?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Sentimental yet sardonic [userpic]

England 1 - 1 USA

June 12th, 2010 (10:11 pm)
discontent

current mood: discontent

Well, that was... disappointing.

To mis-quote a famous Kevin Keegan saying, we flipping murdered them one-all.

Lampard was fairly anonymous, Lennon didn't make as many runs into the box as he should have, and Crouch should have come on for Heskey ten minutes earlier. I am deliberately not talking about Green (though I am glad he did do that one save later).

Comments

Posted by: MoragMacpherson (moragmacpherson)
Posted at: June 13th, 2010 12:39 am (UTC)
words

Tee hee, the current Fark headline is "US defeat England 1-1," and most of the English in the thread have conceded that this is essentially true. Myself, I am desperately trying to understand how the offsides rules work in this damn sport (somehow, it's different than lacrosse or hockey, because that first Mexico shot would have been a goal in either).

Posted by: Sentimental yet sardonic (booster17)
Posted at: June 13th, 2010 12:59 am (UTC)

Oh god, that Mexico goal. I watched that live, in a room full of people during break at work, and not one of us didn't consider that a fair goal. Dis-allowing it was certainly the letter of the law, but totally against the spirit of the law, I'd say.

And overall, meh. We were the two teams most likely to get out of the group anyway.

Posted by: MoragMacpherson (moragmacpherson)
Posted at: June 13th, 2010 04:51 am (UTC)
daring

Who are the other two teams in the group? Algeria and Slovenia? Yeah, I suspect the Anglophones are going to be triumphant in Group C, but still, it'll be fun to hear John Oliver get a bit of comeuppance come Monday's Daily Show (there wasn't just a little trash talk going on, but all in good fun). But you're right: this wasn't exactly Turkey-Germany in the 2008 EuroCup, when I swore that there was going to be a deadly bar fight in the place I was watching it.

And my cousin, who knows these things, informs me that the offense isn't allowed to be ahead of the defense on the field in association football. To which I say: that makes no sense. Isn't that the point of being on offense: to get ahead of the defenders and put the ball in the goal? Can I interest your little island (and, fine, okay, the rest of the damn world as well) in a sport called lacrosse? The Indians around here cooked it up a few hundred years ago, and it's finally starting to spread around. Pretty much the same idea as football, but the offsides rules actually make sense, there's a lot more scoring, and you're allowed to hit each other with sticks. Everyone wins!

Posted by: Sentimental yet sardonic (booster17)
Posted at: June 13th, 2010 09:29 am (UTC)

To quote the Eleventh Doctor : "Now... football's the one with the sticks, isn't it?"

Posted by: HJ (hjcallipygian)
Posted at: June 15th, 2010 12:53 pm (UTC)

Offsides is pretty simple: there must be two players from the other team (of any position) between the goal and the attacker up until such time as ball begins its travel toward the attacker. Usually this is a single defender and the keeper, but I believe there was a play this Cup already wherein the keeper moved forward to draw someone offsides who was in proper position with the defender marking him.

I haven't seen the Mexico goal you're talking about, though.

11 Read Comments