My first thought when I saw a news photo of Chastain with her jersey off wasn’t that I could see her bra but, since you could see the size of her waist compared to her shorts, that her shorts were the freakin’ baggiest shorts a human being has ever worn! You could practically make a tent out of them.
So what’s with the soccer shorts big enough to hold two people?
Yeah, I caught it. I was sitting in section 16, row 9, seat 17 and didn’t hear a thing!
Sorry, just had to gloat! 
Booters with Hooters!
I loved seeing the chiseled body of Brandi after her big score! More power to her!
After 2 hours running around in the sun, I would have ripped off my jersey too!
Of course, I am a sexist pig, and would love to see the locker room scene after the game!
Females journalists are allowed into men’s locker rooms. Why are’nt male journalists allowed into female locker rooms?
Because of guys like you, pokerplayer…
Well the First Pervert went into the locker room after the game. I guess that after Brandi’s display, he wanted to see some more.
Jeffery
[[My biggest difficulty with her is the fact that she yanked her shirt off in front of the whole world, then in a CNN interview stated that she put her shirt back on to receive the medal because she wanted to “look presentable.”
She can pose any way she wants for magazines, but as long as she is on television being a “role model” for young women, maybe a little restraint is in order.
A world cup soccer game shouldn’t have to be PG rated! ]]
Heck, that was the best part of the whole tournament. 
[[A bigger issue for me is that they played the equivalent of 9 scoreless innings and decided the world-freaking championship with a home-run derby!!! They should play sudden death (which is what it’s called, don’t give me this “golden goal” shit) with no clock. Sooner or later someone will score. If everybody is so concerned about getting the game over with, have the teams alternate corner-kicks – at least then when a team finally scores it’s in a real game situation.]] jrepka
You got that right – what a farce to decide a championship that way. This, plus the low scoring (both games the last day were 0-0), is why soccer will nver be a big-time spectator sport in the US, even though the big event here and there will garnewr attention.
If they kept playing that game, sooner or later someone would die. And the entire Rose Bowl would be empty. The heat in that place was beyond belief.
That’s assuming someone will score from corner kicks. It isn’t that common an occurrence.
I’m no fan of penalty kicks, I’ve just yet to see anyone come up with a really good alternative.
If hockey does ok here, why can’t soccer?
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.
[Note: This message has been edited by Nickrz]
arrrrrgh … I hate UBB. 
sorry about that.
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.
{{[[The bigger issue for me is that they played the equivalent of 9 scoreless innings and decided the world-freaking championship with a home-run derby!!! They should play sudden death (which is what it’s called, don’t give me this “golden goal” shit) with no clock. Sooner or later someone will score.
If they kept playing that game, sooner or later someone would die[/die]. And the entire Rose Bowl would be empty. The heat in that place was beyond belief.}} ruahd
Oh, BS – play the friggin’ game, and substitute if you have to. Someone will score eventually.
{{[[This, plus the low scoring (both games the last day were 0-0), is why soccer will never be a big-time spectator sport in the US.]]
If hockey does ok here, why can’t soccer?}}
Because there’s a lot more scoring in hockey, for one thing. And the NHL does not decide the title by something as idiotic as penalty kicks (which is like deciding the NBA Finals with a free throw contest).
I dunno, BI. The free throw contest idea might be kind of exciting, given how poorly most pros shoot from the line. And, FYI: there’s apparently a group of NHL owners (mostly from the southwest) who advocate a similar method for breaking ties in hockey…
The thing with penalty kicks is that a miss is almost a freak occurrence. The only reason Chastain won the game with her kick is because the official failed to catch Scurry cheating on the 3rd PK by the Chinese (that’s a whole 'nuther thread: the ethics of cheating in sports).
Yeah but it involves the whole team in the play. With PKs scoring is too easy, and it’s too different from a game situation.
Big Iron:
Hmm…why do I get the feeling you’ve never played the game.
This may be something we’ll have to agree to disagree on, but, BI, I was at the game. Nobody was going to score. Players WERE about to collapse. And people WERE about to leave. It was TOO HOT TO KEEP PLAYING. I don’t know how much simpler terms I can put it in. And I don’t think that a victory earned simply because you were the last team left standing after two hours of 95+ degree heat, is any more of an indication that you were the “better team” than penalty kicks are.
