Comments on: italy v. u.s.

By: thegoodbubba

thegoodbubba — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:27:40 +0000

The offside call was correct. Yes McBride did not get a touch on the ball but he screened the goalie and the ball came directly between his legs. There is no way you can say he was not involved in the play unless being involved in the play means touching the ball. I think being directly in the trajectory of the ball is being involved.

By: gdimension

gdimension — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:45:33 +0000

“Now, “just” have to win against Ghana and hope the Italians loose against the Czechs. It’s going to be tough.”

The “easiest” way for the US to advance is to win against Ghana and hope the Italians WIN against the Czech Republic.

By: baduk

baduk — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:35:17 +0000

For the last game, I want Ghana to win. Two world cups ago, I was very excited about Nigerian team. This time, I want Ghana to go all the way and beat Argentina for the Cup.

African teams are not getting the attention they deserve. Ghana team moves with grace. They are fast, efficient and exciting to watch.

I want to see an African team to win the Cup. It will make soccer more interesting to watch.

By: dissidentdave

dissidentdave — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:48:00 +0000

and, pyotr, i’ve already established that i eschew capitals because i am too lazy to hit the “shift” key. if you had read my introductory post, you might not be so mean-spirited. and, yes, i am self-indulgent. and i’ll continue to be so until russia qualify for the world cup again…

By: dissidentdave

dissidentdave — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:45:48 +0000

begging the pardon of the two esteemed above posts, it’s not a clear offside in the modern interpretation of offside. the offside rule has been changed in recent years so that if a man is “offside”, but not involved in the play–i.e., doesn’t touch the ball–then it’s not an offside. this is the new rule as it stands, the so-called “modern” interpretation, as aforementtioned. i don’t disagree with it being an offside; however, FIFA has still got to make this new definition of offside clear to everyone involved, including us fans and linesmen.

By: madne0

madne0 — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:01:07 +0000

What d29 said. A clear offside.
Great display of spirit from the US squad. Certainly cleaned up the image they left with the first game. Now, “just” have to win against Ghana and hope the Italians loose against the Czechs. It’s going to be tough.

By: d29

d29 — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:47:35 +0000

“as for the offside call that disallowed the u.s. a goal in the 65th minute, i’m not sure about that one, either. yes, mcbride was clearly not onside, but he was not involved in the play and, if he didn’t get a touch on the ball, under the new rules for offside established in the last year or so, it should not have been called offside.

however, and i never saw a replay that confirmed or disputed this, if mcbride did get a touch on it, then, sure, it’s definitely offside.”

McBride was on the ball’s trajectory and was involved in the play by distracting Buffon from the shot. It is irrelevant whether he touched the ball or not. A clear offside.

By: Robert Koehler

Robert Koehler — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:15:40 +0000

Pyotr, play nice, please.

By: Pyotr

Pyotr — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:58:22 +0000

Dave—learn to capitalise please, or someone might mistake you for a lazy, self indulgent cunt.

By: dissidentdave

dissidentdave — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:52:00 +0000

yes, git. oh, and the headline below the italy-usa report read “Italy 1 USA 1″. no need to post score when it’s already a headline