f13.net

So, I was wondering what my options were to be able to watch the World Cup on TV in America and whether I'd need to order some esoteric package. It turns out that between ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC every single game in the finals (that's 64) will be broadcast live. In high definition. Uninterrupted by commercials.

I've never heard of sports coverage this good. It's going to be magnificent.

http://media.espn.com/ESPNToday/2006/Mar_06/cup_sked.htm

Yeah, I was surprised as hell by this as well. We don't usually get any coverage over here, unless it's Mexican socceer. Methinks my Tivo will be busy.

The US World Cup coverage has been pretty good the past 2 Cups IIRC. I am really excited, but the time difference and USA's placement in the Group of Death are mitigating it somewhat. At least when it was in Korea/Japan I could get up in the middle of the night and watch; now I will have to TiVo the games and find some way of avoiding hearing the results until I get home to watch. I may have to erect some sort of mechanical ambush at the entrance to my cube to keep people at bay on game day.

Any predictions? Brazil and Germany are gonna be tough. England is a bit overrated I fear (which is too bad, since I root for them after the US). Portugal, Spain, Italy and Holland are always good, but they always seem to step on their genitalia at some point too. Czech Republic scares me to death as a US fan. France has Henry and some talent, but aren't as good as their 1998 squad by any stretch.

Who have I forgotten? African sides won't do much, nor will the far Asians. Mexico is decent, but not dangerous. Argentina? Don't know much about them.

This time round they're up from 0 games in HD to all of them. That rocks (also it says something about HD adoption too, I guess). The promise to show each half of every game uninterrupted by commercials is also new - although they did so fairly often last time.

England are going down to Sweden. As a Scot, I get a perverse pleasure in watching England suffer (its a de rigeur part of having multiple national teams in one country) especially to a minnow of a team. In reality, I do like it when England do well - this just isn't going to be their year to go the whole distance. It's a shame about Sweden's injury run however - I don't think they'll make it against Paraguay, which could spell their demise and England's saviour.

The USA group is seriously tough - I'll be rooting for them though. Could have been worse, at least its not the Netherlands/Argentina group. You'd think that the real danger here would be the Czech Republic and that Italy would be in a commanding position to take the first place. However Ghana look really really strong this year, and every match is going to be crucial. But go in with the right attitude here - the USA has the strongest team they've ever fielded, and a few poor days aside, they've been good in the run up to the finals.

The Netherlands, Argentina, Cote d'Ivoire, Serbia (and Montenegro... for now) group is the one that's anybody's guess. The smart money won't even bet here. However, there's a good chance the winner of the World Cup will come from this group. Trying to place the runner up in Brazil's group is impossible too.

Germany are going to have to dig very deep to win the cup at home this year. They have had some seriously shaky performances lately, and depsite having what looks like a relatively okay group, no match against Poland or Ecuador is going to be a walk in the park. Likewise, Spain look to be the best team in their group, but nothing's sure against what are solid teams there too. It would be highly surprising if Germany and Spain didn't advance, but those are certainly groups capable of creating an upset.

Mexico and Portugal should be okay, so should France and Korea. All told, I'm kind of hoping for a massive comback by de Oranje. :)

I hear there's going to be lots of prostitutes in Germany during the Cup run.

You reckon? I thought they'd go on holiday. There's always lots of prostitutes in Germany - its legal, so it's a huge industry that has to pay taxes. However, they are going to converge on the host cities and there will presumably be a price war. You'll be able to get a lot more than 90 minutes of action from sex workers for the money you'd have to pay for a single match ticket on the street.

I like Sham 69's take on a Cup song. (http://www.virginradio.co.uk/djsshows/shows/breakfast/features/world_cup_song/video.html)

I know absolutely nothing about World Cup teams, so am grateful for any insight that can be given. Once the USA is eliminated, I'll likely root for some flavor of Euro team, England or Germany or something.

Can anyone 'splain to me how the US team made it, but there's no Irish team?

I have no idea how the teams that "make it" this far get there and am too lazy to look it up.

EDIT -- I presume there's qualifiers, etc.  Is the Irish team just that bad lately or is there some kind of other reason?

