I hope everyone gets a chance to read the comments of Ridge Mahoney in the Soccer America newsletter. Can't quote the whole thing, but here's an excerpt: "LEADERSHIP. This team had none. Arena's benign, resigned sideline demeanor didn't inspire, yet who among the players cajoled, badgered or threatened his teammates to get their heads and hearts into it? The team that said it was good enough seldom looked like it cared enough and in this tough group anything less than three good, solid performances was destined to fail. Yet the USA didn't just falter, it fell way, way short. Whatever effort the Americans produced was blind and thoughtless, predictable and staid. Coaches can wave and shout all they want and draw up new diagrams at halftime, but players need to adapt and adjust, with the experienced ones in charge of charting course. In the case of Claudio Reyna, DaMarcus Beasley, Eddie Pope, Brian McBride and Landon Donovan, the voices of experience went mighty quiet."
I agree with most of what Bruce says even if Jimmy C and Dempsey played pretty well. MLS isn't a league yet that creates WC level players (meaning not qualifying for, but advancing out of the group) any more than the Greek or Argentinian leagues are. It deeps the pool, it makes choosing soccer over track or football or basketball more likely if kids enjoy playing soccer more and it can develop young players who might be, if they move on early enough to a top league, actual world class players. But MLS is not an elite league now in the slightest and it won't be until they have enough $$ to compete for better players.
I think it deserves a thread of its own, but: Bruce Arena blasts Don Garber (MLS). Don Garber blasts Bruce Arena. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
The Italian player embellished the situation but, nevertheless, the fault lies entirely with the Australian defender, Lucas Neill. He went to ground for no reason whatsoever and was impeding the Italian, who had pushed the ball around him. The Italian player possibly could have tried to step around him but by that time the ball would have been cleared and the scoring opportunity lost - hardly fair to the Italians, as much as I wanted the Aussies to win. The BBC and ITV pundits here in the UK all took Lucas Neill to task for leaving his feet and impeding his opponent. I happen to agree with them that it was unnecessary and that under the circumstances the referee had to award the penalty. The Aussies weren't cheated so much as they were let down by a terrible lapse of judgement by one of their more experienced defenders.
It's reasonable to do this....stupid US type mistake not to assume the dive will come. But the Italian caused the contact. I agree with The Wee Man. Pleanty of pundits feel making yourself trip over someone is "skill" as opposed to just striding over or around them which is pretty much the point of defending every other place on the filed.
With all due respect this is bullshit. What does "under current circumstances" have to do with the written rulebook? There is nothing in the rulebook that states that it is a foul to go to ground. The Aussie was entitled to try to cut out what he thought might be a shot or a cross. He is perfectly entitled to go to ground. The Italian changed directions and ran over the Aussie causing the contact. The Italian wanted contact and created it. By the pundits reasoning if a defender falls down on his face in the penalty area and a skilful attacking player decides to run over his back while he is on the ground he gets awarded a penalty. The rules must have changed to suit the divers but nobody wrote the changes down anywhere. If it happens to Rio Ferdindand at the weekend and England are eliminated let’s see what the pundits have to say. A foul is when you deliberately take a man down. When you play the man not the ball. Did the Aussie try to chop the Italian down? If the answer is yes then it is a penalty, if the answer is no it is not a penalty. The amount of experience either player has does not even come into it, that is just silly “pundit air pollution“.
Speaking of diving, I thought Henry took a dive that led to Zidane's free kick that resulted in Vieira's winning goal today against Spain. I think he was just frustrated, having a hard time beating Spain's offside trap (and a few of those offside calls were questionable IMO - relating back to the discussion about offside calls earlier today in this thread). And I thought Spain was flopping a bit in the midfield, especially in the 1st half. However, I thought France deserved to win today though Spain played them tough. Spain is going to be a real handful in 4 years with all the young talent they have. And I wouldn't count France out in this WC. They have a lot of experience and talent.
It sure looked that way to me. There was little question that the left foot was purposely, and needlessly (except for the need to get the call), dragged over the prone player. It was a "smart" move (it moved them to the next round), but a pretty cheap call nonetheless. I would probably view it differently if the ball had been played toward goal (where the Aussie guy was laying) and the player had actually been impeded as he attempted to play the ball....not the case to these old eyes.
Sarachan is getting closer to the truth. My take on the whole thing is here, in case anyone is interested. (And there's some Quakes content, too.)
I hope Henri gets a multi-game ban based on video. He won't since he's a "star." He's just gross. This WC is about nothing but bad sportsmanship.....over and over and over and over. Anything related to refs is just a minor plot line except as concerns his Supreme Moronic One, Blatter.
Sorry, I meant to say: Deco was sent off (2nd yellow card) for not letting a Dutch player take a free kick, and holding on to the ball.
