World Cup 2010 - Page 4

scaeagles · 06-24-2010, 05:09 AM

So I saw the highlight briefly on the internet but haven't been near a TV since the dramatic goal yesterday.

For you soccer afficianados, I am curious - the first shot on goal bounced off the keeper and Donovan put in the rebound (if that's the proper term). After the first shot, someone before Donovan ran though and it appears as if he made contact with the keeper. COuld that have been interpretted as some form of interference and the goal disallowed?

Ghoulish Delight · 06-24-2010, 06:31 AM

Nope. They were both going for the ball, perfectly legal to contact the keeper if he doesn't have control of the ball and you're both making a play for it.

scaeagles · 06-24-2010, 07:08 AM

OK - thanks.

Strangler Lewis · 06-24-2010, 10:19 AM

His question was "could" it have been so interpreted, and the way things have been going for us, the answer has to be yes. Or the goal could have been disallowed because the referee thought he saw the dead rising from their graves.

SzczerbiakManiac · 06-24-2010, 10:58 AM

Check out the first four minutes of last night's The Daily Show

Kevy Baby · 06-24-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

His question was "could" it have been so interpreted, and the way things have been going for us, the answer has to be yes. Or the goal could have been disallowed because the referee thought he saw the dead rising from their graves.

I will preface this post by saying that I know nothing about soccer, other than a bunch of guys kick a ball around (and other than the goalie, they aren't allowed to use their hands) and try to kick it into their opponents goal.

I was having lunch with a co-worker and he was explaining that soccer really doesn't have any rules: they are all laws (although I am not sure why that distinction is important) and the referee has a lot of leeway as whether something is a foul or not. Also, the ref doesn't need to even explain what an exact penalty was - he can just say there was a penalty.

Is this effectively correct? Sounds mighty bizarre to me.

Ghoulish Delight · 06-24-2010, 03:38 PM

Not entirely accurate. Some rules have specific definitions. For example, the definition of offside is when an offensive player goes past all defensive players (except for the keeper) before the ball does (there's more detail than that in the full definition, but that's a mostly accurate summary). There should technically be no room for "interpretation" or "leeway" on that, either you're offside or you're not. Of course, it comes down to whether the refs see it accurately (or are being paid off).

But yes, there are other things that are less precisely defined, mostly revolving around physical contact. You're allowed physical contact as long as it's not dangerous and doesn't give you an unfair advantage. And the lines there are left up to the refs to draw. And no, they don't have to identify a specific penalty that's being called.

Strangler Lewis · 06-24-2010, 08:47 PM

And when the players are selling fake injuries better than most pro wrestlers, the referees end up looking about as on top of things as wrestling referees.

Strangler Lewis · 06-24-2010, 09:26 PM

Great moment, but . . . a posited $10 million in endorsements for Donovan for not blowing a gimme past a fallen goalie. Kirk Gibson it wasn't.

keith - SuPeR K! · 06-24-2010, 11:13 PM

I like the option added to all videos on YouTube to add vuvuzela noise over the videos while you watch.

06-24-2010, 05:09 AM	#31
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	So I saw the highlight briefly on the internet but haven't been near a TV since the dramatic goal yesterday. For you soccer afficianados, I am curious - the first shot on goal bounced off the keeper and Donovan put in the rebound (if that's the proper term). After the first shot, someone before Donovan ran though and it appears as if he made contact with the keeper. COuld that have been interpretted as some form of interference and the goal disallowed?
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 06:31 AM	#32
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Nope. They were both going for the ball, perfectly legal to contact the keeper if he doesn't have control of the ball and you're both making a play for it. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 07:08 AM	#33
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	OK - thanks.
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 10:19 AM	#34
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	His question was "could" it have been so interpreted, and the way things have been going for us, the answer has to be yes. Or the goal could have been disallowed because the referee thought he saw the dead rising from their graves. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 10:58 AM	#35
SzczerbiakManiac "ZER-bee-ak" Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,409	Check out the first four minutes of last night's The Daily Show __________________
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 03:38 PM	#37
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Not entirely accurate. Some rules have specific definitions. For example, the definition of offside is when an offensive player goes past all defensive players (except for the keeper) before the ball does (there's more detail than that in the full definition, but that's a mostly accurate summary). There should technically be no room for "interpretation" or "leeway" on that, either you're offside or you're not. Of course, it comes down to whether the refs see it accurately (or are being paid off). But yes, there are other things that are less precisely defined, mostly revolving around physical contact. You're allowed physical contact as long as it's not dangerous and doesn't give you an unfair advantage. And the lines there are left up to the refs to draw. And no, they don't have to identify a specific penalty that's being called. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 08:47 PM	#38
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	And when the players are selling fake injuries better than most pro wrestlers, the referees end up looking about as on top of things as wrestling referees. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 09:26 PM	#39
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Great moment, but . . . a posited $10 million in endorsements for Donovan for not blowing a gimme past a fallen goalie. Kirk Gibson it wasn't. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

06-24-2010, 11:13 PM	#40
keith - SuPeR K! Community Fruit Join Date: May 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 547	I like the option added to all videos on YouTube to add vuvuzela noise over the videos while you watch. __________________ I would hike 10+ hours... and I would hike 10+ more!
	Submit to Quotes