World Cup: Lackluster Play, Poor Officiating Down USA

(By Ray D.)

At the half: First two ridiculous red cards against Italy. Now an outrageous penalty in the box to give Ghana the lead back right after the US scored to tie it up. Maybe we should just let the refs decide who wins the cup at this point. I totally agree with those who have been screaming for days for the officials to LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. It's hardly surprising to see articles like this at this point...

The Story of this World Cup for the USA: Oberlehrer Merk calls a bogus foul, setting Ghana up for an easy goal... (more pics here)

Nearly 70 minutes in...the US misses two attempts by millimeters, one off the post...this one has heartbreak written all over it. Maybe they can still come back...

It wasn't to be. Tough week in sports: First Dirk and the Mavs lose and now this. The US is eliminated and Ghana moves on. The US just couldn't execute near the goal and a few close misses fell short. Maybe Germany will go far this time. They probably won't get as many bogus calls made on them. Some people in the ESPN chat room are actually suggesting the US team had bad calls made against it because America "is so disliked" around the world. Gag...

UDPATE: This FAZ headline pretty well sums things up: 2:1 Against America: Ghana in the knock out round with help from Markus Merk (the ref).

Comments

[Scott_H]

Aaaaaaarrrggghhhhh!!!

[Don Miguel]

Lackluster play was the key to an overall poor performance. Yes the officiating sucked; especially the complete non-foul in the box which gave Ghana an undeserved penalty. But if you play crappy you lose.

[WhatDoIKnow]

I am a huge soccer fan and I find the FIFA rules absolutely disgusting. Referees make huge mistakes (willingly or unwillingly) at every World Cup (or European Cup); those mistakes are not harmless, they decide the fate of a team who has prepared for years. The number of decisive games influenced by bad decisions is not small. And what does FIFA say? "We'll look into it". In other words, nothing will change, next time we can expect the exact same mistakes.

What about this revolutionary idea: stop the game, watch the replay and then decide? How hard would that be? I don't know of any soccer fan who would stop watching soocer because of this rule. However, this will not happen. FIFA is even more inflexible than the EU.

In order to force FIFA to enforce commons sense rules it would be great if all soccer fans would stop going to the games, watching soccer, reading about soccer, buying any soccer related products. Total and complete boycott. I, for one, am ready to do that. But, of course, not many would do that, so nothing will improve. Americans aren't missing too much by skipping soccer - a beautiful sport played by rules more than a century old.

P.S. I thought I saw something new - referees wearing a headset. What is it for, correcting mistakes with help from the sideline or listening to mp3s?

[Don Miguel]

@WhatDoIKnow

You are certainly right about FIFA, but even more so it is full of inflexible bureaucrats who do not like and are virtually immune to criticism (obviously they want to keep all of their scandals hidden). Their former "dictator for life" Jao Havelange of the FIFA fiefdom was so against the possibility of the World Cup finals being in the U.S. that he actually said the country was incapable of hosting the event – only to see it achieve the current record for overall attendance when the U.S. hosted in 1994. This coming from a man for whom corruption was a middle name and from a country that can’t keep spectators from attacking players and referees.

BTW, the headsets were for talking with the linesmen --excuse me, assistant referees -- and the fourth official.

Also, here is a recent quote from Herr Dr. Markus Merk (referee of today's match): "We want to see more football and less delays." So Dr. Merk, how does that translate into the "foul" in the box that you "saw" today?

[Scott_H]

@WhatDoIKnow, don't hold your breath. In a recent article discussing using technology to verify goals, a FIFA representative said that, although they tested a "wired" ball in a tournament a few years ago and it went fairly well, they cannot guarantee that the technology will work 100% of the time. Until they can guarantee 100% accuracy, they are not prepared to use it at all. That, of course, prompted a comment that the current system (i.e., human referees) is far from accurate. The FIFA official agreed, but brushed the comment off by saying something to the effect of: "Officials make mistakes, players make mistakes. That is part of the human element of soccer. We do not ever want to remove the human element."

