Canada vs USA - post game [R] [Archive] - Page 2

BearcatSA

06-23-2007, 12:47 AM

Well, I finally got to see the match again on tape so I might as well throw in my two bits:

Inevitably when you're up against top opposition you're going to give up more possession, so I expected more giveaways, but after withstanding the opening flourish I thought we acclimatized to the tempo better and as the half went on we carried the play more. Their first goal seemed to come against the run of play, in my mind: Hainault may have been fouled in the box after Nash's swerving inswinging free kick, Gerba chesting the ball off Keller's post, were chances we were generating during that spell.

The Americans played to the game plan you suggested, Jeffrey, with a lot of very effective midfield pressure. Mastroeni et al really closed down well especially if one of our players dallied when in possession, so kudos to them. The concern that Nash would be exposed was a point driven home like a stake into sand: he couldn't cope with the pace, too often rushing him into a number of errant passes. And if he isn't able to pass consistently, then he doesn't bring anything to the table. His substitution should have been at least 10 minutes sooner. However, I'll give him props for one play in particular: after the Donovan Charlie Brown moment, he received the ball outside his box, then proceeded to hit a great long ball to Gerba (there appeared to be no right back: I guess Hejduk was coming forward for the goal celebrations). Unfortunately, Gerba didn't seem to have an extra gear to burst clear of Gooch for a better shot, so I guess at that stage in the match as the lone striker he was running out juice. I was so hoping we'd score on that play!

Nash's defensive shortcomings were exposed a number of times as well, most notably in the 47th minute when Donovan blew by him like a leaf in a hurricane deep in U.S. territory, starting a swift counter attack that was halted by offside. However, I thought some of his teammates were also guilty of being unable to close down their opponents, contributing to both their goals. On the first, our box is packed with players to defend the free kick: Bernier is unable to beat Mastroeni to Stalteri's headed clearence, he gets the ball to Donovan, who has time to pass across and back to Hejduk, who in turn had so much space on the edge of the penalty arc he could have controlled first before shooting (no one was within 10 yards of him, as five of our guys were bunched together along the penalty spot, no one stepping up in anticipation). On the second, Dempsey gets the ball on the right near the halfway line, cuts in land where Hutchinson fails to close him down, and thus he gets too much time to make a through ball played between Stalteri and Hainault as our full back gets caught in a position where he is unable to cut out the pass (and usually he is excellent at reading that type of play). And what a time to give up a goal!

As mentioned by others, I thought we made some good adjustments after the Hume sub and once he scored we had big mo going. I loved the passion we showed out there.

One thing that stood out in my rewatching (and obviously benefitting from hindsight), was that I wish that DeRo was moved to the right to face Bornstein at the start of the second half. Bernier just isn't a winger and even he was able to beat this guy a couple of times but couldn't provide a telling ball. I think DeRo's trickery would have caused this young guy fits: not having a real right wing attacking presence provided by the likes of Radz, Peters, or Hume was a concern I had prior to the tourney. In fact, when Hume drifted out wide right in the 83rd minute he crossed a superb ball across their defenders along the six yard box, but Issey couldn't quite get there.

I'm still gutted, but there's of positives I've seen (which I will write in the appropriate thread)

CoachRich

06-23-2007, 12:57 AM

In the above pic NO DOUBT AT ALL AS THE AR'S FLAG IS STILL DOWN ON AN ADVANCING BALL!!!

SO when did the AR think the offside took place???

Thistle

06-23-2007, 01:37 AM

If you will indulge me my two cents' worth (CDN that is; our loonie will overtake their buck by year's end.... OH, the irony):

1) Emails have been sent to all those bedwetting-types that have been provided on this board - a pleasure doing so;

2) On this topic, evidence to the contrary of the referee's decision must be forwarded beyond our sphere of reference, i.e. CSA, CONCACAF, local media outlets, to foreign reporters/commentators to review, by digital stills or youtube clips, whatever works, to heap upon CONCACAF and it's Gold Cup the continued derision it deserves and farce that it is. Certainly Mr Blatter could withstand yet more negative press regarding his old chum Mr Warner;

3) Dobsy's commentary at times during (and after) the match really pissed me off. After watching the match twice, I couldn't help but notice the following, e.g. (and to paraphrase...) "it's halftime and the US is halfway home to reaching the Gold Cup final", "with that second yellow card, Frankie Hejduk will miss the Gold Cup final", and the less-than-subtle fashion he cut off Forrest's post-match analysis of the disallowed goal to sign off with "but that's the way it ended.... Our next broadcast will be Saturday when Toronto FC will face the NE Revolution...." I WANT INTERCOURSIN' PARTISANSHIP! Eff his blog. (P.S. if I wanted anyone other than Donovan were to miss the final, it's Hejduk.);

4) I hate the US MNT. There's no in-between on this. Otherwise, you're a wanker. I support two teams: Canada and whoever the US is playing. I don't care if it's chess or women's curling, that's just... the... way... it... is;

5) a football fan's prayer: the Gold Cup final will end in dispute. Oh, and a referee who is REALLY pissed off. That would have me on my knees;

I am a fckin' vindictive bastard. What goes around comes around, and three times as hard.

Take care and goodnight.

lefoot

06-23-2007, 01:47 AM

Ironically Dobson seems to spend every fourth second rambling on about the MLS as some sort of footballing saviour, while the writers for the league website absolutely diss our national side. Why can we not have informed and yet somewhat biased announcers? Why do I hear Dobson stating time and time again which MLS club some US player is on? Honestly the whole marketing side should be left a little outside of the play by play. It comes off trite. And then Americans write and talk about the game in this tone? They give us absoutely no respect? What about their brutal tactics? Like they are not beatable? They want no part of a rivalry that they may just lose in more often than not. Why can we not have announcers that are more critical or the American opposition? I need to rewatch this match, but I am over sportsnet big time. Big time...

Dave

06-23-2007, 01:56 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Thistle

2) On this topic, evidence to the contrary of the referee's decision must be forwarded beyond our sphere of reference, i.e. CSA, CONCACAF, local media outlets, to foreign reporters/commentators to review, by digital stills or youtube clips, whatever works, to heap upon CONCACAF and it's Gold Cup the continued derision it deserves and farce that it is. Certainly Mr Blatter could withstand yet more negative press regarding his old chum Mr Warner;

======================

Fantastic idea. We'd likely find a sympathetic ear with some of the UK or Euro press, especially in light of their current anti-George-Bush sentiment. This could be the right lever to get Blatter to take action against Warner and his corrupt little fiefdom. Does anyone have any UK/Euro press contacts? Wasn't there a UK journalist that used to post here... Rupert something?

matthew

06-23-2007, 02:05 AM

quote:Originally posted by dbailey62
I think we need a still of one frame previous so we can see the ball right on Bernier's foot showing us the exact position of all players right at that moment.

