World Cup 2006

[DutchBird]

IMHO all cards yesterday were defensible and legit.

DiRossi: Should be gone for the rest of the tournament. In fact, he should not have been playing anyway, because of a tackle Mastroeni style he made against Ghana (on purpose, unlike, I think, Mastroeni). As we tend to say over here, this card was deep purple if not black.

Mastroeni: Completely legit. He was late, completely mistimed and this was the type of tackle that could end the career of a player (in fact, a similar tackle did end the career of a lower level player in a national competition over here). I do not think he did this intentionally, I think this was more stupidity (red haze) combined with over eagerness rather then an attempt to take out the opponent. This is the exact type of tackle (flying, two legs and late) FIFA, UEFA and national leagues want to clamp down upon. The biggest problem though with this is consistency in enforcement of these rules (within games and between refs).

Pope: His second yellow was defendable. Pope was a bit late, did get the player (though not enough to warrant the whole charade). This was more stupidity by Pope, as it was completely unnecesary to even make this tackle (position on field and players around him). Again, like Mastroeni, I think he got carried away in his effort. In fact, this second yellow could in a sense be a sum of previous fouls (see van Bommel's yellow vs Cote d'Ivoire). I have no opinion on the first one, as I have not seen it.


General comments about officiating:

IMHO the biggest problem during a tournament like this IS FIFA. They are so anal about enforcing all the rules that they ignore the flow of the game. Also, for some reason they are unwilling to initiate some needed improvements (like goalline camera's). Fifa needs to get its priorities straight. Unfortunately with the likes of Blatter (FIFA president), IMHO a corrupt fraud, it will be while before that will happen.

So I am afraid that the ref for the Holland vs Ivory Coast game will be gone (as that guy went with the flow of the game, rather then stickler for the rules). By far the best crew I have seen yet.

And as far as the article goes (though raising a legit question about why the ref is at the WC), they scapegoat him now so they can ignore the fauls and stupidity by the American players for committing them in the first place.

[ice grillin you]

^^^^^^
a true american

[Rome]

Dutch... here are the rules governing the handing out of red cards in FIFA matches:

1. Serious foul play. This includes a tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent.
   2. Violent conduct
   3. Spitting at anyone
   4. A deliberate hand ball to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by any player other than a goalkeeper in his own penalty area
   5. Committing an offence that denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (informally known as a professional foul)
   6. Using offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures
   7. Receiving a second caution (yellow card) in one game

DiRossi certainly deserved a red card via #2.  In fact, he should be banned from participating for the rest of the tournament for his assault.  And that's exactly what it was... an assault, plain and simple.

Mastroeni did not intentionally endanger the safety of his opponent.  His mistackle warranted a yellow card only.

Pope shouldn't have been yellow-carded in the first incident nor should he have been in the second.

In short, the referee blew it.  When officials begin influencing what goes on on the field instead of moderating play, they become a liability.  Larrionda was suspended by FIFA for "irregularities."  Why was he even officiating in the biggest tournament in the sport?   He shouldn't have been.

Also - as far as I know, there were two teams out there committing fouls, not just the U.S.  It was a rough game, yet somehow, the American side ended up on the short end of the stick.  Why is that exactly?  Can you provide a legitimate reason why a guy like Larrionda was placed in a position where he could influence the outcome of a match like that?

[DutchBird]

Dutch... here are the rules governing the handing out of red cards in FIFA matches:

   1. Serious foul play. This includes a tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent.
   2. Violent conduct
   3. Spitting at anyone
   4. A deliberate hand ball to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by any player other than a goalkeeper in his own penalty area
   5. Committing an offence that denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (informally known as a professional foul)
   6. Using offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures
   7. Receiving a second caution (yellow card) in one game

DiRossi certainly deserved a red card via #2.  In fact, he should be banned from participating for the rest of the tournament for his assault.  And that's exactly what it was... an assault, plain and simple.

Mastroeni did not intentionally endanger the safety of his opponent.  His mistackle warranted a yellow card only.

Pope shouldn't have been yellow-carded in the first incident nor should he have been in the second.

In short, the referee blew it.  When officials begin influencing what goes on on the field instead of moderating play, they become a liability.  Larrionda was suspended by FIFA for "irregularities."  Why was he even officiating in the biggest tournament in the sport?   He shouldn't have been.

