sycasey;842327396 said:

---

It was also extra questionable since they originally announced 4 minutes and then somehow it became 5. Yeah, not sure about that one.

---

I heard that, too. It was as if they announced 4 minutes. Klinsmann subbed a player out. Then they changed it to 5 minutes. That was wrong...

And why was it even four minutes? What was that for?

bigtuba1;842327399 said:

---

I heard that, too. It was as if they announced 4 minutes. Klinsmann subbed a player out. Then they changed it to 5 minutes. That was wrong...

And why was it even four minutes? What was that for?

---

All will be well if we make it into the second round. However, if we don't . . .

Word is that the 4th official changed it from 4 mins to 5 mins when Graham Zusi took too long to leave the pitch when subbed out.

Far fetched, but what happens if Portugal beats Ghana 2-1 and USA loses to Germany 4-0.

What's the tiebreaker?

KoreAmBear;842327398 said:

---

I'm not sure if he was one of our best players v. Portugal, but it's not unreasonable for you to feel that way. He also had an absolute gimme that kicked right into the Portugal defender (he had the rest of the goal open to him) while Beto was off his line.

---

I still can't fathom how he missed that opportunity. It was a worse mistake than the turnover, which I thought was due to exhaustion. Hopefully the real Bradley shows up against Die Mannschaft.

BGolden;842327418 said:

---

Far fetched, but what happens if Portugal beats Ghana 2-1 and USA loses to Germany 4-0.

What's the tiebreaker?

---

At the FIFA makeshift headquarters in Sao Paulo:



I'm hoping the next tiebreaker is head-to-head, which US wins over Ghana.

KoreAmBear;842327421 said:

---

At the FIFA makeshift headquarters in Sao Paulo:



I'm hoping the next tiebreaker is head-to-head, which US wins over Ghana.

---

Actually, that's pretty close. They draw lots.

The thing about soccer and the reason it stymies so many of us Americans is that it is inherently imprecise and undeterminable sport. Nothing is timed accurately. You can spend so much time putting a goal kick into play, or waiting to throw the ball in or subbing players out. So much of the game is left to caprice and whim. Was that ball out of bounds? Who knows, it was on the line for a while and yeah maybe it went out, but let's let them play on. Makes for a great playground game without officials, but Americans want things perfectly determinable and soccer is just not compatible with that way of thinking.

I'd say in football, the team that plays best wins like 80%+ of the time. In basketball it's easily 90%+. In baseball it's hard for me to even make up an estimate but it's pretty high. In soccer there are so few opportunities to score and there's so much variance in conversion rates on those opportunities, so I'd say the better team may only win 2/3 of the time (setting aside draws which are also infuriating to Americans and make up a huge percentage of soccer games).

So even though a lot of us grow up playing soccer and love the sport, as a spectator sport it's at odds with what Americans demand. You have to accept that Ghana outplayed us and we won that game and that we outplayed (and more or less dominated) Portugal for 89 minutes and managed just a tie.

Unit2Sucks;842327437 said:

---

The thing about soccer and the reason it stymies so many of us Americans is that it is inherently imprecise and undeterminable sport. Nothing is timed accurately. You can spend so much time putting a goal kick into play, or waiting to throw the ball in or subbing players out. So much of the game is left to caprice and whim. Was that ball out of bounds? Who knows, it was on the line for a while and yeah maybe it went out, but let's let them play on. Makes for a great playground game without officials, but Americans want things perfectly determinable and soccer is just not compatible with that way of thinking.

I'd say in football, the team that plays best wins like 80%+ of the time. In basketball it's easily 90%+. In baseball it's hard for me to even make up an estimate but it's pretty high. In soccer there are so few opportunities to score and there's so much variance in conversion rates on those opportunities, so I'd say the better team may only win 2/3 of the time (setting aside draws which are also infuriating to Americans and make up a huge percentage of soccer games).

So even though a lot of us grow up playing soccer and love the sport, as a spectator sport it's at odds with what Americans demand. You have to accept that Ghana outplayed us and we won that game and that we outplayed (and more or less dominated) Portugal for 89 minutes and managed just a tie.