I agree that Atiba and DeRo appear to be on-side in that photo but going back one more frame would be totally conclusive.

B

DB> a frame (or two) back. It's not a very clear image, but the ball is still on DeGuzman's foot. The big thing for me is that almost no one appears to have moved at all from the good frame and this one. Bornstein (top US D in front of Hutch) has moved his foot back less than a foot. That seems to be it.

http://suprfile.com/src/1/80ax4en/usa_can2.jpg

cheers,
matthew

Jeffery S.

06-23-2007, 06:38 AM

quote:Originally posted by Thistle

If you will indulge me my two cents' worth (CDN that is; our loonie will overtake their buck by year's end.... OH, the irony):

1) Emails have been sent to all those bedwetting-types that have been provided on this board - a pleasure doing so;

2) On this topic, evidence to the contrary of the referee's decision must be forwarded beyond our sphere of reference, i.e. CSA, CONCACAF, local media outlets, to foreign reporters/commentators to review, by digital stills or youtube clips, whatever works, to heap upon CONCACAF and it's Gold Cup the continued derision it deserves and farce that it is. Certainly Mr Blatter could withstand yet more negative press regarding his old chum Mr Warner;

3) Dobsy's commentary at times during (and after) the match really pissed me off. After watching the match twice, I couldn't help but notice the following, e.g. (and to paraphrase...) "it's halftime and the US is halfway home to reaching the Gold Cup final", "with that second yellow card, Frankie Hejduk will miss the Gold Cup final", and the less-than-subtle fashion he cut off Forrest's post-match analysis of the disallowed goal to sign off with "but that's the way it ended.... Our next broadcast will be Saturday when Toronto FC will face the NE Revolution...." I WANT INTERCOURSIN' PARTISANSHIP! Eff his blog. (P.S. if I wanted anyone other than Donovan were to miss the final, it's Hejduk.);

4) I hate the US MNT. There's no in-between on this. Otherwise, you're a wanker. I support two teams: Canada and whoever the US is playing. I don't care if it's chess or women's curling, that's just... the... way... it... is;

5) a football fan's prayer: the Gold Cup final will end in dispute. Oh, and a referee who is REALLY pissed off. That would have me on my knees;

I am a fckin' vindictive bastard. What goes around comes around, and three times as hard.

Take care and goodnight.

I am with you Thistle, my sentiments too. Also would like to be with you for a drink in Deep Cove, fond memories there...

sstackho

06-23-2007, 06:50 AM

I keep waiting to see a new "Inside the Gold Cup" episode by CONCACAF on YouTube, but there's been nothing since June 20. Hmmm. And those guys have been openly critical of the refereeing so far, which is a bit of a surprise since it's a CONCACAF production, apparently...

Jeffery S.

06-23-2007, 08:43 AM

quote:Originally posted by sstackho

I keep waiting to see a new "Inside the Gold Cup" episode by CONCACAF on YouTube, but there's been nothing since June 20. Hmmm. And those guys have been openly critical of the refereeing so far, which is a bit of a surprise since it's a CONCACAF production, apparently...

I have been waiting too, as in general it is quite good and quite fair. Only I don't like them ranting on and on about Carlos Ruiz, who they call a coward (Harkes), and a diver (true), then coming up with absurd solutions to diving that are entirely unthought through, plain stupid stuff.

They call him a coward when they have as big a coward in Donovan who they won't touch. So in the end the real coward is Harkes, who can shoot off his mouth about some Spic -easy shots taken- but won't say a word about one of his own, who is disgraceful from head to toe. Already trash talking the Mexicans, first out of the block to do so. And not a better player than Ruiz either, or not much anyways.

It is supposed to be a Concacaf production, they are hard in football terms on the US team, but weak when it comes to recognizing they have been dirty, unnecessarily aggressive, and have an unfair advantage playing at home always. I have e-mailed them accordingly.

secondtimelucky_tfc

06-23-2007, 01:02 PM

2 days after the crime Secondtimelucky still losing sleep. I dont know why the sentiments of the Clean Sheet article on mlsnet.com is bugging me so much, after all its an American article. For the Americans to comment on anything other then how they BARELY made the final is BS. They make it seem like we got outclassed out Chicago. Canada was out played for the first 10 mins out each half, that was that. This was the most entertaini9ng game ive seen on the pitch in a long time. Am I the only one who see's it this way.

speedmonk42

06-23-2007, 01:28 PM

dbailey62

06-23-2007, 03:36 PM

quote:Originally posted by matthew

quote:Originally posted by dbailey62
I think we need a still of one frame previous so we can see the ball right on Bernier's foot showing us the exact position of all players right at that moment.

I agree that Atiba and DeRo appear to be on-side in that photo but going back one more frame would be totally conclusive.

B

DB> a frame (or two) back. It's not a very clear image, but the ball is still on DeGuzman's foot. The big thing for me is that almost no one appears to have moved at all from the good frame and this one. Bornstein (top US D in front of Hutch) has moved his foot back less than a foot. That seems to be it.

http://suprfile.com/src/1/80ax4en/usa_can2.jpg

cheers,
matthew

Ya, you're right Matthew. Nobody seems to have moved. I think that is as good as it can possibly get.

Cheers,

db

Gian-Luca

06-23-2007, 05:21 PM

quote:Originally posted by dbailey62

Ya, you're right Matthew. Nobody seems to have moved. I think that is as good as it can possibly get.

Cheers,

db

Even the other frame was conclusive enough, given that it was just a half-second earlier. And it has to be conclusively offside - the linesmen are directed by FIFA to favour the attacking team when there is any doubt.

And none of it matters because Onyewu played the ball back anyway. Just ask Stephen Gerrard about that when England played France in 2004.....

sstackho

06-23-2007, 05:22 PM

The new "Inside The Gold Cup" is up. They are not nearly as harsh on the officiating as they have been previously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCEevAWHNU4

Jeffery S.

06-23-2007, 05:26 PM

Why are you putting up these stupid frames guys? They prove absolutely nothing, and show ignorance of both the rule and how it was applied in this specific case.

Noone is offside automatically for being in an offside position anymore. You are offside the moment you take advantage of the offside position. If you are offside on the right wing and the ball is played to the centre and is headed out, no flag goes up and the play continues. So trying to decide who was offside on the first pass into the middle, when it is not played to either of our guys most forward and neither even moves towards it, is simply interpreting the rule incorrectly. The only person who jumped for it, Hume, was way onside. So end of that story.