In an interview before the Brazil-Japan game, even "The Kaiser" (Beckenbauer) commented that there had been too many cards so far, and it had noticeably impacted the quality of play.

[WhatDoIKnow]

This is one of the most absurd excuses that FIFA keeps making: "human mistakes are part of soccer". How idiot does one have to be to say something that crappy??? As if mistakes would somehow make soccer more attractive. Does anyone say at work: "my mistakes make me valuable"? I don't think so. Hundred years ago soccer was being played only for fun. Today it's a huge business; how do you run a successful business constantly excusing huge mistakes? Mistakes will never be completely eliminated, but they can be reduced dramatically by using modern technology.

Anyway, no one says anything. I mean no one with influence. There is no campaign in the sports newspapers, the national soccer associations are probably afraid to complain and the players are happy with the contracts they get. No one really wants to stir up the waters. Occasional remarks from people like Beckenbauer will not help.

[Jorg]

Are you accusing the referee of Anti-Americanism?

"Let the players play"

You want to see more blood?

[RayD]

@ Jorg,

"Are you accusing the referee of Anti-Americanism?"

Not at all. But like Franz Beckenbauer, I think that all of the cards are impacting the game negatively. The (non)foul called in today's game certainly did not draw blood and impacted the game in a very negative way. The ref should have just let the players decide the game. It was incidental contact at best.

The two red cards against the US in the Italy game were also clearly uncalled for. The refs should call the real fouls and issue cards only when necessary.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Are you accusing the referee of anti-Americanism?

Wow! Jorg is already on defensive. Someone is sensitive here... Jorg, you should know by now that the "beleidigte Leberwürste" from DMK see everywhere anti-Americanism. Right...?

[RayD]

@ WhatDoIKnow

Well, Jorg is a good guy and although I know he doesn't agree with everything we write, he doesn't think we are bad guys. There's nothing wrong with loving the World Cup. It was just disappointing to see the US lose and the poor officiating. We will still cheer for Germany, Switzerland, Australia and England. I also happen to like Brazil since they won me 35 Euros in an office pool back in 2002!

[WhatDoIKnow]

Ray

I know that Jorg is one of the good guys in Germany. This is what makes it so sad... (I am saying this based on some of Jorg's postings in the past)

I love the World Cup too. Heck, I love soccer. I literally grew up kicking soccer balls. I can handle a soccer ball with my feet much better than a basketball with my hands. It's just too bad when events like this are being distorted.

[Tom Penn]

I love sports, and I have made an effort to like soccer in the name of international solidarity. I even convinced my daughter to play it. But it's worse than watching paint dry to me. I just don't "get it". I confess to having the same problem with hockey and interpretive gymnastics. Give me American college football, baseball, softball, and basketball. Ignorant American fer shur.

[Heiner]

hi football fans,

first of all, yes, the penalty was a wrong decision. and it makes the calls for technical solutions louder. another scene was the goal scored by france against korea which didnt count, even though it was obvious behind the goal line. i favour the wired ball solution, if it's 100 % secure. but i am against video evidence, cause it will make the refs insecure about too many decisions. players will cry all the time for video evidence, and if the ref denies it and will be proven wrong afterwards, everyone will say, see, you should have looked at the video. so the refs will, afraid of being wrong, call for too many video reviews. and that will delay the game.
but, as some already said, this penalty wasnt the only reason the usa didnt advance to the next round. i was in the stadium at the usa-czek rep. match and must say, that was the worst performance i ever saw from the us-team. and it was bad tactics by arena as well. they were 2-0 behind after 35 min. and played like they were in lead.
i expected way more from the us-team, cause they played an outstanding tournament in 2002 and got a very unlucky defeat by germany in the quarterfinal.
but as some american fans said, they lack a finisher. if you score only one goal in three games by your own, you cannot survive the first round.
the pity is, football is so popular in american high school sports, played by so many, that there must be some great talents, why is the continuety broken to college and then major league.
or why doesnt the usa build up a league system like it is everywhere else in the world, where good teams advance to a superior league, bad teams to a minor league? from my point of view america wastes a great football player potential.
well, better luck in south africa 2010.

