Add new comment

"The referee was well aware that he saw no U.S. foul.  He called a foul for some reason other than what happened on the play.  That is a given."
Given?
How is it knowable what was going on in the ref's head?  Based on what?  If you were wrong, how would you know?  : )
You can break down what happened in to three different scenarios:
1.  The referee knew it was a bogus call, and acted alone to keep the Americans from going ahead
2.  The referee knew it was a a bogus call, and acted under direction or influence from some other party or organization to keep the Americans from going ahead
3.  The referee thought he made the right call, thinking he saw something that wasn't there
Occam's razor applies here.  Most likely is #3, because it happens All. The. Time.  The Jim Joyce call is all the proof you need, really.  Joyce had only to observe one isolated event, he knew exactly where that event was going to take place, he'd seen that exact same event happen thousands of times before, he had audio clues to go on as well as visual ones.  And he flat blew it.  He thought he made the right call.  Until he saw the video.
The ref in the soccer game, had many, many more variables to evaluate in a fraction of a second.  The players were bunched together creating a chaotic context.  He had to take in to account the parralax of his position.  20 or so people to keep track of, all moving in different directions.
Add to that, the fact that he was a relatively inexperienced referee.
There is most definitely plausible deniability on that play.  Lots of it.  It is extraordinarily common for people to think with 100% certainty that they saw something, that just wasn't there.  For crying out loud, the eye has a blind spot that the brain just fills in.  : )
It was a bad call, but not so bad that human error could not be the explanation.  I'll take that until there's evidence to tilt the preponderance towards a more shadowy  explanation.