US/Venezuela 3/29/03 (R)

Also notice there are no players on the roster from either of last year's MLS Cup finalists... interesting.

This probably means that they have no good young players worth spending some time looking at for this game.

 

Notice how many more Columbus players are in the squad now.

We used to have just one.

 

Buddle didn't get much on the ball but at least he didn't look lost.

 

He did almost have a goal.

Jovan's goal was one of those freak goals that just happen. Donovan's (??) goal was good.

Their keeper got a red card. I have to laugh at that.

Rob Stone is a breath of fresh air on what was once Jack Edwards.

Keller was good. A few good saves.

Until we scored, I honestly thought the game was going to end 0-0. We were flat, almost no attack and then the goal. Something must have clicked in Jovan's mind (If I did that once, I can do it again) as he could have had a second goal.

There were a few calls that I thought were right.

And I think those start times of :55 and :25 instead of :00 and :30 will help the broadcasts, as they now can get post-game thoughts from some of the players. In the past, it always seemed like they'd hit the 88th minute right around :57 after which would equal "And there's the final whistle, on to our next show."


And why did Martino go? Training with the US hopefully helped him somewhat, but he could have played tonight in Oklahoma and been with the Crew for "jelling".

 

Alot of people are still saying the first goal was offsides but after watching it a couple times I agree that it was ON. Both player were kept one when the ball was first played.

 

Eggy, the offside rule is not when the ball is FIRST played but when it's LAST played. When Stewart played the ball, both McBride and Boca were onside. Either one playing the ball would be a clean play. As soon as McBride touches the ball he becomes the last player to play the ball and Boca at that time is right on the six yard line and about 2 steps in front of McBride. He's now in a passive offside position. Had McBride scored, it would have counted. After the ball rebounds to him off the post, he now becomes active in the play resulting from McBride's touch (Stewart's cross has been wiped clean for offside purposes) and the flag should have been raised at that time. Anything after the touch by Boca, a goal, a rebound for a goal, a corner kick, whatever, doesn't count unless the AR misses the call - which he did.

 

Really?
Angelucci wasn´t losing anything, he was expelled but he saved the Venezuelan team from another possible goal. Weird reaction, yes, but good, Gilberto.

 

I have never heard of a passive offside before but still... The defense did a sh1t job of getting back.

 

I know it doesn't mean much, but i've been watching soccer since 1996. I can only recall 2 goalkeepers (in games i've seen) getting red cards. And one of those reds was for violent conduct.

 

This is exactly how I thought the play should have been called, too. Bocanegra wasn't gaining any advantage on McBride's header if it scored. However, once the ball pinged the post Bocanegra did gain an advantage by being in that position. I've seen that called a number of times, though at lower levels. I won't complain, though.

 

Passive offside is when you're in an offside position but not in the play. For example, in today's game Donovan passed a ball to Beasley who was offside. If he'd dribbled past that defender and taken the ball himself, Beasley would have still been offside but passive because he wouldn't have been in the play.

But the defense DID a sh!t job of getting back. Three point blank shots. No wonder that the keeper was confused on whether to go after the AR or the defenders.

 

Germany was eliminated by Bulgaria in WC94 on a play like that. Down 0-1, they thought they had tied when a German scored off a rebound off the crossbar. That goal was eventually disallowed due to the scorer having been offside when the original shot was taken (unfortunately, the right call). Germany did tie the game but lost on a late goal by Bulgaria, 1-2.

 

I'm guessing one of them was Hartman. And I've seen a few cases of this "hand ball outside the box". A trivia question would be "Why did Mia Hamm play goalie in the first Women's World Cup in China?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because the keeper was ejected for handling outside the box (that sounds weird). Mia Hamm played the last 5-10 minutes in goal in that match.

 

I'd like to debate this offside thing more but I'd need pen and paper.

 

Let me take a whack at explaining this:

Particularly since that imbecile Ty Keogh took it upon himself to explain it incorrectly to a couple hundred thousand fans on national TV.

First, the term "passive offside" is not particularly illuminative. There are two places any player can be: 1) In an OFFSIDE POSITION or 2) NOT in an OFFSIDE POSITION.

