[Totally OT] World Cup prediction thread

[A Thing of Eternity]

Yeah, but I yell at my kids for saying "huh".

Why's that? It'll be harder for them when Canada covers all of this continent? (oh yeah, we're taking Mexico too when we go for it).

[Freakzilla]

Yeah, but I yell at my kids for saying "huh".

Why's that? It'll be harder for them when Canada covers all of this continent? (oh yeah, we're taking Mexico too when we go for it).

Because it sounds stupid.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Yeah, but I yell at my kids for saying "huh".

Why's that? It'll be harder for them when Canada covers all of this continent? (oh yeah, we're taking Mexico too when we go for it).

Because it sounds stupid.

Ah, this is true. "Eh" is much better.

[nampigai]

Switzerland won against Spain

[SandRider]

I believe the normal American thing to say in that situation would have been "huh".

in speech, probably, and it depends on how old you are I guess, but "eh?" seems to me to
be a standard writing convention .... altho, I picked up tacking on "eh?" to the end of
sentences working with a bunch of Canucks in the Middle East in the 70s ... one of the
reasons I enjoyed Bob & Doug, they reminded me of some of those guys ...

.... doughnuts and beer, eh ? ... and doughnuts .... and like, more beer ... beauty.

[Nekhrun]

Not exactly timely, but I just saw it:

[Freakzilla]

Nice!

[dune stroller]

Every world cup final played has featured one (and often two) of four teams - Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Italy. Draw your own conclusions.

[Sev]

The U.S. currently involved in the game of the tournament - 2-0 down at half time and Slovenia looking a class act - but 2 goals in the second half have turned it around, with a third U.S. goal ruled off when it looked perfectly reasonable.

What with this game, and Germany's shock defeat to Serbia earlier today, this World Cup has come alive - and England play tonight - COME ON!!

[merkin muffley]

US- Slovenia, GREAT game. HORRIBLE calls. Ever since I started watching the games, I've been rooting for the US, despite the England vote. In the interests of full disclosure.

[Aquila ka-Hecate]

That offside should never have been called against the US goal.

The replay footage reveals it was on-side.

Not that I'm a fan, you know, of the US team or anything...

[A Thing of Eternity]

That offside should never have been called against the US goal.

The replay footage reveals it was on-side.

Not that I'm a fan, you know, of the US team or anything...

I think that in all sports (especially hockey) coaches should be allowed 1 or 2 challanges per game of ANY call the refs make, where they can say that they think the refs are in error and have it video reviewed, just like is often with questionable goals.

[Freakzilla]

That offside should never have been called against the US goal.

The replay footage reveals it was on-side.

Not that I'm a fan, you know, of the US team or anything...

I think that in all sports (especially hockey) coaches should be allowed 1 or 2 challanges per game of ANY call the refs make, where they can say that they think the refs are in error and have it video reviewed, just like is often with questionable goals.

They have something like that in the NFL but I think there are certain calls they can't challenge.

[A Thing of Eternity]

That offside should never have been called against the US goal.

The replay footage reveals it was on-side.

Not that I'm a fan, you know, of the US team or anything...

I think that in all sports (especially hockey) coaches should be allowed 1 or 2 challanges per game of ANY call the refs make, where they can say that they think the refs are in error and have it video reviewed, just like is often with questionable goals.

They have something like that in the NFL but I think there are certain calls they can't challenge.

That's where I got the idea, they have that in the CFL here too. Hockey has nothing at all like that, I think it would be a really good idea.

[SadisticCynic]

In football, I have a strong feeling that idea would be misused in order to waste time.

[A Thing of Eternity]

In football, I have a strong feeling that idea would be misused in order to waste time.

That's why you would only give 1 or 2 chances a game.

[Freakzilla]

In football, I have a strong feeling that idea would be misused in order to waste time.

That's why you would only give 1 or 2 chances a game.

