The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I didn't see the first half, but I saw the the second half and without question Brazil was given on goal by the refs and Croatia was denied a goal they deserved.  That ref was clearly in Brazil's pocket. 

The penalty kick was a terrible call. I think the Croatians need to blame their goalie as much as the ref though. He should have stopped all three of Brazil's goals.

Spain was completely dominated by Holland. It looks like Spain has seen their better days and has no chance of repeating.

'Merica...fuck ya!!!

While I can translate redneck just fine, surely you can see where "fuck ya!" could be taken differently than "fuck yeah!"

;)

The United States of America...fuck yes.

That was a scary game. I'm so excited that we got three points but we played on our heels way too much. I'm also concerned about Altidore's injury as there is no word on how serious it is.

I really do not think the team prepared for the conditions well at all as I saw several players that appeared to be cramping. They held camp at Stanford and I would think anyone with any knowledge of climate would know that is not a great way to simulate Brazil. Hopefully this is a learning lesson and the team will be better hydrated for the game against Portugal.

We will obviously see but I wouldn't surprise me to see Altidore back playing again. 

Nice to see our local boy, Zusi, come in and contribute. 4 Florida boys on this roster. Very cool!!

If you think that game was scary I suggest you don't watch the next two as they could be horrific. The US knew that they would be on their heels all game against Ghana who have a very strong offensive team, what they lack is defensive cohesion which was clearly seen in the first minute of the game. No way that Dempsey should have been that wide open 30 seconds into the game, but that's Ghana. The rest of the match was pretty much what I expected. Ghana with a lot of possession and chances and the US trying to counter when they can. The biggest surprise of the match for me was how poorly Michael Bradley played, the US will need for him to play MUCH better the next 2 to have any chance whatsoever.

As far as the injuries, I didn't see cramps I saw hammy's which is a little bit different. I think that had a lot more to do with players trying to keep up with the speedy Ghana team then not being used to the conditions or not being hydrated. Besides as has been made clear by the recent LeBron James controversy, cramps can happen to anyone and are not necessarily indicative of poor conditioning, lack of fluids or anything else, it just happens sometimes when exherting yourself.

And there should be a lot of concern for both Altidore and Dempsey. If neither can play the next match (I think Dempsey will), then the US is in big trouble and Klinsmann is going to take more heat for not bringing Donovan along. Donovan would have been a much better substitute for Altidore then Johannsson proved to be as he looked lost the whole game. What all of you non soccer fans need to realize is that Klinsmann was NOT trying to psych out his team by saying they had no chance at winning the world cup, they don't. He knows it. His team knows it. They will be very fortunate to make it past the group stage. I fully expected the US to lose all 3 matches. They pulled a rabbit out of a hat this first one, I doubt they will be so lucky the next two, but that's why you play the games.

if the US ties against portugal they've pretty much guaranteed to make it out of the group stage .. portugal is carrying a heavy goal differential  negative around now.

There was a combination of both. Geoff Cameron was shown on the TV getting on the ground and stretching during a break in the action (it was still a wide shot so you had to be looking at that portion of the screen). Also the announcers made comment that US players were taking every chance to get fluids they could. I really don't think they were prepared at all. The team had no legs underneath them. That is why there were so many bad passes and we could not maintain any possession time, which forced us to play more defensively than I think anyone wanted for a longer period of time. There was a very long stretch where I could not count three or more passes put together successfully. Bradley looked completely gassed to me which was the cause of his poor play. Bradley could have had a back post goal on a corner kick I feel but his legs wouldn't allow him to make a run that got him another five feet to the ball.

they had the training camp in pasadena .. that was a mistake .. they should have had camp in miami .. gotten used to the brazilian weather

That's a huge if especially if Altidore and/or Dempsey don't play. Don't let the score against Germany fool you, Portugal is much better then the US. Now the US has caught a couple breaks that Portugal isn't at full strength, but again if Altidore and/or Dempsey don't play then the US isn't 100% either. They still have a LONG way to go before they can even think about getting past the group stage. That negative goal differential is very likely to get pretty big for the US as well.

