-
Website
http://www.epltalk.com -
Original page
http://www.epltalk.com/day-one-first-impressions-of-espns-euro-08-coverage/2315 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Dave Revsine a self admitted soccer fan would have been the studio host but he left when the Big Ten network launched.
I have made a link to the ESPN page about his outstanding lifetime of work. I would urge everyone to drop by it and read about this man that did so much for the American sports fan. He will be missed. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=34...
i think janucz mahalic from press pass and uefa cl or chris sullivan from fsc would've been two great additions for the studio analyst. i dont understand why foudy, who does nothing broadcast-related all year, all of a sudden comes in as a studio analyst.
I think she was installed as an analyst around the time that the women's team won the world cup and Chastain took her shirt off. ESPN probably figured that women would be more likely to watch soccer after that and Foudy was a name and known personality from that successful team and era that females could relate to. That was so long ago, though. Time to move on, ESPN...
They tried using Heather Mitts and Brandi Chastain on telecasts too at one point, MLS only I guess (which is what MLS deserves for the product they produce) but that as you can imagine did not go over big.
Soccer has for a long time been seen as a girls sport in this country, so you have to understand the mentality as to why she was chosen and how ESPN felt they could popularize the game by marketing it to woman.
That time has come and gone and thankfully with the likes of Andy Gray and others ESPN gets it. Now they need to hire more British and Latin personalities. I've come to the conclusion if you are American you cannot properly understand football unless:
a) You travel a great deal and interact with non-Americans
b) You marry into a latino or ethnic european family that still speaks the native language in the house (ie Italian Americans who gave up soccer for baseball and now rediscover soccer after the Azurri wins the world cup don't count)
c) You have some depth of understanding of tactics and the international ie non americanized rules of the game.
Otherwise you are unqualified to comment on this sport and can stick to Baseball, American Football and Horse Racing which are simple games with simple tactics compared to football.
(Note I left Basketball out of that because Basketball can be as complicated as football from a strategy standpoint if coached right)
First, for picking up Andy Gray who is sheer class. Second, for showing the national anthems.
Third, for decent studio coverage. Well, Foudy is retarded, but so what.
Come on, the tourney is on national television, and we don't have to pay $200 for the first time. And today, with US-Argentina friendly at the end of the day caps a superb day of football.
Sometimes it is easy to criticize ESPN, but I think they have done a way better job this time around. Remember Wynalda, Dave O'Brian, Foudy combination last time around: a horror show.
This time, it is just fine!!!
If you watched Argentina-Mexico the other night that was anything but good football with the Argentines absolutely slaughtering the helpless Mexicans who need I remind everyone has about 10 times the skill that the Americans have.
Argentina can name their scoreline tonight, if they even care with Brazil in a qualifier next week. On the other hand us Americans are going to be sweating out every qualifier with the state we are at currently.
Given what I have seen from Euro 08, the US has better soccer being played on it's soil today then anything in Europe! Lets score first and hang on should be the theme of the Euro matches so far. How did Poland qualify anyway.
Mexico would easily be a favorite for the Euro finals especially with Sven as their coach! Name me a player in the current Euro football show as fun to watch as C. Blanco! You can't. And he can't make their current squad. That shows talent.
Podolski scoring twice, Andy Gray commentating, and a game in high-def resolution? I felt like there should have been an Xbox controller in my hands.
Hmm, looks like I made the wise choice seeing as how Podolski scored twice today and Gomez was no better than average.
The commentary is great but the studio stuff is awful.
Shame they never bothered to send those guys to Austria or Switzerland.
I really don't see unless your root for the blue of Italy that it could be seen any other way then how it was called on the field.
I like to think of what Bill Walton would say if he were to make a comment about Julie Foudey as a broadcaster, "she is HHHOOOORRRRRIIIIIBBBBBLLLLEEEEE."
On each play only a few outcomes can occur and the team with more speed and more talent generally wins. When Jimmy Johnson and Bobby Bowden (and Frank Beamer) started recruiting smaller faster guys even at D-line in the 1980s it shifted the emphasis of the game in a way where most teams now resemble one another. In real football so many different styles of play occur and the game is a cultural expression.
Back in the days when teams still ran the wishbone and option and did not run every play out of the shotgun with a 4WR set you may have a point.