ps: the americans fans were really fun, i always knew, elvis is alive :-)

[Delphino]

What's with this attitude of looking at everything like a battle. Why can't the American players see it as a game, where they play opponents, rather than a battle where they fight the enemy. Why can't they just see it as football. If this is the attitude they want to bring to the sport, I suggest they create their own version of it. There's healty competition, and then there's competition where you see the opponent as an enemy, and don't feel disappointement but hatred at the end of the game. Is this really necessary. I guess it's just hard wired in you guys.

[wc]

Don't blame the Refree for the player's mistakes. In the game against Italy, the calls were right on the money. Although very disappointing for a big USA Fan such as myself, from my experience as also being a soceer referee, I must say the red cards given were deserved. That is if you understand the rules of the game.

There might be a question if the rules should be modified to reflect a sport that should be tough and American Style. But as the current rules stand, the referee made the right call.

I unfortunately did not have a chance to see the third game and the questionable call, but just judging by the reputation and experience of the refree, Dr. Markus Merk, I would be leaning towards trusting one of the most respected refrees in the world before I make harsh judgements. Maybe if I have a chance to see the reply, then I will update my comments.

Anti-Americanism ?? Most everything in Germany is, but I don't think so in this case by the referees.

[Scott_H]

wc, of course you blame the ref. That's part of the "fun" of the game -- FIFA officials have publicly admitted as much. Besides, no matter how good someone is, everyone makes mistakes (which FIFA has also stated) -- even Herr Dr. Merk.

Having said that, whether or not the penalties and cards were proper is really irrelevant. The calls aren't going to be changed after they're made, and as long as a ref isn't *intentionally* making bad calls (good luck trying to prove that) you have to just move on. Good refs that "mostly" get it right continue to ref. Those who don't, don't.

Some teams will get the benefit of the doubt, some won't. A good team can often overcome bad calls and bad plays. The US had such a team during qualifying. They did not have such a team during those 3 games. They deserved what they got.

[PlutosDad]

I think the human element is part of refereeing, but there is a huge difference between a bad call in a basketball or american footbal game, and soccer where scores are only 1 or 2 points per match. And even in american playoffs (especially in basketball) most refs back off the last few minutes and make almost no calls.

If they can technology in tennis, where the ball is even smaller and travels faster in many cases, why not soccer? Bunch of luddites.

[PlutosDad]

Delphino you are funny. Which country has soccer hooligans again?

[Charlie]

---"What's with this attitude of looking at everything like a battle."---

Oh, so the term "strikers" is derived from the labor practice. I'm so sorry. I thought it came from something else.

Anyway, Italy vs US was watching my first and probably last soccer game. It was about as interesting as watching basketball players walking back and forth to make free throws. Okay so I get it now. The officiating is the beautiful part in the sport.

[Ambrose Wolfinger]

I'll try to answer Heiner's questions.

Regarding why there is no "continuity" for soccer at the college/university level, there is a one word answer: money. At most American universities, men's (American) football and basketball generate all the money that pays for all the other sports, both through television and ticket/concession/parking revenues. First order of business at any univeristy athletic department is keeping men's football and basketball generating as much money as possible. Then the next question is how to best spend the available money generated by football and basketball. In recent years, in order to comply with Federal regulations, universities have had to increase spending on women's sports. As a result, money available for other men's sports is becoming less, so there is less and less money available for the men's soccer program. Until a university can devise a way to fill their football stadiums on a day other than Saturday with people to watch a soccer game, or until a university can find a network willing to pay them hundred of thousands of dollars for broadcast rights to their soccer games, the best you can hope for is that university level soccer won't become any worse.

