What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

"A disaster here in Russia for Germany."

Huh.

Germany finishes dead last in their Group.
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

Holy s**t. First time GER has ever lost 2 and 1st time ever not to advance? Did I hear that correctly?
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

First legal sports bet made in NJ was Germany to win WC :D
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

In 2014 Mexico gets a late goal from our dam* C team to keep them in contention to qualify for the WC.

Now they get Korea upsetting the #1 team after a total collapse in the 2nd half.

Meanwhile we get eliminated in part due to a ghost goal in Panama.

Did we waste all our luck on the Confed Cup in 09?
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
In 2014 Mexico gets a late goal from our dam* C team to keep them in contention to qualify for the WC.

Now they get Korea upsetting the #1 team after a total collapse in the 2nd half.

Meanwhile we get eliminated in part due to a ghost goal in Panama.

Did we waste all our luck on the Confed Cup in 09?
Click to expand...
This **** better come around and have us win in 2026. :mad:
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

Dumb question... just watched the highlights of Mexico-Sweden, and saw that penalty in the box- which was pretty much done to prevent a score.

In hockey, doing something like that makes some sense- as even penalty shots are not so high percentage.

But in football- it seems that a penalty shot would be a higher percentage goal vs. kind of following the guy hard and making him attempt the shot. In other words, it seems as if you go for the tackle that is very high risk for a penalty shot, it's actually better to force a shot.

Is that accurate or not?
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

alfablue said:
Dumb question... just watched the highlights of Mexico-Sweden, and saw that penalty in the box- which was pretty much done to prevent a score.

In hockey, doing something like that makes some sense- as even penalty shots are not so high percentage.

But in football- it seems that a penalty shot would be a higher percentage goal vs. kind of following the guy hard and making him attempt the shot. In other words, it seems as if you go for the tackle that is very high risk for a penalty shot, it's actually better to force a shot.

Is that accurate or not?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the play but it sounds like what The Biter pulled off (successfully) at the last WC. 81% of all WC penalty kicks in history have been converted, so I guess you pile drive the guy if you think he has an 82% chance of scoring. It sure seems to me like guys miss from close in way more than 20% of the time, so my intuition is like yours: leave the guy alone and leave it to chance. I assume what happens in real life is along the spectrum of contact between non-callable and mandatory foul someone miscalculates or dekes wrong and the foul is much harder contact than he intended.

If a guy is coming in on an empty net, like the end of KOR-GER, and is flattened, does the ref have the discretion to simply award the goal?
 
Last edited:
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

alfablue said:
Dumb question... just watched the highlights of Mexico-Sweden, and saw that penalty in the box- which was pretty much done to prevent a score.

In hockey, doing something like that makes some sense- as even penalty shots are not so high percentage.

But in football- it seems that a penalty shot would be a higher percentage goal vs. kind of following the guy hard and making him attempt the shot. In other words, it seems as if you go for the tackle that is very high risk for a penalty shot, it's actually better to force a shot.

Is that accurate or not?
Click to expand...

That seems intuitively correct to me as well, but I'm wondering if we have to factor into it the likelihood of the referee actually calling the penalty?
 
Kepler said:
If a guy is coming in on an empty net, like the end of KOR-GER, and is flattened, does the ref have the discretion to simply award the goal?
Click to expand...
No. The player who commits the foul is sent off for Denial of an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (unless a Penalty Kick is awarded and the player made an attempt to play the ball).

A goal is only awarded when “the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal.”
 
Last edited:
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

Jimjamesak said:
No. The player who commits the foul is sent off for Denial of an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

A goal is only awarded when “the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal.”
Click to expand...

I thought it might be a situation where the guy gets a penalty kick against an open net, or something like that.
 
Kepler said:
I thought it might be a situation where the guy gets a penalty kick against an open net, or something like that.
Click to expand...
No. A team must always have a goalkeeper on the field and the LOTG state: “The defending goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing the kicker, between the goalposts until the ball has been kicked.”
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

Poor Mexico, gonna be out in round of 16 again
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

SJHovey said:
That seems intuitively correct to me as well, but I'm wondering if we have to factor into it the likelihood of the referee actually calling the penalty?
Click to expand...

That's reasonable to wonder. But it is still a high risk tackle, so the odds are against the defender when they are behind the ball (as I think I saw that in the replay).

And here's another point- some of the penalties are not against the most skilled player on the team- which lowers their chance of scoring during a live play. Whereas the people taking the penalty kick are always the best ones- which is one of the reasons the percentage is so high.
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

Germany has a great collection of talent but at least in this tournament they lacked a lead guy. For example an in his prime Klose.
 
Re: World Cup 2018: The best party money could buy (until 2022)!

J.D. said:
Germany has a great collection of talent but at least in this tournament they lacked a lead guy. For example an in his prime Klose.
Click to expand...

The last time the Germans got bounced out of the World Cup at the group stage was 1938. Hope they take it better this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top