YOUNG AMERICANS
The USMNT was by far the youngest team to qualify for the 2022 FIFA World Cup, garnering valuable experience going through the rigors of World Cup qualifying. Through 14 qualifiers, the USA Starting XI came in at an average of 23.82, almost two years younger than the next closest team, Ghana at 25.67. Together, the other 31 participating teams averaged a Starting XI age of 27.5 through qualifying, nearly four full years older than the U.S. Sources say this is one of the youngest, but most talented teams the U.S. has ever fielded. While they may not win the world cup this year, they may garner the experience needed to make a serious run on home soil in the year 2026 when the World Cup comes back to North America.
2022 USA World Cup Roster
FORWARDS
Jesús Ferreira (FC Dallas)
Jordan Morris (Seattle Sounders)
Christian Pulisic (Chelsea)
Gio Reyna (Borussia Dortmund)
Josh Sargent (Norwich City)
Timothy Weah (Lille)
Haji Wright (Antalyaspor)
DEFENDERS
Cameron Carter-Vickers (Celtic)
Sergiño Dest (AC Milan)
Aaron Long (New York Red Bulls)
Shaq Moore (Nashville SC)
Tim Ream (Fulham)
Antonee Robinson (Fulham)
Joe Scally (Borussia Monchengladbach)
DeAndre Yedlin (Inter Miami)
Walker Zimmerman (Nashville SC)
GOALKEEPERS
Ethan Horvath (Luton Town)
Sean Johnson (NYCFC)
Matt Turner (Arsenal) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Razaele:
Well of course everyone stopped. The ball was in the net. What else would they do? Either it was out for a goal kick or it was a goal scored.
They as in Japan................ You know the ones who usually celebrate after they score? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TripleThreat:
They as in Japan................ You know the ones who usually celebrate after they score?
That’s the trouble with VAR, you usually get the call right but it’s hard to celebrate a goal sometimes. There could be a suspicion of offside, a foul, a question of did it actually cross the line, and you have to wait to see if VAR confirms. It’s not really particular to this situation. [Reply]
This tells the referee if the ball is in or out. No referee goes against the assistance of VAR on these calls. VAR buzzes them and tells the ref if it’s a goal or not.
Human element is removed on these calls.
In football - if they implemented this, the ball would tell you if it crossed the line or not - and you would not need refs to look at 30 different camera angles to determine if it crossed or not.
The difference would be that they would need to be able to tell the system when the knee was down. So it’s a little difference when there is no “down by contact” component in soccer - if it’s in, it’s in, if it’s not, it’s not
The goal line tech is for determining if the ball has crossed the goal line between the posts. It does not determine in our out of play over the goal or touch line.
This was not a decision made by any goal line tech. The VAR Referee made the decision, a correct decision, by looking at the various video feeds they get access to.
Originally Posted by penguinz:
The goal line tech is for determining if the ball has crossed the goal line between the posts. It does not determine in our out of play over the goal or touch line.
This was not a decision made by any goal line tech. The VAR Referee made the decision, a correct decision, by looking at the various video feeds they get access to.
Originally Posted by TripleThreat:
My god you're a ****ing dumb ass.... You're missing the point.
You're asking where is the evidence that the call on the field was "NO GOAL" I'm asking the same ****ing question, where is the evidence that the call on the field was a "GOAL".. How is this so hard to comprehend for your brain?
I see a lot more evidence pointing to the fact that both teams and the refs were believing it was NOT a goal, rather than it BEING a goal... If you noticed everyone stopped post it going in, because obviously there were refs and other people saying HOLD ON HOLD ON.
The EXACT same reaction happened with our 2nd goal in the IRAN game. Our guy scored, started celebrating and stopped JUST like Japan.
So again, this isn't rocket science dude. When you say its inconclusive, and you're going with the call on the field, where/when was the call on the field made prior to going to the VAR? My god dude.
The ball is presumed to be in play unless an official rules it out. There is a main referee and an assistant referee that have authority to make a ruling.
It was not humanly possible for either of those human beings to see the ball crossing the end line. It was particularly ****ing impossible for the assistant referee to rule the ball as crossing the end line with the goal frame and net and three players obstructing any view of the ball relative to the end line.
FOX's American coverage and FIFA did a shitty job and created this situation where a bunch of ignorant mother****ers think a goal kick was ruled on the field and that a review was done by VAR that decided that all the video evidence was inconclusive and that an original ruling of a goal kick was overruled by inconclusive evidence.
FIFA should issue a statement for the benefit of the Americans that had to listen to Alexi Lalas making up shit about the play and what the original call was and what the VAR decided about the conclusiveness of the video evidence and whether there was any change in the original call.
Seems like the true story is that it was a goal and no official ever ruled goal kick and they depended on VAR to decide the matter and VAR decided that the video evidence conclusively proved no goal kick. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jettio:
The ball is presumed to be in play unless an official rules it out. There is a main referee and an assistant referee that have authority to make a ruling.
It was not humanly possible for either of those human beings to see the ball crossing the end line. It was particularly ****ing impossible for the assistant referee to rule the ball as crossing the end line with the goal frame and net and three players obstructing any view of the ball relative to the end line.
FOX's American coverage and FIFA did a shitty job and created this situation where a bunch of ignorant mother****ers think a goal kick was ruled on the field and that a review was done by VAR that decided that all the video evidence was inconclusive and that an original ruling of a goal kick was overruled buy inconclusive evidence.
FIFA should issue a statement for the benefit of the Americans that had to listen to Alexi Lalas making up shit about the play and what the original call was and what the VAR decided about the conclusiveness of the video evidence and whether there was any change in the original call.
Seems like the true story is that it was a goal and no official ever ruled goal kick and they depended on VAR to decide the matter and VAR decided that the video evidence conclusively proved no goal kick.
Again you're just a dumbass asking for evidence that they called "no goal" when you have no evidence that a "goal" was called on the field. The clip right after the goal went over the line was the commentators saying the AR's flag is going up and down and the mid ref had his ear to his piece.
So again, you're just trying to pull shit out of your ass, and you're arguing with someone who thinks this was the right call in the end, however people like you are ignoring the fact that there was never a call on the field before going to VAR and after using VAR they said inconclusive and went with the call on the field, there was no call on the field, dumb ass. [Reply]
