SOCREF-L Archives – June 2009, week 3

1. BRA - ITA (no score)
   • BRA - ITA (no score) (15 lines)
     From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:01:27 -0500

2. Brazil vs Egypt (no score revealed)
   • Brazil vs Egypt (no score revealed) (27 lines)
     From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:06:22 -0400
   • Re: Brazil vs Egypt (no score revealed) (52 lines)
     From: Robert Emeritz <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:16:11 -0400
   • Re: Brazil vs Egypt (no score revealed) (79 lines)
     From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:24:25 -0400
   • Re: Brazil vs Egypt (no score revealed) (100 lines)
     From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:08:14 -0700
   • Re: Brazil vs Egypt (no score revealed) (133 lines)
     From: Robert Emeritz <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:00:13 -0400
   • Re: Brazil vs Egypt (no score revealed) (147 lines)
     From: Richard Critz <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:55:28 +0000

3. Conf. Cup -- Harkes and Lalas commentary re: quality of US team, specific players
   • Conf. Cup -- Harkes and Lalas commentary re: quality of US team, specific players (40 lines)
     From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:31:53 -0400

4. Confederations Cup TV schedule
   • Confederations Cup TV schedule (19 lines)
     From: Jeff Lorentz <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:48:39 -0500
   • Re: Confederations Cup TV schedule (33 lines)
     From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:56:48 -0700
   • Re: Confederations Cup TV schedule (46 lines)
     From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:54:29 -0700
   • Re: Confederations Cup TV schedule (25 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:09:19 -0700
   • Re: Confederations Cup TV schedule (16 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:02:32 -0700

5. Different Offside scenario
   • Different Offside scenario (27 lines)
     From: George Parker <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:43:00 -0500

6. Europa League to try 5 man Ref crew
   • Europa League to try 5 man Ref crew (28 lines)
     From: Peter Rye <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:31:23 -0700

7. Fouls Against the GK [was - handling vs. offside]
   • Fouls Against the GK [was - handling vs. offside] (31 lines)
     From: Horton, Stephen S (US SSA) <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:37:36 -0400
   • Re: Fouls Against the GK [was - handling vs. offside] (60 lines)
     From: [log in to unmask]
     Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:34:28 -0400

8. Fouls against the keeper (has nothing to do with: handling vs. offside)
   • Re: Fouls against the keeper (has nothing to do with: handling vs. offside) (186 lines)
     From: Soccer <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:37:06 -0400

9. FW: good call?
   • FW: good call? (54 lines)
     From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:05:33 -0500

10. Game replay based on upheld protest
    • Game replay based on upheld protest (43 lines)
      From: Clark Caplan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:37:34 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (59 lines)
      From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:57:48 -0700
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (60 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:02:35 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (102 lines)
      From: Glenn Sogge <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:14:29 -0500
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (89 lines)
      From: Clark Caplan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:21:32 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (121 lines)
      From: Clark Caplan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:24:40 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (22 lines)
      From: Sean <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:23:50 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (29 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:41:01 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (25 lines)
      From: Sean <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:56:08 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (53 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:22:46 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (56 lines)
      From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:57:18 -0700
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (69 lines)
      From: Clark Caplan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:32:14 -0400
    • Re: Game replay based on upheld protest (81 lines)
      From: Gwen Keck <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:16:12 -0700

