Monday, June 21, 2010

USA Goal Disallowed - It Was A Make Up Call! UPDATED

My theory on the controversial call:

In my belief the referee did not allow the USA goal late in the game against Slovenia because he felt me made a poor call on the foul that led to that free kick in the first place, and used a "make up call" to correct that mistake.

In the preceding play, a Slovenian defender clashed with American striker Jozy Altidore to the right of the penalty box and Altidore went down very easily, yet still drew the foul. It is my belief that the referee Koman Coulibaly of Mali realized he made a bad call on that play, so as soon as Landon Donovan made contact with the ensuing free kick the referee blew his whistle to kill the play dead long before anything could happen in the box, including the Maurice Edu goal. Of course there was no call to be made against the Americans, as they committed no discernible fouls. But the referee, knowing he would never have to explain himself during or after the game, so he used the opportunity for a "make up call" to correct his prior mistake.

Do I have it wrong? I could be 100% off the mark. You tell me.

I am sticking with my explanation until I hear otherwise.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

EDITORS NOTE: Aaron in Mpls sent us this gem from USA coach Bob Bradley, posted at Soccernet on Saturday: "There are times when a referee, for whatever reason, blows a foul and now thinks either he didn't make the correct call on the foul or from a previous play, and then literally as soon as the free kick's taken, he blows his whistle."


Anonymous USGunner said...

That's my thought as well. You see that exact thing happen quite regularly. Normally, it works out ok--no goal is scored, or their is a fairly obvious foul. After all, what are the chances that the US would score without a single player committing a foul? Practically zero since there are normally 4 fouls from each team on a play like this. Watching again, it is clear that the ref blew the whistle well before the ball got near Edu--during the period when there would normally be some sort of foul.
Bob Bradley agrees with this theory as well, as he said in the press conference today.
Doesn't make it any easier to take! But we just need to win on Wednesday!

12:33 PM  
Blogger Toddzilla said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4:26 PM  
Blogger Toddzilla said...

I hadn't even considered that, Bruce, but I think you're absolutely right. One of the strangest things about the whole deal was how nonchalantly the ref blew the whistle - it didn't even seem like he was looking at anything in particular. That idea explains a lot.

4:27 PM  
Anonymous Elliott said...

I think this is the explanation that makes the most sense. My first instinct was offsides on little Bradley, but when no flag was raised, I began to suspect some referee-tomfooleery

10:40 PM  
Anonymous Gorilla Monsoon said...

I 95% agree with your theory. It's too bad that nobody at ESPN or elsewhere seems to want to bring up this theory or version. I hate the call, but the guy blew the foul well before the ball got to Edu and acts as if he was ignoring where the ball was. If you listen to ESPN & others, they make it sound like the 1972 Olympic USSR-US basketball game robbery (a true screwjob).

The tipoff to me is that the referee blows the whistle just after enough rough play has started to justify a foul, like he was going to do it as soon as he saw a clutch or pull by anyone.

It's no different than the typical NBA make-up call, other than he went for the make-up call on a play where a rare and precious goal was scored.

11:10 PM  
Anonymous wes said...

I've taken a zen approach to this call. The best part of it is that it didn't happen in the last game or in a knock-out round... we can still come back from this and that's the important part.
That and we should invade Mali.

12:03 AM  
Anonymous Joe j said...

I think Alexi discussed this, saying basically he blew his whistle 'immediately' after the kick. I think Bruce said it first, however.

9:16 PM  
Anonymous dug said...

I agree with Bruce for the most part. The ref's clear lack of any gesturing or pointing at a particular play that he was whistling leads one to think that he didn't really see a foul. I'm just not sure about the whole "make-up call" part of it. I mean, it's just as likely in my mind that he just decided that he would err on the side of equality and keep the game a tie. Too much pushing and shoving and he's not going to be the one to get in the middle of a controversy by letting it go. We all can obviously see the irony there, in that he created more controversy by acting than by not acting. Who the hell knows what goes through a ref's mind? Especially when he's not saying anything about it. That is another shameful aspect here, but maybe part of a larger discussion about transparency at FIFA.

Okay, my head hurts from thinking... (or is that from the beer?)

1:19 PM  
Anonymous dug said...

Good point Wes,

Thank god that wasn't the tying goal that he whistled for...

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Live soccer streaming said...

Unfortunately the Same thing Also happened with England in their Game against Germany. Well, Even though England lost 4 - 1, I believe that if The 2nd goal wasnt declined by the Refree that the Score would have been 2 - 2 and England wouldnt have played "Ultra offensive" And therefore Germany wouldnt be able to Score the 2 Counter attack Goals they scored..

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is Allah's will that the goal was disallowed.
The Muslim referee did the right thing.

America is the Great Satan.

4:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts