[The Godfather]

My dear USians,

If you have been ignoring the World Cup so far, you can catch up now. The U.S.A. team will play Italy today at 3PM EST (2 CST, 1 MT, 12 PST). You see, they have had 1 game against the Czech Republic and lost 0-3, and they are with Ghana in the bottom of their group. Now the U.S. has a chance to get off the bottom and attain a better ranking within the group, if they beat Italy today.

So be sure to paint your face R-W-B, go to your local Hooters at 3PM and switch the TV to whatever channel they are showing the World Cup. Telemundo works too.

Sincerely,

Me

[Lateralus]

I don't have any hope, but I'll be glued to the TV anyways.

[production_coordinator]

I'll be watching... go USA! but I'm not betting money on them

[Adam Betts]

As much as I want USA to win, they can't. They'll need 200% effort to beat Italy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Even though the US is ranked far higher in the world than Italy?

A on FIFA and their ridiculously politicized world football rankings.

greg

[The Godfather]

The TVs in Hooters are probably going to show American Football anyways :/

[nredman]

i may watch it, like hockey i think soccer is pretty boring but i'll give it another try

go usa

[Judge_Fire]

I'm rooting for US today, Italy's been playing an annoying game.

J

[moodymonster]

go USA!

[Lateralus]

Excellent game. I'm almost positive that the US would have won had that ref not been absolutely worthless.

[analogika]

"Excellent"?

That game was an embarrassment to both sides, and I'm not even INTO football.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Excellent game. I'm almost positive that the US would have won had that ref not been absolutely worthless.

The ref did a great job. The two teams were an embarassment. The fouls that caused those two red cards were down right dirty and they were punished accordingly. The third one, yeah well. It'll learn him. The americans play extremely dirty and agressive, I noticed this during their first match as well.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

The ref did a great job. The two teams were an embarassment. The fouls that caused those two red cards were down right dirty and they were punished accordingly. The third one, yeah well. It'll learn him. The americans play extremely dirty and agressive, I noticed this during their first match as well.

Yeah right only the USA team plays aggressive and commits fouls

Gimme a break. Did you see any US player purposely try to break someone else's face and act innocent about it like De Rossi did? Mastroeni's tackle was just a second late, and was the furthest thing from malicious. He was just excited. He wasn't trying to hurt anyone. Pope's red card was in fact a red card, and then played off as his 2nd yellow, while that ref all along intended it as an out right red card.

Anyone who follows football knows the Italians are superb actors on the feild, flopping around like crazy with every little tap of contact, and demanding stretchers for injuries which are somehow miraculously cured by some magic spray

Team USA showed up and dominated the Italians for most of the game, and held them off for the entire 2nd half with one less player. And Beasly's goal was no more offsides than the lone Italian goal.

I really question the knowledge and/or motives of any football fan who thinks that ref did a good job.

[Judge_Fire]

Yeah, Italy's game was both dirty and uninspired, while US at least put a constant effort in capturing the ball and creating game play.

I agree with the ref's calls though, the game should be kept clean - this isn't hockey, ffs.

J

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Yeah right only the USA team plays aggressive and commits fouls

Did I say that ? No I didn't. And nor did I imply it.

Gimme a break. Did you see any US player purposely try to break someone else's face and act innocent about it like De Rossi did? Mastroeni's tackle was just a second late, and was the furthest thing from malicious. He was just excited. He wasn't trying to hurt anyone.

It doesn't really matter if he didn't want to hurt the Italian. You're only supposed to tackle when you are 100% sure that you'll hit the ball (in theory). That was just a wild slide. And the ref was strict.

Pope's red card was in fact a red card, and then played off as his 2nd yellow, while that ref all along intended it as an out right red card.

huh ?

Anyone who follows football knows the Italians are superb actors on the feild, flopping around like crazy with every little tap of contact, and demanding stretchers for injuries which are somehow miraculously cured by some magic spray

Uhu. But does it matter ? Any decent ref knows this and he will not care for schwalbes.

Team USA showed up and dominated the Italians for most of the game, and held them off for the entire 2nd half with one less player. And Beasly's goal was no more offsides than the lone Italian goal.

Yes, they did a great job. And they did impress.

I really question the knowledge and/or motives of any football fan who thinks that ref did a good job.

I think most people would agree that he did a good job. He applied the rules, maybe a bit strict but, correctly.

[greenamp]

Why is it so hard to make a response without quoting 100 different things as if they were all separate posts? Is it the internet forum equivalent of a filibuster? Am I supposed to respond to every one of your quote responses, and include my original statement so as to avoid confusion?

Anyway, yes, you implied that a certain style of play was somehow singular to the USA team when you said "The americans play extremely dirty and agressive, I noticed this during their first match as well." Not sure what else that's supposed to mean really. 99% of all World cup teams play dirty and aggressive. Some are just better at it than others.
As for Pope's red flag, it was an intentional red flag and not his 2nd yellow. The ref didn't even pull out a yellow he went right for the red. There's a point here.

And no, the popular opinion is not on the side favoring that ref. I have no idea where you get that idea from. In fact, that guy has been suspended before for "irregularities." I'm sure had the table been turned and he had ejected two Italian players for questionable reasons you and these other people would think differently about the situation.

