Just thinking about the tactical decisions Berhalter made for this game and i'm hoping to get some thoughts:

• Does it feel like the tactics (3-4-3) forced Mexico out wide or over the top instead of ceding the midfield to them like was did in years past?
• Should he have start Robinson in place of Dest on the left as he has some rapport with Ream and have Dest start on the bench. Dest was clearly gassed and didn't have a good game but may have been useful as an impact sub off the bench for a short duration.
• What's going on with Musah? Does Berhalter not think Musah's ready or is there an injury that's keeping him out of the games?

tysker said:

---

PatAg said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

That's exactly what I've heard. Best analogy a Mexican friend gave me was that it's the equivalent when someone would "insult" someone else in the late 1990s/early 2000s by calling them a "f a g." (TexAgs censors that word....didn't know that)

---

Which is something we all grew out of doing.

---

Puto doesn't necessarily mean gay, iirc. Its more like calling a guy a girly-man. I haven't grown out of calling those whining, flopping soccer players a '*****.' Should the Mexican fans be allowed to use ***** instead?

---

Puta means *****/****. Puto is the gay male version of *****. If it was up to me, I'd tell the in-person fans to call the floppers maricon.

• I dont think Berhalters tactics changed the way Mexico approached the game that much tbh. In the semi against Costa Rica they went route 1 the majority of the time. With either direct long balls or 1 v 1 on the outside.
• I would have liked to see Dest push higher up the pitch and have some support behind him but I think the case last night was that Dest couldnt get on the ball and connect a ton with Pulisic in front of him. But he did look off for most of the night.
• I think the case rn with Musah is that he hasnt played against any CONCACAF competition in a meaningful way. Its one thing to play in a friendly against jamaica and another to play in a final against Mexico. I think Berhalter went with experience over youth but in time we will see a lot of Musah.

Quote:

---

Encroachment is like offside. You either are early or not. By how much doesn't matter. And it happens on every kick. If it's in the net it's ignored because it didn't affect the play. If it's like this it's ignored because it didn't affect the play.

There are way bigger issues to deal with on the PKs. Things like players walking up and gouging up the area around the spot. Mexico was blatant about it and ripped up the plant foot area pretty badly but both teams did it and the AR should absolutely have stopped that before it got started.

---

I understand.

But I'd argue both teams didnt do it. Maybe, if you freeze the frame, a foot from a US player was across early. That's not going to get called in real time, because it's impossible to see.

4 yards into the box is a bit obvious.

Doesnt really matter, but I guess I dont see that play unfold the way you do.

Not opposed to the idea of starting 3 CB as a tactical change, but Ream and Brooks lack recovery speed v a team like Mex and McKenzie was getting baptized- not ready technically.

I like Dest on the right better. Wish Antonee showed better in the semi. Would solve problems.

Needed to cap-tie Musah this camp. Either injured or something else going on?

Mathguy64 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unless he becomes involved in play off the rebound he's getting ignored. There were a bunch of US players that were early too just not to that blatant extent.

---

I mean, that was blatantly illegal.

A 'bunch of US players early'? Freeze the video as he's kicking the ball, and there might be a foot over the line. That's never going to get called...halfway in the box absolutely should.

---

Encroachment is like offside. You either are early or not. By how much doesn't matter. And it happens on every kick. If it's in the net it's ignored because it didn't affect the play. If it's like this it's ignored because it didn't affect the play.

There are way bigger issues to deal with on the PKs. Things like players walking up and gouging up the area around the spot. Mexico was blatant about it and ripped up the plant foot area pretty badly but both teams did it and the AR should absolutely have stopped that before it got started.

---

Question: Can VAR be used to review encroachment on PKs?

tysker said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unless he becomes involved in play off the rebound he's getting ignored. There were a bunch of US players that were early too just not to that blatant extent.

---

I mean, that was blatantly illegal.

A 'bunch of US players early'? Freeze the video as he's kicking the ball, and there might be a foot over the line. That's never going to get called...halfway in the box absolutely should.

---

Encroachment is like offside. You either are early or not. By how much doesn't matter. And it happens on every kick. If it's in the net it's ignored because it didn't affect the play. If it's like this it's ignored because it didn't affect the play.

There are way bigger issues to deal with on the PKs. Things like players walking up and gouging up the area around the spot. Mexico was blatant about it and ripped up the plant foot area pretty badly but both teams did it and the AR should absolutely have stopped that before it got started.

---

Question: Can VAR be used to review encroachment on PKs?

---

Yes if it results in a goal. Every goal is subject to it.

oh no said:

---

Not opposed to the idea of starting 3 CB as a tactical change, but Ream and Brooks lack recovery speed v a team like Mex and McKenzie was getting baptized- not ready technically.

