(06-23-2014 03:54 PM)jh Wrote:  Part of my disagreement is definitely that I believe having all 11 players capable of joining the attack is a good thing--even if that means 11 players are capable of defending as well. What can be better than a swashbuckling fullback charging down the field then having to get on his bike to get back in position once the ball is turned over?

So, you like my concept of 11 Marcellos on the field? (If not Marcellos, then who?)

(06-23-2014 10:45 PM)jh Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 09:09 PM)jhruzek Wrote:  It looked to me that US was offsides on our second goal. I saw one replay where they drew the line. How far over the line can one be and not be offsides?

This is from what looks like a 2004 FIFA training guide for linesmen, but I'm pretty sure this hasn't changed. It has some helpful pictures as well.

Quote:Consideration should be given to any part of the head, body or feet of the attacker in relation to the second last defender, the ball or the halfway line .

For the purposes of this decision, the arms are not considered to be part of the body.

https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=htt...11_554.pdf

For drawing the line it's whatever part of the defender's body (not including the arms) that is closest to the goal. Even is onside, over is offside, and if there is any doubt then play on.

(06-24-2014 07:06 AM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 09:09 PM)jhruzek Wrote:  It looked to me that US was offsides on our second goal. I saw one replay where they drew the line. How far over the line can one be and not be offsides?

I thought he was offsides at first, too, because I was looking at the defender on Dempsey's left. The defender on Dempsey's right, who fell down in front of the goal, did not get up and get behind Dempsey before the pass. He got back before Dempsey got the ball, but that's too late.

Also note that Yedlin (a great callup, IMHO) took the ball down to the endline on the play... the rule is such that you need to be behind or even with either the second to last defender (most of the time that includes the GK, but not if he's off his line) or the ball to be in an onsides position when the ball is played by a teammate.

I don't remember the exact scenario and sequence of play, but the ball may have kept the player from being offsides.

(06-24-2014 11:02 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  But I still abhor the ability of defenders to render attackers offside by fleeing their posts. And I recall that there was one corner-kick goal last week that was disallowed because it had first glanced off a defender's head, which suddenly made the goal-scorer offsides.

This could not be (unless a referee made a career-limiting mistake). As you note, there can be no offsides on Corner Kicks (also throw-ins and goal kicks). In addition, offside position only matters when the ball is played by a teammate. There are goals scored when a striker is in an offsides position and the ball is played back to the GK by the defense, only to be intercepted by the striker.

(06-24-2014 01:18 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 01:04 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's been my experience (from being a ref, to playing, to watching) that when no one has anything particular to say to or about a ref after a game, it's generally because they did a great job.

I suspect that the Italians are talking about today's ref ... after he allowed Luis "Cannibal" Suarez to take a bite of an Italian defender's shoulder. The ref didn't even want to see the bite-marks that the Italian showed when he pulled down his jersey. LOL!

The best part: Watching Suarez feign injury as the two went down.

FACT: cannibalism leads to sensitive teeth.

(06-24-2014 03:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 01:37 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  Then how about the option for a referee to delay a foul, a la ice hockey?

That's essentially what happens with advantage played properly. With a free-flowing game like soccer or rugby, you don't have discreet plays to penalize the way you do in American football. I would like to see soccer adopt the rugby rule where yellow card you get sent off for 10 minutes in addition to the red card sending you off for the game.

The difference between it and football (Americano) is that the advantage decision is nominally in the hands of only the referee(s), but is in reality jointly in the hands of the player(s) and referee(s). Some of what you see as flopping are decisions by the players that they'd rather have the foul than advantage. But, the referee may let play develop for some time (perhaps 5 seconds) before he determines that there is no advantage and stops play for the foul.

I like the rugby/hockey penalty box idea, but maybe for only a subset of cards. Playing down a man because of dissent may put the referee in a position where he won't issue the card at all. Likewise for persistent infringement (already under-called in this world cup) or time-wasting, where it would in essence make it a red card because it's generally given near the end of games (but it would likely put an end to time-wasting, which is the goal).

(06-24-2014 01:37 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  Then how about the option for a referee to delay a foul, a la ice hockey? Maybe not until a change of possession, but perhaps a length of time? I get playing advantage, but I just get a bad taste in my mouth seeing zero consequence for so many potentially hazardous plays. It feels like the referee is saying "You're breaking the rules, but you're bad at it, so it's okay."