Also - as far as I know, there were two teams out there committing fouls, not just the U.S.  It was a rough game, yet somehow, the American side ended up on the short end of the stick.  Why is that exactly?  Can you provide a legitimate reason why a guy like Larrionda was placed in a position where he could influence the outcome of a match like that?

DiRossi's red was covered by section 2.

Mastroeni's red was covered by section 1 (serious foul play). The whole rule does not say anything about a need to endanger the opponent or not, as it is irrelevant. It is a red card regardless of intention or honest though stupid mistake. As said before, this type of tackle has been targeted for a while now. If anything blame the referees who do NOT enforce the rules rather then the ones who do.

As far as Pope goes, in fact one could even argue the referee was lenient there with the first card. Once he had decided that Pope committed a foul, it could (should?) have been red, as Pope in his eyes took out a player who was going straight at the keeper. NOTE I am not saying the ref would have been justified if he had done that.
As far as Pope's second yellow goes, that foul on its own was a borderline yellow. I did not see the game, so I reserve judgment, but I see it as a distinct possibility that he had it coming... if he had a chain of similar fouls. Sometimes a yellow is the added sum of a bunch of fouls (again I refer to van Bommel vs Ivory Coast, where the ref actually indicated that to him).

I agree with you that he should not have been at the tournament in the first place. But those are the inexplicable (and IMHO corrupt) ways of FIFA and UEFA. And why the US ended up with less men then Italy? Predominantly Italian players did not get caught. They know the tricks of the trade better, and do it more subtly (that was why IMHO the crew in the Ivory Coast vs Holland game was the best so far, they saw through almost all of the tricks).

[bobbyinlondon]

I agree with you Dutch, FIFA are idiots and their use of goalline cameras will get more scrutiny after the French game yesterday. I'm certainly no lover of Les Bleus, but they did get ripped off on Viera's goal--that ball was a good foot and a half over the line before the keeper knocked it out.

As for yesterday's other games, even though Brazil won, they still were not impressive. Ronaldo missing a sitter looked like Sean Landeta when he whiffed on a punt in a playoff game in 1985. The Aussies were impressive, but missed too many chances.

Croatia and Japan didn't do anything for me in the searing heat.

The Netherlands have become my 2nd favorite team behind the USA--mostly because of Van Nistlerooy, who plays for my favorite club team, Man United.--England has not impressed me at all, and all their talk about how they have a real chance of winning the cup is just that--talk. Not until they get a world class coach who changes his tactics will they have any kind of sustained success.

[DutchBird]

I have given up hope that FIFA and UEFA will get things fixed in the near future. Power and money corrupts, and these two have been corrupted big time.  And if, in Europe, UEFA does not screw things up, it is the EU with their idiotic labor/free market craze. Frankly it has ruined soccer/football for me. Big time. The only time it is fun is when a surprise team shows up PSV, Ajax types in Champions League or South Korea and US four years ago).

As far as this World Cup goes, IMHO it is dissapointing. Big time.... Through the second round I have seen only two consistent and impressive teams (Argentina and Ivory Coast), one of them gone for the second round. IMHO it is shocking to see that the Dutch so far have been one of the more impressive teams, while they played good soccer for only 15 and 30 minutes repectively in each game. I mean, what do you have so far?

Germany looked decent/good... but against incredibly poor opposition, and they even could have lost one of them util they got the man advantage.
England: Incredibly average. In fact, the only team in that group which has shown up so far is Trinidad and Tobago.
Argentina: By far the most impressive team so far, even considering S&M rolled over.
Holland: Played good for 30 minutes against Ivory Coast. Defense needs to get their act together. Very lucky that the Argentina game has become pointless. Van Bommel needs to be tossed from the team (he has shown exactly why he was kept out of the team during qualifying). One of the very few teams where the stretch of good play has increased rather then decreased.
Ivory Coast: Second best team in the group, decidedly unlucky. And very dangerous for the future (in particular if the can get a goalkeeper)
Portugal: Horrible.
Italy: looked impressive vs Ghana, though with weaknesses. Looked very average at best against a US team that was/is no more then average (skillwise and technically), and has to rely on effort to get anywhere.
Ghana: has looked the best in the group so far. Big time. The only one who, over two games, deserves to go through.
Chech Republic: Looked impressive against the US, horrible againt Ghana.
USA: Horrible against Ghana, the game against Italy reminded me of the US team four years ago. In a way I would like to see Ghana and the US advance (mostly because I absolutely despise Italy (close second to Germany)), and the US tend(ed to be a team that at least shows effort.
Brazil: Looked average. Frustrating to see and wonder why in 1994 or 1998 the Dutch team could not run into that version of Brazil. Decidedly average.
France: utter horror. In fact the on ly teams in that group that seemingly deserve to go through (based on effort) are Togo and South Korea.
Spain: looked very impressive against the Ukraine, but received huge help from the ref. They blew countless offsides calls against the Ukraine. I wonder what would have happened when the refs had not blown one of those, and the Ukraine would have scored first.