I like Dest on the right better. Wish Antonee showed better in the semi. Would solve problems.

Needed to cap-tie Musah this camp. Either injured or something else going on?

---

Musah is cap tied. 4 appearances total, friendly or not cap ties you.

https://en.as.com/en/2021/03/28/football/1616965711_557648.html

Mathguy64 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unless he becomes involved in play off the rebound he's getting ignored. There were a bunch of US players that were early too just not to that blatant extent.

---

I mean, that was blatantly illegal.

A 'bunch of US players early'? Freeze the video as he's kicking the ball, and there might be a foot over the line. That's never going to get called...halfway in the box absolutely should.

---

Encroachment is like offside. You either are early or not. By how much doesn't matter. And it happens on every kick. If it's in the net it's ignored because it didn't affect the play. If it's like this it's ignored because it didn't affect the play.

There are way bigger issues to deal with on the PKs. Things like players walking up and gouging up the area around the spot. Mexico was blatant about it and ripped up the plant foot area pretty badly but both teams did it and the AR should absolutely have stopped that before it got started.

---

Question: Can VAR be used to review encroachment on PKs?

---

Yes if it results in a goal. Every goal is subject to it.

---

You'd think.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Encroachment is like offside. You either are early or not. By how much doesn't matter. And it happens on every kick. If it's in the net it's ignored because it didn't affect the play. If it's like this it's ignored because it didn't affect the play.

There are way bigger issues to deal with on the PKs. Things like players walking up and gouging up the area around the spot. Mexico was blatant about it and ripped up the plant foot area pretty badly but both teams did it and the AR should absolutely have stopped that before it got started.

---

I understand.

But I'd argue both teams didnt do it. Maybe, if you freeze the frame, a foot from a US player was across early. That's not going to get called in real time, because it's impossible to see.

4 yards into the box is a bit obvious.

Doesnt really matter, but I guess I dont see that play unfold the way you do.

---

McKennie was a couple of steps in when Pulisic took his. You plan on taking that ball out of the net?

Just saying'. Can't have it both ways. It didn't affect the play so no reason to make the call.

If Guardado makes it and he takes it out that match probably doesn't get finished. Pitti gets swarmed and manhandled. Either he's forced to ignore blatant physical contact and dissent, the match is a **** show and he loses total control or he starts handing out red cards like candy and Mexico goes below the minimum to play and he loses total control. He would be dealing with death threats for years.

And now add in the fans reaction in the stands. Bets on how many from the stands swarm the field? What if that same play happens at the Azteca and he makes that call? Imagine that **** show. Now imagine that call made at a match between Boca Juniors and River Platte.

oh no said:

---

Not opposed to the idea of starting 3 CB as a tactical change, but Ream and Brooks lack recovery speed v a team like Mex and McKenzie was getting baptized- not ready technically.

I like Dest on the right better. Wish Antonee showed better in the semi. Would solve problems.

Needed to cap-tie Musah this camp. Either injured or something else going on?

---

Can't cap-tie Musah until the Gold Cup. The next match is a friendly vs Costa Rica.

akm91 said:

---

oh no said:

---

Not opposed to the idea of starting 3 CB as a tactical change, but Ream and Brooks lack recovery speed v a team like Mex and McKenzie was getting baptized- not ready technically.

I like Dest on the right better. Wish Antonee showed better in the semi. Would solve problems.

Needed to cap-tie Musah this camp. Either injured or something else going on?

---

Can't cap-tie Musah until the Gold Cup. The next match is a friendly vs Costa Rica.

---

Musah is technically cap-tied because he filed for the one-time switch. Once you do that, there is no going back and he's essentially cap-tied.

akm91 said:

---

oh no said:

---

Not opposed to the idea of starting 3 CB as a tactical change, but Ream and Brooks lack recovery speed v a team like Mex and McKenzie was getting baptized- not ready technically.

I like Dest on the right better. Wish Antonee showed better in the semi. Would solve problems.

Needed to cap-tie Musah this camp. Either injured or something else going on?

---

Can't cap-tie Musah until the Gold Cup. The next match is a friendly vs Costa Rica.

---

He's already cap tied.

I could have sworn Musah wasn't cap-tied because he's only played in a couple of friendlies and no competitive matches yet. Thought people wanted him to play on Thursday or Sunday to get cap-tied.

oh no said:

---

I could have sworn Musah wasn't cap-tied because he's only played in a couple of friendlies and no competitive matches yet. Thought people wanted him to play on Thursday or Sunday to get cap-tied.

