FIFA World Cup 2026
Poll
 | 2 votes (50%) | ||
| | 2 votes (50%) | ||
| | 3 votes (75%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) |
4 members have voted
Quote: SOOPOOFor interest, the EPL has no playoff. You win the most games during the season, you are the champion. (.Ties count as 1/3 of a win)
I’d have EPL have a 1 game playoff at the home field of the team with more points.
link to original post
IIRC, with the exception of Liechtenstein, every top level national soccer league in Europe determines its champion based solely on its (usually) double round-robin (home-and-home) regular season.
Note that there have been ties for the top spot in the EPL/England's (old) Division 1, and there was no playoff; in fact, in 1988-89, not only did Arsenal and Liverpool tie on 76 points, but they both had a goal difference of +37; rather than having a playoff, Arsenal were declared the champions as they had scored 73 goals to Liverpool's 65. (Note that Arsenal's "reward" for winning what was then Division 1 of the Football League was to sit home and watch every other country's champion compete in the 1989-90 European Cup as England's teams were still banned after the incident at the 1985 European Cup final.)
In my mind, offsides is such an easy infraction to avoid. You look towards the goal. If there isn't two defenders between you and the goal, you move backwards until there is.
one defender is enough.Quote: GenoDRPhAnother game changing goal was disallowed after VAR revue, this time due to offsides.
In my mind, offsides is such an easy infraction to avoid. You look towards the goal. If there isn't two defenders between you and the goal, you move backwards until there is.
link to original post
The zone where you are offsides if in it is very fluid, you can be easily caught in the zone as it transitions ... and with the video, there is zero tolerance from what I can tell
Besides soccer, there are many games in which there are two teams with opposing goals and a "ball".Quote: odiousgambitone defender is enough.Quote: GenoDRPhAnother game changing goal was disallowed after VAR revue, this time due to offsides.
In my mind, offsides is such an easy infraction to avoid. You look towards the goal. If there isn't two defenders between you and the goal, you move backwards until there is.
link to original post
The zone where you are offsides if in it is very fluid, you can be easily caught in the zone as it transitions ... and with the video, there is zero tolerance from what I can tell
link to original post
- football
-basketball
-ice hockey
-lacrosse
-rugby
-field hockey
-polo
- water-polo
- Quidditch (fictional sport in Harry Potter books)
I'm not a rules expert but it seems that soccer is unusual by defining 'off-sides' by where the opponents are positioned. In ice hockey, which is fairly similar to soccer, offsides is defined by lines. This seems more sensible.
Basketball has no offsides penalties and as a result its a North-South game. Soccer is comprised of a lot of lateral passing.
but there is a 3 second zone, 4 seconds making you 'offsides' so to speakQuote: gordonm888
Basketball has no offsides penalties ...
link to original post
Good point; you're right.Quote: odiousgambitbut there is a 3 second zone, 4 seconds making you 'offsides' so to speakQuote: gordonm888
Basketball has no offsides penalties ...
link to original post
link to original post
Quote: odiousgambitone defender is enough.Quote: GenoDRPhAnother game changing goal was disallowed after VAR revue, this time due to offsides.
In my mind, offsides is such an easy infraction to avoid. You look towards the goal. If there isn't two defenders between you and the goal, you move backwards until there is.
link to original post
The zone where you are offsides if in it is very fluid, you can be easily caught in the zone as it transitions ... and with the video, there is zero tolerance from what I can tell
link to original post
Rules state two defenders between you and the goal: one defender and usually a goalkeeper.
Fluid or not, stay onsides and leave no doubt!
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
When discussing the offside rule as written, being very officious and lawyerlike, you state 'two defenders' like that. When discussing the offside rule with regular people, it's easiest to just assume the goaltender is there in place. You can do otherwise and cause the confusion like we had here. People will understand that someone else can stand in for the goalkeeper temporarilyQuote: GenoDRPh
Rules state two defenders between you and the goal: one defender and usually a goalkeeper.
link to original post
I wonder if you can use your hands if you stand in?
