On the other hand, watching an NCAA hoops game last weekend a player was basically shielding the ball so it would go out of bounds. Color commentator (I think Dan Bonner) said, "Now in soccer that would be a foul because he was in playing distance of the ball, but here its OK" I was blown away. I imagine there are lot of soccer analysts who don't seem to understand how that reads.
Actually, he said "was not within playing distance" which would have been correct rule-wise, but was factually incorrect. It looked just like a soccer play. My son (ref) and I looked at each other and scratched our heads, more amazed by the nature of the reference than by the accuracy.
I'm watching the college rugby 7's championships on NBC and the guy is trying to explain the advantage rule to the people at home and at the end say "I don't think there is another game in the world that has advantage".
Here's one from last night.... Fox Soccer Channel's Chris Sullivan comments after Juan Pablo Angel of the Red Bulls was called for offside: ""It's an own goal so he couldn't be offside". The play starts at the 3:16 mark of the following link and the comment is made at the 3:38 mark: http://mls.neulion.com/mlsvp/console.jsp?catid=1822&id=5782
In the SEA-NE match last night, one commentator referred to an AR as a "line judge"... Wrong football there, buddy...
That is taken out of context. Sullivan said "Going back to that shot [of Angel arguing], that could have been an own goal, and maybe he was trying to say it was an own goal so it couldn't be offsides." There is nothing wrong with that statement, as far as it went. Perhaps Angel even went further to argue that he did not interfere with play, either. However, Brian Dunseth did point out Angel was offside because he "gained an advantage", and Sullivan agreed with him. Oy vey.
Being at the game, I was only stating solely what I'm hearing on mlsnet, as they jump to two different clips taken 7 minutes apart where the play is still being discussed. In my opinion, Shep Messing of MSG is the only analyst who actually knows the Laws of the Game pretty well. When replays are made of fouls, he actually uses terms only refs would use (ex. "reckless foul" as opposed to "careless foul", DOGSO, etc).
"Careless foul" is a term that referees use. USSF instruction uses "Careless" = Foul only, Reckless = Foul + Caution.
Brian Dunseth on FSC is so annoying. Everybody and their mother is an "international." Joe Blow, the Peruvian international. John Blow, the Dutch international. He even introduces Christopher (lame accent) Sullivan as a US international. My favorite was in the Red Bulls vs. Chivas game last Saturday night at 84:55 as two players battled for the ball, Dunseth actually said, "Costa Rican international against Costa Rican international." WHO CARES! At another point, Joel Lindpere barely touched the ball for 0.26 seconds and Dunseth insisted on saying something like, "Estonian international Lindpere moves the ball up." All this "international" crap plus his scratchy, middle-school boy's voice makes me wonder why FSC thought he was the best candidate for the job?
The color guy on the Mexico - South Africa game, Efoku or something, couldn't figure out how a guy could be offside when there was a defender on the goal line - never mind that the attacker was behind the goalkeeper. Even when the still shot showing the offside line went up, and Martin Tyler explained it, he still didn't get it. In the second half he was still going on about it. You would think somebody would explain it to him at halftime!
My daughter and I were cracking up about this. They were so sure that the call was wrong. It was quite disappointing to not have someone correct them and/or they admit, loudly, that they were wrong.
How about in today's England-USA match where the ar is pointing his flag upfield for a foul and the tv crew is putting out the diagonal line to determine whether or not there was offside?
The announcers said offside first, then immediately corrected themselves that it was a foul. It's the guys in the booth painting the offside line that were messed up on that one.
Ian Darke continues to show his awesomeness. Stuart Dobson on the other hand... Man Utd gets penalty against Fulham in 86th minute. Personally, I think it was borderline. No one was near him, but his arm was slightly away from his body. The following ensues... Darke: How is that intentional? Dobson: Its not <cutoff> Darke: But it has to be. It has to be. Law 12 says it has to be intentional. A minute or so later after the save Darke: I think that was a bit of poetic justice. I don't think it was intentional handball. It was handball, but not intentional. It remains a grey area. Dobson: It does. So does everything else. Fouls and red cards are meant to be intentional, most fouls aren't intentional.
I'm not going to nitpick a commentator between intentional and deliberate. Unless you mean Robson, then send him the entire book.
Time to bump this thread again. Man City/Wolves analyst After a clear, but simple, handling call near the center line, we get this - "That looked like it might have been intentional and easily could have been a yellow card" Not enough to bump this thread. Then three minutes later after a borderline reckless tackle from behind. "The laws state a tackle from behind is a yellow card". As if he's implying he's actually read the LOTG.
JP Dellacamara on FSC, RSL v COL, 29 Oct 2011: ".... who is going to lift the MLS Cup TROPHY" WTF. Is he new to the game?!?!?! Unlisten-able.
Last night I finally watched a replay of the Liverpool - West Bromwich Albion and the commentating around the early penalty decision was "interesting". The actual call itself might merit its own thread, as it appeared Lee Mason was going to let it go (perhaps had a bad angle or thought it was somewhat trifling?) but the AR raised his flag for the foul. WBA went nuts but IMO was a good call. The commentators made hay about how it was an "iffy" penalty since it was Suarez, and that Lee Mason was "overruled" (their word) by the Assistant Referee. Overruled?!? Really? Not a better angle or anything else, mind you. In fairness to the commentators, Mason did appear almost annoyed initially at giving the penalty decision but put his game face back on rather quickly.
I was watching that game and quite surprised given the proximity of Mason to the play that the AR would raise his flag for the foul. It was not as if Mason didn't have an excellent angle (and proximity to play) on what took place. Mason indeed was heading upfield when the flag went up (and subsequently called the foul and the PK). I think it was easier for Mason to acknowledge the foul (and award the PK) than wave him off. Given the way EPL games are officiated I thought this was very marginal call.
Amen to that. He's on mute in my house. We do our own "nodded down by Donavan" calls when appropriate.
I'll give JP one thing. He has been covering soccer games on TV for a long time, and perhaps doing it because he either: a. loves soccer and chose to be one of the preeminent soccer announcers in the USA at the time when no new play by play announcers were coming out of the woodwork to call the sport. b. was not quite up to the standards that his bosses wanted for sports like baseball, hockey, football, basketball; so they told JP to go make a career out of calling soccer games. c. Something else A is more respectable, but all the same the guy has worked hard for the sport and we should give him a nod for that.
Don't know why I just came across this, submitted for your consideration. When they referenced geophysics I couldn't keep from laughing. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxf__W4o2A&feature=fvwrel"]Proof Darwin was wrong! We have not evolved...[/ame]