Okay, I'll try. There are qualifying matches prior to "the World Cup". What we're looking forward to now are the finals of something that's taken two years of games to get to. To keep the finals international rather than dominated by European and South American teams and to make the qualification matches workable, the world is split into regions, and a set number of places in the finals are given to each region. The teams in that region play a set of league groups.

There are 14 places in the World Cup finals earmarked for Europe. Germany get one as the host nation. There are eight groups for Europe, and the winner of each group goes to the finals. The two runners up from the eight groups that have the highest number of points also go through. The remaining six runners up then play off for the final three places. Ireland came fourth in their group after France, Switzerland and Israel. Scotland came third to Italy and Norway. Wales placed fifth in the group that England won and Northern Ireland came fourth in.

The CONCANAF (North American, Central American and Caribbean) region has 3.5 places for the finals. The teams are split into three leagues, and the top two go to a final league, of which the top three in that league then advance to the finals. The fourth team in that league faces the fifth placed Asian team in a playoff match (hence 3.5 places). There's no reason why the USA shouldn't be in every World Cup final unless they do something like bundle the Americas regions together. Of course, you'd expect Canada to be able to get their act together too...

More significant than Ireland, the region system resulted in no Slovakia and no Russia. Poor old Oceania has only a half place for the finals and the winner (Australia) has to play the fifth placed South American team (Uruguay) to qualify.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/2006-fifa-world-cup/overall-zonal-group-standings.html

The Irish were drunk?

Heh. Ireland lost to France 1-0. That was enough to put them out in a group in which every other game between the top four teams was a draw. It's the nature of the World Cup that the fortunes of good teams can come down to an off night (perhaps even for another team in their group), an unusual draw, an injury, etc.

I need to pay better attention to international sports news.  It'd have been nice to see Ireland play, even if they got beaten by France.  I was spending a summer in Dublin in '02, and had a great time hanging out with the barristers I knew at Chief O'Neil's watching the matches on the big screen.  Drunk men in wigs and robes are rather humorous for some reason.  Apparently the ROI's version of a speedy trial includes, "Unless Ireland is playing Germany in World Cup finals," because the entire court system shut down, and the majority of it was there watching.

The World Cup will paralyse business (and courts) in England, in just about every European nation that made the finals. The more astute managers will bring in TV sets and let the staff watch while they do their jobs - its better than the huge absences they would get otherwise. I was doing a gig at a major US investment bank in London a couple of cups back and couldn't find anybody in the server group - there wasn't even an England match on. Of course, all the other games in your group count, so I found the whole server group round the corner at the local bar.

Haemish, rather than wibble about each team, I'll point you to BBC Sport's good summaries - just click on "team guide" to find out more about them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/default.stm

Let the guesses begin...

Group A: Poland, Germany
Group B: England, Sweden
Group C: Holland, Argentina
Group D: Portugal, Mexico
Group E: Italy, USA
Group F: Brazil, Croatia
Group G: France, Korea
Group H: Spain, Ukraine

Which makes it:

Poland v Sweden
Holland v Mexico
England v Germany
Portugal v Argentina
Italy v Croatia
France v Ukraine
Brazil v USA
Spain v Korea

Then:

Sweden v Holland
Italy v France
England v Argentina
Brazil v Spain

And:

Holland v Italy
England v Brazil

Tip Brazil to win (again) but hope for Holland. All complete guess work - anything could happen. Germany might save some goals for a change, win their group and put out Sweden. An African team might make the second round due to other teams' misfortunes. We'll know after around 100 hours of great football.

Great link Righ!

First Round-

Group A- Germany, Poland
Group B- England, Sweden
Group C- Argentina, Holland
Group D- Portugal, Mexico
Group E- Czech Republic, Italy
Group F- Brazil, Croatia
Group G- France, Switzerland
Group H- Spain, Ukraine

Possible upsets to make 2nd round- USA, Australia, South Korea, MAYBE Ecuador.

I'm a longtime England fan personally, so I'll be rooting for the old St. George Cross next week. They can do it, if they don't crumple under the expectations and press of their own country. The football press in England is NAAASTY. What's great is I have two Swedish coworkers, so we're already ratcheting up the rivalry.

