Whether you think that Canada got screwed or not they had 90 minutes to score goals and could only manage one. It always bothers me when I watch sporting events and something happens at the last minute that may or may not change the game and everyone focuses on that last minute. What about the rest of the game? If Canada deserved to win or tie then why didn't they do it earlier. If this incident would have happened in the first 15 minutes it wouldn't have attracted the same amount of attention. I agree with Chuy's original post. Nice explanation Chuy.
I have to agree with this. Both teams had 90+ minutes to score more than they did, and both teams wasted glorious opportunities. I think it's somewhat funny that we are all arguing about this- if Keller hadn't stopped playing and made the stop, or the Canadian player had shot the ball into row Z, no one would be talking about this. It doesn't matter- one instance cannot and should not define a whole game. I'm still pissed that Illinois got hosed by the officiating against North Carolina in the NCAA bball championship a couple years back, but in the end they didn't score enough before time ran out to win, regardless of what the officials did. How about- what if Donovan had won a free kick instead of being issued a yellow card? He's banged them in off free kicks before, and we scored off a beautiful dead ball from Beasley against Panama. I think we would have scored there. I was at the game and (without the benefit of replay admittedly) think this was a horribly officiated game in all aspects. It's fine to debate whether or not this was offsides, but to draw ANY sort of conclusion as to the effect a different decision would have had on the game is futile.
I've created an image to better display whether the Canadian players on in onside positions or not. How do I upload it? Copying and pasting is not working.
The only line that really matters is the one in the linesman's head. Again they had 90 minutes to score two or more goals and couldn't do it. If I was a Canadian fan I would be upset but that still wouldn't have given Canada the win. On a side note Bradley coached a horrible game. Subbing Twellman in for Dempsey was a wasted substitution. When you are up a goal why sub a forward. If anything Twellman should have started and EJ should have come off the bench. EJ has a horrible shot. His only skill is his speed and that could have been better utilized if he were to come off the bench when the other teams defense was tired. I think Bornstein also faded as the game progressed. Onyewu has to go. Too many critical mistakes.
DW and I were watching on TV and when we saw 4 minutes we were surprised! I could only remember a couple of subs and no big injury, so I thought 2 minutes on the outside.
It's irrelevant if DeRo was offside. He gained no advantage. That had to be what AR felt. That's one of just two ways his call makes any sense (the other would be that he though Onyewu was a Canadian).
You forgot this... "...he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position. from Decision #2 "Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position." (emphasis mine) According to this, DeRo did not gain an advantage by being in that position. That the first ball may have been intended for him is irrelevant. He never got the ball and thus, no advantage.
You ever hear of the psychological concept of Selective Group Perception? I find it fascinating that you are seeing DeRo in an offside position. DeRo was even with the second last defender at the time the ball was played. Whatever, really. It's over. But, damn how are you not seeing that????
Because they don't want to - it's as simple as that. It's been very interesting to see which bigsoccer posters are homers & which ones are a little more objective. It's incredible to me that there has been this much discussion of the positioning of De Rosario. Never mind that he wasn't interfering with the play & that the screen shots show that he was on-side, everyone was played on-side by Onyewu playing the ball back. And there are STILL people attempting argue it was the correct call. The desperation of some US fans to prove to themselves more than anyone else that they had a legitimate victory is quite startling. It's nice to see that most are not like that however.
I am not affected by Group Perception as I have not assimilated. I have not assimilated...I have not assimilated. But, I HAVE THE ANSWER!!! I follow more of the physics and kinetics rule of Angular Slide Dimension Perception Theory which states that if the source of perception (the camera) is not in line with the flat angle of a moving 3-dimensional object sliding from right to left (the action on the field), then any object (the canadian player ruled offside) that is in line with the subject-in-question (Gooch) from that angle, will be leading (or to the left of) the subject (Gooch) if the source of perception (camera) moves left to fall in line with the subject in question (uh, Gooch).... So, yea, he was offside!
when the ball was kicked dero was in line with the back foot of whoever that was, plus couldn't the argument be made that the pass was also to that hume character who scored the goal??? he was afterall about a foot away from getting to the ball
It's a "legitimate victory" even if the referee made a mistake. To argue otherwise is sour grapes (although not "startling" after a close game). I didn't complain one bit when Germany won in the 02 World Cup on what appeared to be referee's error. Nevertheless, this call was close and I believe it was correct. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the laws of the game, but it's not exactly well-settled in a situation like this.