[lurkalot]

Pope received two yellows for cumulative fouls. After his latest tackle from behind, the referee pulled yellow, then red for his second caution-able offense in one game.

"Only" De Rossi and Mastroeni received straight reds in that game. De Rossi for an elbow in the face. Mastroeni for a late reckless and dangerous tackle, with both legs straight and upturned studs to the ankle of his opponent.

McBride was the one interfering while in an offside position on Beasley's shot.

[.]

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by lurkalot

Pope received two yellows for cumulative fouls. After his latest tackle from behind, the referee pulled yellow, then red for his second caution-able offense in one game.

"Only" De Rossi and Mastroeni received straight reds in that game. De Rossi for an elbow in the face. Mastroeni for a late tackle with both legs forward and upturned studs to the ankle of his opponent.

McBride was the one interfering while in an offside position on Beasley's shot.

These are not mysterious events. They are recorded from different angles. The referee got it right on the first try without the benefit of replays but why don't you go have another look when you've calmed down and taken your team supporters glasses off...?

You're wrong about Pope's red card. It was a red card plain and simple without any reference to his prior yellow card. The ref didn't even realize he had already given pope a yellow. It was only latter played off as being a red for his second yellow so the ref wouldn't look as bad. Pope made clear ball contact anyway. He didn't even deserve a card for that.

I'll concede Mastroeni's red card being somewhat justifiable. But not before I point out that a tackle like that is typically never red carded, and probably wouldn't have been by any other ref. He was looking for a reason to red card somebody.

ps: I know the offsides was called on McBride.

[nredman]

i missed the game, i was washing my hair

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by nredman

i missed the game, i was washing my hair

Not a good reason to not offer your opinion though. Doesn't seem to stop anyone else.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by greenamp

You're wrong about Pope's red card. It was a red card plain and simple without any reference to his prior yellow card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCGG0...e%20red%20card

The referee definitely and clearly was showing the yellow card.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCGG0...e%20red%20card

The referee definitely and clearly was showing the yellow card.

I stand corrected.

But more proof that Pope didn't even deserve a card for that. It was a perfectly fine tackle.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Yeah right only the USA team plays aggressive and commits fouls

Which part of "the TWO teams were an embarrassment" and "that game was an embarrassment to BOTH sides" did you fail to understand?

A good game is a game, not a fight.

Fouls are penalized for a reason - they suck.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by greenamp

I stand corrected.

But more proof that Pope didn't even deserve a card for that. It was a perfectly fine tackle.

See, greenamp, there's your conceptual problem:

tackle, verb (trans.)
• Football & Rugby
stop the forward progress of (the ball carrier) by seizing them and knocking them to the ground.
• chiefly Soccer
try to take the ball from (an opponent) by intercepting them.

This is "soccer" football, not American or British bloodsport.

You hit the guy instead of the ball, it's a foul.

Plain and simple. Yellow card. Second yellow in a game, it's yellow-red.

End of story.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by analogika

See, greenamp, there's your conceptual problem:

tackle, verb (trans.)
• Football & Rugby
stop the forward progress of (the ball carrier) by seizing them and knocking them to the ground.
• chiefly Soccer
try to take the ball from (an opponent) by intercepting them.

This is "soccer" football, not American or British bloodsport.

You hit the guy instead of the ball, it's a foul.

Plain and simple. Yellow card. Second yellow in a game, it's yellow-red.

End of story.

Soccer is NOT a non contact sport. No idea where some of you get this idea from. When you start actually watching Soccer you'll realize that almost every tackle results in the tripping of the player with the ball.

Funny you assume something because I'm American or fit some idea of what you consider to be American. But I've come to expect arrogant pretentiousness from you so it's cool.

[davesimondotcom]

I'm proud of the way the USA team played after their lackluster performance in the first game.

To go one man down for almost half the game is pretty impressive. The first red card for the USA seemed and exageration. Give him a yellow card.

The offsides goal was offsides though. It was pretty obvious, even to me, someone who barely follows soccer and only knows the rules because I played youth soccer way back when.

Now I guess I cheer against Italy in their next match and hope Ghana doesn't come out gangbusters like they seemed to the other day.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Why is it so hard to make a response without quoting 100 different things as if they were all separate posts? Is it the internet forum equivalent of a filibuster? Am I supposed to respond to every one of your quote responses, and include my original statement so as to avoid confusion?

People do it to make sure the other knows what exactly they are replying to. It stops latter confusion.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

The first red card for the USA seemed and exageration. Give him a yellow card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoLyoLDKYeg

[greenamp]

^^Instant replay official^^

[Kevin]

You have to admit, youtube is awesome.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoLyoLDKYeg

clear red card.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by nredman

i missed the game, i was washing my hair

wow i was afraid you were watching baseball or something.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Soccer is NOT a non contact sport. No idea where some of you get this idea from. When you start actually watching Soccer you'll realize that almost every tackle results in the tripping of the player with the ball.

When Americans play football, that is true.

The rule:

"When a player commits any of the following four offences:
tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
[...]"

