We are saying that the player who took the shot that Gibbs stopped with his hand was offside when the other Brazilian player touched it past Keller and to him. This all happened in the scramble after Keller made the initial save.
Looked offside to me on the one replay I saw, although I'd have to see another replay from a better angle to be sure. I imagine that offside calls with the keeper as second last defender are so uncommon that that the AR's sometimes subconsciously forget to pay attention to him -that might have been what happened here.
No, you don't get it. We play this same game 10 times and Brazil wins 8 or 9 times. What kind of dream world do you live in? Do you not think we're going to run into Brazil in the future in a WC? The Turks are going backwards, right? Cameroon is getting worse too, huh? Anyone who even tries to claim that we weren't given a lesson on attacking football is either retarded or not a real fan of the sport. Talk to me about shots on goal, SHOTS ON GOAL, shots on goal. We had ONE the whole night. Bottom line, if you can't attack, you're not a true contender in world football.
Brazil only had 3 or 4 good chances to score but they had a lot of dangerous opportunities (Hejduk and Convey each putting dangerous crosses over the endline). Was the Baptista shot the one from a tight angle in the first half? I just am not sure which one it was and I did miss the first part of the game. Now I'm not saying shots because I'm sure Brazil had around 18 and then US had about 6 but actual scoring opportunities 3 or 4 for Brazil and 2 for the US (Lewis, Boca). By that I mean chances where you would think a goal should be scored. Brazil did have more opportunities, but it was the ref that decided the game and not the players (and he may have costed Brazil the game on that offside freekick). If the asssistant blows the offside on the pass that Landon made and the US goes up 2-0 how would we feel about the game? We would be talking about how Brazil couldn't break down the US defense and how they couldn't finish their opportunities. That's a what if, but it is what happens if the other assistant botches a call that was a lot closer than the one that decided the game.
Let's see Brazil is the better team, but if we play like this Brazil only beats us 4 times out of 5. I would point out that if it was just a round robin World Cup game that Brazil would not have won as the game was a tie. BTW I suggest you go read the article on MLSNET that detailed how shots on goal are not a significant stat for predicting scoring. Hmmmm I guess Germany isn't a contender because they couldn't score against Brazil at the World Cup? If we just go by skill or speed we would lose to Brazil every game, but tactics come into play I guess. After all we were a minute from a victory and tied Brazil 1-1 through regulation. I guess our boys only need about 6 shots to get a goal while the less skilled Brazilians need about 18??? Really love to see how you spin this further.
That's absurd, that an AR who's working a first team intl match wouldn't have the wherewithal to recognize that type of call. There's a reason they work these level of games, because they're supposed to be the top refs in the world. The US didn't deserve to win, and seeing as how exhausted the US players were, Brazil may have scored anyway, but to allow that play to go on and not raise your flag for offside is horrible refereeing.
Heh okay, I couldn't figure out what you were saying. When I saw it live I didn't notice, but the first replay I was like "HE'S BEHIND KELLER!!!"...ugh
First off, I never painted myself into a corner saying that tactics alone were enough to win matches like you did. As such, I claim free reign to analyze games as I see fit. You know how many shots Germany had against Brazil at the last WC? More than we had tonight, and certainly more on goal than we had. That game was much more even than the scoreline indicated, because, SURPRISE, the Germans could actually attack at times and even HOLD POSSESSION. You have no concept of the RUN OF PLAY. It's not your fault. You probably think that teams in the premiereship play sophisticated football..
The Baptista shot came, if I'm not mistaken, from about 20 yards out directly in front of the goal. It was a great shot and Keller not only had to dive left, but get his arms down to keepp the grasscutter from getting by or giving up a rebound. The tight angle you're thinking of might have been Maicon, who should've crossed IMHO since Keller was not likely to be scored on there. I disagree with your assessment of good chances for Brazil. While some long shot were not good (like Diego and Robinho sending a couple of weak ones), others were good choices and forced good or great saves from Keller. ie, as they left our player's feet I thought they could have gone in. Those scoring opportunites, well-taken ones, are just as good as say, a low cross that almost gets tapped in. And heck, anything that hits the post, especially after a save by the keeper should be considered a good opportunity. Damn, thanks.
Doesn't mean I was at all calm... although I was much more settled down then say... after either of the disallowed goals or the US goal...
Well, I completely agree with this, but I also think that these calls can be tough to make in the box when things are happening fast and the ball's bouncing around. On a lot of blown offside calls, I can tell right away that the call is wrong, without even needing a replay. For this one, it didn't even occur to me until I saw the replay, for some reason. And I think that if you've programmed yourself to instinctively raise the flag whenever you see a certain pattern (attacker behind all field players when ball is released) it's possible that you'll hesitate to do it when the pattern doesn't match the one that usually leads to the offside call. Just speculating, since I've never reffed.