Realistically, Brazil will win. Their team is just too stunning this year. Let's hope for another real final this time, instead of shootouts. And I have a strange soft-spot for Holland, because I love the color orange. I think they could pull a big upset and maybe make it to the final. Korea are also looking very bright (those guys can RUN). I also think USA will get out of the group stages. Either them or Ivory Coast. Italy is going down!

I'm so FREAKING PUMPED! HD Coverage, 64 games, DVR... oh man. My wife is already giving me stink-eye.



edit: Here's a cool site I've been reading during the buildup. http://www.worldcupblog.org/
Blogs for each team, which catch all the zany stuff out there. Such as Peter Crouch breakdancing (http://england.worldcupblog.org/1/crouching-robot-hidden-geek.html) and Columbia's keeper scoring (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_9IPenLuo8) the winner against Poland. Oops. Jerzy Dudek looking a lot better now, isn't he?

Nice little site, thanks. I've seen that clip before - Glasgow Celtic's sensational Artur Boruc is the man they need in goal.

I'm a tool, I meant Ghana. Uh-duuuuuh.

Group A - Germany, Ecuador - if Germany can't even finish in the top half of this group at home, it'll be chaos.
Group B - England, Paraguay - Paraguay's a longshot, England's probably not going to fold over like many hope, Sweden is hurt.
Group C - Argentina, Netherlands - they are the odds on favorites
Group D - Mexico, Portugal - again, odds on
Group E - Italy, Czech - the US is overmatched in this group, it's just a bad draw.
Group F - Brazil, Japan - I might as well have picked Brazil and "those other guys"
Group G - France, South Korea - Easily the biggest cakewalk group for a team like France, damn frogs.
Group H - Spain, Saudi Arabia - Spain will dominate, Saudi's will survive.

Brazil vs USA? Ouch, that's just bad luck.

All games without commercials has been the standard here in the US since 94 as far as I know.

As far as why the US is there instead of Ireland? Well, there is all the regional stuff, but honestly the US is a lot better team.

I'm not optomistic about our group, but we certainly have a chance. I'm taking the US matchdays off and tivo'ing everything else. It was juggling VHS tapes for the 98 cup that convinced me to get a PVR (at the time a DISHPlayer) for the 99 WWC.

IIRC EPSN did no commercials, the network did not. Could be faulty memory however.

Watch the US team on the run up to the finals here:

http://studio90.ussoccer.com/

Brazil and England probably have the best squads, but I expect both to fold due to having too many undroppable players. In England's case probably in whichever round Rooney is rushed back into the team too early (He currently has a broken foot).

As for the US, I'd guess they will make 2nd in the group, and then lose to Brazil. They could well make first or slip to third though, Italy are in a bit of a mess following the various scandals; Czech Republic are overrated; while the US team is impossible to gauge because they haven't played enough games against European opposition.

It's really hard to pick a winner, though I'd be surprised if it's not a European side, European sides always win when it's held in Europe. So you'd have to look to one of Holland, Germany (only because they are hosting), or England, with Italy as an outsider if they get their shit together in the early matches.

Also, how the hell do you watch football with commercials?

Cricket I can understand, but football?

Just went to the local soccer shop and picked up my England home jersey. 80 fucking bucks!! At least I won't feel like such a douche now. Last time I had to wear my Premiership club jerseys instead. But shit... 80 bucks. The ORANJE!!! dutch jerseys were like 45. Oof.

On a related topic, I read an article about the sponsors and merchandising (can't dig up the link), but Nike said they sell something like 3 times as many Mexico kits in the US compared to the US stuff. Which is oddly timed, as I pulled out a Walmart advertisement in the mail the other day with Team Mexico schwag on the cover. I don't even think they had any USA stuff in it, anywhere.

Back in the days of the NASL, they would just cut away from the action. (Yes, it's insane.)

Well, the US got one Saturday game, so I am going to try to make the most of it. Plan to grab a few friends at watch the game at Sport (http://www.sportrestaurant.com/) in Seattle. Top notch food, and plasma TVs everywhere you look (it is pretty amazing). Game starts at noon- I am going to try to get there around 10:30 or so to reserve some seats. May give them a call to see if we can have reservations.

