Friday, June 22, 2007

Replay the controversial play

I've watched this so many times, and I have to say, watching in slow motion, that it looks like Hume does get a touch on the ball before the final play was called offsides on Canada. The trajectory of the ball changes slightly just before it gets headed by Onyewu. Look carefully at the third slow-mo sequence. In which case, the linesman made the right call, because Canada was offside at the time of that touch.

Of course, the announcers are discussing how it was a bad call, because they're looking at where the players are when the ball was kicked. However, the linesman said he raised his flag because he thought Hume touched the ball. I think he was right, but the touch was slight.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'd love to agree with you, but I just don't see it. It doesn't look like he touched it.

Anonymous said...

You truly are a homer sometimes AC, to defending Lalas' stupid comments and now this. There is no touch by Hume, and even at the point of the supposed touch, the players still aren't offside until Gooch touches the ball.

Anonymous said...

After all the bu11$hit calls against the MNT I'm not going to loose any sleep over this.

A.C. said...

I said it was slight, but slight touches still make a difference. I remember when the Red Bulls were in town and Juan Pablo Angel scored the goal off a free kick, the press box was united in thinking it went straight in, even after watching the replay. Goalkeeper Cronin, though, told me it took a deflection, and that's why he missed it. I figured it was an excuse, but then Clint Mathis mentioned the play, and said the ball took a deflection. I don't think Mathis was trying to make Cronin look good. For that matter, did anyone ask Hume if he touched the ball?
Also, if you don't think the players are offside when the ball reaches Hume, then the homer could be you.

BRC said...

You got it right.
I think the ref missed the touch & "blew" the call, but actually got it right.

A.C. said...

Well, as far as I can tell from the press reports, the media are convinced the linesman blew the call. However, I know that it's doubtful anyone in the press box saw a good replay, plus, at the time, they weren't even looking to see if Hume got a touch, but looking at the initial Canada pass. What's funny is that the press box is often far from the action, you have no control over the replay, usually, and you have to get down to the locker room for interviews, so it's a bit crazy. In the luxury of one's house, with a good DVR, a viewer has a better sense of that play than many of the reporters who are going to write about it.

So while I agree with coach, I'm not sure the ref was lucky - besides us, most of the public believe he totally blew the call, because that's what the press told them.

Anonymous said...

Don't you think Gooch or Keller would've seen the "touch" by Hume and would've said something after the game?

A.C. said...

I'm presuming that Keller would've been shielded by Gooch, and I've seen too many pictures of soccer players heading the ball with their eyes closed.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of whoever touched it, he was never offside!

A.C. said...

The exclamation point was especially convincing.

Anonymous said...

Your argument isn't any better. You claim no one can see what's going on from that view, then you go into some tangent about the Red Bulls and how no one can see exactly what's going on from the press box, but some how you got this magic DVR that shows you some phantom deflection from that same angle. I've looked at that replay over and over again there's no deflection. Nice try though and excellent job explaining away why Gooch and Keller didn't see the deflection.

A.C. said...

My point was that the press box often can't see a good replay (there's no time and no DVR in the press box for them to control the replay view). It's not magic, its the fact that there's no DVR in many press boxes, period. The Red Bull example was a classic case of many people not noticing a slight deflection. Your best argument is still valid - you didn't see any deflection. Fine. On the slow-mo especially, I did.