And what makes you think that wasn't directly due to the US team chasing around Ghana all night? This wasn't a warmup match or a game against CONCACAF. I pretty much expected the match to go the way it did except for the early US goal. The US were very fortunate that they got that Dempsey goal to start the match so that they didn't have to try to keep up the pace with the Ghana and could afford to sit back and play defensively most of the night. If that would have happened it would have looked even worse. Fact is the US caught a break and capitalized on it. Now the question is will it be enough to get out of group play.

Maybe they should have trained against Ghana. Make no mistake, although they aren't ranked that high it's because their defense is so bad, not because they aren't a dangerous offensive team. Ghana was going to give the US' defense trouble, they knew that going into the game, the question was whether or not that poor defense would give up an easy goal and as it turned out it did.

wonder why they don't use instant replay at the World Cup

For what? Fouls? Offside? I believe they are using ball sensing device this year that is supposed to be able to determine for sure if the ball completely crossed the goal line or not. I don't really see a big need for instant replay. Maybe for penalty kicks. Other than that they don't need it.

It looks like the US team forgot that there was another minute to play. They just kind of gave up. It's a good thing I don't particularly care about soccer or else I would be POed. Hah.

If the Dolphins did this against the Patriots or Jets, people would be up in arms

I actually equated the US teams to the Dolphins when I was watching the last bit of it. I was thinking that with a minute and a half, all they have to do is not let the other team score which should be incredibly easy in soccer, but, of course, I guess it isn't.

That is why Portugal is one of the top ranked teams in the World and why the US is not. You can't give up a horrible goal in the first 5 mins and a goal in the last min against them and expect to win. The US outplayed them for most of the game but those 2 lapses in the defense cost them the 3 points. Let's just hope it's not the difference between them moving on or not.

As far as the US chances, I think they are about 50/50. I can see Ghana beating Portugal by 2 goals considering the way that Portugal is playing and I can see the US losing to Germany by 2 goals, however I can also see the US tieing Germany and Portugal beating Ghana, so anything can happen. Just gonna have to wait and see.

One final thought is that we still haven't even seen a good game from Michael Bradley who has been the biggest disappointment in my opinion. If Michael Bradley forgets that he is playing Germany and just plays the way he's capable, the US has a very good chance of moving on. I think he's trying too hard. Someone needs to give him a couple shots of whiskey before the game to relax him. He's playing too fast giving up the ball way too quickly. He's not that kind of player, he's a technician and needs to take a couple more touches and get into the game. C'mon Michael, get it together.

By far Bradley has not been playing anywhere near what I think he is capable of. We really need him to step it up in the next game because the pressure is on now. The good news is Germany does not have to win in order to advance so maybe they will be content playing for the tie.

I think the US chances are greater than 50/50...more like 75% to move on considering a tie between Ghana/POR sends them on to the knockout round. I was really surprised how much the US controlled the pace of the game against POR considering their first game against Ghana. It was a gut punching end...but if you told everyone at the beginning that you'd have a draw, the US takes that every time.

Don't be surprised if Ghana runs up the score on Portugal and knocks us out on point differential.  I don't know if Portugal will be able to keep up with their outside attack and I expect they will finish crosses better than we did.

It's pretty difficult for the US to not advance.

US win - Advance
US tie - Advance
US loss + Ghana tie - Advance
US loss + Ghana loss - Advance, unless Portugal wins by several goals and US loses by several goals.
US loss + Ghana win - Kicked out, unless Ghana wins by only 1 goal, in which I think US advances on H2H, but I'm not sure.

Here is the thing about looking at this strictly from a statistics standpoint. This is the "Group of Death" and anything can happen. It is still very likely that we could not advance.

US win + Portugal Win by 8
US loss + Portugal Win by 4

those are the only scenarios i like

They don't go by head to head. It's all points, then goal differential and then # of goals scored.