If you find yourself in the Seattle area on June 17th, come on by!

80 is nothing. Try being a hockey fan.

This sunday a bunch of EB people are going to watch the Portugal game. Best put on my drinking hat.

Online reservations are available. 6 max, so I have at least one table. Anyone else that wants to join in, set up some reservations. Then fly in and party with me!

Can't really be spending $400 a seat for flights this month, but thanks for the offer. :)

Looks like Rooney's foot is healed up enough to send him back to Germany. Holy shit that is awesome news!

And Ballack is out for the opener. Better hope he gets better when they have to play Poland, or it's bye-bye Germany! At least it's not a long trip home. hehe

Djibril Cisse also broke his tibia (shin bone) in the French warmup against China, so he's out. What a shame, he overcame so much to play again, and he's so exciting to watch... even if he's a total ballhog.

So, I did what any red-blooded gamer would do- went out and bought FIFA World Cup 2006 for my X-Box. Only $30 at Best Buy. It is pretty damned hard, but so far it is a lot of fun. Helping me learn who to watch on the non-American sides as well.

I've played it a ton on PS2 it is a massive improvement over 2002.  There are a few glaring flaws:

-chip shots can be used on a breakway to auto-goal.
-I miss the arrows indicating where my passing target is
-The set pieces are no damn near immpossible if you haven't played the game a shitton, there is almost 0 indication of where your corner or even worse free kick will go
-The music has been beefed up but still sucks for the most part.  They tried to get multi-cultural but there is way too much crappy German and English music and not enough crazy tracks from Africa/Asia.
-There are not nearly enough historic jerseys, the variety of unlockable balls are a nice touch but they really need to be brighter

Overall the gameplay is solid, keeper AI is about 100 times better then before, the crossing system is much improved.  I do miss the old right analog give and go passing.  The right stick now controls a freestyle move system thing which hasn't proven to be  terribly useful so far.  The only big problem is the correctable double tap issue (if you hit a button right before gaining possession you perform that action) and the occasional stupidity on the part of your fellow offensive players.  Sometimes we just can't get them to go on a run to save our lives.

I use the freestyle moves to buy time  to get a run going or to get a little space for crosses.

 A freestyle combo followed by a burst of speed from someone like Thierry Henry is just plain nasty. But even the best player will get dispossessed if you run  near a defender with the ball off your foot.


Focusing on the US, I've been playing them in a 4-5-1 or a 4-1-2-1-2, depending on how aggressive my opponent is. The US does well with a wing play strategy on offense with O'Brien on one side and Convey on the other. With the 5 midfielders, Dempsey works well , as does Donovan. Dempsey feels a bit off. He should handle dribbling better than he does in the game.

Tn the other set it's usually a footrace, or an offsides  party if my timing is off. It's all about angles and lines of  vision. If you get a good angle, you can send a throughball in that leads to a breakaway. After some practice, that usually means  instant goal.

I just bought it for PSP:

"To start, you must update the
 system software.

                      o Back"

I guess its been too long since I used the PSP.

Pretty common for any new title.  They have to stay one step ahead of the filthy pirates!

I also have it for the PSP.  Fun game.  My first season was crazy: no losses but something like 8 ties.  I scored an obscene amount of goals with Rooney.

I much prefer the gameplay in the Winning Eleven series. But I cannot stand their production values. It's just lame having to play as Manchester Red or North London instead of Man. U and Arsenal. The FIFA 2006 is much, much better than previous offerings, but I still loathe the AI of your teammates. They just will not pounce on a loose ball, and as mentioned it's such a chore to get them to make runs behind the defensive line.

Anyone ever played Football Manager? Is it any fun? An English teammate of mine keeps telling me I should try it out.


And back on topic... super secret video of Italy training. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccDyp2aRRCg)

That was awesome. All Americans should watch this to see what they're up against.

I forgot my absolute biggest gripe, no idea how.

The power meter for shots is just stupid, anything more then a tap with anyone who isn't a superstar is gaurteed to but the ball into sub orbit.  Is this supposed to add to the realism or something?  I've found it super frustrating and basically every time the game gets broken out amongst friends it takes me 3 matches to start scoring because I just cannot adjust to the annoying tap-or-die shooting mentality.  Oh I sort of miss ball spin too, but not a huge loss there.