Quote: odiousgambitWhen discussing the offside rule as written, being very officious and lawyerlike, you state 'two defenders' like that. When discussing the offside rule with regular people, it's easiest to just assume the goaltender is there in place. You can do otherwise and cause the confusion like we had here. People will understand that someone else can stand in for the goalkeeper temporarilyQuote: GenoDRPh
Rules state two defenders between you and the goal: one defender and usually a goalkeeper.
link to original post
I wonder if you can use your hands if you stand in?
link to original post
Not my fault if others can't understand plain language. If you'd like to know the source of the confusion, go to the nearest washroom or mirror and peer into said mirror. The very first person you see looking back at you, is the person to blame.
Quote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
That would be the goalie, who can do anything he wantsQuote: GenoDRPh
The very first person you see looking back at you, is the person to blame.
link to original post
of course that's a joke, but it would be me, and so ..............................
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
link to original post
I guess you don’t watch soccer. What you describe is called a ‘high line’. If all are lined up there you would just hit it over their heads with a teammate breaking through the ‘high line’, gaining possession and advancing for an easy one on one matchup with the goalie.
That’s not to say I like the rule. The original intent of course was to prevent ‘goal hanging’, but has turned into the preeminent strategy decision in all high level soccer games.
Mohamed Hany just scored his second goal this WC while suiting up for Egypt. This goal was beautiful header deftly placed around the goaltender. Too bad it was his team’s goaltender. Just like his first goal. If Egypt loses I expect a plethora of death threats.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
link to original post
I guess you don’t watch soccer. What you describe is called a ‘high line’. If all are lined up there you would just hit it over their heads with a teammate breaking through the ‘high line’, gaining possession and advancing for an easy one on one matchup with the goalie.
That’s not to say I like the rule. The original intent of course was to prevent ‘goal hanging’, but has turned into the preeminent strategy decision in all high level soccer games.
Mohamed Hany just scored his second goal this WC while suiting up for Egypt. This goal was beautiful header deftly placed around the goaltender. Too bad it was his team’s goaltender. Just like his first goal. If Egypt loses I expect a plethora of death threats.
link to original post
As the rule is written, it appears the offensive player charging at the goal with just the goalie would be off sides, and would be penalized.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
If that's not actually the rules, it should be clarified, but it reads that if there are fewer than two defenders between you and the opponent's goal, including the goalkeeper, you may not participate in a play.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
link to original post
The opponent doesn't make the player offisides. The payer him/herself determines whether there is offsides of not.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
link to original post
I guess you don’t watch soccer. What you describe is called a ‘high line’. If all are lined up there you would just hit it over their heads with a teammate breaking through the ‘high line’, gaining possession and advancing for an easy one on one matchup with the goalie.
That’s not to say I like the rule. The original intent of course was to prevent ‘goal hanging’, but has turned into the preeminent strategy decision in all high level soccer games.
Mohamed Hany just scored his second goal this WC while suiting up for Egypt. This goal was beautiful header deftly placed around the goaltender. Too bad it was his team’s goaltender. Just like his first goal. If Egypt loses I expect a plethora of death threats.
link to original post
Egypt just won on PKs. All is forgiven!
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
link to original post
I guess you don’t watch soccer. What you describe is called a ‘high line’. If all are lined up there you would just hit it over their heads with a teammate breaking through the ‘high line’, gaining possession and advancing for an easy one on one matchup with the goalie.
That’s not to say I like the rule. The original intent of course was to prevent ‘goal hanging’, but has turned into the preeminent strategy decision in all high level soccer games.
Mohamed Hany just scored his second goal this WC while suiting up for Egypt. This goal was beautiful header deftly placed around the goaltender. Too bad it was his team’s goaltender. Just like his first goal. If Egypt loses I expect a plethora of death threats.
link to original post
As the rule is written, it appears the offensive player charging at the goal with just the goalie would be off sides, and would be penalized.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
If that's not actually the rules, it should be clarified, but it reads that if there are fewer than two defenders between you and the opponent's goal, including the goalkeeper, you may not participate in a play.
link to original post
I stand by my comment that you must not have watched much soccer. The offsides rule is predicated on a pass forward being made. If you just take the ball yourself through defenders directly at the goalkeeper you are not offsides. If you steal the ball with no one between you and the goaltender you are not offsides. Anyone who has watched or played soccer is implicitly aware that offsides is only called on a pass.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
link to original post
I guess you don’t watch soccer. What you describe is called a ‘high line’. If all are lined up there you would just hit it over their heads with a teammate breaking through the ‘high line’, gaining possession and advancing for an easy one on one matchup with the goalie.