Then we hear that the flag went up when the ball was played to Hutch, and that was by Gooch who seems like he is seriously drugged on the play. And the flag goes up, only then. The assistant ref says it was played by a Canadian player. The ref is in perfect position to see 1) the flag does not go up on the first pass in, and 2) the flag goes up for a US back pass (not a deflection as he jumps to it and hits it over to where he thinks he has fellow defenders), meaning when the flag goes up he should ignore it. It is a basic interpretation of the rule that the linesman errs on, and Archundia refuses to correct. They both err terribly, and Archundia in cowardly fashion for reasons we have already hashed through.

Could we please stop putting these useless pics on the board, as in the end you are just confusing those who don't know the offside rule and allowing for people to come on here and doubt about what happened.

Jeffery S.

06-23-2007, 06:16 PM

quote:Originally posted by MegasAlexandros

I'm not impressed...:

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20070622&content_id=100700&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp

I finally got around to writing Mr. Palace about his smug piece for Yankee only eyes:

Hello Tino Palace

I appreciate your column on MLSnet, and your last had a few observations I felt were right on concerning the Gold Cup semi final. In other cases, however, your soccer patriotism gets the better of you -and you forget that MLS is no longer only an American league.

The US was better than Canada in the semi final for the first ten minutes, the last 5 of the first half, and the second half until Hume came on. Meaning less than half the game. This is hardly the basis to be talking about them as being far superior to Canada. Especially playing at home, an unfair advantage the US always gets at Gold Cup, and seriously distorts their FIFA ranking (all game results are as if on neutral ground, and no other team is considered to be playing away, when as in this case, Canada most certainly was).

If anything, Canada consistently under achieves, as Canada's players are man to man close to the US level and in many cases superior, considering that this team was missing four to six A team starters (neither Onstad, Hainault, Hastings or Nash, along with Gerba, are even close to being first choice).

Canada did not only deserve to be up a man after the Bocanegra challenge, but deserved one and even two penalties in the first half, before the US goals. Keller creamed Gerba, missed the ball, the ref called an nonexistent corner. Hainault was wickedly fouled shortly afterwards in the box, the US tv refused to repeat the play. I was watching Chinese tv and listening to Costa Rican radio feed and that was their opinion too.

The US played violently at times, was carded for diving, in one of many such despicable actions on the part of Donovan (a petulant, dishonest player who does not deserve such fawning). The US played dishonestly overall.

Calling Hume out for being aggressive is the height of cynicism: a 5 foot 6 striker pushed Onyewu off the ball? Welcome to pro ball as played in a tough league like the English Championship.

Canada was robbed in the end by the refs on that last call. You are right. A man up and with the momentum, the US would surely have fallen and would be out right now. Wouldn't that have made for a different column?

Wouldn't having a Canadian team in MLS with Canadian readers on mlsnet mean that your arrogantly jingoistic column should be either a)be made redundant, or b) seriously revamped?

All the best

-----------

BearcatSA

06-23-2007, 06:44 PM

Massive props to you, Jeffrey!

Krammerhead

06-23-2007, 07:31 PM

Jeffrey S. said:

quote:I said the same thing when we heard a few Whitecaps fans on this board throw out three decades of bitter rivalry just because they'd had a drink with a Sounders' fan, same sort of BS.

It's neither here nor there and off topic but to be more accurate thats not what happened. I posted a "way to go" comment on a USL-1 final thread when Seattle defeated the Montreal Impact in the final and you flipped your lid. I was doing something now that you yourself just said a fan is upposed to do-you have to cheer against your nemesis. At that time Montreal was the team to beat in the league and always coming into Vancouver and beating us, and being pretty arrogant as well. So I posted a congrats on the thread because I was really happy that those bastards lost the final. Kind of like lots of us are happy every time a team beats the USA. It was no different and you took it the wrong way.

Jeffery S.

06-23-2007, 07:42 PM

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

Jeffrey S. said:

quote:I said the same thing when we heard a few Whitecaps fans on this board throw out three decades of bitter rivalry just because they'd had a drink with a Sounders' fan, same sort of BS.

It's neither here nor there and off topic but to be more accurate thats not what happened. I posted a "way to go" comment on a USL-1 final thread when Seattle defeated the Montreal Impact in the final and you flipped your lid. I was doing something now that you yourself just said a fan is upposed to do-you have to cheer against your nemesis. At that time Montreal was the team to beat in the league and always coming into Vancouver and beating us, and being pretty arrogant as well. So I posted a congrats on the thread because I was really happy that those bastards lost the final. Kind of like lots of us are happy every time a team beats the USA. It was no different and you took it the wrong way.

The Sounders are now and have always been the Whitecaps number one rival. Because a bunch of you had drinks with them or had a laugh with them does not mean you have the right to sweep away general sentiment and tradition in such cavalier fashion.

You know perfectly well that most Vancouverites are completely uninterested in Montreal as a real emotional rival, it has never been the team Vancouverites have really wanted to beat, not in soccer now, not in hockey ever.

With the USA it is different, as the sentiment is mixed, there is no consensus. And probably there never has been, we all have different teams we hate to the hilt in Concacaf. Usually it is the States or Mexico or a Central American rival, not many feel animosity towards Jamaica for example. With the Whitecaps it is and has always been different, the Sounders are our rival. Seattle is the key rival (same I think for most when the Grizzlies were there). This beat the Impact stuff is just for people who have decided to wipe away history for pure convenience.

Krammerhead

06-23-2007, 07:59 PM

quote:
The Sounders are now and have always been the Whitecaps number one rival. Because a bunch of you had drinks with them or had a laugh with them does not mean you have the right to sweep away general sentiment and tradition in such cavalier fashion.

Nobody is saying that they still aren't a bitter rival. They weren't playing the Whitecaps-they were playing Montreal. But if you lived here and were going to games the last 5 years or so you'd see that Portland has probably taken over as Vancouvers number one rival due to their fans arrogance and aggro mentality.

Nobody swept anything general sentiments under the rug because we had a few drinks with some Seattle supporters one game. You seem really upset that instead of fighting or spitting at the opposition supporters we instead had a pre-game chat and a beer. Sorry about that.

quote:You know perfectly well that most Vancouverites are completely uninterested in Montreal as a real emotional rival, it has never been the team Vancouverites have really wanted to beat, not in soccer now, not in hockey ever.