If we lose by 1(which is highly likely) then we would have 4 points and be at 0 for goal differential. Ghana wins then they have 4 points and depending on how many they win by would be their goal differential. They are only -1 so a win would put them at a tie with us at 0 goal differential. Win by 2 which could easily happen and they are ahead of us.

This is our worst case scenario but unfortunately it makes the most sense.  

With that said  ... make no mistake ... the German coach would love for his friend (Jurgen Klinsmann) to make it the next round too.

But aren't we pretty much expecting Portugal to beat Ghana?  Aren't they the better of the team.  This is the group of death because of Portugal and Germany...not Ghana.

Head-to-head is after goals scored.

Portugal is not playing well and Ghana is underrated. It is the Group of Death because it is the toughest group of four teams, not just because of two of them.

Now put percentages on those happening. The most likely scenario in my opinion is the US losing and Ghana winning the way Portugal is playing. The goal differential between Ghana and the US is +2 in favor of the US as they have won 2-1 and tied 2-2 for +1 GD and Ghana has lost 2-1 and tied 2-2 for -1 GD. If the US loses by 2 or more and Ghana wins Ghana is in as they will have a better GD. If Ghana wins by 2 or more and the US loses, Ghana is in again as they will again have a better GD. The only way that the US advances if they lose and Ghana wins is if the US loses by 1 and Ghana wins by 1. That will put them even on GD, but then it comes down to total goals scored and the US can score no fewer than 1 less than Ghana because they have 4 total goals and Ghana has 3. For instance if Ghana wins 2-1 and the US loses 1-0, Ghana is in and the US is out as Ghana would have scored 5 total goals and the US only 4.

There are actually quite a few ways that Ghana can beat out the US and some of them are likely. Portugal, not so much.

Well when we drop 7 on ghana we'll make it in on goal difference vs. the US .. it's sad but it'll just be the way it goes.

Being a Dolphins fan has made you ever the optimist!  ;) ;D

which is the exact opposite of being portuguese. by definition no-one is as pessimistic about the national soccer team than portuguese people are about the seleção

We were discussing this yesterday... 

Wouldn't it be mutually beneficial for both Germany and US to play to a draw?  Both would then advance to the knockout round automatically.

Why not make a phone call before the game and make some arrangements?

West Germany has done that before in a game against Austria. Hrubesch scored for the West Germans 10 minutes in, and players spent much of the rest of the evening passing to their teammates without threatening the opposing goal.  Klinsmann has adamantly denied the US and Germany will do that although he has many good friends over there .. including the coach.

All the players already know that they are in with a draw.  Just sayin' as a smart player, with a 0-0 tie in the 70th minute, I don't expect either team to be putting on a lot of pressure...

I don't think it's so much a matter of friends, but just a matter of self-preservation.  When you push offense, you leave yourself open for steals and goals the other way.  5 points gets you in.  Though unethical, both teams "should" just push for a tie and move on.

^^^ I would not call it unethical. It happens in the sport all the time from friendlies to qualification games to the tournament itself.

So the game between Uruguay and Italy was a real biter !!!

Luis Suarez really sank his teeth into Italy's defense.

Orlando City has drafted up a letter for employees to give their employers in order to promote ... For Lunch/Club and Country. They are asking employers to give longer lunch breaks on Thursday to watch the game. I've taken PTO in order to have enough time to watch.

http://orlandocitysc.com.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/MLS/OC_ForLunchAndCountry.pdf

While it's mutually beneficial for both teams to play to a draw, there is incentive for both teams to win the game. Are you going to risk that the other team suddenly decides in the last minute of the game to go for a win? On top of that, while a tie gets them both in, a 1-0 loss for the US is not nearly as good as a 4-3 loss, so they would really like to score a couple of goals before settling for a tie. So what are they going to do, simply watch while the other teams scores a couple of goals and then sit back and play it safe? That would be very poor sportsmanship on both teams parts.  While it's technically feasible, it's just not all that probable.

I could easily see Germany & US play to a draw.  It was a very rainy morning down there and I doubt either team wants to see a player get injured because they were going all out.

It doesn't appear that either team is laying back yet.