Now as we all know (we'd BETTER all know) it is perfectly legal for a player to be in an OFFSIDE POSITION. No problem, no call.

It only becomes a violation when a teammate plays him the ball OR he gains some other advantage from being there.

Otherwise, a guy can stand back there with the keeper and play canasta or sit down in the box and eat lunch. It just doesn't matter.

The key moment (again as we all know) is the exact moment when a teammate plays the ball. At THAT MOMENT IN TIME the AR must judge whether you are either 1) The intended recipient of a pass from your teammate OR 2) Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position.

On the DFK, no question: McBride and Boca are both onside at the moment the ball is kicked to them.

HOWEVER at the exact moment that McBride plays the ball (shoots, but that's not important) Boca is IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION. And since it bounces back to him off the post, he is quite obviously GAINING AN ADVANTAGE by being there.

Obvious flag. Incredible that a FIFA AR could be that dense.

As for the keeper, he was NOT given a sending off for handling the ball outside the box. That's simply a DFK, nothing more serious than if anybody else handles the ball on the field of play.

What he DID was commit a foul (handling) to prevent an "obvious goalscoring opportunity" (OGSO). Automatic Red Card for any player at any time.

 

Just to argue...

You could also say that Boca was offside, but when the ball was played(when it was hit by BMB) he was gaining nothing from being offside. After the ball was played and deflected off the bar, it came to Boca... which would be no different than how Landon got the ball against Portugal for his goal. Once again, Boca plays the ball, the others (BMB, Kiro) may be offside, but neither are gaining anything from their position until it deflects again.

A deflection can not be considered intentional in this case. Obviously any old mother fvcker would send it home if they could, rather than dinkin around of the post until the 3rd person puts it in.

The first no-call was good, and the following ones were also good. There was no pass to an offside player (already established), and nobody was in a position of gain until random fate plopped the ball in their lap. I thought it was the right call.

 

I like Boddingtons.

But OK, then let me ask you this:

Suppose, instead of the goalpost, the ball ricocheted off the keeper. Or the referee? Same call?

This is the sort of BS question they pose on the USSF test, only they would also ask what the call would be if the ball bounced off a dog who ran on the field, rebounded off a spectator who ran on teh field chasing the dog, and then deflated before landing at Boca's feet.

 

LOL...

I certainly haven't had any training in making these calls, so from this point, it is nothing more than pure conjecture.

I think it would still be the same call. If it came of the keeper, its like he gave up a rebound. Its fair ball, and first to it is entitled to shoot. If it came of the ref, it's just like other sports where the ref gets in the way, just play on.

As for the dog and man in pursuit... well I think you have to give the advantage to the dog. Unless the man is streaking, in which case he gets a red card and taken from the stadium, giving the dog the real advantage. At that point, the speed of the dog would be superior to the reactions of the backline and he'd exploit that in a run on goal.

 

Ok so a player has elephantitus of the hands. He's a left back and it bounces off his hands inside the box. Is it a penalty or not? I mean c'mon the guy has really big hands.


Boyakasha...

 

The rule book says that the referee, the corner posts and the goal ("woodwork" per Ty) are all PART OF THE FIELD.

So bouncing a pass off the Referee is the same as bouncing it off the grass. No difference.

Same with the goalstandard.

In all cases, offside is JUDGED at the instant the ball is played. But it isn't necessarily CALLED at the instant the ball is played.

In this case, Boca was clearly in an offside position when McBride hit the ball. No debate, right?

But it became an offside VIOLATION when it bounced off the post and went to him. It's no different than if it took a funny bounce off the grass or ricocheted off the Ref.

However it got to him, he fulfilled the requirements: he was in an offside position when his teammate played the ball, no other player got posession in the interim, and he ended up gaining an advantage from being in that position.

(As for the dog, play stopped when he entered the field. Everything that happened afterwards is moot.)

 

That is very correct and it's why you'll see most handling calls against the keeper being red cards as he mostly (99.9%) will be preventing an OGSO. Which makes the red card in the Women's World Cup even more intriguing. The handling occurred when the AR deemed that the US keeper handled the ball outside the box WHILE PUNTING!