That is true. But this one game didn't involve Vancouver. It involved Seattle and Montreal and one of those teams had on a regular basis schooled the Whitecaps and other teams in the league for a few seasons. It wasn't Seattle. Of course you actually have to be living in Vancouver to know the sentiment.

quote:This beat the Impact stuff is just for people who have decided to wipe away history for pure convenience.

Convenience of what?

Anyway, this discussion doesn't belong here.

Grizzly

06-23-2007, 08:03 PM

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

Jeffrey S. said:

quote:I said the same thing when we heard a few Whitecaps fans on this board throw out three decades of bitter rivalry just because they'd had a drink with a Sounders' fan, same sort of BS.

It's neither here nor there and off topic but to be more accurate thats not what happened. I posted a "way to go" comment on a USL-1 final thread when Seattle defeated the Montreal Impact in the final and you flipped your lid. I was doing something now that you yourself just said a fan is upposed to do-you have to cheer against your nemesis. At that time Montreal was the team to beat in the league and always coming into Vancouver and beating us, and being pretty arrogant as well. So I posted a congrats on the thread because I was really happy that those bastards lost the final. Kind of like lots of us are happy every time a team beats the USA. It was no different and you took it the wrong way.

The Sounders are now and have always been the Whitecaps number one rival. Because a bunch of you had drinks with them or had a laugh with them does not mean you have the right to sweep away general sentiment and tradition in such cavalier fashion.

You know perfectly well that most Vancouverites are completely uninterested in Montreal as a real emotional rival, it has never been the team Vancouverites have really wanted to beat, not in soccer now, not in hockey ever.

With the USA it is different, as the sentiment is mixed, there is no consensus. And probably there never has been, we all have different teams we hate to the hilt in Concacaf. Usually it is the States or Mexico or a Central American rival, not many feel animosity towards Jamaica for example. With the Whitecaps it is and has always been different, the Sounders are our rival. Seattle is the key rival (same I think for most when the Grizzlies were there). This beat the Impact stuff is just for people who have decided to wipe away history for pure convenience.

I agree with KH that the discussion doesn't belong here but what are you Jeffrey, some sort of soccer fascist who tells people which teams they are supposed to like and dislike? I happen to like some teams who are bitter enemies and know many others who do as well in both Europe and North America. Fans are allowed to choose which teams they like and dislike regardless of various club allegiances. It is called free choice.

Krammerhead

06-23-2007, 08:14 PM

Perhaps a moderator should take these last few posts and move them to the USL section and title it "what is a true soccer fan" or some such thing.

nolando

06-23-2007, 08:19 PM

Keep the peace brothers!

john tv

06-23-2007, 08:31 PM

quote:Originally posted by secondtimelucky_tfc

2 days after the crime Secondtimelucky still losing sleep. I dont know why the sentiments of the Clean Sheet article on mlsnet.com is bugging me so much, after all its an American article. For the Americans to comment on anything other then how they BARELY made the final is BS. They make it seem like we got outclassed out Chicago. Canada was out played for the first 10 mins out each half, that was that. This was the most entertaini9ng game ive seen on the pitch in a long time. Am I the only one who see's it this way.

I thought the Yankees played a very good smart and very dangerous game. I was truly surprised by their high skill level and drive. I really expected us to loose based upon that observation. Only in the second half things changed when they were a man short.
I was even more surprised when Ian scored that goal which he has done in the past with these kind of spectacular goals. Yes the question could be asked why wait so long to put him on,he is such a fighter.I believe in the long run with a man advantage we would have won that game if that goal would have been allowed.

Jeffery S.

06-23-2007, 08:58 PM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

Jeffrey S. said:

quote:I said the same thing when we heard a few Whitecaps fans on this board throw out three decades of bitter rivalry just because they'd had a drink with a Sounders' fan, same sort of BS.

It's neither here nor there and off topic but to be more accurate thats not what happened. I posted a "way to go" comment on a USL-1 final thread when Seattle defeated the Montreal Impact in the final and you flipped your lid. I was doing something now that you yourself just said a fan is upposed to do-you have to cheer against your nemesis. At that time Montreal was the team to beat in the league and always coming into Vancouver and beating us, and being pretty arrogant as well. So I posted a congrats on the thread because I was really happy that those bastards lost the final. Kind of like lots of us are happy every time a team beats the USA. It was no different and you took it the wrong way.

The Sounders are now and have always been the Whitecaps number one rival. Because a bunch of you had drinks with them or had a laugh with them does not mean you have the right to sweep away general sentiment and tradition in such cavalier fashion.

You know perfectly well that most Vancouverites are completely uninterested in Montreal as a real emotional rival, it has never been the team Vancouverites have really wanted to beat, not in soccer now, not in hockey ever.

With the USA it is different, as the sentiment is mixed, there is no consensus. And probably there never has been, we all have different teams we hate to the hilt in Concacaf. Usually it is the States or Mexico or a Central American rival, not many feel animosity towards Jamaica for example. With the Whitecaps it is and has always been different, the Sounders are our rival. Seattle is the key rival (same I think for most when the Grizzlies were there). This beat the Impact stuff is just for people who have decided to wipe away history for pure convenience.

I agree with KH that the discussion doesn't belong here but what are you Jeffrey, some sort of soccer fascist who tells people which teams they are supposed to like and dislike? I happen to like some teams who are bitter enemies and know many others who do as well in both Europe and North America. Fans are allowed to choose which teams they like and dislike regardless of various club allegiances. It is called free choice.

It is not free choice Grizzly, you are wrong. It is about not being a frivolous wanker and rewriting history and then coming along and saying Liverpool fans love Man U and that Spurs and Gunners are blood brothers in football. Oporto-Benfica, River-Boca, Barça-Real Madrid. There are hundreds of soccer rivalries that exist, have always or for a long time, and cannot be rewritten by a bunch of guys with no sense of the past or the present just because they had a drink with a rival fan.

That is not fascism. If that is fascism then all us Voyageurs being irate and shouting and waking up our babies and upsetting our wives and not being able to sleep after last Thursday is fascism.

Obviously politics is not your forte, Grizzly. Being a fan in soccer is fanaticism, but it is leisure-time fanaticism, and arm-chair mostly, and pure metaphor. But that does not mean it isn't real. It is real, but you will find that Spurs and Gunners fans work well together, like the same music, even get married on weird occasions.

As for me, I have probably spent more time in Seattle than anyone here, have family there, used to go socially, played youth soccer there, went to concerts when I got older. And also to Sounders games vs. Caps, where we were bitter rivals.