---

My take on the lack of popularity in the US is the simple lack of scoring. Imagine an NBA game ending 5-4 with most of the points coming off of FT's. That would KILL BB's popularity no matter how tecnically good the plays were.
"Jordan goes up for a smashing dunk....oh it is batted away for the 25th straight time this game!"

Unit2Sucks;842327437 said:

---

I'd say in football, the team that plays best wins like 80%+ of the time. In basketball it's easily 90%+. In baseball it's hard for me to even make up an estimate but it's pretty high. In soccer there are so few opportunities to score and there's so much variance in conversion rates on those opportunities, so I'd say the better team may only win 2/3 of the time (setting aside draws which are also infuriating to Americans and make up a huge percentage of soccer games).

---

Actually I'd say baseball has a similar variance to soccer, but there are a lot more games so it's easier to shrug off undeserved losses (except in the postseason, which is just as nail-biting as the World Cup).

sycasey;842327439 said:

---

Actually I'd say baseball has a similar variance to soccer, but there are a lot more games so it's easier to shrug off undeserved losses (except in the postseason, which is just as nail-biting as the World Cup).

---

I agree that the day to day variance in play in baseball is huge so I think you could say the "better team" only wins maybe 55% of the time in baseball. But the team that plays better wins at a decent clip. You are definitely correct that the number of games in the season helps.

The difference in soccer though is that we're not talking about the better team losing the game, we're talking about the team that played better still losing an awful lot. The Tigers were probably a better baseball team than the Giants in 2012, but no one would argue that the Tigers outplayed the Giants.

GivemTheAxe;842327438 said:

---

My take on the lack of popularity in the US is the simple lack of scoring. Imagine an NBA game ending 5-4 with most of the points coming off of FT's. That would KILL BB's popularity no matter how tecnically good the plays were.
"Jordan goes up for a smashing dunk....oh it is batted away for the 25th straight time this game!"

---

It sounds like you've described the death of the NBA: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/3/5772796/nba-y2k-series-finale-the-death-of-basketball

The lack of popularity/success of soccer in the U.S. is cultural. Until kids kick around a ball in the alley or on the street for hours on end it will always be a "rec" sport, not a part of the societal fabric. As a rec sport it's often associated with suburban leagues like AYSO and snack mom duties. A guy like Messi would never develop from such a system. Instead you get very fit and well trained athletics who lack "touch" or deeper sense of the game.

When you think of baseball you think of hot dogs, beer, summer and watching a game on a warm evening...or variations like whiffle ball or stick ball. Also there's all the signs of cultural depth with things like language. Baseball metaphors are everywhere in this country...i.e., he struck out or he got to third base. (There are no soccer metaphors I know of that are used commonly, but there are football and basketball ones.) Even as baseball has taken a back seat to American football it remains the U.S.'s past time.

SoCalBear323;842327413 said:

---

Word is that the 4th official changed it from 4 mins to 5 mins when Graham Zusi took too long to leave the pitch when subbed out.

---

Per Law 7 - Additional time is totally at the discretion of the referee.

Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
• substitutions
• assessment of injury to players
• removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
• wasting time
• [COLOR="Red"]any other cause[/COLOR]

Once added time is announced, that is the MINIMUM amount of time to be added and that much time MUST be played.
There is nothing to prohibit the referee from adding even more time once added time is announced.

And again, all added time is at the discretion of the referee. He can add time for any reason at all.

There is a silent mechanic for the referee to inform the fourth official how much time is to be added.

TheBearsHaveWon;842327454 said:

---

Per Law 7 - Additional time is totally at the discretion of the referee.

Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
substitutions
assessment of injury to players
removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
wasting time
[COLOR="Red"]any other cause[/COLOR]

Once added time is announced, that is the MINIMUM amount of time to be added and that much time MUST be played.
There is nothing to prohibit the referee from adding even more time once added time is announced.

And again, all added time is at the discretion of the referee. He can add time for any reason at all.