Germany completely dominated the ball. US looked flat and the field looked like a giant slip and slide. Luckily even with the loss nobody appeared to get seriously hurt and the US still advances.
 

What would be considered a successful World Cup for the US?

I'm assuming just making it out of the group into the knock-out round.

I would not say where we are now should be considered success. Yes we have moved through a very difficult group and got into the knockout games but the team has looked very unimpressive doing so. Getting to the round of 8 with a good showing is what I would consider a success. Getting to the round of 16 when you are ranked that high already is just maintaining. I think the team needs to take another step.

I would say the game against Portugal (an upper-tier team) was pretty impressive.  Even though it ended in a tie, USA pretty much dominated the entire clock.

It's already been a successful Cup for us. We've already done more than most experts predicted. Beating Belgium would be great although not impossible. Either way it's further experience for the team he's really trying to build.

Already is.

They need a good game out of Bradley. He's coming around, but taking a long time to snap out of this funk he's in. Everyone else pretty much has come to play, he's the only one that I think has really under performed.

Yes ... it's difficult to put a finger on.  Although he played much better yesterday he's still not playing up to his norm.  We will need a great performance from him to do any damage against Belgium.

This game will be interesting from a professional standpoint. While we have some foreign players most are poor MLS players. Belgium might have the highest payroll in the tournament which presumably means they are playing at the highest level. This is akin to the Yankees playing Kansas City's triple A team in terms of money.

Juergen Klinsmann has been vocal about our players needing to get European experience to get better and being critical of MLS talent. Meanwhile  the MLS commisioner has responded by saying “You can’t both be responsible for the failure of the national team and then not be given credit for the success,” Garber told USA TODAY Sports on Friday.

To me ... this game is more than the soccer being played.

I don't even watch soccer or understand the intricacies of the sport, but over these last two games, I've noticed that "the bald guy" sucks, as compared to everyone else.  Bradley = "the bald guy".

^^^ You would be amazed to see how he has performed at other times. He is the hub in the midfield who generally is responsible for ball possession. He has not had a good first touch the entire tournament and it has affected the flow of the game. I hope he comes out of this for the next game. If Bradley plays well and Altidore is healthy (this would be a big if) you could see a completely different looking attack from the US.

What's the word on Altidore?  Do they expect him to play in the first round?

I know next to nothing about soccer, but from a defensive standpoint you have to give the US credit, as they only gave up four goals in three games.  Then when you consider they played two games without probably their best player, and another top player playing poorly, I would have to think you would have to consider where they are now a success.  Especially since Germany seemed to take it to them, and not play safe.

Yeah, I wouldn't say we played bad against Germany as much as we just played the best team in the tournament and only lost 1-0. We even had some good scoring chances. They are clearly better, but Portugal lost 4-0 to them.

We took it to Portugal, but Bradley screwed up with the giveaway and Ronaldo just made a perfect pass because he is Ronaldo.

The team is already a success to make it out of the Group of Death, but the Portugal tie still stings because it was such a missed opportunity to win the group with a tie against Germany.

That being said, we CAN beat Belgium. They are better, but anything can happen in a winner take all match. Bad giveaway. Early red card. It would be a miracle if we win the whole thing, but not if we were in the final 8.

Disagree.  Even if we had beaten Portugal AND Germany we would be in the same situation we are now...advancing to the knock out round.

Well not quite, we wouldn't be playing Belgium, we'd be playing Algeria. But if we had beaten Portugal, we would still be right where we are, so it really didn't matter that we tied them.

It's more of a mental thing. Playing Germany with the knowledge that you already advances and only needing a draw to win the group of death. Quite an accomplishment.

Still, we can beat Belgium.

So I have a question:

Apparently at this stage of the World Cup, the concept of a tie becomes distasteful and impractical, so games are decided on penalty shots?

Yes, there has to be a winner. So, after 90 minutes, they play two 15 minute periods. These are not sudden death. So, if the game is still tied, then penalty kicks.

Not distasteful, impossible. There has to be a winner in the knockout stage of a tournament.