Sure, the scale and importance of A-League soccer is a bit different, which means it has all gotten thinned out, the play is so lame and tame that most don't really care anymore, the passion has been mostly kicked out of the rivalries that have always existed, since the 70s, three decades at least. If you don't understand anything about Vancouver or our sports rivalries, well that is understandable, you wouldn't, would you? I do, if you took a poll amongst fans at a Caps game I am sure well over 50% would name Sounders as our main rival and the team we most like to beat, and least like to lose to.

While with our national team I think the sentiment is much more mixed, there is no consensus as to who is our main Concacaf rival. We are really too crappy to really have one, if we would do a bit better and be in the Hex and close to the WC every four years, things would change, we'd find a main rival. As is Canada's main rival is itself most likely, as long as we are below our real potential. But Whitecaps main rival, say what any fool will, is Sounders, no doubt about that at all.

trueviking

06-23-2007, 09:02 PM

it drives me crazy when i hear these 'pundits' claiming that the US played better and deserved to win anyways ....sports isnt about who plays better its about who scores more...how often does a team outplay another and lose in every sport.

the fact is candada had all the momentum...the US had subbed out most of their offence and they were down to 10 men...all the advantage was to canada if that goal is allowed....the first 60 minutes have nothing to do with who should win the game because both teams had the same number of goals and thats all that matters.

Krammerhead

06-23-2007, 10:09 PM

Well Jeffrey, I suppose I am a frivolous wanker. I will not get into name calling arguments as I've learned that it's pointless.

However I will add that you know nothing about the soccer climate here, having lost all of your sense of Vancouver soccer fan reality living in Spain. You don't even know the name of the league (hasn't been the A-league for years) and yet you seem to think you know what the average soccer fan at Swangard would say is their biggest rival. They well may say Seattle because most of them probably couldn't name any other teams in the league-thats the status of your average "fan" in Vancouver these days.

It seems to piss you off that we had a drink with the sounders supporters one game since you bring that up constantly. Big deal. This is USL soccer, we are lucky to have any opponents to play. Teams drop like flies, Seattles going down the crapper, so yeah we are happy they are still around at the moment and have a few fans that still make the trip up here. Coincidentally the pre-game get together was because the Sounders fans were presenting us with the Cascadia Cup, something that supporters of the teams out here took the time to organize and fund. Something to help promote games and the teams in a league that needs it. But I suppose we aren't/weren't real fans of our sides n=because we didn't thump each other.

FATBOY27246

06-23-2007, 10:14 PM

Just to let ya'll know, the refs for the entire Gold cup sucked. Go watch some of the other games, the ones that put a spanish speaking country againset an english speaking one are really bad. But just letting ya'll know Canada is not the only one who got cheated out of a goal scoring chance or a goal. Go watch the other games.

The Beaver

06-23-2007, 10:59 PM

With Jeffrey's letter still signing in my brain, I wrote the following to MLS.net and Tino Palace:

June 23, 2007

To MLS.net and TCS and Tino Palace:

I am absolutely baffled by Tino’s report on the Canada v. US match at the Gold Cup—for a number of reasons, actually—the biggest being that it makes no sense whatsoever to have such an article on the league’s webpage, a league that is made up of American AND Canadian teams, as well as American AND Canadian players, among others. At minimum, you need to offer a Canadian’s POV on the game, a Canadian’s educated opinion, don’t you think? Not to say that Tino doesn’t get some things right—clearly he does. Hejduk’s goal was well taken, the US HAVE traditionally been the superior side, though the gap has been closing steadily these past few years, and the Hutchinson goal indeed was onside. What Tino gets wrong—and this is far too typical of the US media to even be funny—is that he’s not done his research, has not watched closely both teams as they advance through this tournament. I chastised one of Tino’s colleagues earlier in the week for doing this, and I’ll do so again here. You need to know WHY the US looked poor last night, and you can’t simply say “We’re the superior team and failed to look impressive because we couldn’t kill the game.” Good on you for suggesting the US team should take responsibility for the poor performance, but I think you’ve got it mostly wrong. The US wasn’t great, no, but they weren’t playing any old Canadian team, either. Hume and Hutchinson were on the U20 squad that beat the US U20s in qualifications 3 – 2 several years back. DeGuzman plays in arguably the best league in the world. DeRo is about as good as most any other midfielder in MLS, and the rest of the cast has good credential and, MORE importantly, played great football ALL tournament. (The loss against Guadaloupe was a massive turning point for the team). All this to say that the US looked mediocre because 1) They are not as good as everyone in the US thinks they are 2) They are rebuilding (as Tino pointed out) and 3) Canada played a great tournament and a good game against the US. Iain Hume might look like a wrecking ball to the Queen*, but he looked a proper footballer to everyone else—including the Spanish and Chinese commentators (*clearly not the frickin Queen of England because first, she’d cheer for Canada (her loyal subjects) and second, because she knows good, tough football better than Tino clearly does and would have seen immediately that Hume brought to the game for Canada exactly what Bocanegra brought for the USA. Except Boca’s challenge on DeGuzman deserved a red, not a limp yellow.)

Anyhow, you’d think the marketing savvy MLS would do away with such partisan, biased articles now that they’ve decided to admit a Canadian team into the fold. Like I said, if you want to run Tino’s myopic pieces on the MLS site, then run them right alongside some myopic piece from a Canadian POV. Check out Ben Knight’s very good article on Sportsnet.ca. If anything, now that the league is plugged with international players, don’t you think it is time that the marketing and the website reflected that reality.

Thistle

06-23-2007, 11:29 PM

With regard to my recent post on this subject, and in particular the loathesome quality of officiating, this may be a step to getting the word out to key journalists outside North America.

Dave Roberts, a referee, writes a column on espnsoccernet.com about the trials and tribulations of being same. he has posted one written on the 18th

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=439539&cc=5901

that leads with "Getting it wrong and losing it". The time is ripe to email soccernet's newsdesk (the more the merrier) and ask Dave's opinion on the Can-US match. This website is viewed and read worldwide. Perhaps the "officials union" might shut us down on this one but Dave does not mind being controversial and would most certainly be already somewhat aware of the Gold Cup, e.g. he now lives in the US; wants to referee matches in the MLS... but cannot.

Quote (and ya gotta love the timing on this one)

Right now I desire more than anything to get back to refereeing in the professional game, but alas red tape and bureaucracy in my new found home of the United States bars all but US Citizens and Permanent Residents to officiate in the 'Pro Game'. No exceptions, no matter how talented, even a fully fledged FIFA badge wearer has to get a Green Card to referee. I am a resident alien, can legally work, pay taxes and buy property, but I cannot whistle in the MLS. There you go, it is all 'ego'.