Today you don't: every team looks the same.
You have to reconsider your last post. American football simple! I will agree at the NCAA level the teams are more limited but given the limitations of time and games, things have to be basic. In the NCAA the more physically gifted teams have huge advantages. Even given that, NCAA is extremely exciting and interesting to watch. I know you agree.
Once to you get to the NFL level all things change. All teams have very talented players with great skills. The offense has numerous options on every plays and each defense player has specific assignments. The game plans are complex and extensive film and classroom study is necessary for the players. Technique becomes critical. Soccer is a much less complex`game, more like the NBA. remember every play, every second of a NFL game has to be scripted and planned.
"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line (Panucci did not step behind the goal line, he was forced out) in order to place
an opponent in an offside position (which implies that being legitimately over the goal line would put Ruud offside), the referee shall allow play to
continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field
of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of
play."
Panucci wasn't an active player and as such should not count towards keeping an attacker onside.
Other than that ditz, ESPN's coverage is OK. And the HD images are stunning!
However, if you watch every panel discussion while thinking 'Andy Gray is totally hitting that back at the Bristol Clarion' the broadcast is so much more enjoyable.
Poor on-screen talent aside, ESPN's coverage has been stunning. The hi-def looks and sounds amazing. I have seen the future of football on tv and it has cowbells coming out of one speaker and drums out of another and the orange just looks sooooo orange.
Uefa general secretary David Taylor said Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his assistant Stefan Wittberg were absolutely correct in their interpretation.
He told a news conference: "There is a lack of understanding as to why this particular goal was awarded. In fact some television commentators have insisted the goal was clearly offside, but that is not the case.
"The player was not offside because in addition to the goalkeeper there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though he had fallen off the pitch his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law.
"Not many people, even in the game, and I include the players, know this interpretation.
"Incidents like this are very unusual - although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893."
and the following from the USSF National Instructor Jim Allen and his "Ask a Referee" column:
Quote:
"One answer for three questions.
Jim Allen
> >Question: I was watching the Euro Cup 2008 qualifier between Italy
> >and The Netherlands. The first goal generated some controversy.
> >
> >During a free kick, the keeper pushed a defender beyond the goal
> >line. The Dutch recovered the deflected ball and put it back into
> >the box to where Van Nistlerooy directs the ball into the goal.
> >Based on the players on the field, he was clearly in an offside
> >position but the flag was not raised.
> >
> >My question is whether or not the defensive player that was on the
> >ground beyond the goal line should have been counted as the last
> >defender, meaning the attacking player was not offside, even though
> >he was not within the boundaries of the field? Or is the fact that
> >he did not come back into play prior to the goal means that he is
> >not an active player and the call should have been that the
> >attacking player was offside?
USSF answer (June 10, 2008):
You seem to have a grasp on the problem, which is actually not a
problem at all -- no matter what the TV announcers may have suggested.
This information in the USSF publication "Advice to Referees on the
Laws of the Game" should give you all the additional information you
need:
11.11 DEFENDER LEGALLY OFF THE FIELD OF PLAY
A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does
not immediately return must still be considered in determining where
the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which
attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered
to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his or her off-field
position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's
permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return)
is not included in determining offside position."
Jim's message to me included this postscript:
"Read your Advice to Referees. The defender is off the field of play
during the course of play. Life is hard for the Italians, good for
the Dutch."
So, fans and fellow refs - this is the OFFICIAL word on the call - Ruud's goal counts and the italian player should have gotten back up and returned to play ASAP instead of laying on the ground hoping that would make an offside situation happen.
Kap Kaplowitz
USSF Associate Referee Instructor
The only decent MLS officials it seems are Canadian. Go figure?
Laws of the Game”' a copy of a FIFA document or just a USSF guideline? Cause I could write some 'Advice to Referees' that would hold equal weight as the USSF.
Now, the correct interpretation of the law may well be that van Nistelrooy was onside, but the law as written is impossible to interpret clearly, and in the specific case of the Holland goal, van Nistelrooy was offside by any definition in keeping with the spirit of the law. It would be an absolute nightmare to try to write up a perfect offside law, so maybe I just have to accept that out of any written law will arise flaws in real life situations. That's ok, that's football.