---

They were wrong.

Once you have 4 senior team appearances, you cannot play for another country.

https://www.goal.com/en/news/new-fifa-ruling-gives-more-flexibility-on-switching/3rftk5bz4qh71pq9uvtmdjc5m

Mathguy64 said:

---

If Guardado makes it and he takes it out that match probably doesn't get finished. Pitti gets swarmed and manhandled. Either he's forced to ignore blatant physical contact and dissent, the match is a **** show and he loses total control or he starts handing out red cards like candy and Mexico goes below the minimum to play and he loses total control. He would be dealing with death threats for years.

And now add in the fans reaction in the stands. Bets on how many from the stands swarm the field? What if that same play happens at the Azteca and he makes that call? Imagine that **** show. Now imagine that call made at a match between Boca Juniors and River Platte.

---

Candidly the reason so many people believe he gave obvious the non-penalty penalty. Moneyed cartels that are good at violence might have been a lot happier at full time if Mexico won or at least made it to penalties. Just the fact that Horvath saved it damn near caused abandonment level conditions.

YouBet said:

---

oragator said:

---

Oh and by the way, was going to write an email to concacaf about finally shutting the Mexican fans down before someone get seriously hurt. But guess what?

https://www.concacaf.com/contact-us/

---

You can fax it!

---

Do that thing where you tape three or four sheets of paper together so it loops through the machine endlessly.

Saw in an ESPN article that tjis was our first competitive win over Mex in 8 years

Edit: Yep. 2-0 win in Columbus for wcq in September 2013.

Kevin the 3-legged dog said:

---

oh no said:

---

I could have sworn Musah wasn't cap-tied because he's only played in a couple of friendlies and no competitive matches yet. Thought people wanted him to play on Thursday or Sunday to get cap-tied.

---

They were wrong.

Once you have 4 senior team appearances, you cannot play for another country.

https://www.goal.com/en/news/new-fifa-ruling-gives-more-flexibility-on-switching/3rftk5bz4qh71pq9uvtmdjc5m

---

I was wrong. He is not cap tied.

Their academy is producing some incredible talent, though it's also interesting that most of it has had little impact on their first team in league play.

Cannon and Reynolds are the only ones with significant appearances, and that's including less than a full season for Reynolds.

Mexico's penalty was correct by the new handball rules. The handball rule is a lot like "targeting" in football where there are a ****load of indicators that have to be factored in any one of which makes it a handball, and so it confuses the hell out of everyone because the dumb jocks that become analysts can only understand one concept at a time in their brain so they dont understand it and cant explain it.

Its always a handball if it hits your arm when your arm is outside the "body line". Always. No intent required, no consideration of accidental or intentional or whether there is time to react. The only exception I believe is that your arm is considered inside your body line if its extending under you to the ground as support when you're going to the ground. The only exception about not having enough time to react, is that if you do (ie the ball travels a long distance before it gets to you) then it cant hit your arm even if it is inside your body line.

The "accidental" handball does still exist, but only for attacking players, and its still a handball if it leads to a goal accidental or not.

JJxvi said:

---

Mexico's penalty was correct by the new handball rules. The handball rule is a lot like "targeting" in football where there are a ****load of indicators that have to be factored in any one of which makes it a handball, and so it confuses the hell out of everyone because the dumb jocks that become analysts can only understand one concept at a time in their brain so they dont understand it and cant explain it.

Its always a handball if it hits your arm when your arm is outside the "body line". Always. No intent required, no consideration of accidental or unaccidental. The only exception I believe is that your arm is considered inside your body line if its extending under you to the ground as support when you're going to the ground.

The "accidental" handball does still exist, but only for attacking players, and its still a handball if it leads to a goal accidental or not.

---

Well, that's going to be clarified again July 1, so good luck with that.

Honestly, the video was so bad I couldn't see **** to make a call.

I was under the impression you had to be making yourself bigger.

Otherwise, why not just kick the ball at someone's arm anytime a defender is inside or near the box. That would be a very easy thing to do for any striker at this level.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I was under the impression you had to be making yourself bigger.

Otherwise, why not just kick the ball at someone's arm anytime a defender is inside or near the box. That would be a very easy thing to do for any striker at this level.

---

Well, "Its always a handball if it hits your arm when your arm is outside the "body line"" is making yourself bigger.

I"m on 3 different referee groups and they never agree with what is a handball or not.

Here's the new law, July 1:

Quote:

---

Following this clarification, it is a handball offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball;
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player's body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised; or
• scores in the opponents' goal:
  
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper; or
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.

Accidental handball that leads to a team-mate scoring a goal or having a goal-scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence.

