2026 FIFA World Cup

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

OK. It's offsides when you are ahead of the ball, even when your teammate w/the ball is ahead of the defense?

If you're ahead of the ball, which Pulisic was, yes

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by Jordan

Bosnia had no answers. which is amazing since they had a half hour up a player and did next to nothign with hit.

Nevermind how bad VAR intervening was for the red card. Would be shocked if Clauss and his crew do another game

What was the deal with that red card? I am new to soccer. There was no foul even called on the field, then they spend 6 minutes watching replays of what was clearly an accident and the result is that the US plays down a man for 40ish minutes and loses the player for the Belgium game?!?

Feels like there is a whole lot that I don't understand about penalties.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

OK. It's offsides when you are ahead of the ball, even when your teammate w/the ball is ahead of the defense?

No. It's offsides when you pass to a player ahead of the defense. Doesn't matter where you are.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

What was the deal with that red card? I am new to soccer. There was no foul even called on the field, then they spend 6 minutes watching replays of what was clearly an accident and the result is that the US plays down a man for 40ish minutes and loses the player for the Belgium game?!?

Feels like there is a whole lot that I don't understand about penalties.

It was a bad foul. He raked his calf and stepped on his ankle. But IMO, red cards are usually issued when it is determined that the player did it purposely. IMO, that was accidental, and should have been a yellow card.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

He didn't trip him up.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2BEz3stzZb4

I don't know what to tell you. That's a foul. He hits his foot before the ball gets there. Intentions don't matter here. Yes, both players were going for the ball. But in doing so, one player kicked the other player's foot. That's a penalty. It has to be called. It doesn't matter if he knew he was there or not.

[Ragnar]

The only bright side I see is the USA is playing Belgium. I thought Senegal was the better team.

Goals are being taken away on countless offsides plays. But an obvious foul by the Belgium player on their last goal goes unseen. One look at the replay was all it would have taken. But they're more interested in players covering their mouths when they speak. That they'll go to the video for.

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

What was the deal with that red card? I am new to soccer. There was no foul even called on the field, then they spend 6 minutes watching replays of what was clearly an accident and the result is that the US plays down a man for 40ish minutes and loses the player for the Belgium game?!?

Feels like there is a whole lot that I don't understand about penalties.

In a vacuum, what Balogun did could seriously injure that guy and is worthy of a red card.

The problem I have (amongst many) is that no context is taken into account. He's knocked off balance and can't be in control in the same way as if he were doing some other movement.

But people will wrongly, IMO, bring in that intent doesn't matter. I counter that guidelines (slow motion/stills) were incorrectly used, similar to how replay is used in baseball with SB attempts where the runner slides and is called out because an infielder holds a tag on a guy after his thigh comes off the bag long after he's slid in and beaten the throw. It's not been used how it's intended to be used in this case.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2BEz3stzZb4

I don't know what to tell you. That's a foul. He hits his foot before the ball gets there. Intentions don't matter here. Yes, both players were going for the ball. But in doing so, one player kicked the other player's foot. That's a penalty. It has to be called. It doesn't matter if he knew he was there or not.

OK, I can see now he did kick him. Both players have orange shoes so it was hard for me to see clearly.

Nevertheless, if it is a penalty no matter what, no matter intention, no matter if he saw him or not, fine. My point still is how do they let all the other stuff go, including the blatant push in the back on the game tying goal, and then whistle that? My point still is that they come down harder on accidents than deliberate fouls.

W/22 pairs of feet all trying to kick the same ball, being so harsh on incidental kicks and accidental steps on feet is asinine to me. If you are going to be that ticky tacky & technical in that critical crucial moment, then by GOD! you gotta be stricter w/all the chaos that goes on earlier in the game. If that play merited a replay, then certainly the 2nd Belgium goal should have been looked at more closely. It makes it all look arbitrary, suspicious, biased &, frankly, corrupt.

[DamPenguin]

I think this is the worst of soccer/football I have seen... We should be enjoying the amazing talent on the field but it looks like being on a fishing boat when the nets get pulled in, flopping all over the place. The state of the referee's is terrible. At least 90% of every foul/rule is subject to interpretation. The more I watch soccer/football lately the more I dislike it, which is unfortunate.

[Cobra Mgr]

Tell Croatia any time they'd like to start playing, they have my approval.

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

...I really don't know what is the big deal. These competitions are a business. I don't see the harm in a 5-10 minute break to allow the teams to get refreshed while the fans in the stands don't have to miss any action to get refreshment. I welcome the bathroom break. As the king of old farts, I find the whole "controversy" a bunch of "angry man yells at cloud". It's a minor nuisance if it can even be called one.

I don't see what the big deal is, either. In all the years I have been watching The Beautiful Game, hydration breaks are the least problematic thing.

To me, what has over the last 2-3 years made the English Premier League, La Liga, etc unwatchable is players falling to the pitch every few seconds and rolling rolling rolling rolling, clutching their ankle when the replay clearly shows that they got clipped on the elbow, or clutching their face and shrieking and writhing when somebody pulled on their shirt, or sitting there with arms extended and shouting at the referee trying to get a foul called while play has moved on, or clustering around the referee screaming and gesturing... Those antics waste a lot more time than taking a break to grab some water.