That's a problem in every sport (think the string of three or four interference calls down on the goal line in Rice v. Texas from a few years ago... Texas benefitted from them and held Rice without a score). In soccer, the referee can always issue a caution or ejection (yellow or red, respectively) for any foul committed where advantage is applied. This is not done enough, IMHO, as there are cases where it would be a clear caution if the foul achieved what it was intended to do, but the caution is not given after advantage is applied.

(06-24-2014 04:42 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 01:18 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 01:04 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's been my experience (from being a ref, to playing, to watching) that when no one has anything particular to say to or about a ref after a game, it's generally because they did a great job.

I suspect that the Italians are talking about today's ref ... after he allowed Luis "Cannibal" Suarez to take a bite of an Italian defender's shoulder. The ref didn't even want to see the bite-marks that the Italian showed when he pulled down his jersey. LOL!

The best part: Watching Suarez feign injury as the two went down.

FACT: cannibalism leads to sensitive teeth.

Niche marketing idea for Sensodyne?

A few things about the rugby application. One, referees tend to play advantage longer in rugby, up to 40 seconds or so frequently and occasionally up to a minute. The differing tempos of the two games probably dictate that. Two, even after playing advantage to a score, the referee will still come back and card an offender. Thee, the referee very clearly informs when he is playing advantage and when advantage over (if he deems the innocent team has gained sufficient advantage without the penalty--this sort of is the ref deciding whether you take the penalty or the play). One thing that happens frequently is that if a team with a good kicker is in the attacking zone when they receive advantage, they will pass the ball to the kicker for a drop-kick attempt (3 points). If he makes it, advantage over. If not, come back and play the penalty.

The key play in the England-South Africa World Cup final in Paris in 2007 kind of summarizes the elements. South Africa leading 9-3, England threatening, penalty on South Africa's Schalk Burger, advantage England. England halfback Jonny Wilkinson appears to score a try (touchdown) at the left pylon. That would make the score 9-8 (try counts 5) with conversion coming (2 points, has to come from in line with the score, in this case the left sideline, but would put England ahead 10-9 if good). Referee goes to video booth (can be done on all scoring plays). As we are waiting on the video booth, the Touch Judge (Linesman/Assistant referee) calls the ref over (another neat thing about rugby is that the officials are all miked and you can rent an earphone to listen in) and says, "That's at least a yellow on Burger." and explains why. Video booth confirms that Wilkinson's left foot touched ground OB before he touched the ball down in the end zone. So no advantage, Burger gets his card and is sent off for 10 minutes, England can start a new play from the spot of the foul, kick a field goal from the spot of the foul, or kick the ball out of bounds and have a throw-in from where the ball goes out. They elect to kick for goal, making it 9-6. Normally, the 10 minute penalty is considered worth a try (7 points). But South Africa kill the penalty successfully, kick two more goals of their own, and win 15-6.

(06-24-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Thee, the referee very clearly informs when he is playing advantage and when advantage over (if he deems the innocent team has gained sufficient advantage without the penalty--this sort of is the ref deciding whether you take the penalty or the play). One thing that happens frequently is that if a team with a good kicker is in the attacking zone when they receive advantage, they will pass the ball to the kicker for a drop-kick attempt (3 points). If he makes it, advantage over. If not, come back and play the penalty.

In soccer, the signal is when the referee has decided not to pull the play back for the foul. There's no going back then, and no telling whether he'll make the call before then unless you read his body language well, and mind read. The second part of what I've quoted is what I meant by the advantage being a joint decision of players and referees, even though it's an unspoken consensus.

This must be the phantom offsides, but no-one in the picture is even in an offsides position. If they were, and the mexico player headed the ball first, it wouldn't matter if it were deflected by the Cameroon player, it would still be offsides.

Gotta wonder why we were not in a stronger defensive alignment in the extra time. When in a similar position, my daughters team shifts to a 4 defender and 4 mids alignment and all of them mark the opponents. It seemed that our defenders were late getting back and didn't mark allowing the forward an opportunity to be in position to make the header to score.

(06-24-2014 09:38 PM)jhruzek Wrote:  Gotta wonder why we were not in a stronger defensive alignment in the extra time. When in a similar position, my daughters team shifts to a 4 defender and 4 mids alignment and all of them mark the opponents. It seemed that our defenders were late getting back and didn't mark allowing the forward an opportunity to be in position to make the header to score.

We were fine with regards to defensive numbers. We had a two man advantage in the box (5-3) and an overall man advantage in the attacking third. The problem was we were tired, got lazy, and a majority of the defenders in the box got caught ball watching, drifted towards Ronaldo, and then Cameron, who was marking the forward that scored, had the same mental mistake and started ball watching rather than sticking with his man.

