dagblog - Comments for "Valiant U.S. Squad Robbed of World Cup Victory Over Slovenia"

If you're as big a fan of

acanuck — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:14:00 +0000

In reply to What upsets me more is that

If you're as big a fan of dodgy refereeing as I am, Wolfie, you'll watch England-Slovenia. FIFA today announced who'll officiate at that crucial game: Wolfgang Stark. This despite already being criticized for a bad call on the winning goal in the Argentina-Nigeria match.

Stark was also responsible for a quasi-riot in Toronto in 2007, when his apparent (I could say blatant) pro-Argentina bias so infuriariated the Chilean U20 players that cops had to use tear gas to keep them from ripping him a new whistle-hole. Chile actually lodged a diplomatic protest with Canada over the incident.

Since the match won't involve Argentina, Stark may well perform fairly and competently. But don't be surprised if we get another controversy in which bad calls decide who goes into the next round.

Here's a great line from one

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:51:53 +0000

In reply to Yep, transparency is what's

Here's a great line from one news story today:

On Monday, the FIFA referee committee tried to go on a charm offensive by inviting the media to an open day but totally defeated the object of the exercise by refusing to answer questions about specific decisions.

Another article compared the committee to the Politburo.

So much for pleasant surprises. At least Coulibaly is out.

What upsets me more is that

William K. Wolfrum — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:07:19 +0000

In reply to Even better than trying to

What upsets me more is that The U.S. and England games are at the same time on Wednesday.

I'm not that upset about it

William K. Wolfrum — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:06:09 +0000

In reply to Even better than trying to

I'm not that upset about it as A) Brazil has now advanced and B) Luis Fabiano committed two hand balls scoring the second goal.

The ref let the game get out of control and nearly paid the price. What I didn't like about the red mostly was that I don't believe the ref even saw it. It wasn't even a foul, the guy just dove.

Of course, Brazil has done the same before in the WC and benefitted (Rivaldo Vs. Turkey in 2002) , so it is what it is. Hopefully Kaka won't get a one-game suspension. If he does, no biggie. They qualified already and Julio Baptista isn't exactly a slouch.

Even better than trying to

acanuck — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:54:00 +0000

In reply to I don't get it. This isn't

Even better than trying to justify that no-goal call, Genghis, is that FIFA officials now have to decide whether to give Brazil's Kaka a one- or two-game suspension for his supposed foul of an Ivorian player near the end of today's game.

As everyone saw via repeated replays the Ivorian simply ran into Kaka, who was looking the other way. He then fell down clutching his face in an Oscar-worthy performance. If FIFA has any concern for its credibility, it will void Kaka's red card and suspend the "victim" from all future Cup play. Can't wait to see Wolfrum weigh in on this fiasco.

Yep, transparency is what's

acanuck — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:01:00 +0000

In reply to I don't get it. This isn't

Yep, transparency is what's called for. But FIFA don't roll like that. Internal politics and institutional arrogance are more their style. Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised tomorrow.

I don't get it. This isn't

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:26:00 +0000

In reply to What I've read today about

I don't get it. This isn't classified information. How does the lack of transparency benefit to the sport? Does this kind of thing happen a lot?

People have been making a lot of unfavorable comparisons with umpire Jim Joyce's heartfelt apology for a bad call. But that was a rare act of contrition that I would not expect as a matter of course. What I would expect as a matter of course is to know what the call is.

What I've read today about

acanuck — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:31:37 +0000

In reply to He doesn't have to explain

What I've read today about FIFA refereeing suggests we'll never get clarity on this call. The only people Coulibaly has to explain anything to is the refereeing committee -- if they find fault with his game-day written report. And even if that happens, the dirty linen will be washed behind closed doors.

The refereeing committee has a pre-scheduled meeting with the media Monday, so I imagine they'll have to address the incident. Something like, "We are constantly assessing the performance of all our officials to ensure the highest, etc. ...." The only clue we'll have as to how they assessed Coulibaly is whether he is quietly dropped from reffing the next round of games.

He doesn't have to explain

acanuck — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 06:10:26 +0000

In reply to I keep waiting for a press

He doesn't have to explain his call to the players on the field, though refs often appear to do so. And he doesn't have to be available to the media until just before the next game he officiates at, which I believe is on Wednesday (I could be wrong on that).

I really, really hope his next game is not U.S. vs. Algeria. Another bad call could spark history's first known soccer riot by Americans.

I keep waiting for a press

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:43:00 +0000

In reply to Valiant U.S. Squad Robbed of World Cup Victory Over Slovenia

I keep waiting for a press interview in which Coulibaly explains what he thought he saw. Bad calls happen, I get that, but I'm not used to not knowing what the call was. Is that common in pro soccer?