If the queen had balls she'd be the king. If the ref had called either the PK for Dempsey or the PK for Zusi, we win 2-0.
I'll clarify my position. US v Mexico in Colorado in March, OK. US v Anyone else in CONCACAF (Who we are clearly better than at home) in Colorado in March, DUMB.
And . . . once again . . . we didn't have any choice who we played at home in March. We didn't have any choice over who we play on the road in March. We didn't have any choice over the order of the home/away set in March. Turns out that we play on the road at Mexico as the second game in March-- that means the first game in March MUST be played at altitude. MUST MUST MUST (repeated that three times to make sure everyone gets it this time around). If San Marino were transferred to our confederation and had been yesterday's game, we STILL would have played them in Colorado. The week in Colorado for the team was all about altitude- getting ready for Azteca. Period. If the Mexico road game had been anywhere else in the 10 game schedule, we probably would have played yesterday's game in KC or Seattle due to weather concerns.
That was the high visibility ball... just not high visibility enough for TV, maybe not even for the game. LOL!
Do the Laws of the Game speak to when and whether the grounds crew can come onto the field to clear off snow? I was at the game last night, and we spent some time debating the question above. Since they mainly worked in and around the penalty box, we also wondered whether having the lines cleared away benefitted the team attacking or defending that goal.
We scheduled the match so that we might prepare for the altitude in Mexico. It snowed. The match was played. We won. The Costa Ricans are complaining. What' s the problem? I'm sorry, but I don't feel ashamed as others do. I would have preferred a more playable surface and perhaps a larger ground crew could have been recruited. But I see no cause for shame. Furthermore, I enjoy the indignation of the Costa Ricans. (BTW, I refuse to call them Ticos because there are more people in Bogotá who use the -ico diminutive than in all of CR. How dare they presume to monopolize the term? ) At the end of the day, Costa Rica can take a hike.
Two things: 1)this was by FAR the most excited crowd for a US game at the bar I always go to since probably the WC match against Algeria. 2)A friend I watched with works at Nike and told me that he just this week met the guy who designed that ball. He said that the guy did all kinds of crazy mathematical calculations to create the most visible ball possible (so he says). My friend was saying how bad he feels for the guy since it was clearly a miserable failure--and this was apparently the debut for the ball. Also, he also said that Adidas makes the orange ball (that IS visible in snow) but, of course, can't use an Adidas ball.
The snow was a gift. Not so much for the game but for the team psychology. They're like the anti-Donner Party. They went into the mountains to eat each other and a blizzard came and saved them from themselves.
The problem is a bunch of "fans" wanted the team to lose so that they could say that they had "called it".
What kind of a mathematical equation tells someone that yellow is the color which stands out most in snow? The Nike guy is an idiot. Maybe he should get out of the math lab and start using some common sense. If Adidas uses the orange ball, which they do, then why can't Nike use a red ball? A bright pink ball? Hell, an all green ball would have stood out more.
I'm calling BS on that story. I've seen Oregon football uniforms. Nike knows how to make things visible from the moon.
Did anyone happen to see Atalanta vs. Roma from a few weeks ago? It was the one with the snowstorm, and Bradley played in it too. Anyway, the ball they started with was yellow, but once the field became too covered they had to switch to the orange one. The change made a big difference.
As has been aptly pointed out by others in this thread, it's not as if the US has played in pristine conditions and climates every time we've taken the road in a qualifier. Where would these protests end? Does a team have a right to protest an outcome if the conditions aren't sunny and 70 degrees with a nice amount of shade and a perfectly manacured pitch? The conditions didn't look that bad right before kickoff. I thought it'd be one of those nights where the snow would be caked onto the pitch and it'd still be playable. Costa Rica just got unlucky since the blizzard grew in intensity as the night went on. And Sunil Gulati wasn't the one cranking the snow knob as high as it would go. Had the game been called prior to kickoff, I'd have understood. But it's over, and both sides had to deal with the same conditions. So CR can suck it.
I think Costa Rica is pissed because they didnt think the US would do the crap that they and every other CONCACAF team other than maybe Canada would do.
As if US Soccer handing out a laughable 150 tickets to our federation wasn't enough insult, somehow the ref is swiftly persuaded to change his mind about calling off an impossible match. Meanwhile, Northern Ireland cancels their qualifier under the same conditions while hosting RUSSIA, of all teams in the world. [edited by moderator: obscenity normally blocked by auto-censor] irony. The other confeds wouldn't ever be able to make a bigger joke of Concacaf even if they willingly tried. This is the shit that cripples trust and breaks bonds. Our federations can no longer be friendly or courteous because of this. And honestly, it's a real shame. But hey, this is just speaking to your history anyway: pissing off other countries is what you do best.
Again, Concacaf teams have been pulling these kinds of stunts on the US for decades, so I'm not sure why you're complaining. CR simply got a taste of its own medicine.