I cannot for the life of me see how the Spanish defender impeded Henry. Both were running for the ball, Henry chose to run into the other player. When a ball is headed for the end line, do defenders not shepard it out? and do they not impede the offensive player's access to the ball? Sure they do, but no one calls it a foul. And what possible advantage could the Spanish defender have achieved by the contact? He was going to get to the ball first, and there were other players closing on it from the other side. He really needed to get there and kick it up field or over the touchline, not hit the dirt. And JazzyJ, how can you think that France deserved to win?! Their "winning" goal came off an incorrectly called foul. They could easily have given up a second penalty around the 67th minute. (I think, I was watching Univision and they give the second half time as 0 - 45.) France benefitted from numerous bad calls in that match. They didn't get half the yellow cards they earned. It was so disgracefull, I'm not sure if I will watch any more World Cup matches. Clearly, the beautiful game has been rigged this year, that or some of the refs are helping their favorites to win. (And please recall that I was ticked that the French were denied their second goal against Korea on an incorrect call.) I'm really sick of this. I fear that I may have joined the KMJvet camp. Too many teams have won or lost matches (or gotten ties where a result was clear) as a result of bad officiating. It's really disgusting. QUAKES FOREVER!! - Mark
I thought there was some diving on both sides. I felt like the Spaniards were going down awful easy, particularly in the first half from about minute 30 when I started watching, maybe trying to slow the game down and hang onto to their one goal lead. And I didn't see a lot of yellow card worthy infractions by the French. They were playing a more high pressure style in the midfield but I didn't see much in the way of dangerous tackles, etc. Overall I thought the French were the better team, despite some crap from both teams. That's why I wrote that they deserved to win despite Henry's dive.
It doesn't count as impeding if you could reach out your foot and play the ball if you wanted to. That's why shepherding the ball out of play is OK.
Bill, shielding the ball out while a player is trying to play it is a foul. It is obstruction clear and simple and should be called a foul EVERY TIME. By the rulebook, if it is in the box the attacking team should be awarded an indirect free kick creating a very dangerous goal scoring opportunity. The rulebook is clear about this but the Ref’s NEVER call it. The have adapted an unwritten rule that it is OK for a defender to Sheppard the ball over the line as a defensive move. They at times even turn a blind eye to a defender leaving the ball and making contact with their shoulder or arms to make sure the attacker does not get close to touching the ball. This is the type of rule that the Ref’s have changed “unofficially” and it becomes the normal. I would love to see them call the game by the book and call obstruction every time a defender does this and we would see more goals. Most ref’s don’t want the hassle but if that is the case they should not referee, leave it to someone with courage.
Great discussion here! I appreciate Wee Man's "former player" insight on it all. If I missed this before, forgive me. In 1970, when Brazil won the cup for the 3rd time, the trophy was retired. If Brazil win their SIXTH, it would be the third since 1970. Would they retire this one also?
To continue the thought, if Germany (1974, 1990) or Argentina (1978, 1986) would win, would they get to keep it?
I highly doubt it, since Italy didn't get to keep it after it won its third World Cup title in 1982. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Wee, can you (or someone else?) clarify what you mean by this? It's okay to defend by kicking the ball out of bounds, is it not? At what point does it become a foul?
What he is referring to (I believe) is the practice by defenders of shielding a ball with their body as it is rolling over the touch or goal line, thus preventing an attacker from reaching the ball while making no attempt to play the ball himself. I do it all the time, and I've never been called for it.
Thanks. We didn't talk about that in the regional ref course (this will be my fourth year as a referee at my 9-year-old's AYSO games!) That doesn't sound as though it should be a foul--seems as though it's a reasonable defensive move.
During my rather inexperienced playing time, the act of shielding the ball out of play was taught to me in a pretty straightforward way. If I could step to the ball, in front of the player who originally controlled the ball, in such a way that I would appear to be in control of the ball, it was ok. If I appeared to obstruct the other player while gaining control of the ball (using the same criteria as used in other portions of the field of play), I was guilty of a foul. I was also taught that I could not move away from the ball (either by slowing down or moving side to side). The simple way to say it is that it is still my understanding that playing the other player, rather than playing the ball, is a foul, regardless of where it happens. It certainly appears to me that doing this when a ball is going out of play is now generally acceptable.
Good comments, Jay. I agree most with this part: "The sad fact of it is that if only a few small things had gone our way, we U.S. fans would have been cheering as the team went through to the second round. It's the nature of the World Cup, though, to make every moment, every unexpected bounce of the ball, something that we relive, analyze, and re-analyze endlessly in hopes of solving something that can't be solved. Things went our way in 2002 and they didn't in 2006." I'm less inclined to completely buy into the "failure to believe" theory but the story about Arena and what he said to Yallop before the 2003 playoff classico with the Gals is pretty interesting and maybe somewhat telling. But unfortunately you can believe and still not succeed. Yet the more you believe the better your chance of success. And sometimes it takes a little break to get you believing (e.g. Goose's free kick). So "believing" and "good fortune" are somewhat entwined as well. Would it have been enough if they had all believed like zealots? We'll never know.