There is a silent mechanic for the referee to inform the fourth official how much time is to be added.

---

Who actually holds the added time clock, the 4th official? Referee? And when you add say 4 mins in stoppage time, is it actually 4:00 or could be like 4:15 or whatever?

TheBearsHaveWon;842327454 said:

---

Per Law 7 - Additional time is totally at the discretion of the referee.

Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
substitutions
assessment of injury to players
removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
wasting time
[COLOR="Red"]any other cause[/COLOR]

Once added time is announced, that is the MINIMUM amount of time to be added and that much time MUST be played.
There is nothing to prohibit the referee from adding even more time once added time is announced.

And again, all added time is at the discretion of the referee. He can add time for any reason at all.

There is a silent mechanic for the referee to inform the fourth official how much time is to be added.

---

I believe four minutes was initially added yesterday and then after of bit of "added time" they added another minute due to injury. Just think had they not?

Correct. Grassrolling by both Zusi and Dempsey added one more minute.

beelzebear;842327448 said:

---

The lack of popularity/success of soccer in the U.S. is cultural. Until kids kick around a ball in the alley or on the street for hours on end it will always be a "rec" sport, not a part of the societal fabric. As a rec sport it's often associated with suburban leagues like AYSO and snack mom duties. A guy like Messi would never develop from such a system. Instead you get very fit and well trained athletics who lack "touch" or deeper sense of the game.

When you think of baseball you think of hot dogs, beer, summer and watching a game on a warm evening...or variations like whiffle ball or stick ball. Also there's all the signs of cultural depth with things like language. Baseball metaphors are everywhere in this country...i.e., he struck out or he got to third base. (There are no soccer metaphors I know of that are used commonly, but there are football and basketball ones.) Even as baseball has taken a back seat to American football it remains the U.S.'s past time.

---

Soccer's lack of popularity is due to the nature of the sport itself:

1. How can a sport that purports to be the ultimate test of athleticism forbid the use of the most important athletic skill - hand-eye coordination? Come on, soccer players, haven't you ever wanted to pick up the ball and run with it? Of course, that would make you half way to a rugby player (the other half being tackling).

2. As said ad infinitum, there is little scoring and a lot of players kicking the ball to one another at midfield.

3. Every real or imagined touching of the other player results in a fall, followed by writhing and injury time out of 5 minutes. For what? an Owey?

4. Any sport in which the announcer says, repeatedly, "Lovely ball!" is a sport that the vast majority of Americans will reject.

Let's face it: Americans want action and they want a physical test to the nth degree. I've never seen an exhausted soccer player at game's end, even if the score is 3-2, which it rarely is.

Rushinbear;842327466 said:

---

Soccer's lack of popularity is due to the nature of the sport itself:

1. How can a sport that purports to be the ultimate test of athleticism forbid the use of the most important athletic skill - hand-eye coordination? Come on, soccer players, haven't you ever wanted to pick up the ball and run with it? Of course, that would make you half way to a rugby player (the other half being tackling).

2. As said ad infinitum, there is little scoring and a lot of players kicking the ball to one another at midfield.

3. Every real or imagined touching of the other player results in a fall, followed by writhing and injury time out of 5 minutes. For what? an Owey?

4. Any sport in which the announcer says, repeatedly, "Lovely ball!" is a sport that the vast majority of Americans will reject.

Let's face it: Americans want action and they want a physical test to the nth degree. I've never seen an exhausted soccer player at game's end, even if the score is 3-2, which it rarely is.

---

Added the icon for you. :sarc:

Rushinbear;842327466 said:

---

Soccer's lack of popularity is due to the nature of the sport itself:

1. How can a sport that purports to be the ultimate test of athleticism forbid the use of the most important athletic skill - hand-eye coordination? Come on, soccer players, haven't you ever wanted to pick up the ball and run with it? Of course, that would make you half way to a rugby player (the other half being tackling).

2. As said ad infinitum, there is little scoring and a lot of players kicking the ball to one another at midfield.

3. Every real or imagined touching of the other player results in a fall, followed by writhing and injury time out of 5 minutes. For what? an Owey?