That’s not to say I like the rule. The original intent of course was to prevent ‘goal hanging’, but has turned into the preeminent strategy decision in all high level soccer games.
Mohamed Hany just scored his second goal this WC while suiting up for Egypt. This goal was beautiful header deftly placed around the goaltender. Too bad it was his team’s goaltender. Just like his first goal. If Egypt loses I expect a plethora of death threats.
link to original post
As the rule is written, it appears the offensive player charging at the goal with just the goalie would be off sides, and would be penalized.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
If that's not actually the rules, it should be clarified, but it reads that if there are fewer than two defenders between you and the opponent's goal, including the goalkeeper, you may not participate in a play.
link to original post
I stand by my comment that you must not have watched much soccer. The offsides rule is predicated on a pass forward being made. If you just take the ball yourself through defenders directly at the goalkeeper you are not offsides. If you steal the ball with no one between you and the goaltender you are not offsides. Anyone who has watched or played soccer is implicitly aware that offsides is only called on a pass.
link to original post
Fair enough. I don't watch soccer. Last time I played it was in 5th grade, in the schoolyard, with just the boys out there while the girls watched some kind of a movie and got a little booklet they hid and wouldn't show us.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's a stupid rule in a stupid game, but somehow one team will overcome it and win. In four years, they'll do it again, and America will pay attention for a couple of weeks.
As the Powers In Charge sold out the integrity of the game to add a few commercials, perhaps they can be bribed into changing this rule, too. Any rule that keeps Christian Reynoldo from scoring obviously needs to go.
link to original post
It's a ridiculous rule and makes it not a legitimate sport, when what some opponent does determines if you are off sides. In every other sport that has off sides it's what you do that determines it.
The rule as written, as I read it, means a whole team could line up at midfield, except for the goaltender, and no one could take a shot past midfield because they would be both in the opponent's half of the field and there would be only the goaltender between the shooter and the goal. So a team composed of one barely competent goaltender and 10 WoV members could force a 0-0 tie in any game.
link to original post
I guess you don’t watch soccer. What you describe is called a ‘high line’. If all are lined up there you would just hit it over their heads with a teammate breaking through the ‘high line’, gaining possession and advancing for an easy one on one matchup with the goalie.
That’s not to say I like the rule. The original intent of course was to prevent ‘goal hanging’, but has turned into the preeminent strategy decision in all high level soccer games.
Mohamed Hany just scored his second goal this WC while suiting up for Egypt. This goal was beautiful header deftly placed around the goaltender. Too bad it was his team’s goaltender. Just like his first goal. If Egypt loses I expect a plethora of death threats.
link to original post
As the rule is written, it appears the offensive player charging at the goal with just the goalie would be off sides, and would be penalized.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
If that's not actually the rules, it should be clarified, but it reads that if there are fewer than two defenders between you and the opponent's goal, including the goalkeeper, you may not participate in a play.
link to original post
I stand by my comment that you must not have watched much soccer. The offsides rule is predicated on a pass forward being made. If you just take the ball yourself through defenders directly at the goalkeeper you are not offsides. If you steal the ball with no one between you and the goaltender you are not offsides. Anyone who has watched or played soccer is implicitly aware that offsides is only called on a pass.
link to original post
Fair enough. I don't watch soccer. Last time I played it was in 5th grade, in the schoolyard, with just the boys out there while the girls watched some kind of a movie and got a little booklet they hid and wouldn't show us.
link to original post
Perhaps spending a little time orienting yourself to the game is in order.
You couldn't score in the first half, and got shut out in the second half. And Morocco laid the smackdown to a 3-0 victory.
You lost, dude. Deal with it.
Quote: GenoDRPhThe HC of the now eliminated Canadian team said,and I quote, "We were the much better team in the first half,”
You couldn't score in the first half, and got shut out in the second half. And Morocco laid the smackdown to a 3-0 victory.
You lost, dude. Deal with it.
link to original post
I'd say he was correct. If the game had ended after the first half and somehow gone to a judge's decision, Canada might have advanced.
