Josser

What strikes me is the disloyalty to your team.
These lads are doing fairly well in a real "World Series" and you lot can't be bothered to cheer them on.
I suspect that there's a connection to the nonsense we've seen about bidets on this forum.
If we don't have/do it in Scratchpatch Arizona or in Bearsbum (I can't remember what state Bearsbum is in, Scouser?)
then there's something very suspect about it.

sunstar

>>>>It sure beats having to play in group matches, quarter's, & semi's to qualify for the final.<<<<

Well if you would ike to see a college football playoff, then I say Amen.

Frankly, I gave up trying to figure out that BCS **** after OKlahoma got waxed by Kansas State in the 2003 Big 12 championship game.

Oklahoma was jacked up so high with all of that number bullhooyey that even a 28 point loss to Kansas State did not drop them out of the championship game.

Oklahoma lost to LSU 27-14 as I recall in the BCS title game.

Anyway, it is fun to listen to the sports guys on these talk shows try and explain it every year.

sunstar

The AP Poll has pulled out of the BCS formula.

I think the AP Poll (Media poll) pulled out of the BCS after USC got left out in 2003.

I'm not sure which of those computer polls are still in the BCS mix.

Hey, I would love to see an 8 team playoff at the end of the regular season rather than this BCS mess!

Colin

The offside rule explained.

And no, the rule is not a new introduction. It has been part of the game since 1863.

Although FIFA have tried to encourage a more favourable interpertation towards the attacking team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A733600


The USA goal was disallowed because an American player was actively standing in an offside position. Whether he made contact or not with the ball, it doesn't matter.

A player could be 'passively' standing offside; i.e. if he played no part in the move. This would not have resulted in the goal being disallowed.

The descision of passive or active is certainly subjective, and that's why the referee's word is final.

No video evidence would prove otherwise. It is the referees interpretation.

This contentious issue and others such as awarding a penalty, did the ball cross the line, was that elbow in the face intentional/accidental are reasons for debate long after the game has finished.

Which is another reason why football (soccer) is great fun.

hsv

And while the referee's (Dr. Markus Merk of Germany) vanity is beyond belief (as proven once more by his report on the aggravated outbust of Australia's Kewell, he certainly was right in his call on the American's offside position, as that player was so close to Italy's goalkeeper that he was undoubtedly irritating him.

Sampaguita

Reading some of the posts on this thread puts me in mind of why football is said to attract hooligans LOL.

david_west

For those Americans baffled by the offside rule I have adapted this so that you should be able to get the point of it. I hope it helps…..

You're out at the rodeo and you want a footlong hot-dog with extra relish and cheese. You notice a stall selling not just foot long hot dogs but two foot long hot dogs with extra cheese and a free 20z soda! But they’re selling fast, and there’s only a few left.

The trouble is, another yank in need of feeding (it being fifteeen minutes since his last burger) has spotted the remaining hot dogs too and he's between you and the till. To make matters worse, your mate's got your wallet in his fanny pack and he's busy at the back of the all you can eat buffet queue. The rules of rodeo queing dictate that you can't barge past your opponent, grab the super hot dog and wait at the front of the queue until your friend throws you some money - that would earn you a rodeo red card. What you have to do is get your friend to throw you the wallet first, then you can barge past the other fat yank whiile the wallet is in flight, grab the hot dog with extra relsih and pint of pop, catch the wallet and clinch the deal.

SAnParis

Please don't confuse the facts. I understand the rule perfectly, I just think the way it is currently applied is beyond stupidity. I am standing there, minding my own business, on offense, the guy marking me takes a step up as the ball flies across the field to my team mate who scores from just beyond me, but the goal is dis-allowed because the lazy cretin that is supposed to be marking me took a step forward ?!? I am merely suggesting someone looking into improving the rule. I'm fine w/disallowing 'cherry-picking' (a term commonly used in basketball for those players who hang out on the offensive end & don't play D, of which there are plenty in the states due to the NBA). This is also why a group of 40-somethings routinely beat up on groups of college-age kids nearly every weekend on the local B-Ball court. Ah, glory days...Do no football/soccer aficiandos agree ?

willit

I don't agree at all - the "lazy cretin" who took a step up turns out to be tactically astute. In fact, the cretin was the forward who failed to stay onside.

david_west

The offside rule in football has been fiddled with over the years to it’s current incarnation. In it’s original form it didn’t allow forward passing or any forward to be in frony of the ball (this was the 1863 rules). All the subsequent ammendments have been designed to make the game quicker and easier for attackers. There’s no real clamour in the footballing world to change the rule again. We don’t see it as a problem.

If you watch a world class striker like Henry, Etoo, Crouch etc you will see that they play to the very tolerance of the offside rule and rely on their pace and power to get away from the defender.

