The 2012 London Olympics Sports Thread

[Berkut]

I love the idea that it takes a long time to "find a teammate to throw it to".

Gee, I was just here playing, and there were all these other players, and now I cannot find them! Whatever happened to them all? Oh well, I will just stand here I guess...

They're not exactly standing in place, are they?  Have you seen what happens after a goalie gets the ball?  All the players trot away towards the middle of the field.

Yeah, I could see where that would make it hard to find them.

You're being deliberately obtuse now.  Finding a teammate means finding a teammate who is in position, and who is also not near a player from the other team who could intercept the ball and immediately counter-attack.  Kicking the ball to the player of the opposing team is a very embarrassing way to give up a goal.  That's why goalkeepers scan the field for a while with a ball in their hands.

And they get an ample amount of time to scan the field for a while - but not an unlimited time. That time is not 15 seconds, or 10 seconds.

The rules do not say that as long as the rest of your team stays near another player, you get to stand there with the ball in your hands. The rule is there to keep the game moving, and force the goalie to put the ball into play, rather than using their unique ability to hold a ball in their hands for a purpose the rules do not intend - namely, to play a perfect defense that the other team can do nothing about while time ticks away.

If they are not going to call this delay after the goalie stand there "looking for their teammate" for 15+ seconds, then they might as well just flush the rule altogether. You cannot convince me that a team operating under the spirit and intent of the rule cannot get someone in position to get a pass from their own goalie in ten seconds.

[DGuller]

If they are not going to call this delay after the goalie stand there "looking for their teammate" for 15+ seconds, then they might as well just flush the rule altogether.

I think that's exactly what they should do.  It's very obviously a rule that's not meant to be enforced except as a very last resort, and those types of rules are very bad rules, because they are wide open to abuse and selective enforcement.  Refs are already entrusted with discretion to combat time-wasting, so they don't need to rely on the letter of the law to justify their calls.

In any case, this discussion of the six second rule ignores what I think is an even more atrocious handball penalty call.  That didn't appear justified even by the letter of the rules.

[Josephus]

I love how the Canuck crying over that game is going to keep this thread alive until the next Summer Olympics.

Actually I haven't brought it up since it happened.Berkut re-started it. But I will end it now. By his own admission, he doens' t watch soccer. It' like me arguing NFL rules when I've never watched a game.

[Berkut]

If they are not going to call this delay after the goalie stand there "looking for their teammate" for 15+ seconds, then they might as well just flush the rule altogether.

I think that's exactly what they should do.

OK, so they get rid of the rule that forces the goalie to not stand there with the ball in their hand.

Now, as soon as your team has a 1-0 lead, and your goalie has the ball, they just stand there until time runs out.

And people complain that soccer is too slow! If only they let the goalies stand around doing nothing for longer, that would make the game so much more interesting!

It's very obviously a rule that's not meant to be enforced except as a very last resort,

Agreed - like when you've warned the goalie twice to stop delaying, and then they stand there refusing to put the ball in play because they are confident you aren't going to follow the rules.

and those types of rules are very bad rules, because they are wide open to abuse and selective enforcement. 

They are there to keep the players from abusing the rules - what "abuse" are you talking about here - you think the official is "abusing" the rules because they are enforcing them in precisely the scenario the rules are intended to deal with? How is that "abuse"?

All enforcement is selective, unless you are arguing that the official should enforce the penalty the moment they get to seven in their count. If you are against "selective" enforcement of rules, why pick out this one? Almost all rules are enforced selectively. Not every hold in football is called, just the ones that matter, for example. That is selective.

You either trust the officials to operate in good faith or you do not. If you do not, then no possible rules will matter, if you truly believe that the officials are out to screw one team or the other.

Refs are already entrusted with discretion to combat time-wasting, so they don't need to rely on the letter of the law to justify their calls.

Yeah, that really sucks when the refs rely on the rules to justify their calls. What assholes! They should rely on...uhhh, something other than the rules to justify their calls!