4. Any sport in which the announcer says, repeatedly, "Lovely ball!" is a sport that the vast majority of Americans will reject.

Let's face it: Americans want action and they want a physical test to the nth degree. I've never seen an exhausted soccer player at game's end, even if the score is 3-2, which it rarely is.

---

Oh, and I can't be the only one who noticed that the US goalie did nothing to stop that last Portugal goal - just stood there, watching. Lovely header, that.

Rushinbear;842327466 said:

---

Soccer's lack of popularity is due to the nature of the sport itself:

1. How can a sport that purports to be the ultimate test of athleticism forbid the use of the most important athletic skill - hand-eye coordination? Come on, soccer players, haven't you ever wanted to pick up the ball and run with it? Of course, that would make you half way to a rugby player (the other half being tackling).

2. As said ad infinitum, there is little scoring and a lot of players kicking the ball to one another at midfield.

3. Every real or imagined touching of the other player results in a fall, followed by writhing and injury time out of 5 minutes. For what? an Owey?

4. Any sport in which the announcer says, repeatedly, "Lovely ball!" is a sport that the vast majority of Americans will reject.

Let's face it: Americans want action and they want a physical test to the nth degree. I've never seen an exhausted soccer player at game's end, even if the score is 3-2, which it rarely is.

---

...and yet baseball is still America's past time and it's every bit as "boring" and lacking action, especially now that the 'roid era is over. Of course baseball has little on golf...or people understand the game.

So why do Americans still watch baseball and care...because it's cultural and tradition. The U.S. doesn't have a great soccer tradition or cultural attachments or significance.

beelzebear;842327472 said:

---

...and yet baseball is still America's past time and it's every bit as "boring" and lacking action, especially now that the 'roid era is over. Of course baseball has little on golf...or people understand the game.

So why do Americans still watch baseball and care...because it's cultural and tradition. The U.S. doesn't have a great soccer tradition or cultural attachments or significance.

---

Continued immigration may slowly change the popularity of soccer in America.

Rushinbear;842327466 said:

---

I've never seen an exhausted soccer player at game's end,

---

Then you haven't actually been watching.

NYCGOBEARS;842327475 said:

---

Continued immigration may slowly change the popularity of soccer in America.

---

Also continued coverage.

Through NBC Sports Network and NBC, one could have seen every single EPL match in the States. Through Fox, Fox Soccer Channel, Beinsports and ESPN, one could also have watched most of the Champion's League matches, FA Cup, as well as many other international matches. It's much more accessible than it used to be. A lot of American kids now think it cool to wear Messi, Neymar, Suarez, Ronaldo or Van Persie jerseys.

Finally those summer friendly series where they bring Man U, Real Madrid (Memorial Stadium!), Chelsea, Barcelona and others, also have drawn the interest of Americans.

KoreAmBear;842327477 said:

---

Also continued coverage.

Through NBC Sports Network and NBC, one could have seen every single EPL match in the States. Through Fox, Fox Soccer Channel, Beinsports and ESPN, one could also have watched most of the Champion's League matches, FA Cup, as well as many other international matches. It's much more accessible than it used to be. A lot of American kids now think it cool to wear Messi, Neymar, Suarez, Ronaldo or Van Persie jerseys.

---

Great point.

KoreAmBear;842327477 said:

---

Also continued coverage.

Through NBC Sports Network and NBC, one could have seen every single EPL match in the States. Through Fox, Fox Soccer Channel, Beinsports and ESPN, one could also have watched most of the Champion's League matches, FA Cup, as well as many other international matches. It's much more accessible than it used to be. A lot of American kids now think it cool to wear Messi, Neymar, Suarez, Ronaldo or Van Persie jerseys.

---

This is the big thing. Soccer in America has been one of the big beneficiaries of TV networks' mad dash for sports content. The European matches fit nicely into early time slots before the American sports have started.