Sadly, Morocco played a full game and thumped them badly in the second half. His boys put up a good fight but came up short. I'm sure he had much more to say on the game and the team that won.
\\Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: gordonm888The red card was clearly a terrible mistake by the referee. The two players got their feet tied up and the off-balance Balogun stepped backwards (trying to tap the ball) without looking back and inadvertently stepped on the foot/ankle of the other player. There was no intent to foul. That does not merit a red card ejection and suspension for the next game.
link to original post
Agree. Soccer yellow cards/red cards/‘verbal warnings’ are stupid. Water polo and hockey and lacrosse have it right. Timed penalties.
I think a red card should require bad intentions. Balogun just was trying to put his foot on the ground.
I also think carrying over a suspension to next round is stupid, especially for a once every four year tournament.
link to original post
He's responsible to where his foot goes, intention or otherwise. Nobody else.
Carrying over the red card disincentives naughty behavior. Want to participate and play in a once-every-four-year tourny? Then be on your best behavior.
link to original post
I agree completely
Quote: billryanThe Red Card suspension has been lifted so Team USA will be at full strength. Is it common for red cards to be successfully challenged?
link to original post
Probably not, but what I'm reading is that they traded the 1-game suspension for a 1-year probation. That is also a serious penalty because he's done for a full year if that happens again, but not one that will interfere with this World Cup with a decision that did not have the cleanest of appearances.
Or the officials already got their bets in and now it's time to make it rain.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanThe Red Card suspension has been lifted so Team USA will be at full strength. Is it common for red cards to be successfully challenged?
link to original post
Probably not, but what I'm reading is that they traded the 1-game suspension for a 1-year probation. That is also a serious penalty because he's done for a full year if that happens again, but not one that will interfere with this World Cup with a decision that did not have the cleanest of appearances.
Or the officials already got their bets in and now it's time to make it rain.
link to original post
I'm pretty sure you are misreading the situation. His one-game penalty is suspended. If he messes up during the one-year probation, it kicks in, and he misses a game.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanThe Red Card suspension has been lifted so Team USA will be at full strength. Is it common for red cards to be successfully challenged?
link to original post
Probably not, but what I'm reading is that they traded the 1-game suspension for a 1-year probation. That is also a serious penalty because he's done for a full year if that happens again, but not one that will interfere with this World Cup with a decision that did not have the cleanest of appearances.
Or the officials already got their bets in and now it's time to make it rain.
link to original post
Turn out Donny made a call to his boy Infantino...
Quote: billryanQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanThe Red Card suspension has been lifted so Team USA will be at full strength. Is it common for red cards to be successfully challenged?
link to original post
Probably not, but what I'm reading is that they traded the 1-game suspension for a 1-year probation. That is also a serious penalty because he's done for a full year if that happens again, but not one that will interfere with this World Cup with a decision that did not have the cleanest of appearances.
Or the officials already got their bets in and now it's time to make it rain.
link to original post
I'm pretty sure you are misreading the situation. His one-game penalty is suspended. If he messes up during the one-year probation, it kicks in, and he misses a game.
link to original post
OK I may well have misread that, and it seemed he would be suspended from FIFA games for a year. But rereading it it looks like if it happens he gets a penalty for whatever he did plus the penalty from that last game.
Still looks better than what they originally did, which had a stink on it worse than anyone out on the field did.
FIFA is having a great World Cup, but they should not bend or break the rules and bow to political pressure. They need to be impartial and whatever happens due to enforcing the rules of the game happens, even if it means the best player of the host nation is suspended or sanctioned. And if Infantino had a pair, that's what he should've told Donny.
If I just took a wild guess in soccer I would say around 10-12 cents each way but I really have no idea. I am guessing Mexico has a greater advantage because of the altitude.
Quote: DRichIn soccer, what is typical price differential for home field advantage? I don't follow soccer so I have no idea. In American football we usually figure around a 1.5 point difference for each team.
If I just took a wild guess in soccer I would say around 10-12 cents each way but I really have no idea. I am guessing Mexico has a greater advantage because of the altitude.
link to original post
Maybe a little more. Neutral field England much bigger favorite. Neutral field Belgium slight favorite over USA, not the underdog they are now.