She was warned to stop delaying, she did not. The more I hear about this, the more I think the official did a great job of trying very hard to avoid having to make this call.

In any case, this discussion of the six second rule ignores what I think is an even more atrocious handball penalty call.  That didn't appear justified even by the letter of the rules.

Not true at all, very justified, at least from what I read about it. A subjective call certainly, but one that could go either way.

What about the Canadian player intentionally stomping on the US players head? That was a nasty one to miss!

[Drakken]

You know, for all your words that Canadians are still not moving on, you  guys sure use alot of words to justify that it was a good decision.  I wonder who's not moving on here.

I personally have, even though the two calls was to me rather dubious as seen on TV. That said we put the fear in the USA team this time, they came within a hair to fall down and lose, Sinclair demonstrated she was one on the best, Tancredi proved that she could play Aussie rules football, and it's only a matter of time until Canada beats them someday.

[Berkut]

You know, for all your words that Canadians are still not moving on, you  guys sure use alot of words to justify that it was a good decision.  I wonder who's not moving on here.

I personally have, even though the two calls was to me rather dubious as seen on TV. That said we put the fear in the USA team this time, they came within a hair to fall down and lose, Sinclair demonstrated she was one on the best, Tancredi proved that she could play Aussie rules football, and it's only a matter of time until Canada beats them someday.

Meh, I really could not care less about womens soccer one way or the other.

I just like talking about officiating.

[DGuller]

OK, so they get rid of the rule that forces the goalie to not stand there with the ball in their hand.

Now, as soon as your team has a 1-0 lead, and your goalie has the ball, they just stand there until time runs out.

And people complain that soccer is too slow! If only they let the goalies stand around doing nothing for longer, that would make the game so much more interesting!

The ref has a discretion to give out yellow cards for time-wasting.

All enforcement is selective, unless you are arguing that the official should enforce the penalty the moment they get to seven in their count.  If you are against "selective" enforcement of rules, why pick out this one? Almost all rules are enforced selectively. Not every hold in football is called, just the ones that matter, for example. That is selective.

That's not what selective enforcement means.  Discretion is necessary for selective enforcement, but it's not equal to selective enforcement.

Pulling over drivers only once they go over 80 in 65 is not selective enforcement.  Looking past some drivers going 80, and pulling over some going 70, is selective enforcement.  In both cases discretion was applied, but only in one it was abused.

In any case, this discussion of the six second rule ignores what I think is an even more atrocious handball penalty call.  That didn't appear justified even by the letter of the rules.

Not true at all, very justified, at least from what I read about it. A subjective call certainly, but one that could go either way.

For a handball to be called, the hand has to extend from the body.  In no shots that I saw did it seem like the ball was impeded by the hand.  Without the arm being there, the rib cage would've deflected the ball just the same.  Having a ball kicked into your arm while it's hugging the body is not a foul.

What about the Canadian player intentionally stomping on the US players head? That was a nasty one to miss!

Yes, Tancredi's head stomp is why I don't feel sorry for Canada.  They were playing like thugs all game, and I believe it's a good thing when bad things happen to bad people.  The missed Tancredi red card sort of balances out the bogus penalty shot.  However, just because the ref missed the stomp doesn't make two atrocious calls less atrocious.

[DGuller]

You know, for all your words that Canadians are still not moving on, you  guys sure use alot of words to justify that it was a good decision.  I wonder who's not moving on here.

I personally have, even though the two calls was to me rather dubious as seen on TV. That said we put the fear in the USA team this time, they came within a hair to fall down and lose, Sinclair demonstrated she was one on the best, Tancredi proved that she could play Aussie rules football, and it's only a matter of time until Canada beats them someday.

To be honest, until Berkut entered this discussion, I don't think anyone on either side of the border thought the ref calls were good.  Sure, there was a lot of trolling, but no serious arguments were made in defense of indefensible calls.

[Berkut]

OK, so they get rid of the rule that forces the goalie to not stand there with the ball in their hand.

