ColoradoBear1;842325147 said:

---

Sycasey makes an interesting point - if calls are being botched due to errors in perception, is there a way to make it easier to call through rule changes? In ways that take the pressure off the official? Hockey's offside rules is much easier to call. Obviously, soccer is not going that direction, but when you do see repeated errors on the highest levels, often completely embarrassing - it seems a fair question is whether the problem is with the officials or the rules.

---

Right, and I do want to be clear that I do not favor removing the offside rule altogether. There's an obvious reason why it exists (same reason ice hockey has offside and icing rules), but there must also be a way to adjust the rule so it still serves that purpose and takes away some of these missed calls.

TheBearsHaveWon;842325154 said:

---

Sycasey
Not to belabor the point but a PIOP will ALWAYS be restricted from participation in active play if a ball last touched by a teammate is deflected off any other player whether teammate or opponent before it reaches the PIOP.

---

I understand that. In the plays I'm talking about, the "original" ball into the box is played while the PIOP is clearly onside, and then a subsequent deflection is made in the box that draws the offside call. The referee makes the call thinking the deflection was by an offensive player, but in fact it is not (or there is actually no deflection or touch at all).

goldenokiebear;842325067 said:

---

But in the the situation sycasey notes, the player is NOT initially in offside position when the ball is played, and the ball is deflected to them off players... they weren't in PIOP when the ball was played, but moved forward AFTER it's kicked and deflected off players. So they aren't offside.

---

No comment on specific plays/referee judgement calls.

sycasey;842325158 said:

---

I understand that. In the plays I'm talking about, the "original" ball into the box is played while the PIOP is clearly onside, and then a subsequent deflection is made in the box that draws the offside call. The referee makes the call thinking the deflection was by an offensive player, but in fact it is not (or there is actually no deflection or touch at all).

---

Again, no comment here.

Only douche-bags argue over the rules of the game after the game has already started.

Don't be douche-bags, especially over soccer.

ColoradoBear1;842325148 said:

---

I'm almost certain TBHW and I are in agreement on the rules on this one. I certainly wasn't arguing with him, just offering a clarification applicable to this situation.

And it does matter which player touched it as it's judged by position when the last teammate played the ball. And yes, bouncing it off a defender doesn't change the fact a player was offside.

---

Colorado
You are correct. Judgement on offside position is at the moment the ball is last touched by a teammate.
The reason it does not matter who deflected it last for a PIOP is that the player must still be in an offside position to be a PIOP.
If, at the moment the ball last touches a teammate the player in question has managed to return to an onside position, he ceases to be a PIOP.
A technical distinction that is clear to me having very much experience, did not realize the need to specifically make this distinction. I can see now how this could cause confusion. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

@Ourand_SBJ: ESPN's World Cup TV ratings are highest in DC. Next three: San Francisco, New York City and Boston.

Mexican keeper is a stud.

Great game.

fantastico. gotta give fifa officials credit when it's due. they could have given that one to brazil with another controversial pk, but they didn't. overall, a pretty well-officiated game, and spectacular to watch. so much more fun when your team isn't already mathematically eliminated.

Yes very solid jobs by the refs in most games so far. The games have been good too, the group format favors attacking football. In the knockout stage things should tighten up a bit.

Cal88;842325545 said:

---

Yes very solid jobs by the refs in most games so far. The games have been good too, the group format favors attacking football. In the knockout stage things should tighten up a bit.

---

Great result for El Tri. From barely making it out of CONCACAF to now on the cusp of getting to the round of 16.

Brazil may regret not putting Mexico away. If they finish 2nd in the group they would probably face Holland.

CONCACAF is 3-1-1 in this World Cup. 3rd best region. Hatters gonna hat.

SoCalBear323;842325555 said:

---

Brazil may regret not putting Mexico away. If they finish 2nd in the group they would probably face Holland.

CONCACAF is 3-1-1 in this World Cup. 3rd best region. Hatters gonna hat.

---

Brazil v. Holland in the first knockout round - wow.

SoCalBear323;842325555 said:

---

Brazil may regret not putting Mexico away. If they finish 2nd in the group they would probably face Holland.

---

They got a lot of good shots, but the Mexican goalkeeper was brilliant.

Brazil still has the advantage in goals, so as long as they can get a win against Cameroon they should be okay.

SoCalBear323;842325555 said:

---

CONCACAF is 3-1-1 in this World Cup. 3rd best region. Hatters gonna hat.

---

CONCACAF basically is the 3rd best region -- no surprise here.

sycasey;842325561 said:

---

CONCACAF basically is the 3rd best region -- no surprise here.

---

The Asian Confederation and African Confederation argue otherwise. There's even been talks of taking away our .5 spot and distributing it elsewhere. Hope that talk is shushed after this World Cup.

KoreAmBear;842325551 said:

---

Great result for El Tri. From barely making it out of CONCACAF to now on the cusp of getting to the round of 16.

---

You watching the Korea game? Their coach was a great player. Saw him many times playing with the Galaxy.

SoCalBear323;842325579 said:

---

You watching the Korea game? Their coach was a great player. Saw him many times playing with the Galaxy.