So why doesn't there have to be a winner in the group stages?  I mean, if you can use tournament goals scored and other tiebreakers in the group stage, why can't you use them for ties in knockout, too?

I just don't see why ties are permitted to occur, especially with frequency.

Group play is exactly that. It's how you fared against the group and not the individual team. 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. Top teams in each group move on to the elimination round where only one team moves on. The leagues are run in the same format. You are competing to win points and not necessarily games albeit could be argued the same thing.

Many peoplem, and pretty much all purists, do not consider a game that goes to PKs a win or loss. They still consider it a tie. The PKs only function is to see who moves on.

Isn't it the same reason you can't have a tie in an NFL playoff game? There has to be a winner but a tie can exist in the regular season.

In the NFL, one OT is enough to resolve the overwhelming majority of games.  There have only been 5 double OT playoff games in NFL history, and never a triple OT.  But in soccer (and hockey), ties happen all the time.

Anyway, I get it, I'm not refined enough to appreciate the beauty of a tie (like many other Americans).  This is not a new argument and is not really specific to the World Cup.  I was just surprised that they went to PKs before the World Cup final.

They go to PKs to essentially prevent the players from dying of exhaustion. An average player will run about 7-10 KM a game. I am American, so I don't know what that is in miles, so let's say 4-6? Pretty much non-stop except for halftime. It's just too much to keep playing until a goal is scored.

P.S. I forgot, they also take breaks when they disgrace themselves and their country by diving, as you saw in today's Mexico/Netherlands game which won the game for the Dutch on a penalty kick.

The difference is that in Group play it's round robin. Everyone plays everyone else 1 time for a total of 3 games. You get 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. The 2 teams with the most points advance out of the bracket to the knockout stage. Goals scored are used as tie breakers if points are the same.

Knockout is mono a mono. One team against one team. How would you use goal differential when the game ends in a tie? The goal differential would necessarily have to be the same as well. You can't use goal differential or goals scored or anything else to do with goals because the game ended in a tie.

TLDR: Knockout is different from group play. A draw is a perfectly acceptable outcome in group play, it's not in knockout play.

But ties happen in the regular season fairly regularly when you don't necessarily HAVE to have a winner. How's that different from Soccer?

It's similar to the difference between regular season and playoffs for Hockey and the NFL. You could think of the group play as the "regular season" for the World cup and the knockout round as the "playoffs". Then Hockey and Soccer are essentially the same and they would be very similar to College Football where they go to setting the ball on the 20 and you try to score from there to get a winner. It's really not all that unusual, it just happens more in Hockey and Soccer. Soccer has been around a long time and the system works fine as it is, don't really see a compelling reason to change it. Shootouts are actually EXTREMELY entertaining to watch and there's even quite a bit of gamesmanship going into them. If you recall the Olympics, the US won a hockey game when they basically had the same man take all of the penalty shots. He was brought to the Olympics in part because of his terrific ability to score on penalty shots.

If there's one thing I would change about the shootouts in the world cup it's the way they do them. In high school in Texas they don't do shootouts the way they do them in the World Cup. The ball is placed about 20 yards away from the goal and once the shooter touches the ball the goalie can leave his line. Then you basically get something similar to a breakaway in Soccer with a 1 on 1 matchup with the goalie. A good goalie will win a pretty high percentage of these types of shootouts and the attacking player's skill is much more evident because they can try to "chip" the goalie, dribble around them, etc, very similar to the shootouts in the NHL. It's not simply line up a take a shot like the World Cup.

^ Are you saying that ties happen regularly in the NFL regular season?  Because if so, I'll have to disagree.  They are very rare.

Well maybe regularly was the wrong word, but there have been a couple the last couple of years, so they aren't exactly unheard of. The point I was making was that even in the NFL, a tie during the regular season is possible and at one time it wasn't rare at all. Some of us have just been around long enough to remember those times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_tied_games

In the last decade of NFL regular season games (1,280 games), there have been 3 ties.
In the first week of the World Cup (23 games), there were 4 ties.