Quote: DRichIn soccer, what is typical price differential for home field advantage? I don't follow soccer so I have no idea. In American football we usually figure around a 1.5 point difference for each team.
If I just took a wild guess in soccer I would say around 10-12 cents each way but I really have no idea. I am guessing Mexico has a greater advantage because of the altitude.
link to original post
The US team rarely has home-field advantage. If they play Mexico, the stands are filled with Mexicans. If they play Ireland, the Irish buy tickets. An awful lot of American soccer fans root for their ethnic team first.
Quote: billryanQuote: DRichIn soccer, what is typical price differential for home field advantage? I don't follow soccer so I have no idea. In American football we usually figure around a 1.5 point difference for each team.
If I just took a wild guess in soccer I would say around 10-12 cents each way but I really have no idea. I am guessing Mexico has a greater advantage because of the altitude.
link to original post
The US team rarely has home-field advantage. If they play Mexico, the stands are filled with Mexicans. If they play Ireland, the Irish buy tickets. An awful lot of American soccer fans root for their ethnic team first.
link to original post
I don't care about U.S., I just wondered what was typical in football games around Europe and elsewhere. I figured some of you must watch football regularly and follow games in other countries.
That was weird, that Belgium was allowed to appeal the reversal of the suspension of Folarin Balogun. They have as much standing to do that as the San Jose Sharks. They weren't in the game- not their problem what went on in it, and if that is ever allowed then every team will be able to hire people to watch footage and complain that this or that star player on their next opponent shouldn't be in the game because...
Bunch of scolds and snitches looking for a way to make themselves bigger than the players.
(Interesting thing about that picture: the image generators would not produce it with the water emitting from it in the way it is in Brussels, as every way I described it they declared it obscene and refused to draw it.)
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyHey sprouts, the USA has a message for you...
That was weird, that Belgium was allowed to appeal the reversal of the suspension of Folarin Balogun. They have as much standing to do that as the San Jose Sharks. They weren't in the game- not their problem what went on in it, and if that is ever allowed then every team will be able to hire people to watch footage and complain that this or that star player on their next opponent shouldn't be in the game because...
Bunch of scolds and snitches looking for a way to make themselves bigger than the players.
(Interesting thing about that picture: the image generators would not produce it with the water emitting from it in the way it is in Brussels, as every way I described it they declared it obscene and refused to draw it.)
link to original post
4-1 smackdown. Better luck next time!
Hopefully, we don't have to watch those "Do you believe in miracles?" advertisements anymore. They were always delusional.
Quote: gordonm888
Hopefully, we don't have to watch those "Do you believe in miracles?" advertisements anymore. They were always delusional.
I am still shocked at how many people think we beat Russia for the gold medal in 1980. "Do you believe in miracles?"
you mean I guess the US had to go on and defeat Finland to win the goldQuote: DRichQuote: gordonm888
Hopefully, we don't have to watch those "Do you believe in miracles?" advertisements anymore. They were always delusional.
I am still shocked at how many people think we beat Russia for the gold medal in 1980. "Do you believe in miracles?"
link to original post
for nostalgia, think of how we used to do things like win gold medals with amateurs only
Quote: odiousgambityou mean I guess the US had to go on and defeat Finland to win the goldQuote: DRichQuote: gordonm888
Hopefully, we don't have to watch those "Do you believe in miracles?" advertisements anymore. They were always delusional.
I am still shocked at how many people think we beat Russia for the gold medal in 1980. "Do you believe in miracles?"
link to original post
for nostalgia, think of how we used to do things like win gold medals with amateurs only
link to original post
Mandela Effect thread candidate!
I like the World Cup commercial that imagines the USA winning the cup, then ends with [SPOILER ALERT] "it was all a dream" but an old guy comments the USA did win it all—referring to his 1980 ice hockey gold.
Colombia Switzerland toiled for two hours…. no goals.
USA is a slightly inferior team to Belgium. The result is not a big surprise. Our goaltender was sub par.
I’m liking England-France final. France 2, England 1.
Egypt folded like a cheap suit. I think with 12 minutes to go you could have gotten Argentina to win in ‘regulation’ at 100-1.