---

Korea definitely seems to place a high value on possession. They're basically playing keep-away out there.

sycasey;842325584 said:

---

Korea definitely seems to place a high value on possession. They're basically playing keep-away out there.

---

Game just got good. KoreAmBear must be on pins and needles!

SoCalBear323;842325593 said:

---

Game just got good. KoreAmBear must be on pins and needles!

---

Korea's possession game totally broke down in the second half, lucky for them the Russian goalie had butterfingers and they escaped with a tie.

sycasey;842325595 said:

---

Korea's possession game totally broke down in the second half, lucky for them the Russian goalie had butterfingers and they escaped with a tie.

---

We've seen a lot of possession games that have gone up in smoke in the 2nd half (*cough* USA *cough*) and the number of goals has been prolific so far, neither of which makes sense given the heat and humidity. Either way, it's been a very entertaining tournament so far and I hope it continues (although, arguably the best game so far was a 0-0 draw between Mexico and Brazil).

SoCalBear323;842325555 said:

---

CONCACAF is 3-1-1 in this World Cup. 3rd best region. Hatters gonna hat.

---

CONCACAF has only made it to the quarterfinals once in its history, and that was 28 years ago back in 1986 (Mexico, at home). Since then, three african countries have made it to the QFs (Cameroon 90, Senegal 98 and Ghana in 2010), and one Asian country, S. Korea, actually made it all the way to the semis (2002). So until Mexico or the US make a serious run, it won't be recognized as the 3rd best region, objectively speaking.

The other issue is depth, or the lack of it. Costa Rica would have to show its win against Uruguay was not a fluke. If you matched the top 10 teams from CAF vs CONCACAF, only the top 2 or 3 N American teams would stand up. It's mostly a question of geography, Central American and Caribbean countries are much smaller than most African countries.

Quote:

---

Brazil may regret not putting Mexico away. If they finish 2nd in the group they would probably face Holland.

---

Facing Spain is not much of a better prospect. It's still a formidable roster, Holland is not much better, Spain just run into a buzzsaw that night.

Cal88;842325640 said:

---

CONCACAF has only made it to the quarterfinals once in its history, and that was 28 years ago back in 1986 (Mexico, at home). Since then, three african countries have made it to the QFs (Cameroon 90, Senegal 98 and Ghana in 2010), and one Asian country, S. Korea, actually made it all the way to the semis (2002). So until Mexico or the US make a serious run, it won't be recognized as the 3rd best region, objectively speaking.

The other issue is depth, or the lack of it. Costa Rica would have to show its win against Uruguay was not a fluke. If you matched the top 10 teams from CAF vs CONCACAF, only the top 2 or 3 N American teams would stand up. It's mostly a question of geography, Central American and Caribbean countries are much smaller than most African countries.



Facing Spain is not much of a better prospect. It's still a formidable roster, Holland is not much better, Spain just run into a buzzsaw that night.

---

2002 was a catastrophe in how obvious that run was rigged. Doesn't count to anyone who understands FIFA and it's politics.

What about number of teams advancing to the 2nd round?

Going back further than 20 years is not really relevant because US Soccer was non-existent then. We're talking about here and now and who deserves how many berths in the WC.

Concacaf rightfully deserves 3.5 spots. There is no real argument for Asia and Africa to take that half spot.

Cal88;842325640 said:

---

CONCACAF has only made it to the quarterfinals once in its history, and that was 28 years ago back in 1986 (Mexico, at home). Since then, three african countries have made it to the QFs (Cameroon 90, Senegal 98 and Ghana in 2010), and one Asian country, S. Korea, actually made it all the way to the semis (2002). So until Mexico or the US make a serious run, it won't be recognized as the 3rd best region, objectively speaking.

The other issue is depth, or the lack of it. Costa Rica would have to show its win against Uruguay was not a fluke. If you matched the top 10 teams from CAF vs CONCACAF, only the top 2 or 3 N American teams would stand up. It's mostly a question of geography, Central American and Caribbean countries are much smaller than most African countries.



Facing Spain is not much of a better prospect. It's still a formidable roster, Holland is not much better, Spain just run into a buzzsaw that night.

---

Uhhh. United States. 2002. And we outplayed the eventual champs (Germany) in those quarterfinals. Otherwise, solid post.

CONCACAF, CAF and AFC finishes since 1994:

Round of 16 Finishes for CONCACAF: 7
Quarterfinals: 1

Round of 16 Finishes for AFC: 4
Semis: 1

Round of 16 Finishes for CAF: 4
Quarterfinals: 1

On paper CAF is the deepest conference but they simply don't perform in World Cups. Plus, their FIFA rankings are inflated because they beat up on the minnows in their own conference for the Africa Cup of Nations.

If CAF and AFC want to take that half spot then they have catching up to do.

Cal88;842325640 said:

---

CONCACAF has only made it to the quarterfinals once in its history, and that was 28 years ago back in 1986 (Mexico, at home.

---

Seriously, how do you not remember the USMNT 12 years ago? The US even beat Portugal that year (granted, different circumstances).