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.
{{[[Oh, BS – play the friggin’ game, and substitute if you have to. Someone will score eventually.]]
Hmm…why do I get the feeling you’ve never played the game.}} ruadh
Beats me – I didn’t play varsity or anything, but I’ve played long games on hot days (ultimate frisbee, too). Yes, you get hot and tired – that’s what substitutions are for. Deciding a game on penalty kicks is absolutely idiotic. Those players bust their humps out there for over 90 minutes and you decide the thing by basically flipping a coin. Monumentally moronic.
[[This may be something we’ll have to agree to disagree on, but, BI, I was at the game. Nobody was going to score. Players WERE about to collapse. And people WERE about to leave. It was TOO HOT TO KEEP PLAYING. I don’t know how much simpler terms I can put it in. And I don’t think that a victory earned simply because you were the last team left standing after two hours of 95+ degree heat, is any more of an indication that you were the “better team” than penalty kicks are. ]]
Maybe you’re right (of course, one fluke goal in the first half might not be much of an indication of who’s the better team). If so, that’s a big reason why soccer is kinda dumb.
No, it’s not. Not entirely anyway. You also keep subs on the bench in case you need to make a tactical change. Institute a play-till-you-drop rule and coaches may have to fill their benches with their teams’ youngest legs instead … or they may have to stop making tactical substitutions during regulation time, in anticipation of needing subs in overtime. (Or are you also suggesting dropping the 3-per-game rule?) I really think this rule would change the way the ninety minutes were played, and not for the better.
As opposed to other sports in which the better team always wins?
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.
Which is why other sports play multi-game series to decide championships. On a given day in baseball or hockey, since both are relatively low-scoring sports, the worst team could conceivably beat the best team. Over a multiple game set the best team wins out.
And face it, every other major sport in the world, in a situation where a tie is unacceptable, continues play under regualr rules until one team wins. Soccer is the only sport that plays a completely different game, under different rules, to break a tie (yes I know penalty kicks can occur during games, but certainly not with the frequency of, say, an inside-the-park homerun).
[[(Or are you also suggesting dropping the 3-per-game rule?) I really think this rule would change the way the ninety minutes were played, and not for the better.]]
Actually, I see no problem whatsoever with changing that rule.
Well, American football doesn’t play multi-game sets. But anyway … this isn’t a “championship” we’re talking about - it’s an international tournament and there really is no equivalent in other sports. And a multi-game set really isn’t feasible because teams can’t play every day. The World Cup would take half a year if they did it that way.
Now, if you’re talking about actual CHAMPIONSHIPS, i.e., league titles, that’s another story. In America the league titles are decided with multi-game sets. In every other country they are based on a pure points system (3 for win, 1 for draw, 0 for loss) and at the end of the season the team with the most points wins. Pretty simple.
I might add the multi-game set doesn’t always allow the best team to win. The pennant races in 1997 spring to mind (were the Indians and Marlins really better than the Orioles and the Braves? That’s debatable).
Maybe, but most other sports in the world either aren’t as physically intense, or rarely end in draws. It’s an apples and oranges thing, really.
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.
I wrote:
let me correct myself here. The qualifying rounds up to the final are decided with multi-game sets. The final is a one-off. I agree the system of deciding the league title in America sucks … for a multitude of reasons.
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.
So we can’t make them continue play, because it’s too hard! I suggest that the reason is that it’s pointless – the rules make it too difficult to score, the players in championship games are too conservative, or defense has too much of an advantage. Two World Cups and a consolation game in the past four years have ended in scoreless ties.
People can blather on and on about how the uninitiated simply to not understand the subtle beauty of the game, but I contend that the real reason they use penalty kicks to break ties is that people won’t continue to watch six hours of a scoreless tie.
[[I might add the multi-game set doesn’t always allow the best team to win. The pennant races in 1997 spring to mind (were the Indians and Marlins really better than the Orioles and the Braves? That’s debatable).]]
Well, baseball is different (which is why it needs to seriously limit the playoff teams if the World Series is to retain any legitimacy). In football and basketball, for instance, the better team usually does win the title game/series.