Bit more World Cup TV news here for y'all. If you are 'lucky' enough to be a Comcast HD subscriber, and are wondering where ESPN2HD is... it's coming, probably, possibly. Comcast have been pushing to get ESPN2HD rolled out in all areas where there is sufficient bandwidth in time for the first World Cup match tomorrow.

Some places have new channels in the 200s, some in the 700s. In NJ, they're pre-empting INHD2 with ESPN2HD, so its not on the channel listing. Depending on how you are set up, you may need to reboot your cable box to get an updated channel guide. They've cut very close to the wire in most areas with this one.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=686272&page=2&pp=30

Was a great game, too. Uruguay lost on penalties, and Australia (where soccer has a similar low profile as in the USA) went World Cup mad. I can't even call it football, because that means either Rugby League or Australian Rules Football depending on region. But half the cars on the road now have an Aussie team flag.

For most of the world, this is bigger than the Olympics.

P.S. This Nike viral ad featuring Ronaldinho is pretty amazing, even if it's said to be fake (action starts 1 minute in): http://youtube.com/watch?v=lsO6D1rwrKc

FM is brilliant but its not an arcade game, its a stats fest manager sim and is huge in europe. The database used is so complete that real life managers use it to scout opponents. I'd recommend it but only if you dont mind losing huge chunks of your life to it :)

No spoilers, but based upon this morning's game let me just say I dig the new ball and this is going to be a very fun Cup to watch.

I've never been into soccer but I'll give it another shot.  Because what I really need in life is another sport to spend time watching on TV.  So, go Poland! 

I'm sure the offsides rule and the "nobody knows how much time is actually left" thing will always get on my nerves though.

I am guessing there weren't any clean sheets then? =) Answer that tomorrow- I taped CRC v GER!


Offsides is a pretty straightforward rule- is it the interepretation or the actual rule itself that bugs you? The referee keeping time on the field is kind of annoying, but it really adds to the drama at the end of the game; since no one is sure exactly how much time is left, you get some serious desperation action, which is good drama.

Really enjoying the hell out of the X-Box game. Playing on the total n00b level I beat Czech and Italy, but Ghana got a late goal to tie me! Still won the group and avoided having to play Brazil in the first game of the knockout round though.

Since I don't understand it, what exactly IS the offside rule? Remember, total socceer newb am I.

This (http://soccersquared.com/rules/soccer-offsides.html) explains it reasonably well.

Offside is only really difficult because so many fans don't understand it. It's actually quite simple.

A player is offside if he is nearer the opponent's goal line than BOTH the ball and the SECOND LAST opponent AND is in his opponent's half of the pitch. Easy. However, being offside does not make for an offside offense. Read on.

An offside player is penalised for an offside offense when HIS TEAM touches or plays the ball AND he is found to be interfering with play or an opponent OR if he's found to be gaining advantage by being in that position when his team touches the ball. An offside player is not penalised if he receives the ball from out of play (throw in, corner, goal kick).

Probably the most complex case is that although a player can be onside when receiving the ball, and can dribble it such that he's in an offside position, it's not an offense for him to then pass it BACK to another offside player.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/football/rules/newsid_3632000/3632335.stm

Can't help you with the time left problem. :)

Heh. That would normally make passing possible only to players in your own half of the pitch. Slight mistake there. :)

LOL I didn't even catch that! Good eye. It should be ALL of the other team's players, for those of you playing at home.

Not that either. Second last in big caps for a reason. Its the key to understanding the rule. :)

What seems cheesy/annoying/whatever about the rule to me is that the defensive team can run up and force you offsides.  I'd feel better if there was an offsides line on the field like there is in hockey.  I remember trying to get into the world cup in, I think 1990?, and it was a 0-0 game despite the fact that one team seemed clearly better than the other, because the worse team would just turtle up.  Eventually the better team won in the shoot-out, but the fact that (it seemed to me, who admittedly knows jack) a "meh" team could force an awesome team to a shootout just by turtling turned me off.  I know the offsides rule isn't the only issue there, but I do remember that every single time I felt excited at any moment of that game, the play would be blown dead as offsides.  I (mostly) understood the actual rule, but it's been replaced with an "if it's exciting, then it's offsides" rule in my mind.