And if you think US didn't deserve to win that round of 16 game, well then CONCACAF still would have made it to the quarters had Mexico won.

Man, with a few breaks against Germany that year in the quarters... remember the German defensive handball at the goal-line that blocked the ball as it was bouncing into the net (go to roughly the 2 minute mark)? Not saying that should have been a penalty, but even if inadvertent, you have to admit that was a pretty bad break when the defender's hand blocks a would-be goal.

Of course Germany was the better team and had plenty of chances to win by more too, but the US had a fighting chance that day.

SoCalBear323;842325669 said:

---

CONCACAF, CAF and AFC finishes since 1994:

Round of 16 Finishes for CONCACAF: 7
Quarterfinals: 1

Round of 16 Finishes for AFC: 4
Semis: 1

Round of 16 Finishes for CAF: 4
Quarterfinals: 1

On paper CAF is the deepest conference but they simply don't perform in World Cups. Plus, their FIFA rankings are inflated because they beat up on the minnows in their own conference for the Africa Cup of Nations.

If CAF and AFC want to take that half spot then they have catching up to do.

---

Africa got two Quarterfinals appearances in that time.

But overall you're right -- aside from a couple of Cinderella stories (Senegal 2002, Ghana 2010) their teams have not been good at getting out of group stages, while CONCACAF teams have done better with fewer participants on average.

How are the inter-confederation qualification match-ups decided?

I believe that since CONCACAF got the extra half spot for 06, their opponent has changed from Asia in 06 to South America in 10 and Oceania in 14. Is it random? Rotational? Based on FIFA rankings? Do we yet know what the inter-confederation match-ups will be for 18?

Also, when and why did Australia switch from the Oceania qualification group to Asia?

Thanks.

Mr. Frumble;842325703 said:

---

How are the inter-confederation qualification match-ups decided?

I believe that since CONCACAF got the extra half spot for 06, their opponent has changed from Asia in 06 to South America in 10 and Oceania in 14. Is it random? Rotational? Based on FIFA rankings? Do we yet know what the inter-confederation match-ups will be for 18?

---

I think it's random.

Mr. Frumble;842325703 said:

---

Also, when and why did Australia switch from the Oceania qualification group to Asia?

---

They switched in time for the 2010 World Cup qualifying, and I'm pretty sure they did it because it would be an easier path. They just need to finish among the top 4 in a region where South Korea and Japan are the only real competition. In Oceania they had to finish #1 in that region and THEN play off against a team from a potentially much stronger region (like South America). It's worked out for them so far: Australia has easily qualified both times they've gone against Asian competition.

sycasey;842325712 said:

---

I think it's random.



They switched in time for the 2010 World Cup qualifying, and I'm pretty sure they did it because it would be an easier path. They just need to finish among the top 4 in a region where South Korea and Japan are the only real competition. In Oceania they had to finish #1 in that region and THEN play off against a team from a potentially much stronger region (like South America). It's worked out for them so far: Australia has easily qualified both times they've gone against Asian competition.

---

Thanks.

Re Australia, yes, I understand the benefit from their point of view. I guess I should have phrased my question as why were they allowed to switch, or why did FIFA decide to switch them?

Just seems odd to have Australia in one group and NZ in another.

Has there been any talk of merging the Oceania group with Asia?

Mr. Frumble;842325721 said:

---

Thanks.

Re Australia, yes, I understand the benefit from their point of view. I guess I should have phrased my question as why were they allowed to switch, or why did FIFA decide to switch them?

Just seems odd to have Australia in one group and NZ in another.

Has there been any talk of merging the Oceania group with Asia?

---

Based on my research (Wikipedia) it looks like both confederations voted (AFC to add Australia, OFC to let them leave) and approved the move, so that was that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_association_football_team

As far as I know there is no talk of merging.

Man how good is this World Cup? Even Netherlands-Australia is a great match. If you squint really hard, the Aussies in their gold jerseys look like Brazil. Ok maybe not. But still.

SoCalBear323;842325593 said:

---

Game just got good. KoreAmBear must be on pins and needles!

---

Sorry I was watching but I wasn't aware you guys were chatting this match.

Yah, conservative possession game was the strategy and it almost backfired on them. The goal by Lee Keun Ho was the luckiest one of the tournament, although he provided a great spark after Park Chu Yong did basically very little. Then everyone looked gassed the last 20 minutes and hung on for dear life. It's fascinating to see the strategy for every individual team. The World Cup is such an amazing tournament.

grandmastapoop;842325664 said:

---

Uhhh. United States. 2002. And we outplayed the eventual champs (Germany) in those quarterfinals. Otherwise, solid post.

---

Yup. Ollie Kahn stood on his head though.

So what would be your formation considering Jozy will not play and Deuce has a broken nose? Mine would be as Twellman and Alexi suggested by putting Deuce alone at top but then have 4-2-3-1:

Johnson--Cameron--Besler (of course Brooks if Besler's hammy is still bothering him)--Beasley (I guess - or maybe Chandler)

Jones--Beckerman

Zusi--Bradley--Bedoya

Deuce

No September call ups like in baseball?