Definitely could have gone either way, and if I were a Canadian supporter, I'd definitely be pissed off something awful, especially when you consider that the head ref was the same guy who hosed them on the penalty call versus Honduras during WC06 qualifying. I definitely feel for our neighbors to the North, but would tell them all to try and take comfort in the fact that what goes around almost always comes back around and living through the heartache just makes the eventual good times that much sweeter. Canada has a solid core group of players, and I think they will easily qualify for SA2010. Also, IMO, the events of last night could really stoke future US-Canada match-ups into a more heated rivalry similar to that of US-Mex, and that type of development is a win-win for all fans of the game going forward. As a U.S. fan, I have been less than thrilled with how we've been playing but am happy and grateful that we have somehow found our way to the final. Here's hoping that seeing El Tri on the other side of the pitch will bring out the best in our boys as has been the recent trend. But again, I am cautiously optimistic because I know all to well that what goes around, comes around.
Except taht if Hume played the ball prior to Gooch playing it, there's a case to be made that it deflected off of Gooch and DeRo and Hutchinson were offside at teh time Hume played the ball. But go aherad and assume that there's no way the official could have been making the right call. (Foir the record, I agree it looks like a poor call, but I also think there are enough variables in the play that I'm not surprised it was missed, and only the fact that it happened in the 95th minute instead of the 35th has us even discussing it)
Yeah, I thought the ref was going to try and screw us and give Canada time to equalize. From the screen caps people have posted it looks like the player on the bottom of the screen is offsides. either way thats the way things go, like Ghana in the WC, or the phantom handball in the field of play that led to a penalty during WCQ against Costa Rica a few years ago. Sometimes you win those calls sometimes you lose them, it is about damn time a "controversal" call went in our favor. Anyway, I guess the US-Canada rivalry has begun.
Group perception, like the fact that you Canucks on BS think you were robbed the whole game? What about Eddie Johnson taken down at the top of the box-no call, what about the two times Landon was taken down near the top of the box- 1 no call and one yellow for diving! What about when Hume came onto the field with the purpose of hurting players and tried to do so at will? What about the fact that there were 4 minutes of stoppage added on and 5 were actually played for a half that had no stoppage?! The ref gave you time to try and tie, that was blatantly in your favor. How can't you see this? The reason the flag should've went up on Dero is because he came from a blatantly offside position to a very near to being onside position when the ball was kicked. It wasn't close enough! That wasn't why the ref called offside though. In the run of play the ref thought the ball glanced off of Hume and went to Hutchinson. He stuck with his call and didn't change it, that's honesty and integrity, not match fixing. Even if we now know that didn't happen(the pass from Hume) it was equally as bad as other calls we got all night. In short, deal with it!
If the ball was intended for him, then wasn't he either interfering with play? If he isn't in that position, then Onyewu could have easily let the ball roll to Keller rather than try to get a head on it. I am not stating an opinion on whether he was in an offside position. - Paul
I must admit I am now pretty sure De Ro was even. The slant in the grass is deceiving. The slant for a perpendicular line would actually be in the other direction.
exactly. either side can point to things that maybe should have gone their way. The US has been on the ass end of horrible calls in MUCH bigger tournaments, like a little one you may have heard of called the Cup World or World Cup something like that. That being said, I don't begrudge Canadian fans being a little angry as it is a pretty questionable call IMO. However, I am SICK of hearing Canadian fans saying "we should have won! American thieves!" on forums and youtube: 1) since when did a goal count as 2 goals? Even if you did tie, there is a very good chance you lose in extra time or penalties. 2) the US had nothing to do with a call a Mexican ref makes.
OMG, these screen shots are conclusive evidence that Hutchinson was level with the defender on the original kick, yet some people still argue he was offside. Use your eyes, look at the picture, look at the lines in the grass. It's plain to see. It's also amazing some are arguing DeRo had anything at all to do with the play. Eeeek, it's scary to think that there are such irrational people are running around free in society!!! At least the AR has the excuse of having to make the call in real time. Here's my theory...the AR thought that a Canadian player (I think it was Hume) headed the ball through rather than Gooch, because ARs have to be looking at the last defender, not the last guy to touch the ball, so I could easily see that being the cause for the flag. He sees a ball headed through out of the corner of his eye (while focusing on Gooch and Hutchinson), and assumes it is a Canadian player. Afterall, why in the heck would a US player lay a perfect through ball onto the feet of Hutch??? Answer me that. At that point Hutch WAS offside. Now that would be an easy mistake to make, and that's what I think happened. And it is not unusual for the ARs to call it offside when the players are level, even though they aren't supposed to.