Back when I was a kid, you couldn't find World Cup games on anywhere. Now they are on our primary sports network . . . every one of them.

sycasey;842327479 said:

---

This is the big thing. Soccer in America has been one of the big beneficiaries of TV networks' mad dash for sports content. The European matches fit nicely into early time slots before the American sports have started.

Back when I was a kid, you couldn't find World Cup games on anywhere. Now they are on our primary sports network . . . every one of them.

---

And they're getting more viewers than the NBA finals.

KoreAmBear;842327459 said:

---

Who actually holds the added time clock, the 4th official? Referee? And when you add say 4 mins in stoppage time, is it actually 4:00 or could be like 4:15 or whatever?

---

The referee is the only time keeper.

EDIT: Let me rephrase that. The Referee is the only OFFICIAL time keeper. The ARs and Fourth official also keep time on their watches, and serve as backup in case something happens to the Referee's watches. Sometimes, when the half is close to ending and the ARs notice that the Ref has not checked his watch in a while, the next time they make eye contact, the AR will subtley tap his watch as a reminder for the Ref to check his...

The Referee keeps time by the watch on his wrist. Actually, referees wear at least 2 watches. When adding time, the referee will play to the minimum of time added. They may or may not be exact on the final whistle depending on the play. For example, say a corner kick is taken at 3:57 with a 4:00 added time. Most referees will allow play to continue at least until a second touch (besides the touch that put the ball in play) is had by one team or the other or the ball is completely clear of the goal on the kick.

There is a very famous play in which a referee allowed the CK to be taken only to blow the whistle as soon as the corner kick was taken - just seconds before a Brazilian player (Zico) kicked what would have been the winning goal in a WC match vs. Sweden (1978).

Referees are now taught that if they allow a free kick that can conceivably end in a goal, wait for that second touch.

However, referees can whistle full time whenever they decide time is up. They do NOT have to allow a free kick, corner kick, goal kick to occur. Contrary to popular belief, the ball need NOT be in play when time is up.

There is only one exception to this which is called extended time.
If a penalty kick is called within seconds of a half being over, the half MUST be extended to have that PK taken. At the taking of this PK, the only participants will be the kicker, the keeper, the near side AR and the Referee.

When is this PK over? Referees are instructed that the PK is over when all of the momentum imparted on the ball by the kicker is completely spent.

For example, say a kicker kicks the ball in such a way that it is spinning. Say the keeper then saves the kick, or the ball ricochets off the upright/crossbar in such a way that it stays in touch. The ball, still spinning, hits the ground and then rolls or flies into the goal. This is a good goal.

I have seen this scenario where a keeper began to celebrate too soon on "saving" a PK, (turning his back on the spinning ball), only to have the spinning ball hit the ground and roll into the goal as the keeper was busy pumping his fist. Good goal. Surprise/shock/anger/embarrassment on the keeper's face.....

I would say the lack of popularity is lack of familiarity of high level play.


Here is why I say this: We have had reasonable access to the Premiere league for about a year. Before that the best you could do is go find it yourself if you were already interested. Or, you could watch not good players play in subpar leagues like the MLS or worse.

Sports fans can tell when the level of play is not high, and most dont like it. It is why I think womans leagues are not very strong despite having good or very good qualities to them. Really College football is the only non-elite league with great support, and that is being eroded (see the stories about attendance) as they try to pretend to be a semi-pro league.


So you have a sport without accessible top level play... no wonder it is not widely accepted, understood or followed.


Now that a person with casual interest can follow a good league on a normal network? I mean you can actually watch a a sport that takes the best teams from every league and have them play each other to see who is best? At multiple levels? Europe, world, country, etc. LIVE on TV now? It will grow in popularity. People will recognize top level play, and be slightly more interested. The "diving" myth will subside (as it is not universal to the sport as many Americans think), and it will gain fans. At some point those fans will want to see top level play in America and the MLS will grow into it as money comes easier.

Thats my opinion at least.