England needs to become a team. And the press neeeds to back of. All well before they have a legit shot. Hiddink himself (in)directly admitted that (potential) harassment by the press (of him and his family) is a serious point against taking the England-manager job...

[bobbyinlondon]

Hiddink or Scolari? I know Scolari said it was the intrusion of the British media that made him decide not to take the job, but I think it was money. After all, you have a WC winner with Brazil, and you're going to pay him £2.5M (3.662M Euros) when you're paying Ericksson TWICE that and he hasn't won anything? Now the guy who is taking over from him after this WC has done an okay job at club level, but he hasn't won anything. He got Middlesborough to the finals of the UEFA cup this year, but they got embarrassed.

However, one of the papers had a good article today, saying that Ericksson is now taking chances that he hasn't taken before--bringing Owen off early in matches; Aaron Lennon down the right side and sliding Beckham over, because he realizes he has to change his strategy and his allegiance to players who have thus far failed to perform for him.

[mussa]

freaks

[Diomedes]

Here's to hoping the U.S. pulls a rabbit out of their asses, and wallops Ghana...

[DutchBird]

Hiddink or Scolari? I know Scolari said it was the intrusion of the British media that made him decide not to take the job, but I think it was money. After all, you have a WC winner with Brazil, and you're going to pay him £2.5M (3.662M Euros) when you're paying Ericksson TWICE that and he hasn't won anything? Now the guy who is taking over from him after this WC has done an okay job at club level, but he hasn't won anything. He got Middlesborough to the finals of the UEFA cup this year, but they got embarrassed.

Hiddink, yesterday said in an interview for Dutch TV that the FA approached him for replacing Ericksson. He said he did not take it, partially because he already was talking with the Russians, and had nearly reached an agreement by the time the FA came to him. He subsequently said that the way the British press goes after the manager and his family was a definite thing though against taking the job of England manager. 

However, one of the papers had a good article today, saying that Ericksson is now taking chances that he hasn't taken before--bringing Owen off early in matches; Aaron Lennon down the right side and sliding Beckham over, because he realizes he has to change his strategy and his allegiance to players who have thus far failed to perform for him.

Of course the press is taking the credit. I think the times the press criticized itself in my lifetime I can count on my own fingers... and tooted its own horn is the exact opposite. Indeed Ericksson is taking chances (he has to). However, it is the press that pretty much forces a squad upon him that could well be unworkable.  The only thing the press sees, the tabloids in particular, is names and they have not a clue about how a team works. And Erickson was/is unable to stand up[ to that. IMHO the British midfield is nearly unworkable with all the starplayers there who have to play in a position/role where they can not function properly. And the British press has no respect for anybody.
The Dutch press tried the same here, frocing the likes of van Bommel and Davids upon van Basten (Seedorf as their favorite whipping boy was omitted from the push) as during the qualifying stages. However, they have been unable to go all out against him, because of his reputation (this kind of behaviour would be unacceptable for most Dutch) and his continued success so far.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Stepped into Joe's Crab Shack in myrtle for a quick drink yesterday.  There were 3 Koreans at the bar going nuts watching their World Cup match.  It was cool when they scored the tying goal, though... I don't think I've ever seen that much excitement over a sporting event from a group of Asians in person before.

BTW, Asian people like to eat rice and ride their bicycles. </rjs>

[Rome]

Here's to hoping the U.S. pulls a rabbit out of their asses, and wallops Ghana...

Actually scoring a goal would be a nice start for the U.S. 

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

They totally scored one last game, man.

[phattymatty]

kind of.

[Rome]

They totally scored one last game, man.

Too much cheese sauce at Joe's Crab Shack must have dulled your senses.