Reaction to a bad call [R for USA, ENG, MEX]

I for one like to see Mexico and England come unglued.

 

Who assumed they were glued together to begin with?

 

Bad calls against USA did not happen in single knockout round games.

I think that two horrific calls of referee incompetence happened in both of the games today is a much different situation. Do we always say gloss over it and make it up??

In the group stage, Brazil's 2nd goal vs. Ivory Coast double handled in goalkeeper area, Serbia denied obvious handball, USA's denial of 2 goals. It is gross incompetence but in the knockout rounds, they may be more significant. Countries need to put pressure on Fifa to change.

And let's not forget France going to SA only by winning on a hand ball assisted goal and denying a whole country.

The US's situation may be admirable in response but the rules of soccer do not say to just "make up goals" denied or given. It is a different sport.

 

Algeria was a win or go home situation.

 

Bingo. It was a knock-out game.

 

A replay system wouldn't have done USA much good. Both of those calls required a judgment call and probably couldn't be over ruled.

The two calls today required no judgment. Lampard's shot very clearly went in. The video evidence is conclusive. That was 100% a goal and there would be no controversy if the play was reviewed and it was counted. The ball bounced about two feet past the line.

Tevez was 100% offside. Once again the video evidence is conclusive. Clint Dempsey was even, so I'm not sure we could have overturned that call. But the video shows that Tevez was a mile offside and there could be no controversy if the goal was disallowed after a video review.

These are both very cut and dry calls. Pressure has to be put on FIFA to allow for some type of in game review process for instances like this.

 

I feel badly for both England and Mexico. I would rather have seen how the games would have gone without the officiating (lack of technology) changing everything.

 

Also, the emotional toll of the bad calls against USA I think put pressure on the USA in the Ghana game, the idea of just making it by the skin of our teeth may have hurt the team. I know a part of the game is being unflappable but it's probably best to just try to get the call right. These calls are just gross incompetence. I guess it's easy for us in the US where all sports practically have instant replay to view it in this fashion.

Who knows how many games in the past have happened in the World Cup with such horrible calls going back in its history.

 

Mexico and England both got screwed. I think Argentina and Germany would have won the games eventually anyway, but those were some terrible calls.

It's time to bring video replay to soccer for goal calls.

 

We'll never know how things would have gone. I expected Germany and Argentina to win before the day started, but hose were both huge game changing events. Goals don't grow on trees, you have to get these calls right.

 

Denial of the goal in the second game turned the third game into a knockout game. To borrow a phrase from the Mexico pbp, "If the ref had got the call right everything else may have changed." In the case of the US their 3rd game wouldn't have meant as much and they could have been better rested for Ghana after not having to push so hard to draw 3 points from Algeria.

It really is silly to try and argue that your bad calls hurt you more...

 

Do you think it's part of the game to just tell a team to make up goals in every game as is the case in both games today?

Mexico got the thickest of calls against them then make an error with Osorio, 2-0, I was watching it at the gym but I packed up and left, the officiating made it farcical.

Not being a fan of the teams or not adamant at least, we saw Ireland miss on a Thierry Henry hand ball assisted goal very clear from the technology too I'd think.

 

"Denial of the goal in the second game turned the third game into a knockout game. To borrow a phrase from the Mexico pbp, "If the ref had got the call right everything else may have changed." In the case of the US their 3rd game wouldn't have meant as much and they could have been better rested for Ghana after not having to push so hard to draw 3 points from Algeria.

It really is silly to try and argue that your bad calls hurt you more... "

Right, that's what I said, we were on an emotional rollercoaster, people cried after the Algeria game, what's your problem? That game spent us emotionally and may have hurt us in the Ghana game. What's your problem?

And no matter what you say, they were in effect knock out games but they were still in the group stage too.

 

No matter how one views Lampard's goal, the video chip technology etc. it is like Henry's hand ball, as clear as a bell but soccer at this level refuses to see what everyone else sees. It's farcical.

 

It is farcical. It's extremely farcical. Mexico looked the better team until that happened. England may have gotten back in it, because they were actually playing like they cared for once.

I didn't catch the 2006 Cup much but I don't remember any other WC having this many crappy calls that had such huge effects. It's sad to see the WC lacking integrity.

 

Wasn't Mexico's first goal against France offsides?

 

The Algeria game was more of a knock out game than the "knock out" games. there weren't going to be an extra 30 minutes, or PK's after that. It was win in regulation or die.

 

Hugely.

 

England was out-classed and they would have lost anyways, but it's unbelievable how much football governing bodies just sit back and rationalize how it's a positive thing for referfrikkenrees to have so much potential impact on the outcome of a sport that involves so few scores. Is that what fans pay good money to see, and why players train and play their hardest? Obviously not.

Football is tantamount to where baseball used to be. They are very stubborn about seriously considering any kind of change whatsoever because it sullies the tradition. Human error is part of the game...bla, bla, bla. Just because you've done something a certain way in the past is no reason to continue that practice. Something is either right or wrong. And getting a call wrong, is, wrong. It's right there in black and white.

Plus, football has the added deterrence of not wanting to listen to outsiders like Americans. They are very xenophobic. The basic attitude is like, "you do our thing and let us do ours". But plenty of national legal systems, including the U.S.', have studied foreign systems to figure out what could work for themselves as well. We're talking about football's legal system here. Let us help you in improving it.

 

i think the call against mexico today (and england, to some extent) was particularly unraveling because it was clear that they had an uphill battle from the outset... and were perhaps even aware that they might need a bit of luck. i was disappointed that they got a bit negative afterward, but i sort of understood it. i agree that the US reacted positively to the disallowed goal against algeria, which was admirable (and, yes, it was effectively a knock-out game) and shows well on your guys, but i think staying level with algeria in the first half and going down 0-1 to argentina are just very different. i don't think the attitude would've gotten as negative had they had a legit goal disallowed rather than giving up an unjust one. overall, i agree with the spirit of the OP in that we react more negatively to adversity than the US team (most teams do), but i don't think they're equivalent situations.

 

Agreed. Our resilience was our best quality. B-level talent, A-level mental toughness. Bob does deserve credit.

 

B level talent? Compared to Mexico and England? I want some of what your smoking.

 

It's funny, because about 10 days in, the officiating had been just terrific. Since then, not so much.

no, he was onside by a good bit.

 

They should use the challenge system in the NFL, throw red flag and if you are wrong, you lose it for the rest of the match. If you are right you keep it.