You'll just have to swallow your tongue around here Ombak. A lot of these guys haven't seen soccer outside of the premiereship or MLS... Taking long shots against a bunkered team is a MUST. It was a great strategy by Brazil IMHO--why not hope on one of them squeezing through, and getting a rebound to tap in. Which in the end is what ended up happening.
first disallowed goal = handball second disallowed goal = clear offsides *on the kick* If you look at the players when they lined up, there were at least 2 yellow shirts behind the whites. It was a proper call. The worst call of the game in my opinion was the ref waiting so long to dismiss Gibbs. Well taken penalty by the young Diego though.
I'm just saying long shots aren't good opportunities to score. Pretty much any team can get 10 shots if they just look for a yard or two of space and hit from about 25 out, but it takes a pretty spectacular effort to beat a world class keeper if there is a defender closing you down. Its just a totally different type of opportunity than the one keller redirected off the post in the second half. There is no reason that should not have been a goal as that was a clear chance. Opportunities of that quality I think was about 4 for Brazil and 2 for the US. If you see what I mean about differentiating between someone hitting an amazing shot from outside and someone getting a golden opportunity. Again I'm talking about the quailty of the opportunity not the quality of the shot. Because Lewis missed the whole goal so there was no danger on his shot, but it was a dangerous opportunity because Brazil let Eddie have a shot from 6 yards out with no defenders between him and the goal.
Didn't see it but don't doubt it. Didn't see it that way, should watch again. Of course, I thought it was either: offside after the ball bounced past the jumping players (no offside though) or a fould on Gibbs everyone here seems to be calling for. Now I have to wait for the replays tomorrow on FSW or to get a tape of the game. Agreed. Overall I found the refereeing way too inconsistent though.
Yeah, I'm guessing that is why we disagree so much Wanderer. I grew up watching Serie A and you grew up watching MISL?
I just read every post on this board and you are all 100% right. Everyone that was offside passed the ball to the hand of the last man who was on the side line with a cramp who should not have played because he is 34 and goes by the name of Bobby. I am just glad we lost. More shots of girls jumping up and down. Let it be. And I should know because I grew up watching Palatine Celtic Soccer.
You can't just arbitrarily say all shots from outside are not good goal-scoring opportunities unless they go in or hit the post. Julio Baptistas shot that Keller saved was a great scoring opportunity because it was going to the corner AND it took a lot for Keller to hold on to it instead of let it go on a rebound.
Ombak that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that a shot from the outside that hits the post is a good goal scoring opportunity either. Let me try to be more clear. Bocanegras header with only the keeper between him and the net and from somewhere in the box was a good goalscoring opportunity. Was it Robinho who cut inside the box and Kasey had to save the shot but couldn't get the rebound? That is a good goal scoring opportunity. Also the shot where Keller extended to hit it off the post as it was taken from about the 18 with nobody in between the shooter and the goal. Sorry I don't remember who was shooting it. On those situations you expect the player to score and those are good opportunities. Conversely the shot Convey hit well wide is about the same opportunity as a shot that someone rips upper 90. The opportunity is equal in both of those situations. When somebody shoots from 24 out and the keeper saves it you don't get mad at him (typically) but when someone shoots from inside the box and can't hit the target its realy frustrating (Eddie Lewis!). What I'm saying is clear goal scoring opportunities were about 4-2. If someone rips a shot from 30 yards out that bends around the keepers outstretched dive and skims the post into side netting he made a hell of a play but I wouldn't say that was a great opportunity. Understand what I'm trying to say? Its clear that with every shot taken there is actually an opportunity to score, but some opportunities are just a lot more dangerous than others.
Any thoughts on how Brazil got into the position to take a shot that Gibbs had to knock down with his hand in the first place? I've looked at the play in regular speed five times, and freeze framed the sequence through three times, and from what I can tell, Keller beats the Brazilian attacker to the ball by the tiniest of margins and has both hands on it, possession of it, and is not bobbling it. But it's so bloody close that I could see how a ref wouldn't call the Brazilian kicking it loose a foul (unless I'm misinterpreting the rules, or out of it, which is certainly possible). Still, it looked to me on close inspection, that Keller did have possession. Am I misinterpreting things here, or do others disagree fundamentally? -the rest of my post I removed and just deposited in the post game thread, it seemed a bit off topic considering the thread title.
I know this is from the first page, but NO they did not deserve anything but a good beating. Brazil's youngsters ran circles around us all night long.
the golden goal was offside. There must be two defenders between you and the goal when receiving the ball.Keller was forward of the attacking player when the ball was played leaving only Gibbs between The Brazil player and the goal. Blown call by the AR and a sh...ty way to lose.