Maybe I just misunderstood the game, or maybe there have been rules or strategy changes since then, but it seemed dull and cheesy to me back then.  Like I said, I intend on giving it a shot this year, since the Stanley Cup will soon be over and the NBA Championship doesn't run every night, and the NFL season is so very far away :-(

The timekeeping thing just feels amaterish or sloppy to me, but I fully understand that's because I'm used to sports that are exceptionally anal about timekeeping.

I am now utterly confused. I thought I understood the rule (I played for 10+ years). Help!

The last opponent is the goalie, no?

DING!

It's a vital part of the rule. Let me explain the bit that's almost certainly what has got you confused - the goalkeeper is an opponent. But you'll have to admit that not counting the goalkeeper and interpreting the rule in the way that you have will cause for errors when the goalkeeper is forward of a defender.

Wiki's pretty decent on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_law_(football)

Ah ok- I was wondering if you were talking about the goalie.

You link is broken for some reason; this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_law) should work. 

Spoiler in black

If germany plays like that in the future, they wont be around to see July. Their offside trap, and what the hell are they thinking trapping 40 yards out, will not work if  you're completely out of sync.The Ticos could have had three or four if their striker had more support because of breakaways. Fortunately for Germany, they had the better talent.

And that ball is just crazy. I can see why the keepers hate it so.

Maybe we should have a spoiler thread, since black on grey doesn't really work.

Edit: and who's to say people aren't using another style?

On the "don't know how much time" they announce the injury time at the end of each half so you at least have some idea how much is left.

To expand on that a bit:

In the case of a  decided game, extended time ends pretty much when the clock indicates. In a close game, it's usually stopped after a change in momentum if the the trailing team, or both teams in a draw is pushing forward and trying for a goal.

It's like in American football. You have the last play of the game and the clock strikes zero. Play will continue until the play is over. Unless if you have a corrupt ref, since it's his discretion.

It used to be that the time ended at the end of the 90th minute , with the watch kept by the Ref. Cheating, diving bastards like the Italians are the reason we have to have injury time, to prevent the clock from being milked even more than it already is.

In order to watch and enjoy football, you can summarise the offside rule thusly...

 - You can't pass to someone who is behind the last defender (goalkeeper excluded)

That is all a spectator needs to know. Yes there is a more complicated version to keep rules lawyers happy, no you don't need to read it. It boils down to the above.

This is wrong. In american football (or rugby football for that matter) the ball must leave play to end the game.

In association football, play ends at the end of 90 minutes + added time for delays, and theoretically the ball should be in play when the game ends.

Theoretically the ref should blow his whistle even if a shot is hurtling toward an open net. Refs aren't that stupid though.

Typically ref's are trained to not blow the final whistle until the first change of possession or when the ball travels out of bounds after the time has expired. 

Basically when I was a ref I would keep track of stoppage time as the half went.  For example if there was a hard foul and it took awhile for the kid to get up and play to come back I would add a minute or 90 seconds in my head.  Then when time expired I would look down at my watch and think "ok it is 3:24 and I have 2:30 of stoppage so far so the half ends at 3:26".  I would keep tracking the play and every time an attack was stopped or the ball when out of bounds I would look down at my watch.  If the time was past or at 3:26 I would blow the half over.

It is a bitch.  But it worked I think.

The offsides rule isn't really the cause of that "meh" game. A turtling team (jokingly refered to as "parking the bus in front of the net") only INVITES pressure onto them. If they don't counter-attack and play out of their half, the ball is just going to be pinging at their goalkeeper non-stop. They were lucky to not have gone down in that case.

The beauty of the offside rule, IS the offside trap. I love watching defenders jump up and catch a striker offguard. Even better if they screwed up and he's got a clear run at goal. It creates a very subtle strategy where they can't hold their line too high in their half, because if the opponents have a fast striker who can get behind them, he can easily outrun them to a ball placed between them and the keeper. If they hold back too far, they invite some lethal crosses into the box from anywhere on the pitch. It's all careful balancing.