And it is that ego that drives top flight referees to do whatever is asked of them to get 'The Final'.

If FIFA, UEFA, CONCACAF, etc tell their officials to caution every blade of grass that moves, they will. So why not try a novel approach, let us remind the officials of what is expected from them in major tournaments, but let us also encourage the referee to utilise the very natural talents that first brought him to the notice of the governing bodies.

Start sending those letters and vid clips now, gents.

Soju

06-24-2007, 01:10 AM

We know that Fatboy. There were terrible calls in other games and Costa Rica were also saying it was fixed to set up a Mex vs US final. We're definitely not saying the officiating was good for any other games, but because this is a CANADIAN supporters forum we are focusing on our team. Makes sense.

sstackho

06-24-2007, 09:28 AM

Let's see what good ol' Starnes has to say...

The Beautiful Game
Sports
Canada beaten, but not broken; A poor decision by the referee cost Canada a place in the Gold Cup final, but the players can still hold their heads high after the strong showing.
Richard Starnes
The Ottawa Citizen
887 words
23 June 2007
Ottawa Citizen
Final
C8
English
Copyright © 2007 Ottawa Citizen

Canadian soccer fans should be purple with rage over the way in which this country was bundled out of the Gold Cup on Thursday evening.

For those who did not see it, Atiba Hutchinson scored a legitimate equalizer in the final seconds of the game and was called offside.

Video footage suggests Hutchinson was arguably onside when the pass was made. Then the ball hit an American player on the head and was deflected backwards to Hutchinson. Under the Laws of the Game, that touch puts the attacking player onside.

I know, however you argue it, the referee made what he thought was the right decision and we all know no amount of protest from Canadian captain Paul Stalteri and his teammates was going to change anything.

But the referee, who made the call after one of his linesmen raised his flag, was Mexican and it leaves us wondering aloud if organizers of the Gold Cup were a little too anxious for a U.S.-Mexico final.

And here's another ironic situation. It's reported that Canadian team manager Morgan Quarry got angry enough with officials that the person running the Chicago venue of the tournament for FIFA had to step between them. You will never guess who that was.

It was Kevan Pipe, the man the Canadian Soccer Association fired as its chief operating officer in November.

Still, let's not dwell on the negative, let's congratulate the young Canadians for producing the best soccer this country's men's team has played in years -- ever, even. It's increasingly obvious we can now play with anyone in CONCACAF and with most other countries, which bodes well for our chances of making the World Cup finals in South Africa.

I'd like to think this improvement is partly because our young players are developing far better now that they have found themselves good gigs with clubs across Europe. That includes players like Hutchinson and Iain Hume, who scored a cracking goal against the Americans.

These two first showed their potential back in 2003 when they ended up as tournament all-stars in the Under-20 World Cup. That's a major accomplishment when you consider this tournament has introduced so many of the world's best players to global audiences.

I can reel of a mass of names. How about Dunga, Romario, Luis Figo, Thierry Henry, Riquelme, Michael Owen, Ronaldhino, Arjen Robben, Adriano, Michael Essien and John Obi Mikel.

Then, of course, there was Argentine's most super superstar Diego Maradona and Lionel Messi, the player many believe will be the new Diego.

Messi splashed himself across the headlines with a massive performance at the last Under-20s in Holland in 2005 and he is young enough to be in Canada in the next month.

Argentina will be playing its first-round matches here in Ottawa and when the team delegation dropped in to look over the facilities about three weeks ago, they smiled ruefully and shook heads when I asked if Messi would be coming.

The Barcelona whiz is a no show because he will be starring for the senior Argentine side in the Copa America.

But, were he here, he would be the first to tell us how the Under-20 World Cup sent him bounding to stardom.

"I will never forget it (Holland 2007)," he tells the fifa.com website. "Nobody knew me before this tournament and after it was over people were recognizing me in the streets. I think it is one of the most important things that has ever happened to me and it's essential in the formation of any top player."

So, while we Ottawa fans will miss on Messi the mesmerizer, we should be looking forward to watching others who are reaching for the top.

Keep your eyes alert and ears pricked for some of these guys:

Maxi Moralez, the tiny Argentina striker who measures just a fraction over 5-3; Alexandro Pato, already a full Brazilian international striker; Canada's own fleet-foot attacker Jaime Peters and our imposing captain David Edgar; American Freddy Adu, a full international who turned pro at 14 and has attracted attention from the likes of Manchester United. And many, many more.

Almost certainly, there will be others we have never heard about until this first three weeks of July. It's all part of the fun looking out for stars of the future and then remembering them down the years.

The Citizen will be producing exciting, informative World Cup material in the weeks ahead, both in the paper and on our website. It's a great way to keep up with the largest single-sport show ever put on in this country.

Richard Starnes' The Beautiful Game column appears Saturdays. Send comments and suggestions to rstarnes@thecitizen.canwest.com or sports@thecitizen.canwest.com.

Colour Photo: Jonathan Daniel, Getty Images/AFP / Canada's Atiba Hutchinson (13) and Iain Hume (17) argue with referee Benito Archundia on Thursday after an apparent goal by Hutchinson was disallowed.

06-24-2007, 09:43 AM

quote:Originally posted by lefoot

Ironically Dobson seems to spend every fourth second rambling on about the MLS as some sort of footballing saviour, while the writers for the league website absolutely diss our national side. Why can we not have informed and yet somewhat biased announcers? Why do I hear Dobson stating time and time again which MLS club some US player is on? Honestly the whole marketing side should be left a little outside of the play by play. It comes off trite. And then Americans write and talk about the game in this tone? They give us absoutely no respect? What about their brutal tactics? Like they are not beatable? They want no part of a rivalry that they may just lose in more often than not. Why can we not have announcers that are more critical or the American opposition? I need to rewatch this match, but I am over sportsnet big time. Big time...

What Dobson failed to noticed or cared to is that most of the Canadians players even within the starting eleven had at one point or another played for an A league club.
from front to back line including the goalkeeper and on the sub bench this team is loaded with ex A league players.
Onstad,Stalteri,Dero,Nash,Bernier,Hutch,Gerba,Posn iak and a few more on the sub bench.

ken

06-24-2007, 10:30 AM

quote:Originally posted by trueviking

it drives me crazy when i hear these 'pundits' claiming that the US played better and deserved to win anyways ....sports isnt about who plays better its about who scores more...how often does a team outplay another and lose in every sport.

the fact is candada had all the momentum...the US had subbed out most of their offence and they were down to 10 men...all the advantage was to canada if that goal is allowed....the first 60 minutes have nothing to do with who should win the game because both teams had the same number of goals and thats all that matters.

