ridiculous. How do you put a ref on the field that cant communicate to any of the players?

sycasey;842324400 said:

---

I mean, based on the slow-mo replays I can see how the rule applied and it might have been the right call.

I just think it's stupid that the rule applies to a situation like that. The offside rule is meant to prevent cherry-picking -- teams just sitting a striker near the opposing goal all the time and lofting passes to him. They want to keep the flow going, and I get that. I don't get how erasing a goal because of a guy being one inch ahead of the last defender on a corner kick helps anything. There must be some way of adjusting the offside rule based on proximity to the goal or something, like if the initial pass into the box comes with everyone onside, there is no offside for any further action.

---

Wait, what offside no-goal are we talking about... haha

Well, El Tri was the better team and got it done. I can't believe how well Dos Santos is playing.

Unit2Sucks;842324410 said:

---

Worst football rule is that a fumble out of the back of the end zone by an offensive player gives the ball to the defense, but not a fumble on the side of the end zone. We benefitted from it against Oregon in 07 but I still think the rule is dumb. Happened to the niners as well this year.

The thing about soccer isn't that all these people don't like soccer and hate the rules, it's that a lot of them think the rules and officiating are bad for the game. No different from people complaining about Pac-12 refs.

---

Why would you think the rule is dumb? Are you just looking for consistency? Because if it didn't go to the defense then offenses could just fumble football forwards into the endzone and out of bounds to score.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Oregon player fumbled it out of the side of the endzone given his trajectory and angle of approach towards the pylon yet we got the ball back in that situation.

grandmastapoop;842324405 said:

---

I'm not saying it makes sense or doesn't make sense. What's tiring is the complaints of non-soccer fans, every World Cup. "Geeze, this rule/aspect of the game is dumb, I can't like soccer." And yet they are fans of other sports that also have dumb rules. If you don't like the sport, you don't. I don't understand the constant need of non-soccer fans to complain about why they don't like it.

---

the world cup gets soccer fans that normally arent fans to watch. just like the olympics. i dont like bobsledding or hurdles either but during the olympics i'll usually take the time to catch a few events. even soccer or futbol enthusiasts have to be frustrated with the amount of flopping that occurs in their sport and how fifa has essentially done nothing to change that aspect of the sport even when its been a continual problem in their sport. its a great sport, not the most watchable but great sport until games get decided on flops. its not what people want to see. even in the NBA refs know to get out of the way and not call those calls when the game is on the line. the problem is in soccer, the game is always on the line, so one blown call can change the game.

people just want to see games decided by who plays the best, not by who falls down the best. thats not sport

KoreAmBear;842324411 said:

---

What is the actual rule for the disallowed goal by Gio on the corner? There's no rule that you have to be onside if the opponent touches it towards the GK right? If so, yah that was a horrible call. The PBP guys though thought since the Cameroon guy flicked it on goal that Gio had to be onside. He would not have been on the flick if the PBP guys were correct - but I doubt that is the rule.

---

The entire world (other then GMP) seems to agree on these calls.

The dive for the PK, the yellow(!) for the elbow to the head, the disallowed goal for interference all yesterday, and the two disallowed goals today, and the no-call in the box.

Two games in and 6 game changing calls. Yeah, we should just accept that these are the rules :rollinglaugh:

We can all live and play within the rules of the game. The problem is that those rules are not applied properly, and the refs are too much part of the game. Let them play. Call the obvious. Dont make game changing calls on "it could go either way" at best calls.

Phantomfan;842324420 said:

---

We can all live and play within the rules of the game. The problem is that those rules are not applied properly, and the refs are too much part of the game. Let them play. Call the obvious. Dont make game changing calls on "it could go either way" at best calls.

---

We should also forward this to the Pac-12 officiating office.

Phantomfan;842324420 said:

---

The entire world (other then GMP) seems to agree on these calls.

The dive for the PK, the yellow(!) for the elbow to the head, the disallowed goal for interference all yesterday, and the two disallowed goals today, and the no-call in the box.

Two games in and 6 game changing calls. Yeah, we should just accept that these are the rules :rollinglaugh:

We can all live and play within the rules of the game. The problem is that those rules are not applied properly, and the refs are too much part of the game. Let them play. Call the obvious. Dont make game changing calls on "it could go either way" at best calls.

---

Where did I say I don't agree with the calls today?

Unit2Sucks;842324357 said:

---

Agreed, world cup is the best thing to happen to bars in SF. Everywhere we went in 2010 was packed. We had a group of friends go to King of Thai Noodle House in North Beach. I thought it would be relatively calm but it was a complete zoo with extra TVs crammed in to show the game. Unfortunately I'm at a different stage in my life so I won't be able to revel in the madness this time around.



Never heard of it - what am I missing?

---

I saw a lot of futbal at Bahia in the the 90's. it was a big Brazilian restaurant/club on Market @ Franklin. Fun times!

NYCGOBEARS;842324431 said:

---

I saw a lot of futbal at Bahia in the the 90's. it was a big Brazilian restaurant/club on Market @ Franklin. Fun times!