It really didn't have anything to do with the alignment, and all to do with our mental awareness at that late stage of the game. If your defenders aren't exhausted and playing like it, we keep our shape on the box, stay with our men, and clear out the header. Or hell, Bradley clears the ball up the pitch, or one of our defensive mids makes a play on the ball after Bradley turns it over.

Here's a quick look at the precision of the equalizer: EDIT - sorry bad link. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=11130449

(06-24-2014 09:38 PM)jhruzek Wrote:  Gotta wonder why we were not in a stronger defensive alignment in the extra time. When in a similar position, my daughters team shifts to a 4 defender and 4 mids alignment and all of them mark the opponents. It seemed that our defenders were late getting back and didn't mark allowing the forward an opportunity to be in position to make the header to score.

We were in a stronger defensive alignment. We substituted out a wing midfielder for an extra defender in the 90th minute (incidentally, this is what caused the ref to go with 5 minutes of stoppage time instead of 4).

Our defenders weren't exactly late getting back and were marking appropriately - Cameron looked behind him to see two attackers at the top of the box and was in good position to defend them. Fabian Johnson, the outside defender who made attacking runs up the side all game with Ronaldo uninterested in defending, couldn't keep up with Varela who was fresh after only 20 minutes of play. The real breakdown in the box was fresh legs vs tired ones, Cameron never looking to his left to see Valera, and Fabian not alerting Cameron his man was open.

(06-25-2014 07:10 AM)texd Wrote:  Here's a quick look at the precision of the equalizer: EDIT - sorry bad link. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=11130449

Fancy way of saying that he curved the ball nicely to the streaking Varela.

Seriously, that was a perfect ball in and it's about the only pass that could've scored. The breakdown, IMHO, is that Beasley gave too much space to Ronaldo to make the cross, but, you know, it's Ronaldo and if he'd have closed up space, Beasley may have been beaten. Still, better that than to give him time and space on the ball.

(06-25-2014 09:07 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Seriously, that was a perfect ball in and it's about the only pass that could've scored. The breakdown, IMHO, is that Beasley gave too much space to Ronaldo to make the cross, but, you know, it's Ronaldo and if he'd have closed up space, Beasley may have been beaten. Still, better that than to give him time and space on the ball.

I tend to disagree. If Beasley (who isn't even a real fullback so what can you really expect out of him) gets beat Ronaldo is running at the goal with a full head of steam. Because nobody was supporting Beasley, I think he was justified in assuming there were plenty of people in the box to handle a cross. And there were--they just completely failed. Beasley is actually the only American on the field that I think did his job on that play (and maybe Wondolowski--but if Yedlin wasn't getting back then Wondolowski needs to see that and cover).

I think from that angle, he should've been able to count on support if he did get beat. Which begs the question of why the midfielders (at least one of them) didn't track back faster than they did, not that it's relevant to how the play turned out.

Speaking of the Magnus effect, Adidas seems to have done it right this year, and the ball is a non-issue. They're out of my doghouse for now...

What’s Up With That: Why So Many People Lose It Over the World Cup Ball’s Design | Science | WIRED

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-world-...=social_fb Wrote:In 2010, NASA even stepped in and performed tests on Adidas’ Jabulani. They found that the soccer ball’s surface was creating small asymmetric vortices along its surface, causing it to swoop and swerve unpredictably, like a knuckleball in baseball. For this year’s World Cup, Adidas produced the Brazuca, which they rigorously tested in every way they could think. The result? So far, the news has focused on the games and not the ball.

(06-24-2014 08:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

This must be the phantom offsides, but no-one in the picture is even in an offsides position. If they were, and the mexico player headed the ball first, it wouldn't matter if it were deflected by the Cameroon player, it would still be offsides.

In fairness, offsides counts when the ball is struck and this is clearly well after that point. That doesn't argue against your point, I am merely making it clear for those that don't know

(06-25-2014 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In fairness, offsides counts when the ball is struck and this is clearly well after that point. That doesn't argue against your point, I am merely making it clear for those that don't know

It's a corner kick, so by rule, offsides is not possible (as a practical matter it would otherwise be unlikely). If the ball is struck subsequently, it's struck on the head by the Mexico player, then the Cameroon player, which would be at the time of the photo (unless this ball didn't come in directly off of the corner, which is my understanding).