In the NFL the coach gets two, in the form of red flags that he throws out on the field. If he looses the challenge he gets charged a time out. The time outs become very valuable in the last two minutes so they are very careful about using them.\

(I believe all plays are subject to review from the booth after the two minute warning, though.)

[A Thing of Eternity]

In football, I have a strong feeling that idea would be misused in order to waste time.

That's why you would only give 1 or 2 chances a game.

In the NFL the coach gets two, in the form of red flags that he throws out on the field. If he looses the challenge he gets charged a time out. The time outs become very valuable in the last two minutes so they are very careful about using them.\

(I believe all plays are subject to review from the booth after the two minute warning, though.)

That works.

[SandRider]

I play a lot of "vintage" baseball (1860s rules); there's no "umpire" (there are no balls & strikes in 60s & 80s ball)
the players themselves make the call (you know if you got tagged or not) and if it's a close call, or a disagreement,
a vote is taken of the players on the field .... (or, if the sheriff feels strongly about it and pulls his leg, he
gets to make the call ...)

I like the modern baseball rules - ump says it, it's the fucking law.... don't like it ? get off the field ...

otherwise, take the human element out of the game and fuck it up like they did the College Football Bowls;
hook the players and equipment up to a computer, let the fucking computer give you the calls ...


(there you go, that's what started the Butlerian Jihad ... )

[A Thing of Eternity]

I agree that refs have to be the rule, but sometimes they make really obviously bad mistakes and cost teams games, or even championships.

A bad ref still gets to be a bad ref, but might get called on it occasionally. I don't want team usurping ref's authority, but just given a chance to ask for a 2nd opinion. I like the idea that there is a penalty for being wrong though, even a literal penalty would work (when I played lacross, a coach was allowed to ask the refs to inspect a play from the other team's stick for whether it was an approprate length - if the coach was right, the offending player got a penalty, but if the coach was wrong, someone from their team was given a penalty).

[Freakzilla]

Just don't try to tell George Brett he has too much pine tar on his bat...

[dune stroller]

US versus Slovenia - excellent game and US can feel aggrieved not to have won. Ref didn't award for offside, he blew for
an offence committed whilst players were jostling. Looked harsh to me but in football refs decision is final and cannot
be overturned, even by presidential intervention (a few have tried). Introducing video evidence etc is a well worn debate but
FIFA extremely unlikely to implement it as it's felt it would undermine refs authority and break up the flow of the game. Football's
meant to be continuous. It's hard to take but some you win..... Controversial decisions are part of the joy of the game, these things are remembered and hotly debated for decades, long after the rest is forgotten.

Just don't try to tell George Brett he has too much pine tar on his bat...

Yep, that's what i mean.

[Aquila ka-Hecate]

Ref didn't award for offside, he blew for
an offence committed whilst players were jostling.

Yes, thanks for that - I watched the replay of the match this morning and see what you mean. Ref did blow for something he saw in that appalling scrum.

[Hunchback Jack]

I like the modern baseball rules - ump says it, it's the fucking law.... don't like it ? get off the field ...

I must say, I like it too.

In cricket, about 20 years ago or so they introduced the "third umpire", where if the two umpires on the field disagreed, a third umpire in the stands watched a video replay and made the decisive call. Even that diminished the game a little, and I was disappointed to see it introduced. Don't know if they still have it.

In cricket, the "Howzat?" yell when someone's out is called an appeal. You're appealing to the umpire for a decision. Doesn't matter if the middle stump is out of the ground and the bails are twenty feet away, if the ump doesn't raise his finger, the guy's not out. I like that idea. It's not perfect, but it's part of the game.

Edited to add: There need to be some checks and balances to prevent an umpire from being consistently biased or incompetent, but not out on the field, during a game.

HBJ

[SandChigger]

Doesn't matter if the middle stump is out of the ground and the bails are twenty feet away, if the ump doesn't raise his finger, the guy's not out.

I love it when, out of the blue, you just suddenly start talking dirty in the middle of a thread...