FIFA changed the interpretation of the rule slightly to wait until the player makes contact with the ball before flagging him. In the past, they would flag him the second the ball was passed, irregardless of who the pass was intended for. Lately the refs have been very good about not flagging an offside player if he doesn't interfere with the play. Thierry Henry in particular I have to single out as very intelligent about this. He'll just suddenly stand still and hold his hands up, so that the guy near him who IS onside can run onto the ball, and he avoids stopping a great play by removing himself from it.

And yes, the black-text spoilers aren't very good. They are dark enough on the brown to be illegible, unless I really concentrated, but the risk is too great! This is World Cup! It's serious business!!

Didn't they also liberalize it by making it upon contact of the passing player instead of the ball reaching the receiving player? I vaguely remember many moons ago you had to actually receive the ball onsides which was a nightmare. But I may have hallucinated that.

This goes around football-playing parts of the Internet as "The offside rule explained for women" - may have some British English terms, but you'll live:

I am humbly emasculated.

Okay. Any good internet sites for viewing video of the World Cup action? Even just highlights would be alright.

[edit] <rant> Nevermind. Apparently BBC is the only site allowed to stream the games and that is in UK only and the Yahoo highlights site has absolute shit for highlights.  I was hoping for something more along the lines of Match of the Day. God forbid the US try to do something to bolster the nation behind its team for a worldwide sporting event. Ah well. See, the problem is that I don't personally like television so I don't own one and thusly do not have cable. Pity that in an age of information exchange, they can't even offer a pay-per-view webcast of the games as they happen or on-demand afterwards. My guess is that they are doing this because they will resell the entire tournament in DVD format afterward? Or is this just part of the agreement with ESPN and cable providers to ensure that all money goes through those channels? I suppose I shouldn't expect special treatment because I choose to eschew the one media channel upon which all sports are broadcast, but hell, I was able to get excellent coverage of the Olympics online. It's a shame that such a large worldwide event couldn't provide better highlight reels at the very least. And at a higher resolution. Yahoo is doing a less than mediocre job, IMO. </rant>[/edit]

Yahoo is an 'official' partner of the World Cup - so any internet-related video and stuff is bound to be going through them, or their local affiliates (here in Australia theyve jumped into bed with one of the tv stations here).

Actually ESPN are the ones causing the monkey business. You can get all the ESPN matches through a service called "ESPN360" which is only available through certain broadband service providers. They want you to lobby your service provider if you don't get it.

http://broadband.espn.go.com/broadband/EBB2/web/shellMain

Nice. I do have Comcast cable internet. (Oh, the hypocrisy of not paying for cable television, but paying the ripoff price for blazing broadband. I know, I know. I'll have a frac T1 someday soon... until then, a hypocrite am I.) I'll have to check this out when I get home. It still sucks a bit though as I can't get the streams while at work. It would be pretty damn nice to be able to stream it on my laptop while working (sans sound, of course). I appreciate the feedback.

[edit]Hmm, it appears that Comcast is not on that list of providers. I'm doomed to not see World Cup action this year.[/edit]

http://freefootball.org/

There are Chinese television stations that you can stream in with special peer-to-peer applications. That website lists the matches, what channels they are one, and what programs to use. It's all somewhat convoluted to get working, but they have forums to explain it all. I watch most of the Champions League games with it. The feed is pretty decent, but you have to deal with Chinese commentary sometimes. I'm also unsure about the legality of it. But hey, like the link says... free football!

So, if I pull a fast move on my defender and get a breakaway past him, and my teammate (who was behind me when I beat the defender) breaks with me, I can't pass to him?

Illustration:
X & Y are teammates, D is the last (non-goalie) defender, G is the goalie.  X has the ball at all times.

Scene 1:

Scene 2:
D on his ass after fancy move:

Scene 3, Y joins the fray, goalie goes to block X's shooting lane:


Can X pass to Y in scene 3?

Only if Y is behind X, not level or forward. Though if the ref is unsighted... anything goes. :)

Ah, OK.  I was concerned that I couldn't pass to Y at all because there was only 1 defender between he and the net.  Thanks.

More frequently it occurs thus:


X passes to Y. Y is offside.

Check it! (http://ascii-wm.net/)