This is something that has bothered me too, at what point did this become a judged sport like figure skating? It doesn't matter if the US had 98% of the play and the only offence Canada had were Hume's and Hutchinson's goals, you don't get to have a goal called back just because you've had the majority of the play. To say like Bobby McMahon that over all the result is a fair reflection of the play is wrong in that the wrong call on the goal makes the result wrong by definition.

Ruud

06-24-2007, 11:26 AM

Whew - I was watching Can-USA in my mind until I finally could access internet in Dakar to see the score - now I've just watched the game and here are my only additional comments:

Red Card for Bocanegra - ok, it's been said that he deserved red; not only do I agree (as did the Commentators on Youtube), but my one complaint is that the Canadian team should have made a bigger deal of this and pushed some people around and yelled a bit more. De Guzman was affected for the game, no doubt and really Boca shoulda been gone - Hume woulda done this if he was on the field.

Hume's goal: Brilliant. Even though I knew it was going to go in, I was still almost in tears to see that goal and the celebration afterwards.

Nothing else needs to be said about the goal that wasn't meant to be.

Gloucester in FLA

06-24-2007, 11:29 AM

quote:Originally posted by sstackho

quote:Originally posted by maccaliam

"sstackho here: I don't like Hart making comments that cloud the issue. You can be offside from a deflection. The point is that Hutch wasn't offside when the pass was made by the Canadian."

I don't think Hart said anyhting that was incorrect. He said, "If one of their players played the ball back, it's a back pass and it cannot be offsides."

That is an accurate statement. It's like when Gerrard played the ball backwards and Henry scored in Euro 2004.

You are saying it was a deflection, Hart seems to feel it was played backwards... big difference.
As far as I know it, if it deflects off a player and sends a man in who was offside, I think he still is offside.
If the ball is played by a player (even if it wasn't where he wanted it to be played to) and it sends a man in who was offside, he is then ruled onside and play continues.

I agree with you on your analysis of the rules.

I disagree with Hart in thinking it was an intentional back-pass by the American.

I notice that the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062102429.html?sub=AR) article quotes Hart as saying "You cannot be offside if it is played by the opponent" - which is unclear and unfortunate.

Folks, once and for all, let's be clear about the reason why the goal should have stood:

regardless of whether it was a backpass, or a simple deflection, the fact that Hutch was clearly onside when the initial pass was made is the only criterion that should be applied when deciding the legality of the play.

Had Hutch been beyond the last defender when the pass was made, I don't care if Jesus Christ himself (wearing a US jersey, of course) deflected/passed back the ball....by the time that would have happened, the play would have already been offside, and the subsequent contact a moot point.

Let's all agree that Hutch was indeed onside when the pass was made, and let's not make the US defender's contact the issue.

Jeffery S.

06-24-2007, 11:33 AM

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

Well Jeffrey, I suppose I am a frivolous wanker. I will not get into name calling arguments as I've learned that it's pointless.

However I will add that you know nothing about the soccer climate here, having lost all of your sense of Vancouver soccer fan reality living in Spain. You don't even know the name of the league (hasn't been the A-league for years) and yet you seem to think you know what the average soccer fan at Swangard would say is their biggest rival. They well may say Seattle because most of them probably couldn't name any other teams in the league-thats the status of your average "fan" in Vancouver these days.

It seems to piss you off that we had a drink with the sounders supporters one game since you bring that up constantly. Big deal. This is USL soccer, we are lucky to have any opponents to play. Teams drop like flies, Seattles going down the crapper, so yeah we are happy they are still around at the moment and have a few fans that still make the trip up here. Coincidentally the pre-game get together was because the Sounders fans were presenting us with the Cascadia Cup, something that supporters of the teams out here took the time to organize and fund. Something to help promote games and the teams in a league that needs it. But I suppose we aren't/weren't real fans of our sides n=because we didn't thump each other.

A-League sounds funnier than USL Div 1 and is easier to type.

Interesting how deeply you despise your fellow fans, Krammerhead. What have we come to, the pseudo-hard-cores rewrite the history and the ignorant ones representing 99% of the fan base at least have the good sense to respect it.

Jeffery S.

06-24-2007, 11:38 AM

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

With Jeffrey's letter still signing in my brain, I wrote the following to MLS.net and Tino Palace

Tino wrote me back, short and sweet:

"to answer your last question, i'd say (a). Kidding aside, great letter.

thanks for checking in,
TP"

My last question was:

Wouldn't having a Canadian team in MLS with Canadian
readers on mlsnet mean that your arrogantly jingoistic
column should be either a)be made redundant, or b)
seriously revamped?

Jeffery S.

06-24-2007, 11:45 AM

quote:Originally posted by Gloucester in FLA

quote:Originally posted by sstackho

quote:Originally posted by maccaliam

"sstackho here: I don't like Hart making comments that cloud the issue. You can be offside from a deflection. The point is that Hutch wasn't offside when the pass was made by the Canadian."

I don't think Hart said anyhting that was incorrect. He said, "If one of their players played the ball back, it's a back pass and it cannot be offsides."

That is an accurate statement. It's like when Gerrard played the ball backwards and Henry scored in Euro 2004.

You are saying it was a deflection, Hart seems to feel it was played backwards... big difference.
As far as I know it, if it deflects off a player and sends a man in who was offside, I think he still is offside.
If the ball is played by a player (even if it wasn't where he wanted it to be played to) and it sends a man in who was offside, he is then ruled onside and play continues.

I agree with you on your analysis of the rules.

I disagree with Hart in thinking it was an intentional back-pass by the American.

I notice that the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062102429.html?sub=AR) article quotes Hart as saying "You cannot be offside if it is played by the opponent" - which is unclear and unfortunate.

Folks, once and for all, let's be clear about the reason why the goal should have stood:

regardless of whether it was a backpass, or a simple deflection, the fact that Hutch was clearly onside when the initial pass was made is the only criterion that should be applied when deciding the legality of the play.

Had Hutch been beyond the last defender when the pass was made, I don't care if Jesus Christ himself (wearing a US jersey, of course) deflected/passed back the ball....by the time that would have happened, the play would have already been offside, and the subsequent contact a moot point.

Let's all agree that Hutch was indeed onside when the pass was made, and let's not make the US defender's contact the issue.

That is simply not true, it is an incorrect interpretation of the offside rule as recently revamped.

Linesmen do not raise their flag because anyone is in offside position when a pass is made. They raise their flags when a person in offside position is moving towards the ball or receives it or benefits from being offside. A player on the other wing, or injured in the box, or putting on his boot in the corner and not taking part in the play, is not offside.