Same issue for professional league soccer. Television completely dominates American professional sports. Until some one is willing to pay millions in broadcast rights for soccer games, nothing will change here. That will never happen. Soccer itself does not televise very well, particularly from a sponsor's standpoint. In addition, it is not particularly well suited for gambling, which is the only other way you can induce large numbers of people to watch a sporting event.

I'd say the US level of soccer proficiency has gone about as far as it can go.

[pigilito]

Swiss 2, Korea 0. Hopp Schwiiz!

[PacRimJim]

Remember PacRim Jim's definition of soccer: Short men who can't score disporting themselves before fat men who can't score.

[Dave]

My guess why soccer isnt popular in the US:

It requires too much patience. Maybe we europeans have a hunter-attitude, willing to wait for the right moment to push in and succeed while always being aware of the fact, that the enemy can just do the same any time. So you have to be 100% focused because mistakes can be lethal.

By contrast, in games with much higher scores like basketball / football, mistakes dont have such harsh consequences as in soccer.
It is like a friend employed in our army put it once as regards patience: While germans prefer an accurate rifle, the average american prefers a high speed machine gun :)

[Charlie]

Ah, that explains the MG-42.

My guess why soccer is so popular in Europe is that people enjoy watching nothing happen at all. It correlates to their attitudes toward work, the UN and sex.

Oaky Delphino, here we have the words "hunter-attitude", "enemy" and "lethal". Feel free to chime in at any time. "I guess it's just hard wired in you guys." my ass.

[Don Miguel]

"My guess why soccer isnt popular in the US:

It requires too much patience."

@Dave:

Have you ever watched baseball?

Actually soccer is very popular in the US until it gets to the professional level. Then the struggle for sports fans and money becomes extremely competitive due to the number of professional sports that have been entrenched for decades.

[flux]

What I don't understand is why people from the US always feel the need to explain why they don't like soccer, how it's a boring sport and so on, while the rest of the world needs to tell the US what they're missing out on. And both sides have this almost religious fervor about them, as if something depended on it. It seems so simple: the US doesn't care too much about soccer, their team is not very good at it, and probably won't be in our lifetimes, and the public doesn't really care. Why should the rest of the world care? You never hear Italians trying to explain why they don't get American Football or Baseball, for example.

[flux]

Oh, and for those few that care and thus think that the FIFA rankings are, uhm, debatable, here's a much more accurate ranking system: http://www.eloratings.net/

Just look at those ratings and compare them to how the teams fared at this World Cup so far.

[Don Miguel]

"What I don't understand is why people from the US always feel the need to explain why they don't like soccer, how it's a boring sport and so on, while the rest of the world needs to tell the US what they're missing out on."

@flux:

I'm with you on that. I might add that a few times over the years I've taken Europeans to baseball games, and the ones that didn't like it gave me the same reasons that I've heard Americans give me for not liking soccer.

As for the FIFA rankings, I'm one of the vast majority that doesn't care about them and believe that there is no debate -- they just suck.

[Don]

@flux

The eloratings are interesting but they don't appear to be predictive. They seem to respond extremely to how well the team is doing at the minute.

The trouble with the FIFA ratings seems to be that it takes way too much account of how well a country did 4 years and even 8 years ago. As if the superlative French performance in 1998 has much to do with this year's team. Or the US performance in 2002 had much to do with 2006 - which it obviously didn't.

[Charlie]

---"I might add that a few times over the years I've taken Europeans to baseball games, and the ones that didn't like it gave me the same reasons that I've heard Americans give me for not liking soccer."---

Don, why did you take them to a National League game?

[garydausz]

I have been in the stadium when the US played Ghana and what amazed/shocked me most was the overwhelming and feverish support from all the germans for Ghana (roughly 95% of the germans in that stadium). I never heard before that Germany was holding so much sympathy for Ghana and found the ironic remarks of my american accompanier quite fitting: "Well, the Ghanese deserve this after all they did for germany..."