Now, as soon as your team has a 1-0 lead, and your goalie has the ball, they just stand there until time runs out.

And people complain that soccer is too slow! If only they let the goalies stand around doing nothing for longer, that would make the game so much more interesting!

The ref has a discretion to give out yellow cards for time-wasting.

So you want to replace a perfectly clear rule that can and should be applied consistently with a very vague "let the refs give out yellow cards for "time-wasting" while at the same time making sure "time-wasting" is not defined?

So one ref might let the goalie hold the ball for ten seconds, another for 30?

What problem is this change in the rules solving? How is this better?

The only change in this rule that I think could make it better is to allow an official to give a yellow card *before* awarding the kick - on the other hand, the ref can already (and in this case did) warn the goalie to stop delaying, so why the need for the card?

Would we have this exact same argument because McLeod was given a yellow card, THEN penalized? How is that different?

All enforcement is selective, unless you are arguing that the official should enforce the penalty the moment they get to seven in their count.  If you are against "selective" enforcement of rules, why pick out this one? Almost all rules are enforced selectively. Not every hold in football is called, just the ones that matter, for example. That is selective.

That's not what selective enforcement means.  Discretion is necessary for selective enforcement, but it's not equal to selective enforcement.

Then how do you know that this particular case was "selective" rather than just discretionary?

Pulling over drivers only once they go over 80 in 65 is not selective enforcement.  Looking past some drivers going 80, and pulling over some going 70, is selective enforcement.  In both cases discretion was applied, but only in one it was abused.

Letting someone speeding go because it is late at night and nobody was placed in danger while pulling over someone else who is speeding and placing people in danger by doing so in a reckless manner is not abuse, that is discretion.

Ignoring a hold on a corner back when a running play is going the other way, while calling that exact same hold when the sweep is coming to the near sideline is not "abuse" either - it is using discretion to understand the intent of the rule and how to apply it.

If you are going to make the case that the official abused their power, that is a much harder case to make. Why would the official do so? What do they have to gain by cheating?

In any case, this discussion of the six second rule ignores what I think is an even more atrocious handball penalty call.  That didn't appear justified even by the letter of the rules.

Not true at all, very justified, at least from what I read about it. A subjective call certainly, but one that could go either way.

For a handball to be called, the hand has to extend from the body.  In no shots that I saw did it seem like the ball was impeded by the hand.  Without the arm being there, the rib cage would've deflected the ball just the same.  Having a ball kicked into your arm while it's hugging the body is not a foul.
[/quote]

That is not how I saw it described:

On five occasions, beginning in the fourth minute of the game, McLeod held the ball for more than 15 seconds, well over twice the permitted time. In the 58th minute she held the ball for 17 seconds, in the 59th for 12 seconds, in the 61st for 16 seconds, in the 68th for 11 seconds.

It's reasonable to assume that Pedersen believed she finally had to take action late in the game as McLeod delayed play once again with the USA behind a goal in the 77th minute. It's also reasonable to expect an Olympic goalkeeper to be familiar with the rules. (And Sports Illustrated's Grant Wahl reported that McLeod admitted she was warned by an assistant referee at halftime.)

Of course, we wouldn't be talking about this if the ensuing indirect free kick hadn't struck Marie-Eve Nault's arm, forcing Pedersen to make one of the referee's most difficult calls: Was it a deliberate handball?

It would take a mind-reader to know if Nault deliberately handled the ball. FIFA's rulebook guidelines instruct the referee to take into consideration "the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)" and "the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)."

On the second point, Nault would have expected the ball to come her way because she was standing in front of a free kick. On the first point, her hand did move toward the ball.

The biggest problem with Pedersen's PK call –- and a reason to sympathize with Nault –- is that had she not raised her arm she would have gotten blasted in the chest. A case can be made that she was punished for protecting herself. That, however, is not something referees, according to the FIFA Rulebook, are supposed to take into consideration.

So if there is injustice in the call, it's the rulebook's fault and not Pedersen's.