This makes it harder on linesmen, no question, as it means interpreting more than just the offside line. But at least we could say that he was trying to apply the new rule, because he only raised his flag when Hutchinson moved to the ball played into space by Gooch. And told the Canadian players he did so because he thought a Canadian had played it in. It was Archundia's responsibility to wipe out the linesman's call because he clearly saw that no Canadian made the pass. He is obviously an ass, and has been treated so accordingly by the Spanish press in fact, Huerta in ESPN Spanish was very hard on him, as have been the international agencies (we got a short very damning story here in Sport yesterday, rather comforting).

john tv

06-24-2007, 12:08 PM

I guess we should find out who that linesman was. Obviously he is the major culprit. I really thought that the ref made the call and not the linesman.The ref could have overruled his guy but did not. That I question as well.He should have, could have,but did not.Yes he is the ass afterall.

RanyDany

06-24-2007, 02:10 PM

I remember about 10 years ago a refree called a goal in a Bundesliga game and all the replays showed the ball never crossed the line. The German Federation under the grouns for fair played called off the game and it was replayed two weeks later

quote:Originally posted by Glenn

quote:Originally posted by Derosario23

They cannot overturn the result? or can they make them replay the match

quote:Originally posted by Glenn

The CSA has to protest, and if CONCACAF does nothing, they should take it further. FIFA, a court of some kind... anything. Even if the reult stands, somebody has to pay for this bullsh#t.

I can't think of an example where it's happened because of a blown call. If they do overturn the result, they open the floodgates. That's why I think we're out, and it's over. But Archundia can't referee another international match as long as he lives.

speedmonk42

06-24-2007, 02:12 PM

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

Well Jeffrey, I suppose I am a frivolous wanker. I will not get into name calling arguments as I've learned that it's pointless.

However I will add that you know nothing about the soccer climate here, having lost all of your sense of Vancouver soccer fan reality living in Spain. You don't even know the name of the league (hasn't been the A-league for years) and yet you seem to think you know what the average soccer fan at Swangard would say is their biggest rival. They well may say Seattle because most of them probably couldn't name any other teams in the league-thats the status of your average "fan" in Vancouver these days.

It seems to piss you off that we had a drink with the sounders supporters one game since you bring that up constantly. Big deal. This is USL soccer, we are lucky to have any opponents to play. Teams drop like flies, Seattles going down the crapper, so yeah we are happy they are still around at the moment and have a few fans that still make the trip up here. Coincidentally the pre-game get together was because the Sounders fans were presenting us with the Cascadia Cup, something that supporters of the teams out here took the time to organize and fund. Something to help promote games and the teams in a league that needs it. But I suppose we aren't/weren't real fans of our sides n=because we didn't thump each other.

A-League sounds funnier than USL Div 1 and is easier to type.

Interesting how deeply you despise your fellow fans, Krammerhead. What have we come to, the pseudo-hard-cores rewrite the history and the ignorant ones representing 99% of the fan base at least have the good sense to respect it.

Jeffrey.

Perhaps I missed something in the thread, but I am not sure what you are trying to say.

As a long time season ticket holder for the caps, I don't recall any serious animosity between these sides that could stop us from having a beer together.

These groups have to work together to promote the game, we don't have a century of history or unlimited capital to work with.

Anything these guys can do to put people in the seats is good. Cracking beer bottles over each others head isn't going to do that.

Of course my plan when I do get back to Vancouver is to find Krammerhead and stab him a few times....

Krammerhead

06-24-2007, 02:26 PM

quote:Of course my plan when I do get back to Vancouver is to find Krammerhead and stab him a few times....

Better get in the queue then.

speedmonk42

06-24-2007, 03:02 PM

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

quote:Of course my plan when I do get back to Vancouver is to find Krammerhead and stab him a few times....

Better get in the queue then.

I am having such a ball meeting all sorts of people from this forum for the first time, and some I have not seen in a long time.

It was a real pleasure watching the GC Semi here in TO with many of the usual suspects.

It is something we have to do more often. Even if there is a queue of people lined up with sharp knives.....

JPB

06-24-2007, 03:12 PM

Thistle, thanks for the link to that piece by Dave Roberts.

He touched on something that is vital to officiating big and small games alike:

quote:There are key times in a match when even in these days of black and white interpretation of the laws of the game you have to protect what is in front of you, the match. You have to feel its pulse.

Apart from the technicalities of disallowing a goal based on the new guidelines for the offiside rule, the referee has to "get it right" in terms of the match being played -- the actual contest underway. The players decide the match, not the referee who is really there to facillitate the contest.

That's obvious but often missed when contentious calls are made.

In the case of the USA-Canada semifinal, the goal was scored/disallowed at the very last moment of the match. However, suppose that this incident had occured only 10 minutes earlier. The referee would have lost control and the players, after a flare-up and then getting back to work in the contest, would have taken it out on each other with even rougher play than we actually saw.

The referee, to calm the game in that scenario, would have needed to show much more diligence in at least showing he was trying to get the call right. It is standard operating procedure, if you will, to hold-off the players, step aside with the linesman, and clarify what each had witnessed. This was not done by the Mexican referee.

Obviously, he might say that he wanted to get on with the game and not delay during stoppage time. But that would have been the wrong judgment as per the point about facilitating the match.

Now, due to the lack of immediate consultation with the linesman, that linesman also would have been in a ridiculous situation. He was left out to hang on the line. Like I said, if this had occured several minutes earlier, he'd feel the heat no matter what he signalled with his flag in subsequent play.

It also casts a shadow over the USA's win, obviously, and on the final match that will decide the cup winner. The officials who will call that game are also colored by this call.

And as someone else has pointed out, the previous crazy officiating in the other matches involving Mexico are all of a piece.

This bad call that dissallowed the Canadian goal has many levels to it -- not just the clear concerns about the "fix" or the conflict of interest. Even if we generously discount those concerns, it was very poor officiating to not seek clarification on-the-spot as best as possible between the linesman and the referee -- or even to at least show that was being attempted, in the spirit of 'justice has to be seen to be done.'

It was a terrible way to manage a game and an appalling way to to manage a tournament.

These bad examples of officiating are nothing new, really, but when fans tear into them it shows that they feel cheated, not just of a particular goal or a particular match, but of the game itself.

So Canadian fans have shown themselves to be lovers of the game when they've felt so justifiably outraged.

Dave Roberts put all of that into perspective, with a referee's priorities, and it is great that fans here can be expected to appreciate the underlying principles involved. Passionately, too.