Only two times in the history of the NFL have there been two ties in the same season (1986 and 1997).  There have never been three ties in one NFL season.  They have always been rare.

You cannot compare ties in football to ties in soccer, at any remotely reasonable sense of scale.

the scale is irrelevant .. the fact is tha tin both soccer and the nfl .. ties can and do happen in the regular season .. they do not happen in the playoffs .. the 1st phase of the world cup is like the regular season .. the 2nd is like the playoffs .. that's all

^ Scale is not irrelevant. 

Ties are relatively meaningless in the NFL and have virtually zero impact on the sport.  They exist only to avoid the occasional 5 hour game where it starts to get dangerous.  The main point is that they exist only as a last resort and are so rare that their impact isn't felt.

In soccer, ties are an active driver in the standings and are part of the strategy of teams on a very regular basis. 

It's just not comparable.

Soccer is kind of like hockey, but we've seen the NHL try to attempt that by making an extra period with a guaranteed point for both teams.

Well put, Dave.

In soccer ... the longer you play the less likely to score. PKs can be very ugly for this same fact. Soccer is a physical sport of endurance and tired legs do not respond as fresh ones do. The longer you go the worse you perform. It's been said soccer players run over 7 miles during a game. Add in another 30 minutes of OT and that number keeps going up and performance goes down.

I think it would be best for the fans to just do away with the substitution rule for OT and play until you have a winner, golden goal style. 

I'm not trying to step in and make rule changes to a sport I don't watch and largely don't understand, but it seems that you could do a short overtime sudden death for 10 minutes or something.

They play two 15 minute overtime periods already.

Not in the group round.  They play 90 minutes and then they go home.

Yea my mind was frazzled after work today. I was off point and was thinking that you thought they went straight to PKs.

They actually do a 30 minute extra period before the shootout of knockout games. There is no reason to do this prior to the knockout stage as ties are perfectly acceptable.

Look, neither of you are going to change your minds, you don't like ties and that's fine. But don't try to suggest that there's something inherently wrong with ties. Ties are a part of a large number of sports, not just soccer. You may not like it and you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but it's just an opinion. There are billions of fans of soccer that don't have a problem with them. Soccer has the largest fan base of any sport in the world, so there's not really any compelling reason to change it, it's not like it needs to appeal to more people.

All they did was change the scoring method of ties, they didn't try to eliminate them.

There quite obviously is something inherently wrong with ties, which is why they stop allowing them at the knockout round.

Everyone agrees that ties are an unacceptable way to resolve a World Cup champion.  I'm just saying that it would be nice if they stopped allowing them one stage earlier.

um, wha?

There are no ties in hockey anymore.   At all.  They didn't TRY to eliminate them, they ELIMINATED them.

The difference, for hockey, is that in the regular season, they play 5 minutes OT then shootout.  In playoffs, there is no shootout, they keep playing until someone scores.  That's what makes playoff hockey so exciting.

Of course, in soccer, they can't "keep playing" but PK's just seem so unfair.  I'd rather see the kick from farther out, or make the player dribble in and shoot so the goalie could come out to battle.  Just seems like a PK in soccer could be a goal every time cause the goalie has no chance to react and just sometimes gets lucky.

You cannot have a tie in a knockout round! The tie has to be broken somehow. Whether that be overtime, shootout or coin flip, you have to break the tie somehow. That simply is NOT true for the round robin matches. Are you really arguing that it's possible to have ties in a knockout round? It's not because ties are bad, it's because you CAN'T have a tie.

Then why does 1 team get a point? For what? A loss? No, for a tie. Least that's how I view it.

False.  There are no ties.

When a game goes to overtime, each team gets 1 point.  They continue playing until one team wins.  The winning team gets one additional point. 

Every game has a winner and a loser.

You can break a tie in the knockout round with tiebreakers, exactly as you do in group play.  They choose not to, because they'd rather use PKs.  (And there is no sort of logical requirement that tiebreakers only be applied in a round robin phase.)

The English Premier League decides their freaking championship on tiebreakers.  You're telling me you cannot decide a tournament match on tiebreakers?

