US-Costa Rica, the snow (R): FIFA ruling: the result stands!

I agree with all that - including that it was an "unexpected storm".

This goes to the larger point, which is that it's silly to be punitive and petty over a protest procedure if the material elements (notification to the referee and other team) were satisfied. And if the storm were unexpected, then I can forgive the CR officials from not bring some procedural guidelines that they wouldn't have foreseen needing, and that get used once in a blue moon.

I've said from the beginning - if the US was not prejudiced by how CR notified us of its desire not to play, then FIFA should hear the merits (which I assume will uphold the referee's decision given his plenary power to make this decision). I don't see why anyone's so petty over some procedural b.s. It seems clear to me that opinion here is heavily influenced by the chip on the shoulder of US fans over treatment in CONCACAF over the years.

 

Hey! Just heard about what happened a few days ago and I will say that was a whole lot of BS. If FIFA declines to replay that "match" (if we can even call it that), Costa Rica needs to pick the Saprissa stadium since I understand it is a very hard place to play at for the US. Out of fair play to the other teams, this should only be done against the US.

That kind of crap wouldn't fly here. In here, our fans would be waiting at the airport to "welcome" the opposition, go with you to the hotel, welcome you at the stadium and see you off. When you pull cheap stunts like this, you open yourself to a can of worms and FIFA can't complain.

So either the standards are the same for everyone or it becomes a free-for-all. In Europe, a match that wasn't snowing half as bad as from what I saw on YouTube got called off. Never mind that it is extremely dangerous to play in such weather for both players and fans alike. It seems this was pushed through out of desperation from the US with CONCACAF backing.

Just my 2 cents.

 

So in other words you are threatening to do what you always do? Oh noes!

 

I think BOTH are true. Mainly, I think it's complete b.s. that Costa Rica is complaining after they lost fair and square. Tough conditions, I get it. But that's life. They weren't dangerous conditions. The more legal argument I made though was in response to your poo-pooing of the regs. FIFA is always throwing the LOTG in our faces as fans. With that being said, teams have a duty to expect those regs/laws/statutes to be enforced. And if you can't be bothered to care about it as a team, what are we supposed to do ... hold your hand and walk you through what you have to do? Ultimately though, the claim on its merits is an easy call to me.

 

What the hell does Corinthians, or even an isolated incident, have to do with Santos??

That's like saying Barcelona's business is Espanyol's...what ignorance!

I am 26 years old. I simply know our history. Something you don't have. That is why you spend your life being a gloryhunter.

 

He was referring to the fact that Costa Rica always schedule our qualifying matches in Saprissa... and that there is a history of their fans abusing our players there (throwing all sorts of projectiles). there is also a history of other CONCACAF nations choosing venues that are, a)under water, b)not normally used for football and have recently been torn up, and/or c)at an unreasonable altitude in air quality conditions that are unsafe. In addition they regularly schedule matches at the hottest times of day to try to wear out their superior opponents. The US players are so used to this that they don't even complain anymore. They just take it for granted that they will need to just put their heads down and do what it takes to get through any situation. They simply did the same thing in the snowstorm on Friday. It's just that Costa Rican players aren't used to having the tables turned on them.

 

That's because they're too cute for their own good.

CR is a team that you try to like, but when you're reminded of their chronic smallness you end up wishing them the very worst.

Anyone who finds them worthy exponents of the beautiful game or fair play is a fool.

 

How did you find out the U.S. Soccer Fed had mastered weather control?

A "free-for-all" like qualifying in Central America?

Costa Rica was being thoroughly outplayed in the first half while the field was still in good shape.

Not sure they were worth that.

 

Maybe I should wade into a discussion on South American qualifying? You know, since I don't know anything about it.

 

Yes, match officials must comply with the US Fed's orders. All our best secrets are being revealed.

You mean, just like the last 25+ years?

You don't say.

 

The Beautiful Game.

Oh, how it brings people together.

 

If FIFA calls for the match to be replayed.......I'm preparing a "Hitler Reacts" video.

 

Bullshit. It's far more dangerous to play in extreme heat than it is to play in the kind of conditions that Denver had the other night.

 

Aaaaaaaand with that, your opinion has about as much merit as the idea that Neymar is actually any good.

 

Part of my difference of opinion here is that I don't give the LOTG and the Brazil 2014 Preliminary Competition Regs. quite the same weight. I'd actually appreciate it if FIFA would focus on making sure the LOTG are actually being applied properly by referees, so that we don't go down to Saprissa and get phantom handballs called.

On the other hand, I'm not quite as worried about the 2014 Preliminary Competition Regs., which include requirements such as saying that the FIFA flag, the FIFA fair play flag and the FIFA competition flag must be flown inside the stadium at all matches. These are nice requirements to seek to enforce, but I'd be a little more practical in how I enforce them and what penalty I apply if someone adheres to most of the substance but fails on a technical point.

Then, like you say, we can get down to the merits, which I think would be in the interests of all participants so the result can be respected (or vacated) and so that FIFA's rules re playability are better defined.

 

Funny you speak of ignorance and sensibility when you're making recommendations to replay a game that you never even watched.

Bye now.

 

By the way, saying that they lost "fair and square" is only true if you make a judgment on the merits. Your basis for denying a hearing on the merits shouldn't be based on your pre-judgment of the merits.

 

Lost in all of this talk about what is and isn't fair, would it have been fair to require the United States to play 135 minutes in order to secure 3 points?

 

You know that you've seen it all when a Brazilian shows up to a US forum to proclaim the innocence of Costa Rican soccer and defame the US soccer crowd as masters of gamesmanship.

The Vargas Llosa clan will be laughing their Peruvian butts off over that one.

 

I'm sure that the pre-poetry recitation cocktail hour crowd at the OAS will be impressed.

 

As I alluded to earlier, I've watched LA Galaxy play more than once in the CCL on artificial turf that's barely playable.

Only a week or two ago, they were playing Herediano on a surface that their own players had trouble controlling the ball on - and they're used to playing on it.

I'll agree that the conditions in the US-CR game became farcical, however both teams were playing on it. There can be no claims of an unfair advantage to the US as no player from either team could ever have experience of playing under those circumstances.

In fact, it looked to me like the US played better when the field was at it's most playable, while Costa Rica had better chances the worse things got. This is all a load of sour grapes that we wouldn't be hearing if Costa Rica hadn't lost.

 

You have to love the hair, though. And the mature handling of funds.

 

I'd like this game to be dubbed "The miracle on Kyle Beckerman's dandruff".