Referee Decision US-Brazil (R)

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by eltico, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. eltico

    eltico Member

    Jul 16, 2000
    On the play that led to the penalty and Gibbs being sent off for the handball, the player who shot the ball was offside when he received the pass from Kaka. I dont remember the player's name. But Keller was off his line and Gibbs was the only US player between him and the endline. That's disgraceful refereeing by the AR on the far side. Disgraceful.

    Ugh. Guess it makes up for the phantom offside call against Brazil earlier in the game on the goal that was disallowed.
     
  2. FlashMan

    FlashMan Member

    Jan 6, 2000
    'diego
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'd have to look at the play again; I didn't think he was offside.

    We got pretty much thorooughly outplayed though, so I ain't going to complain either way.
     
  3. worldsoccer-Jeff

    Mar 4, 2000
    Atlanta
    Dear USA Fans,

    I'm with you it was the worst call ever.

    Yours,

    Hugh Dallas
     
  4. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    At best the Brazilian player was passive as it was clearly a shot on goal (into Gibbs' hand - nice reaction save by Corey, by the way). It's not worth getting worked up over.
     
  5. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    When the guy touched it past Keller the shottaker was between 3 and 5 yards offside. The assistant forgot that the last field player has to have a keeper BEHIND him to keep people on...

    But I'm not sure the free kick that was disallowed was offside and it WAS either horrible play by Keller or the official blew the whistle and Keller quit on it (which would seem amatuerish).
     
  6. USAsoccer

    USAsoccer Member

    Jul 15, 1999
    Tampa, Florida
    It was a bad call....

    Here is why...

    The player WAS NOT offsides.

    However, the Laws of the game are VERY CLEAR when the keeper touches the ball....

    Any contact with the keeper when his hand is on the ball is an absolute no go...

    The Brazilian player knocked the ball lose. Keller had both hands on the ball...

    Hence, the referee missed the call that led to the PK.

    It is to bad because the US deserved the win.
     
  7. Ugluk

    Ugluk New Member

    Nov 15, 1999
    The receiver was offside, not the "passive" player. It was a blatant missed call, regardless of how either team played.
     
  8. Kur #10

    Kur #10 Member

    Dec 16, 2002
    Mexico Citay
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    you can't complain really, I mean... the ref invalidated two very valid goals... keller was so lucky... how many posts were there? 2?

    all in all the refs sucked, the best team won
     
  9. topcow

    topcow New Member

    Nov 23, 2000
    New York
    It was a good call. No offside. Keller did not have possession of the ball nor was he the last man.

    Too bad US lost, but I wouldn't blame it on the ref.
     
  10. Isisbud

    Isisbud New Member

    Mar 10, 2003
    Encinitas
    More importantly, why is Keller giviing the ball to the Brazilian forwards?

    ...but he's a great shotstopper(lol)
     
  11. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah the player that only had Gibbs between him and the goal who was also 3 to 5 yards behind Keller wasn't offside.

    He especially wasn't offside at the point when the ball was played forward. He was just standing with 1 player between him and the goal and in a position closer to the goal than the ball. That is *NOT* offside.

    ...
     
  12. USAsoccer

    USAsoccer Member

    Jul 15, 1999
    Tampa, Florida
    You cannot go into a shell and hope to beat Brazil.

    The US will learn from this. You get a lead, you keep attacking....

    2 minutes from victory... TOUGH LOSS
     
  13. Victory

    Victory Member

    Sep 20, 2000
    RFK LOT 8
    It was a horrible call. Diego was 3 or 4 steps offside when the ball was played to him. Gibbs was the only US Defender between him and the ball. Because Keller was out there was only one man back not the required two. Pathetic decision

    That said we did not play very well - the offisides on the "first goal" was very suspect. All in all a fair result.
     
  14. Ugluk

    Ugluk New Member

    Nov 15, 1999
    Correct. Gibbs was the last man. Which made the Brazilian player offside. Refer to your rulebook.
    I blame all bad calls on the ref. I blame all bad play on the team. The better team won. The officials blew it. Game over.
     
  15. Texan

    Texan New Member

    Jan 8, 2001
    He was even worse on that goal that was disallowed. Should've come off his line and fielded that cross.
     
  16. flanoverseas

    flanoverseas New Member

    Mar 2, 2002
    Xandria
    out of curiosity, did you see the guys in yellow SCHOOLING our team?

    The WHOLE game?


