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]
FYI - the call on the field doesn't matter when it comes to VAR and out of bounds / goal / offsides - VAR is the final decision due to the technology. The AI knows what the call is on those calls, it's not inconclusive. (same technology as Tennis)
Sometimes, like the Morocco game vs Belgium, where the player is offsides but doesn't touch the ball (but obstructs the GK or is part of the play) the Ref has the option to call it either way... also when there is a handball - its all subjective to the ref.
VAR will not even call the ref if there is not evidence to even have him look at it.
I say this, but VAR sometimes has human error (See Argentina goal vs Saudi that was not offside that they called off because they used the wrong defender to draw the line) [Reply]
Originally Posted by TripleThreat:
I think our analysts had a really good counter argument to Japan's 2nd goal.
I get the rule, and from the angle I agree, that ball wasn't out. HOWEVER - like our analyst pointed out, the view was "inconclusive" and therefore they went with the call on the field. However, what was the call on the field? If you watch the replay, Japan is throwing their hands in the air and stop celebrating because the AR has his flag up.
So if we think of this like American Football, you need clear evidence that the ball was inbounds, yet their response was "inconclusive" and then called it a goal. If you're gonna say it's inconclusive and go with the call on the field, how is that a goal? It's like American Football, they go with the call on the field if the replay can't overturn the decision on the field. Same concept here, no?
I have not seen any pictures or footage of the Assistant Referee raising a flag for goal kick.
I doubt he made a call that he would stand behind because he had no way of seeing the call since he was on the far side of the field and the play was on the other side of the goal and the goalframe and three players prevented him from seeing the play well enough to make a call.
Alexi Lalas seemed to be talking out of ass to say that the Assistant Referee made a call.
Seems like the Assistant Referee would have said in his microphone that he was not making a call because he could not see the play well enough to make any call.
As far as call on the field, there was no call on the field. the review was done with the idea that the ball had to be definitely out to disallow a goal, which is the absolute right way of looking at it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TripleThreat:
Ok So I just rewatched the highlights. The Mid referee doesn't make a formal call, and they say the AR's flag went up then down, then up then down. So what was the on field call? The ref went straight to his ear piece while also pointing at the AR in the clip.
Jacqui Oatley, the play by play, says that about the flag on the broadcast, but then Marc Klattenberg pipes in and says there was no call on the field when explaining the ruling to let goal stand.
It was not possible for the Assistant Referee to see the play so it would be a complete lack of integrity to for the Assistant Referee to make any call that deserved any deference.
There is no way the assistant referee or the primary referee could claim to have a made a call on the position of the ball relative to the end line that would be due any deference at all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
So some interesting commentary on this, but ultimately there are some birds eye views that give a good answer.
I guess the entire ball has to be out, including the 'fat' part of the ball, not just the part of the ball in contact with the grass.
Obviously the entire contact patch is OOB, but the contact patch isn't the entire ball - high angle views of the ball show that the fat part is still in contact with the white line if the line were to be drawn vertically up into the sky (as the rule is technically written).
Amazingly, I think they might have gotten that one right.
Originally Posted by jettio:
Jacqui Oatley, the play by play, says that about the flag on the broadcast, but then Marc Klattenberg pipes in and says there was no call on the field when explaining the ruling to let goal stand.
It was not possible for the Assistant Referee to see the play so it would be a complete lack of integrity to for the Assistant Referee to make any call that deserved any deference.
There is no way the assistant referee or the primary referee could claim to have a made a call on the position of the ball relative to the end line that would be due any deference at all.
Ok so first off I agree with the call that they gave them the goal. That being said, your post makes no sense. Go back and rewatch the actual live game, the announcer literally says the AR is lifting their flag up, then down, up, then down. The entire Japan squad stops celebrating within 5 seconds of scoring. Our analysts also have also questioned this call. The bottom line is there HAS to be a call on the field prior to using VAR but nobody knows what that call was. Did they say it was a goal? Did they say it was out of bounds? What was the call on the field prior to going to VAR, that’s the question.
I really just brought this up for conversation but if you’re gonna act like a weird entitled bitch about it I probably won’t reply again. It’s definitely a call that will be talked about for a while and it’s clear as day you haven’t watched the live replay of the game and how the ref and squads acted post goal. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TripleThreat:
Ok so first off I agree with the call that they gave them the goal. That being said, your post makes no sense. Go back and rewatch the actual live game, the announcer literally says the AR is lifting their flag up, then down, up, then down. The entire Japan squad stops celebrating within 5 seconds of scoring. Our analysts also have also questioned this call. The bottom line is there HAS to be a call on the field prior to using VAR but nobody knows what that call was. Did they say it was a goal? Did they say it was out of bounds? What was the call on the field prior to going to VAR, that’s the question.
I really just brought this up for conversation but if you’re gonna act like a weird entitled bitch about it I probably won’t reply again. It’s definitely a call that will be talked about for a while and it’s clear as day you haven’t watched the live replay of the game and how the ref and squads acted post goal.
Pretty sure the call on the field was no goal with VAR checking it.
Originally Posted by TripleThreat:
I always root for the concaf teams tbh.
I thought Canada actually played well this tournament despite the scores.
Canada played well against Belgium and deserved to win or at the very least tie. I will say Alphonso Davies looked terrible in that game and had poor touches and made too many mistakes.
If he was on, I think they pull the 3 points in game 1. [Reply]
Exactly my point. The call on the field seemed to be no goal, yet they reviewed the footage and said it was “inconclusive” and stated they went with the call on the field. If they went with the call on the field it shouldn’t have been a goal. [Reply]