---

Kevin the 3-legged dog said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Mexico's penalty was correct by the new handball rules. The handball rule is a lot like "targeting" in football where there are a ****load of indicators that have to be factored in any one of which makes it a handball, and so it confuses the hell out of everyone because the dumb jocks that become analysts can only understand one concept at a time in their brain so they dont understand it and cant explain it.

Its always a handball if it hits your arm when your arm is outside the "body line". Always. No intent required, no consideration of accidental or unaccidental. The only exception I believe is that your arm is considered inside your body line if its extending under you to the ground as support when you're going to the ground.

The "accidental" handball does still exist, but only for attacking players, and its still a handball if it leads to a goal accidental or not.

---

Well, that's going to be clarified again July 1, so good luck with that.

Honestly, the video was so bad I couldn't see **** to make a call.

---

It hit his arm and his arm was outside of his body line. It seemed pretty clear to me.

The commentators in typical fashion continued talking about natural and unnatural positions and other factors that are obsolete (or not yet put back into consideration).

Also, I think strikers should try to kick it into arms away from bodies when they can (rules are changing somewhate though, as mentioned because of some of this). Based on what's been going on under these rules, I'm not sure there aren't some players who actually have realized that. The rules are stupid and most people hate them and dont understand them, but the referee last night made the obvious call.

JJxvi said:

---

Kevin the 3-legged dog said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Mexico's penalty was correct by the new handball rules. The handball rule is a lot like "targeting" in football where there are a ****load of indicators that have to be factored in any one of which makes it a handball, and so it confuses the hell out of everyone because the dumb jocks that become analysts can only understand one concept at a time in their brain so they dont understand it and cant explain it.

Its always a handball if it hits your arm when your arm is outside the "body line". Always. No intent required, no consideration of accidental or unaccidental. The only exception I believe is that your arm is considered inside your body line if its extending under you to the ground as support when you're going to the ground.

The "accidental" handball does still exist, but only for attacking players, and its still a handball if it leads to a goal accidental or not.

---

Well, that's going to be clarified again July 1, so good luck with that.

Honestly, the video was so bad I couldn't see **** to make a call.

---

It hit his arm and his arm was outside of his body line. It seemed pretty clear to me.

The commentators in typical fashion continued talking about natural and unnatural positions and other factors that are obsolete (or not yet put back into consideration).

---

I really couldn't tell. The replays were crap and bad angles.

However, there are interpretations where they are including natural/unnatural hand positions. Hopefully the new law will clarify.

three minutes of reviewing various angles on VAR made it clear that his arm down by his side was "unnatural" when a well-driven shot hit his arm.

JJxvi said:

---

Kevin the 3-legged dog said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Mexico's penalty was correct by the new handball rules. The handball rule is a lot like "targeting" in football where there are a ****load of indicators that have to be factored in any one of which makes it a handball, and so it confuses the hell out of everyone because the dumb jocks that become analysts can only understand one concept at a time in their brain so they dont understand it and cant explain it.

Its always a handball if it hits your arm when your arm is outside the "body line". Always. No intent required, no consideration of accidental or unaccidental. The only exception I believe is that your arm is considered inside your body line if its extending under you to the ground as support when you're going to the ground.

The "accidental" handball does still exist, but only for attacking players, and its still a handball if it leads to a goal accidental or not.

---

Well, that's going to be clarified again July 1, so good luck with that.

Honestly, the video was so bad I couldn't see **** to make a call.

---

It hit his arm and his arm was outside of his body line. It seemed pretty clear to me.

The commentators in typical fashion continued talking about natural and unnatural positions and other factors that are obsolete (or not yet put back into consideration).

---

They have absolutely ruined the handball ruling in my opinion. Whatever the state of the rule, the touching of the ball by the players hand like that in last night's game should not result in a penalty.

Having your hand by your side and the player right next to you heading the ball down so it clips your hand should not result in a pk, in my opinion.

Was it the right call based on the current rule? Probably. Should the rule be drafted in a way where that is a pk? No.

The point of handball in the first place is you aren't supposed to use your hands to create an advantage, not to force players to walk around with their hands behind them at all times.

Almost all the discussion, that I have seen, around the rule has to do with the natural positioning of the arm and not with the arm being a part of the silhouette. If the arm is in line or alongside the body it is usually never given as a handball.

Last night for instance that was a natural position of the arm (in my biased opinion) and wasn't an attempt to make his body larger. In other leagues I've seen refs not give that as a handball. The problem is that what is "natural" is up to interpretation to each ref which means we are almost never going to see uniformity in how the rule is applied.