---

Market and Franklin? Hm. That could be Espetus, the brazilian churrascaria, but that's at Market and Gough, a block away. Oh. Looks like there is a place on Franklin close to Market called Canto do Brasil. That must be it.

Unit2Sucks;842324410 said:

---

Worst football rule is that a fumble out of the back of the end zone by an offensive player gives the ball to the defense, but not a fumble on the side of the end zone.

---

hate to nitpick, but a fumble out of bounds anywhere in the endzone is a touchback to the D.

ColoradoBear1;842324434 said:

---

hate to nitpick, but a fumble out of bounds anywhere in the endzone is a touchback to the D.

---

Ah, okay thanks. So here is the NFL rule "A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent's end zone. In this case, it is a touchback." I think it's a silly rule and the fumbling team should get the ball where they fumbled it regardless of whether it goes out of bounds in the end zone or not. If you fumble on the 5 and it goes out at the 1, you get it at the 5, but if it goes out in the end zone the defense gets the ball. I can't think of a rational basis for that distinction.

FIFA officials at it again, this time for Spain.

bearsandgiants;842324444 said:

---

FIFA officials at it again, this time for Spain.

---

You don't think that was a penalty, either!?

Unit2Sucks;842324442 said:

---

Ah, okay thanks. So here is the NFL rule "A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent's end zone. In this case, it is a touchback." I think it's a silly rule and the fumbling team should get the ball where they fumbled it regardless of whether it goes out of bounds in the end zone or not. If you fumble on the 5 and it goes out at the 1, you get it at the 5, but if it goes out in the end zone the defense gets the ball. I can't think of a rational basis for that distinction.

---

The problem is you aren't taking into account the history of the rule.

The touchback rule has always been consistent. From the NFL: "Touchback: When a ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line, provided the impetus came from an opponent and provided it is not a touchdown or a missed field goal."

The rule for fumbles that don't land out of bounds in the endzone was not always the rule. It was created to prevent teams from intentionally fumbling forward to gain yardage, which was seen as an unfair advantage.

Makes sense to me.

grandmastapoop;842324447 said:

---

You don't think that was a penalty, either!?

---

From the refs point of view I think it was a good call, however the replay showed that it probably wasnt. Seemed as though the Spain guys foot actually landed on top of the Dutch guys leg.

Still at least it wasnt a flop, and I can understand the call.

bearsandgiants;842324444 said:

---

FIFA officials at it again, this time for Spain.

---

What the penalty kick? That looked legit to me. It was a foul in the box.

Did the Spanish player position his feet so as to get the penalty? Yes. But the defender DID foul him. Not much different from a basketball player pump-faking and getting the defender to run into him. The player is expecting to get fouled, but it's not a flop; they actually got fouled because the defender was over-aggressive.

What van Persie just did was magical. What the WC is all about.

grandmastapoop;842324449 said:

---

The rule for fumbles that don't land out of bounds in the endzone was not always the rule. It was created to prevent teams from intentionally fumbling forward to gain yardage, which was seen as an unfair advantage.

Makes sense to me.

---

Where's the unfair advantage in giving fumbling teams the ball back where they fumbled? Every time I've seen this rule invoked people have been befuddled. Even if you want to penalize the fumbling team, make it 5 yards but giving the ball to the defense because the fumble ended up in the end zone instead of going out of bounds on the 1 yard line is stupid. And if you fumble forward and recover in the end zone, you have a completely different outcome.

I think the rule is completely indefensible and once it happens in the super bowl we'll see a rule change.

SoCalBear323;842324454 said:

---

What van Persie just did was magical. What the WC is all about.

---

Best goal of the Cup so far. Dutch flying header. Great play.

Unit2Sucks;842324457 said:

---

Where's the unfair advantage in giving fumbling teams the ball back where they fumbled? Every time I've seen this rule invoked people have been befuddled. Even if you want to penalize the fumbling team, make it 5 yards but giving the ball to the defense because the fumble ended up in the end zone instead of going out of bounds on the 1 yard line is stupid. And if you fumble forward and recover in the end zone, you have a completely different outcome.

I think the rule is completely indefensible and once it happens in the super bowl we'll see a rule change.

---

I've always thought so too. Return the ball back to the original line of scrimmage or something on a fumble through the end zone. That way the offensive team still doesn't get an advantage from fumbling the ball forward, but the defense doesn't get possession when they didn't actually recover the ball.

CALigulabob;842324452 said:

---

From the refs point of view I think it was a good call, however the replay showed that it probably wasnt. Seemed as though the Spain guys foot actually landed on top of the Dutch guys leg.

Still at least it wasnt a flop, and I can understand the call.

---

I don't care who wins this game, but that looked like a bad call in fast-mo, from my tv. And I think it was. The offensive player tried to stop on a dime and slipped. I thought he slipped on the grass at first, but on the closeup, he slipped on the defender's ankle. When you're tripped, you don't have a continuous motion with leg in question. Seems like a very easy call to make. I hate how much power officials have. At least NCAA hoops refs, for the most part, let them play. Especially in the playoffs. This is way to big a venue to be making controversial calls. If it's not obvious, let it go. Horrible call, in my opinion. They need replay in a bad way.