Compare to what I wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by analogika

You hit the guy instead of the ball, it's a foul.

Plain and simple. Yellow card. Second yellow in a game, it's yellow-red.

End of story.

Funny you assume something because I'm American or fit some idea of what you consider to be American. But I've come to expect arrogant pretentiousness from you so it's cool.

I don't care if you're American.

It's just odd that every single referee, commentator, and newspaper completely agrees with that particular decision.

Maybe your being American is incidental to your being WRONG. I don't know.

When the shoe fits...

[threestain]

to be fair - that first tackle... absolutely shocking.

But fitted in fine with the tone of the game. It wasn't football, but it opened up the group at least.

Italy were shocking.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by analogika

When Americans play football, that is true.

The rule:

"When a player commits any of the following four offences:
tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
[...]"

Compare to what I wrote earlier:






I don't care if you're American.

It's just odd that every single referee, commentator, and newspaper completely agrees with that particular decision.

Maybe your being American is incidental to your being WRONG. I don't know.

When the shoe fits...

It's just that you didn't even watch the game, nor do you seem to know much about Football, yet you still comment here. Maybe your being arrogant is incidental to your being pretentious. I don't know.

You crack me up.

[olePigeon]

I don't watch football, I'm a hockey/rugby guy. Anyway, that seem like a LOT of red cards for a football game.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

My dear USians,

BTW that's Americans to you.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by greenamp

It's just that you didn't even watch the game, nor do you seem to know much about Football, yet you still comment here. Maybe your being arrogant is incidental to your being pretentious. I don't know.

You crack me up.

It hurts to be wrong, doesn't it.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by analogika

It hurts to be wrong, doesn't it.

lol wrong about what? You've yet to prove anything wrong here because you don't know anything about the subject, which is the one thing you have proved

The only reason you came here is b/c you saw "USA" in the thread title and figured there would be an opportunity for some yankey hating.

[Kevin]

Actually analog doesn't do much yankee hating. He isn't one of the usual suspects.

As a matter of fact, he took up for the yankee spelling of aluminum not a week ago when someone was bashing us Americans for "spelling it wrong"

[greenamp]

Wait, you don't say "Aluminium?"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Wait, you don't say "Aluminium?"

Nope. It's not the original spelling of the word.

It was first Aluminum. Then it was later changed.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nope. It's not the original spelling of the word.

It was first Aluminum. Then it was later changed.

Well, down here in Tanahsee, we speak the King's English.

[nredman]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Not a good reason to not offer your opinion though. Doesn't seem to stop anyone else.

americans suck at soccer?

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nope. It's not the original spelling of the word.

It was first Aluminum. Then it was later changed.

Although aluminium makes much more sense in term of consistency with others elements of the classification. It really should be aluminium.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by villalobos

Although aluminium makes much more sense in term of consistency with others elements of the classification. It really should be aluminium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Spelling

um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time. Platinum, which had been known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, which was discovered in 1778, and tantalum, which was discovered in 1802, all have spellings ending in -um.

The reason it was changed was because

Aluminium, for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound. (Q. Review VIII. 72, 1812)

Just because someone thought it sounded better.

It doesn't really matter how you pronounce it. In the thread I was referring to, someone was being a bit smug because he thought we CHANGED it to a different spelling. When if fact, we are just using the original.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Spelling

um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time. Platinum, which had been known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, which was discovered in 1778, and tantalum, which was discovered in 1802, all have spellings ending in -um.

The reason it was changed was because

Aluminium, for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound. (Q. Review VIII. 72, 1812)

Just because someone thought it sounded better.

It doesn't really matter how you pronounce it. In the thread I was referring to, someone was being a bit smug because he thoght we CHANGED it to a different spelling. When if fact, we are just using the original.

Yeah that's nice but that's just wikipedia, which if I remember correctly you in general do not trust all that much. It still does not make much sense to call aluminum. Why not alumium, since that was the original name.

interestingly the whole article uses aluminium, not aluminum.

But that's all OT so let's drop it. Football is much more interesting>

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by villalobos

Yeah that's nice but that's just wikipedia, which if I remember correctly you in general do not trust all that much.

ABout controversial topics. Care to show anything it claimed was wrong?

It still does not make much sense to call aluminum.

More so than aluminum.

Why not alumium, since that was the original name.

Because that is it's CORRECT latin name.

In 1808, Humphry Davy originally proposed the name alumium while trying to isolate the new metal electrolytically from the mineral alumina. In 1812, he changed the name to aluminum to match its Latin root.

AND THEN

The same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium.

Just because he thought it "sounded" better .

[analogika]

Originally Posted by greenamp

lol wrong about what? You've yet to prove anything wrong here because you don't know anything about the subject, which is the one thing you have proved

Wait: I flat-out stated that "I'm not even INTO soccer", but somehow, I seem to have a better grasp of the rules than you do (it's pretty much impossible not to absorb them if you live in a country like Germany), and so I've "proven" I don't "know anything about the subject"?

YOU're the one unable to judge a foul for what it is, kiddo.

[Troll]

That tackle is in the dictionary next to "red card". If that isn't a red card offence, nothing is.