SAnParis

Tactically astute = lazy...I realize people play w/in the rules they are given & will stretch the rules to the very maximum. May all of your teams have dis-allowed goals due to offsides in your next match...lol

willit

I do not understand your point - The goal was disallowed because it was offside - there was no doubt about it. The defence caught McBride offside - there is nothing unsporting or lazy about it.

You may not like the rule, but it is there, and has been there for years and years. The US team caught the Italians offside on numerous occasions.

Geordie

<<I am standing there, minding my own business, on offense, the guy marking me takes a step up as the ball flies across the field to my team mate who scores from just beyond me, but the goal is dis-allowed because the lazy cretin that is supposed to be marking me took a step forward ?!>>

Its not quite that simple, the defender needs to move forward before the ball is kicked over, but more importantly as he's in a line of at least 4 defenders, they all have to move at the same time or one of them will leave all of the attackers onside.

Also, the referees need to decide if the attacker is 'interfering with play'. As Brian Clough (RIP) once said 'If he's not interfering with play then what's he doing on the pitch!

Geordie

SAnParis

willit - I wasn't addressing any call in particular, in fact I saw little of the US-Italy game as I was in the air. I was speaking 'in general'. I love it how people assume I was referring about something regarding the US. I can't really comment on something I didn't see. & who says I am even from the US ? I prefer to think of myself as an English-Scotish-American. Someone brought up the BCS, now that is a total cluster. I would welcome a play-off.

obxgirl

Taking The Piss:

david_west and the UK = 1
the rest of the world = not so much

j_999_9

To obxgirl: LOL!

To david west on explaining why American sports franchises move:

Pretend you're England looking for another weak country to conquer and colonize. You've already conquered and colonized a lot of other weak countries and are using up their resources to prop up your economy. So you continue with your conquests until you run out of weak countries.

That explains the penchant for US teams' moving, except for the better dental-hygiene part.

GeorgeW

The offsides rule penalizes athletic excellence and that is why Americans have a hard time conceptualizing it. It's even worse than the blue line in hockey.

As an aside, the BCS scoring system used for "college" football ratings in America is a load of nonsense but not surprising due to the worship of computer wizardry that many American males are afflicted with. Furthermore, if the college presidents had any self-respect they would stand up to the television networks and vicarious alumni who now rule "college" football and basketball with an iron grip and re-establish their dominion over their own colleges' athletic programs. College athletics should be for actual students who take real courses and not be a training ground for professional sports, money-makers for TV networks, and playthings for bored, nay, boring alumni with nothing better to do with their lives than wasting a lovely Fall Saturday afternoon watching a bunch of goons who don't belong in college fight it out for the old school. The European way of preventing sports from corrupting their colleges and universities is best.

sunstar

>>><<<As an aside, the BCS scoring system used for "college" football ratings in America is a load of nonsense <<<>>>>

I can not argue that.

Most of the anouncers for big sports networks will tell you privately that they favor some sort of playoff system, but ABC has the BCS contract as of now. Fox Sports gets it in 07 I think. Big money there for Fox.

Most talk show hosts loath this BCS numbers hocus poucus.

Give you an example. In 1998 the Tennessee Vols were ranked 1 or 2 in most polls, except the Seattle Times poll, which had some kind of bias against Tennessee and the SEC since their poll rated the Tennessee Vols 19. 19??? I think that dropped Tennessee down some in the BCS polls.

Tennessee still got in the title game and eventually defeated Florida State to win the National College championship, but it shows the regional homeristic aspects of this bullhooyey known as the BCS.

Eveyone who follows major college football in the USA wants a playoff system!

College football is a huge money maker for the big time schools. Michigan, Tennessee, USC, Texas, Florida State, Florida, LSU and so on.

The legendary Bear Bryant once said because of college football at the University of Alabama, the football program paid for a new medical facility at Alabama. He said: lets see a bunch of eggheads in some chess match generate that kind of dough for big University programs.

Amazing how College football is in many cases more popular than NFL fotbal (Pro ball)

Soccer, I have watched some games I must admit. I have always rooted for the German team since my heritage is German. That's a silly reason perhaps, but the American team is scrappy, but not there quite yet. I root for the USA team also! Just do not ask me any questions. I just wish the USA would go to a 5 wide receiver set once in awhile

I just like to needle some of the hard core soccer fans in here

bennyb

I enjoy watching college football (and basketball, not too crazy about baseball). But the argument that it brings in money isn't really a good excuse. A casino could bring in a lot of money and pay for a medical school, but that doesn't mean it belongs as part of an institution of higher learning. "We know these dealers couldn't pass the admission test, but come on, we need dealers! They bring in more money than those loser physics majors."

sheila

This is great. This thread is becoming imposible and you start talking about a different sport in terms which are IMPOSSIBLE for the uninitiated to understand. I feel I no longer have to read it and that's some relief