Phantom:
A recent ESPN poll shows that MLS is already as popular as MLB in the 12 - 17 y.o. demographic. 18% of respondents defined themselves as "AVID" fans of MLS, equaling the total for MLB.
http://www.espnfc.com/story/1740529

Bradley's problem was from a poor first touch. The ball got away from him and he was knocked off of it in pursuit by a Portugese midfielder. He never had control enough to kick it into the stands. Better options, in retrospect, would have been stopping it with his chest or just letting it go.

The whole team was too far downfield. Beasely couldn't really mark Ronaldo fully out of fear he might cut inwards towards the goal, allowing him the cross, and there were a couple defenders out of position. Sucks all around but we can't blame it all on Bradley.

BerlinerBaer;842327599 said:

---

Bradley's problem was from a poor first touch. The ball got away from him and he was knocked off of it in pursuit by a Portugese midfielder. He never had control enough to kick it into the stands. Better options, in retrospect, would have been stopping it with his chest or just letting it go.

The whole team was too far downfield. Beasely couldn't really mark Ronaldo fully out of fear he might cut inwards towards the goal, allowing him the cross, and there were a couple defenders out of position. Sucks all around but we can't blame it all on Bradley.

---

What I noticed while watching it live, and what I see again in the replay you posted, is that he had a poor first touch but pursued the ball and actually overran it, choosing inexplicably to run into the Portugese player (in order to draw a foul?). It seems to me that the Portugese player didn't knock him off the ball but rather Bradley initiated the contact instead of playing the ball. I'm open to other interpretations but that's what it looks like.

EDIT: Ok the more I watch it the more it becomes clear that Bradley was attempting to shield the ball but just got outmuscled by the Portugese guy. A reasonable thought, perhaps, but he got knocked off way too easily and, with 4 guys converging and 30 seconds left doesn't seem like the smartest move.

sketchy9;842327614 said:

---

What I noticed while watching it live, and what I see again in the replay you posted, is that he had a poor first touch but pursued the ball and actually overran it, choosing inexplicably to run into the Portugese player (in order to draw a foul?). It seems to me that the Portugese player didn't knock him off the ball but rather Bradley initiated the contact instead of playing the ball. I'm open to other interpretations but that's what it looks like.

EDIT: Ok the more I watch it the more it becomes clear that Bradley was attempting to shield the ball but just got outmuscled by the Portugese guy. A reasonable thought, perhaps, but he got knocked off way too easily and, with 4 guys converging and 30 seconds left doesn't seem like the smartest move.

---

Bottom line is that he got too cute. Oh man Jeremy Schapp interviewed him an asked him about that play, and it was just painful to watch. He sounds a lot like his dad in diction.

sketchy9;842327614 said:

---

What I noticed while watching it live, and what I see again in the replay you posted, is that he had a poor first touch but pursued the ball and actually overran it, choosing inexplicably to run into the Portugese player (in order to draw a foul?). It seems to me that the Portugese player didn't knock him off the ball but rather Bradley initiated the contact instead of playing the ball. I'm open to other interpretations but that's what it looks like.

EDIT: Ok the more I watch it the more it becomes clear that Bradley was attempting to shield the ball but just got outmuscled by the Portugese guy. A reasonable thought, perhaps, but he got knocked off way too easily and, with 4 guys converging and 30 seconds left doesn't seem like the smartest move.

---

Your second interpretation seems more reasonable, and I actually think if Bradley had taken a dive there, he probably gets the call - which is why I find it hard to criticize players who exaggerate contact (in football and basketball) - if refs only blow the whistle when a player goes down, then you should go down. Bradley is pretty severely knocked off the ball there. He should have gone down.

grandmastapoop;842327618 said:

---

Your second interpretation seems more reasonable, and I actually think if Bradley had taken a dive there, he probably gets the call - which is why I find it hard to criticize players who exaggerate contact (in football and basketball) - if refs only blow the whistle when a player goes down, then you should go down. Bradley is pretty severely knocked off the ball there. He should have gone down.

---

He should have flailed his arms, contorted his body like he got shot with a cannon ball, dropped down flat on his back, and grabbed his face (as well as kicking, writhing in pain). Seriously, that would have worked, and we're on Easy Street.