Posted on 06/21/2002 6:36:46 AM PDT by Illbay
Nothing much to add. I saw only the last fifteen minutes of the game.
Germany went ahead on a header that'd have been nearly impossible for any keeper to ward off, and the US nearly came back and tied it--it was literally a matter of inches.
At the end of the game the German keeper collapsed to the ground.
This was a case of fighting one of THE premier teams in the world to a near standstill.
We come away from this tournament with elevated stature in international soccer.
Thank you, Team USA, you did your country proud!
USA! USA! USA!
The problem with this idea is that it conflicts with the rule on what is/isn't out of bounds. Unlike American Football, where the player's body determines if the ball is in or out-of-bounds, the rule in soccer is based on the location of the ball, and for ALL situations, including goals, the definition is based on the entire ball being over the vertical plane of the entire touch line or end-line.
IN fact, a goal can be defined as a ball that goes out-of-bounds between the two goal posts and below the crossbar.
To change the rule so a goal is scored if ANY part of the ball is over the goal line would make it inconsistent with the rest of the rules, or in the alternative would result in making more balls on the sidelines out of bounds, effectively "narrowing" the field and making it easier for the defense to clog up the game, making it even harder to score.
I will parenthetically add that the beauty of soccer lies in part with the fact that it doesn't take a 12 volume set of rules to make it work. Contrast that with baseball or American Football......
I notice there's no rule that appears to apply to "Trying to kill the ref in the parking lot after the game is over." A team mate of mine tried this once, after becoming incensed at the ref's call during the game, and aggravated by the fact that the ref sent him off for complaining about it.
The rest of the team held him back as he was clawing and screaming at them. Meanwhile, the refs (wisely) beat a hasty retreat.
And the league banned him for the balance of the season.... (those league officials never have a sense of humor.)
So, although I am disappointed the US did not win, they played a great game of soccer. The soccer world should be on notice that the US is a contender.
Now, I am CRUSHED and WEEPING that ENGLAND lost to Brazil. THE HORROR, THE HORROR.
Prediction: Brazil wins the World Cup.
Here's a Picture from the 'Bild Zeitung'. They captioned it as:
The 'iffy' moment when Kahn steers the ball onto Frings Hand - No PK - We were lucky".
The ball is coming up here, I think. Germans seem to be about 50 - 50 on wether it was a PK or not. The ref justified the call by saying there was no intent by Frings to handle it.
longjack
That's interesting, and conforms to my original assesment, but it sure seems to conflict with "general_re's" post and link, which clearly states the determination of whether or not a foul has occured when the ball has been "unintentionally" handled is whether or not it materially affects the course of action (IOW, did the team that "handles" the ball benefit by it significantly?)
IN this instance, Germany undeniably benefited in that it stopped the ball from entering the goal; hence, it should have been a major foul in the Penalty area, and thus a PK should have been awarded to the US.
Of course, the ref has broad discretion in this area; if he could have concluded that there was no advantage to Germany derived from the inadvertent hand-ball, he would be justified in ignoring it.
But that wasn't the case....
While watching the game the TV angle made it seem as if his arm was very close to his body, and the handball was not called because the contact was incidental and unintentional. Perhaps it was unintentional, but the arm away from the body in this photo shows clearly that the action prevented a goal.
Should have been a P.K.
Ah, by definition, that's an "off the field" infraction, so the rulebook doesn't cover it - there's other rulebooks for that, like, say, penal codes. ;)
The ref's covering his ass. Intent doesn't matter when you stop a goal, and I used to make that exact same call from time to time.
I'll give you an example - I was calling a women's amateur game many moons ago. Now, if you've ever seen women's soccer, you'll know that, from time to time, the ladies will instinctively move to protect their...chests, basically, typically by covering up with the hands or forearms. They protect the north end, much the way men protect the south end ;) But, I always made it a practice to warn them beforehand that I was very sorry, but that was generally going to be a handball if they got hit like that, and I was going to call it as such.
So, here's the situation - you've got two offensive players charging down way ahead of everyone on a long pass - everyone but the keeper and two defenders. So, the one forward makes this beautiful fake shot and dumps it off to the other forward for the open shot. And the keeper bit on the fake, but she saw the setup. So she goes down on the fake, but as she's getting up, one of her two defenders gets tangled up with her. Now they're both down, and there's one defender standing between the second forward and an open goal. And the forward lines up, and smacks the living sh*t out of it...right at the last defender. And this poor girl instinctively crosses her arms in front of her chest, and the ball strikes her in the forearms and hands, and goes over the top of the goal.
Now, was she trying to prevent the goal? Not really - she was basically trying to keep from getting killed. But that's an open goal, and a dump shot for the forward if the defender doesn't take it in the hands. If the shot had been off-target, and wouldn't have gone in anyway, I would have seriously considered letting it go and just awarding the corner. But it was dead-on target for the goal, and in a case like that, I have no choice - it's got to be a penalty kick, because it's seriously affected the outcome of the game. And honestly, I'm sure they weren't happy about the call, but the defensive team in that situation understood it and accepted it as the right call.
And that's how it's gotta be in those situations. The rules allow for a tremendous amount of discretion by the referee - his rules are the only rules that count once you're on the field. But this guy blew the call, and frankly, I'd have a bit more respect for him if his excuse was that he was out of position and just didn't see it, because now he's basically admitting he saw it, and trying to justify his bullsh*t call.
Not that this is exactly the first time handball calls have been blown in the World Cup - those of you who follow soccer may remember Diego Maradona's famous "Hand of God" goal from some years ago. As bad as this call was, that one was infinitely worse ;)
(Is it okay if they actually like soccer and want to play?)
I never got the idea he deliberately moved his hand to the ball, that's why I wouldn't have sent him off.
I can talk big, sitting in my living room watching the replay.
The US questioned the linesman (the english guy). I saw the assistent point to his eyes as if to say "I saw the whole thing", but I think they were claiming the ball crossed the line. I don't remember anyone claiming hand ball. Usually the offended team will immediately pat their arm to show the ref they saw a hand ball. I think the original reaction was about wether the ball crossed the line or not, not the handball. Only after seeing the replay did the handball issue arise for me.
I think the US player nearest Frings immediately looked at the assistent and claimed the ball went over the line. He didn't pat his arm as if to say 'handball'. Maybe everything happened so quick no one saw it. That US player had the best view of anyone. I can judge a lot by the player's reactions in a game. If I'm screened on a play and player or two turn to me and start gesturing for a hand ball I tell them "I'm sorry, I was screened, I didn't see it. I'll bet in this case, especially since the ball was loose and was moving unpredictibally, no one saw it until the replay.
I thought the ref, Hugh Dallas from Scotland, was really solid. He checked with his assistents when he had too, etc. I bet he didn't see it.
I thought the whole game, including the tribute to Fritz Walter before the game and the obvious friendly relationship between German coach Rudi Voeller and american players after the game was a class act. It was a good day for American soccer.
longjack
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.