On a side note, if there were an award for Best Hair of the World Cup, Belgium would surely win.  Every one of them is like a hair model.

I never said that you couldn't break ties in group play, I said you don't HAVE to. You HAVE to break ties in knockout rounds. How can you have a game in the knockout round end in a tie? 2 teams move on together?

I never said there was. I said you HAVE to break ties in the knockout phase. You don't HAVE to in the round robin play. Prove me wrong. They choose NOT to break them in the round robin play because there's nothing wrong with a tie. They HAVE to break ties in the knockout round so they choose to do it with overtime and then a shootout, not because there's anything wrong with a tie, but because in the knockout stage you HAVE to have a winner. The game CANNOT end in a tie. It's impossible or it wouldn't be called a knockout round.

Somebody please explain this Spider. I can't.

For the tie. One team then gets another point for winning the overtime portion of the game. I don't consider that a loss for the team that didn't win, I consider that a tie for them.

Are you familiar with the concept of tiebreakers?  You clearly understand that a team that neither wins nor loses a game in group play can still be eliminated from the tournament based on tiebreakers, right?  So what logical reason is there that a team in the knockout phase cannot be eliminated based on tiebreakers?

They COULD use tiebreakers to advance teams in the knockout phase if they wanted to.  They CHOOSE not to.

With all due respect, you are simply wrong.  That is an overtime loss, according to the NHL.  (I'm not sure how you could arrive at the conclusion that a team "tied" a game that their opponent won.)

The NHL has no option in the standings for "ties."  It is Wins/Losses/Overtime Losses.

Tie breakers have 1 purpose, to break ties. Since the result of a match cannot be a tie in the knockout stage of a tournament, tie breakers MUST be used. Since ties in the group stage have no such requirement, tiebreakers are not used. In soccer there are 3 possible outcomes to a match. A win, a loss or a tie. A win is superior to a tie, but a tie is superior to a loss. There is no reason that a match cannot end in a tie. It's a perfectly good outcome. In fact I would argue that in soccer a tie is preferred to using tiebreakers. It's this reason and this reason alone that tie breakers are used in the knockout stage of a soccer tournament and why they are not used in group play.

I've made my position perfectly clear. I won't argue it any further because it's pointless.

I concede the argument on hockey games.

You are talking about two different kinds of ties.

One is the final score of a game.  There is no reason than any individual game cannot end in a tie score, and "tiebreakers" are not used to decide the outcome of an individual game.  For example, penalty kicks are not a "tiebreaker" because the FINAL result of the game was not a TIE; whichever team won on PK won the game.  Referring to penalty kicks as a "tiebreaker" would be like referring to overtime in the NFL as a "tiebreaker," which I doubt you have ever done.

The other kind of "tie" is a a tie in standing.  This is the kind of tie that "tiebreakers" are used to resolve (a fact which you are clearly already familiar with (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wxfCJ8dXNlcnNwZWN8J3xQYXBweTEzfCJ8YnJkfCd8MSwyLDMsNCw1LDYsNyw4fCJ8c2hvd19jb21wbGV0ZXwnfDF8InxzdWJqZWN0X29ubHl8J3x8Inxzb3J0X2RpcnwnfGRlc2N8Inxzb3J0fCd8SURfTVNHfCJ8c2VhcmNofCd8dGllYnJlYWtlcg==)).  When teams have the same record, tiebreakers are other factors used to determine who moves on.

So to address your statement: tie games are permitted in the group stage, but ties in standing are NOT permitted; even if every team in a group finishes with 3 tied games, only two teams can advance.  Since we can see that FIFA is perfectly fine with using other factors to determine which team moves on in the group stage, there is no logical reason that they cannot use similar factors to determine which team would move on in the knockout stage, provided the game ENDED (<--- this word is important) in a tie.

Yet you keep saying tiebreakers could be used for knockout games which are individual games at that stage.

No, I am not.

I am saying that the final score of the game would be a tie, and then (exactly as they do in group play) FIFA would look at whatever other statistics they deem relevant (i.e. tiebreakers) and decide which of those two teams moves on to the next round of the tournament.