I haven't watched the Premier League in 2-3 years. Because women's football/soccer is very different, I watch the NWSL. Much less diving, much less moaning to the referee.

I think I realized the difference a couple of Women's World Cups ago. The US was playing Japan, and there were some really brutal fouls in that game. And...the women just got up and kept playing.

[Cobra Mgr]

So if I have this straight.........if the ball ricochets off an offensive players arm/hand in the o zone, it is treated as deliberate. But if it ricochets off any part of a defender in the o zone, it is treated as an accident.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So if I have this straight.........if the ball ricochets off an offensive players arm/hand in the o zone, it is treated as deliberate. But if it ricochets off any part of a defender in the o zone, it is treated as an accident.

No. At least it shouldn't be, but reffing at this tournament has been sketch, and I only watched nine games. And I don't know which incident you might allude to.

For the defender it depends on whether there was an intention* to block or guide the ball with the arm. Intent is usually assumed* when the arm is extended* from the body, other than in a falling motion (to catch yourself*).

So if you have your arm close* to your body, and get shot in the arm by an attacker, then it shouldn't* be a penalty (although the opposing team *will* scream their little lungs out for one anyway).

*all of these leave space for shenanigans, and for every "incident" it's guaranteed that one country will hate the ref forever.

Fun Fact: In an attempt to remove ambiguities with illegal hand plays by teams on defense, they tried armless defenders at the 1986 and 1990 world Cups, but it didn't catch on.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Westheim

No. At least it shouldn't be, but reffing at this tournament has been sketch, and I only watched nine games. And I don't know which incident you might allude to.

For the defender it depends on whether there was an intention* to block or guide the ball with the arm. Intent is usually assumed* when the arm is extended* from the body, other than in a falling motion (to catch yourself*).

So if you have your arm close* to your body, and get shot in the arm by an attacker, then it shouldn't* be a penalty (although the opposing team *will* scream their little lungs out for one anyway).

*all of these leave space for shenanigans, and for every "incident" it's guaranteed that one country will hate the ref forever.

Fun Fact: In an attempt to remove ambiguities with illegal hand plays by teams on defense, they tried armless defenders at the 1986 and 1990 world Cups, but it didn't catch on.

Ok, so the inconsistency rises here for me. I remember last World Cup, maybe Euros, a corner ricocheted off an offensive player's arm and I was like there was no intent. But I was told by all the soccer heads it is an automatic foul. The player is expected to keep it from hitting him there no matter what. So left thinking "OK, it's like high sticking in hockey. Every player is responsible for his stick. So if it hits an opponent in the head area, it is an automatic 2:00." And I was Ok with that. As long as it is consistent, no gray areas.

So at the end of the Portugal/Croatia game, the Croatians' tying goal was disallowed for offsides. The player was definitely offsides when the ball was kicked into the scoring area. But it first hit a Portugal defender & bounced towards his goal. And that is when Croatia got it and scored. But VAR disallowed it. And the explanation was the Portugal player didn't play it towards his goalie on purpose, therefore, the play was offsides.

So that is the inconsistency for me. The offense is responsible for where the ball inadvertently bounces off of him. But the defender isn't. It sounds capricious for me.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

W/22 pairs of feet all trying to kick the same ball, being so harsh on incidental kicks and accidental steps on feet is asinine to me. If you are going to be that ticky tacky & technical in that critical crucial moment, then by GOD! you gotta be stricter w/all the chaos that goes on earlier in the game. If that play merited a replay, then certainly the 2nd Belgium goal should have been looked at more closely. It makes it all look arbitrary, suspicious, biased &, frankly, corrupt.

Agreed 100%. If you watch the guy that was pushed, he was pleading with the ref. He should have told the ref that the guy said something to him while covering his mouth. Then the ref might have spotted the foul while reviewing the play!

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So if I have this straight.........if the ball ricochets off an offensive players arm/hand in the o zone, it is treated as deliberate. But if it ricochets off any part of a defender in the o zone, it is treated as an accident.

What is the o zone? The box? All I know is defenders usually put their hands behind their back so the offense can't get a cheap penalty kick.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

What is the o zone? The box? All I know is defenders usually put their hands behind their back so the offense can't get a cheap penalty kick.

Yeah. The larger box. I have no idea what they call it. You got the larger one, then the inner one in front of the goal & then that semi circle (which I still have yet to learn why its there).

[Cobra Mgr]

Smart of the Aussies to swap goalies

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yeah. The larger box. I have no idea what they call it. You got the larger one, then the inner one in front of the goal & then that semi circle (which I still have yet to learn why its there).

Big box = penalty area, where making an attacking player eat dirt or pawing the ball with your ... paws will give a penalty kick to the attacking team

Little box = goal area, which is also part of the penalty area; most contact by the attacking team against the goalkeeper will be whistled off in here, and the defending team can take goal kicks and free kicks from anywhere in this area, regardless of where the actual foul was committed

Semi circle [actually, technically, a segment of a circle with its center on the penalty spot] = penalty arc, nobody but the kicker is allowed in here (or the penalty area) when a penalty is taken. Otherwise, it is NOT part of the penalty area

[Shea6408]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Smart of the Aussies to swap goalies

Let's not forget the choice of PK takers. Carlos Mendoza could choose a better line-up than Popovic.