[Berkut]

You know, for all your words that Canadians are still not moving on, you  guys sure use alot of words to justify that it was a good decision.  I wonder who's not moving on here.

I personally have, even though the two calls was to me rather dubious as seen on TV. That said we put the fear in the USA team this time, they came within a hair to fall down and lose, Sinclair demonstrated she was one on the best, Tancredi proved that she could play Aussie rules football, and it's only a matter of time until Canada beats them someday.

To be honest, until Berkut entered this discussion, I don't think anyone on either side of the border thought the ref calls were good.  Sure, there was a lot of trolling, but no serious arguments were made in defense of indefensible calls.

That is why it is nice to actually get a ref involved in the discussion. Fans are almost universally clueless about what is or is not a good call.

And I've linked multiple articles from people involved in soccer who are pointing out that the calls were very justifiable.

[DGuller]

So you want to replace a perfectly clear rule that can and should be applied consistently with a very vague "let the refs give out yellow cards for "time-wasting" while at the same time making sure "time-wasting" is not defined?

  A "perfectly clear" rule that's almost never enforced is not exactly a perfectly clear rule.  It's a discretionary rule that pretends to be a clear rule.  When evaluating the effectiveness of the rule, you can't divorce the clarity of the language from the actual practice of enforcement.

Then how do you know that this particular case was "selective" rather than just discretionary?

Why do you think I know that?  I've never claimed that Pederson's call was selective enforcement.  The point where I first introduced that phrase concerned the general nature of rules that are rarely enforced, and that such rules invite selective enforcement. 

The most pernicious thing about selective enforcement is that it's almost impossible to prove in individual cases.  There is almost always a valid-sounding pretext for selective enforcement.  Only statistical analysis can prove systematic bias in the application of discretion.

[frunk]

  A "perfectly clear" rule that's almost never enforced is not exactly a perfectly clear rule.  It's a discretionary rule that pretends to be a clear rule.  When evaluating the effectiveness of the rule, you can't divorce the clarity of the language from the actual practice of enforcement.

The rarity of its enforcement shouldn't be consideration of its validity or lack of clarity.  In fact a rule that rarely needs to be enforced is a rule that's doing its job and staying out of the way of playing the game.  It's pretty clear that without some sort of time wasting rule for goalies soccer would be a broken game.  The ref did what refs usually do when they catch players taking too long with ball, they warn them.  It doesn't matter if it was an "official" warning, the goalie was made aware that she was on thin ice.  The fact that she still violated the time means complaints about its enforcement have hardly any ground to stand on.

[DGuller]

The rarity of its enforcement shouldn't be consideration of its validity or lack of clarity.

By "rare enforcement" I don't mean rare invocation, but rather rare application when it is broken.  A rule that's broken once in 10 years, and enforced correctly once in 10 years, is not rarely enforced.

[garbon]

I love how the Canuck crying over that game is going to keep this thread alive until the next Summer Olympics.

Actually I haven't brought it up since it happened.Berkut re-started it. But I will end it now. By his own admission, he doens' t watch soccer. It' like me arguing NFL rules when I've never watched a game.

Pretty sure I gave you the necessary evidence for you to call it a draw.

[frunk]

By "rare enforcement" I don't mean rare invocation, but rather rare application when it is broken.  A rule that's broken once in 10 years, and enforced correctly once in 10 years, is not rarely enforced.

My point still stands.  The rule is designed to stop goalies from holding onto the ball for long periods.  For the most part this works by the threat of enforcement rather than actual enforcement, with goalies being warned if they are taking too long.  The rule could be written in a looser way, but it wouldn't be any more or less capricious than it is now.  Any defined set of warnings/punishments could be abused by pushing the time until they got the specified number of warnings.  Without a technological system of enforcement it's better to let the ref make the judgment at the moment despite the potential for bad refs to make bad calls.  The spirit of the law is to keep the game moving, any letter of the law enforcement would get in the way of that.