If you can tolerate games with tied scores in one part of the tournament because you can just look at other statistics to determine who moves on, why does that somehow become unpalatable in the next phase?

So basically semantics.

Regardless, FIFA isn't changing the rules for the once every four years viewers when the dedicated fans across the globe don't have issue with it.

None of this is a demand for FIFA to change anything.  But it's silly for people to say "Why do you soccer haters complain so much about ties?" at the same time they're saying "OF COURSE there can't be a tie!  How else would we know who is supposed to move on?"

Anyone want to talk actual soccer? How about our German-Americans scoring 3 of our 5 goals? Let's hear it for our military giving us real soccer players!!

Now that we are eliminated, who are your second teams? I always root for Italy (this goes back to when I had an Italian coach making us be Italy during our World Cup tournament at camp in my youth) but they didn't get out of group play. I really don't have any connections to any teams left.

I root for Portugal .. because i'm Portuguese .. but since their gone .. and the USA is out as well i think i'll have to root for Columbia .. simply because they have 4 current and former players from my club team (FC Porto) on their squad.

The most notable of them is James Rodriguez (former FC Porto player) .. he's playing fantastic .. also Jackson Martinez (current FC Porto player) is doing well.

i hate Argentina since they have 3 current or former Benfica (FC Porto rivals) on their team .. therefore .. i want them to lose at everything in life ..

I also kinda like brazil as they boast 2 former Porto players that i still like (most notably) Hulk .. who has the best name ever!

I root for USA first and almost exclusively.  But since I come from an Italian family, I like to see Italy do well.  As Phish said, that didn't work out.

I'm probably rooting for Brazil because I think it would be cool to see the home country win.  Either that, or Das Germans.  Really I don't even care who wins at this point, but I will enjoy watching these remaining games.

Germany is always my number 2 team.

My second team is NFL preseason.

What happened with Chris Wondolowski?  I did not see the end of the game because I had to work.   Also, I didn't know soccer overtimes weren't sudden death.  Soccer is really quite a brutal sport to play.   

Since I stopped arguing with you, I'll let you argue with yourself.

Here is your original premise:

Here's your counter argument to that premise.
If we accept your second statement obviously when FIFA has the choice, they CHOOSE to end in a tie score. It's only when a winner MUST be chosen that they don't allow ties despite their quite obvious preference to end in a tie.

That looks like a fun game!  Let me give it a try.

Here is your original premise, in the post right before the one you just cited as my "original premise":

And here is your counter argument to that premise:
So there's nothing inherently wrong with ties, except for when you cannot allow them?  Got it.

Put simply: is it possible to use tiebreakers to determine which team advances in the case of a tie game in a knockout round, yes or no?  If the answer is yes, then FIFA simply prefers the option of PKs over the alternative of tiebreakers in the knockout round, and they could just as easily choose the option of PKs in group play, too.

I'm filing this argument under the "who gives a shit" file.  Frankly, I'd like to come to this thread and talk about the actual World Cup not a pissing match about ties.

PK's ARE the tiebreaker. Tiebreakers is simply the plural form of tiebreaker.

tie·break·er  [tahy-brey-ker]

noun 
a system for breaking a tie score at the end of regulation play by establishing a winner through special additional play, usually of a fairly short duration, as in tennis and soccer.

He had a very good opportunity to score (at close range) but could not keep the ball down and sent it over the net. As for sudden death, FIFA experimented with the Golden Goal a few World Cups back. It did not stick around for whatever reason.

Ties are a part of the group play of the world cup just like the nfl has ties during the regular season.  In the playoffs you can't have ties.  I don't have a problem with the ties.

In fact if I was to change any sports overtime rules, it would be baseball to cap the number of extra inning to 3 during the regular season, if after the 12th inning the game is still tied it is recorded as a tie.  I would also cap regular season basketball to 2 overtimes during the regular season allowing ties be recorded if they are still tied.  Obviously keep unlimited overtime and extra innings during post season.