    It's really not a whole lot to be ashamed of. It shows us where we are and where we need to be. And where we need to be is a LONG, LONG, LONG way away.
     
  17. flanoverseas

    flanoverseas New Member

    Mar 2, 2002
    Xandria
    Keller is the reason why we didn't lose 31-0.
     
  18. Isisbud

    Isisbud New Member

    Mar 10, 2003
    Encinitas
    yeah, and he would have had that cross if he didn't tend goal like a foosball goalie.
     
  19. Victory

    Victory Member

    Sep 20, 2000
    RFK LOT 8
  20. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think Keller only made one save that would have been suspect for anybody else minding the nets. That was the tip off the post in the 2nd half.

    Giving up an offside goal wasn't the problem and there were stretches of the game we actually carried. However, we were not actually dangerous all game. Well if Donovan would have released Mathis a half second earlier we would have been 2-0, but mostly we were not a threat to score unless someone hit a 25 yard bending rip or Brazil just gave the ball away in their defensive third (which they did in fact do).
     
  21. Guinho

    Guinho Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes, bless their hearts
    Estonia
    May 27, 2001
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sadly, Kaka was not offside, nor was a foul on Keller an issue, because the player who passed the ball to Kaka was......

    Carlos Bocanegra.


    Frango.
    You aren't offside from a pass from the defense, nor can the defender foul the keeper. I believe that he was even with Keller. At any rate, I credit corey with knowing the red card and a 10% chance at staying alive was the right move. Too bad he was getting beat all game long. Frankly it woudl have sucked if Keller had saved it and we'd won.... for about 3 seconds.

    But it's hard to argue that it wasn't the just result. When there are seven higlights at halftime and one team only has one, that's not a good sign.

    Lest you think I'm a Brazil fan, you should notice that "Gnats" is listed ahead of Brasil, and you sam's army types should know who the "Gnats" are.

    Guinho (short for Doug).

    And no, I'm not really talking to my wife now until I'm less steamed about the game.

    Grrrr.
     
  22. The Wanderer

    The Wanderer New Member

    Sep 3, 1999
    So much for your tactics wins games theory, huh? That was bulls h it soccer that we played today, couldn't attack to save our lives. Pathetic, Brazil deserved to win by a lot bigger margin.
     
  23. eltico

    eltico Member

    Jul 16, 2000
    Like I said before, definitely agreed with Ugluk and Victory on the play. A crappy bigsoccer diagram...

    Goal

    Gibbs

    Brazilian player 2

    Keller

    Brazilian player 1

    Brazilian player 1 passes ball to Brazilian player #2. BP 2 only has Gibbs between him and the goal. No one else. He is in an offside position when the ball is played. No penalty nor red card should be awarded, as the play should have been awarded at that point. Yes, normally all it takes is one defender, because 99.8% of the time the goalkeeper is behind the defender, thereby making it so there are two players between the player (in this instance BP2) and the endline. In this case, though, Keller is AHEAD of BP2, so there would have to be another defender between BP2 and the endline, not just Gibbs, for it to be onside.

    That said, I am not saying that "cost" the US the game. What cost the US the game was that Brazil was better. The best team won. Hands down. But it was still disgraceful refereeing for a bunch of FIFA-level refs in an intl match. Terrible.

    (Edit after reading other posts)...was it Bocanegra that passed the ball to BP2? I could swear it was BP1, I guess Kaka. Can someone who wasn't translating the commentary for Dad help me out? My attention span needs work.)
     
  24. USAsoccer

    USAsoccer Member

    Jul 15, 1999
    Tampa, Florida
    Shows what you know about football..

    The game was realively even until the US scored...

    Then the US bunkered in....

    Second, when you bunker, you expend much more energy defending then attacking.

    After Brazil evened things up, the game was over because the US was spent.

    If you did not think that the chances were even up until the point the US scored, I suggest you take another look at the game.
     
  25. Siegen

    Siegen New Member

    Jul 2, 2003
    Boise, Idaho
    It was offsides!

    Diego was clearly offside when the ball came to him. Keller was upfield and only Gibbs was between him and the goal. The ref was so worked up by the hand ball he forgot the Laws. Now we have to play in the third place without Gibbs.

    We didn't deserve to lose the game on that decision. Brasil got their goal back when they scored the first. We deserve to continue to fight on through overtime.

    Muppet refs in CONCACAF.

    Siegen
     

Share This Page