11. good call?
    • good call? (33 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:30:16 -0700
    • Re: good call? (57 lines)
      From: Gus Martinez <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:02:39 -0400
    • Re: good call? (60 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0400
    • Re: good call? (72 lines)
      From: Kevin Druff <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:25:50 +0000
    • Re: good call? (30 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:31:46 -0400
    • Re: good call? (49 lines)
      From: Soccer <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:46:50 -0400
    • Re: good call? (54 lines)
      From: John Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:49:13 -0400
    • Re: good call? (67 lines)
      From: Richard Critz <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:58:22 +0000
    • Re: good call? (33 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:34:11 -0700
    • Re: good call? (74 lines)
      From: John Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:00:41 -0400
    • Re: good call? (30 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:59:33 -0400
    • Re: good call? (69 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:32:58 -0400
    • Re: good call? (106 lines)
      From: Soccer <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:06:42 -0400
    • Re: good call? (93 lines)
      From: Soccer <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:15:04 -0400
    • Re: good call? (124 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:30:36 -0400
    • Re: good call? (39 lines)
      From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:54:13 -0500
    • Re: good call? (47 lines)
      From: Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:15:21 -0400
    • Re: good call? (38 lines)
      From: Dave Wolgast <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:13:16 -0400
    • Re: good call? (34 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:24:23 -0700
    • Re: good call? (53 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:26:01 -0400
    • Re: good call? (77 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:23:53 -0700
    • Re: good call? (88 lines)
      From: Kevin Druff <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:42:18 +0000
    • Re: good call? (129 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:22:32 -0700
    • Re: good call? (30 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:43:25 -0400
    • Re: good call? (21 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:54:45 -0700
    • Re: good call? (52 lines)
      From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:57:29 -0700
    • Re: good call? (30 lines)
      From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:37:49 -0700
    • Re: good call? (34 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:55:54 -0700
    • Re: good call? (54 lines)
      From: Rich Zumpone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:53:02 -0400
    • Re: good call? (43 lines)
      From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:56:17 -0500
    • Re: good call? (114 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:28:31 -0400
    • Re: good call? (30 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:31:02 -0400
    • Re: good call? (65 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:58:46 -0400
    • Re: good call? (128 lines)
      From: Kevin Druff <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:01:28 +0000
    • Re: good call? (151 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:17:16 -0400
    • Re: good call? (129 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:11:02 -0400
    • Re: good call? (93 lines)
      From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:37:55 -0500
    • Re: good call? (112 lines)
      From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:00:36 -0700
    • Re: good call? (78 lines)
      From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:00:53 -0700
    • Re: good call? (110 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:13:29 -0400
    • Re: good call? (125 lines)
      From: Joshua Boylan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:29:00 -0400
    • Re: good call? (134 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:16:09 -0400
    • Re: good call? (141 lines)
      From: Joshua Boylan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:15:56 -0400
    • Re: good call? (139 lines)
      From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:05:38 -0500
    • Re: good call? (69 lines)
      From: Mark Gallagher <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:05:46 +1000
    • Re: good call? (152 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:23 -0400
    • Re: good call? (155 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:52:41 -0400
    • Re: good call? (31 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:14:51 -0700
    • Re: good call? (45 lines)
      From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:02:36 -0500
    • Re: good call? (66 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:55:10 -0400
    • Re: good call? (40 lines)
      From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:32 -0500
    • Re: good call? (39 lines)
      From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:58:36 -0500
    • Re: good call? (35 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:35:41 -0400
    • Re: good call? (54 lines)
      From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:20:23 -0500
    • Re: good call? (108 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:35:51 +0000
    • Re: good call? (63 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:51:35 -0400
    • Re: good call? (46 lines)
      From: Jim Livingston <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:36:52 -0400
    • Re: good call? (77 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:53:54 -0700
    • Re: good call? (102 lines)
      From: Mike Skinner <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:30:34 -0700
    • Re: good call? (44 lines)
      From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:10:39 -0500
    • Re: good call? (37 lines)
      From: Ed Leafe <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:04:59 -0500
    • Re: good call? (23 lines)
      From: George Parker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:40:39 -0500
    • Re: good call? (59 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:58:15 -0700
    • Re: good call? (69 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:24:21 +0000
    • Re: good call? (24 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:36:43 -0400
    • Re: good call? (47 lines)
      From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:49:10 -0700
    • Re: good call? (38 lines)
      From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:31:57 -0700
    • Re: good call? (84 lines)
      From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:46:28 -0700
    • Re: good call? (57 lines)
      From: Mike Hayford <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:31:22 -0700

12. good call? PK
    • Re: good call? PK (23 lines)
      From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:21:58 -0700

13. Italy v USA (Confed Cup)
    • Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (20 lines)
      From: Jonny (AYSO Los Angeles) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:12:05 -0400
    • Re: Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (42 lines)
      From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:03:48 -0700
    • Re: Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (46 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:59:05 -0700
    • Re: Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (29 lines)
      From: Rich Zumpone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:20:35 -0400
    • Re: Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (55 lines)
      From: Spencer Ford <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:00:10 -0400
    • Re: Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (23 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:45:03 -0400
    • Re: Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (27 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:49:10 -0700
    • Re: Italy v USA (Confed Cup) (47 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:13:48 -0700

14. no caution?
    • no caution? (20 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:56:28 -0700
    • Re: no caution? (37 lines)
      From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:27:44 -0700

15. official film of 1962 WC
    • official film of 1962 WC (42 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:35:43 -0400

16. shinguards at Confederations Cup -- Huh?
    • shinguards at Confederations Cup -- Huh? (22 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:58:49 -0400
    • Re: shinguards at Confederations Cup -- Huh? (32 lines)
      From: Ralph Bigio <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:30:14 -0400

17. Usa-bra
    • Usa-bra (12 lines)
      From: Kevin Druff <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:12:18 +0000
    • Re: Usa-bra (21 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:47:50 -0700
    • Re: Usa-bra (34 lines)
      From: George Parker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:41:24 -0500
    • Re: Usa-bra (20 lines)
      From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:54:21 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (24 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:07:35 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (36 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:04:15 -0700
    • Re: Usa-bra (53 lines)
      From: Soccer <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:23:56 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (73 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:19:05 EDT
    • Re: Usa-bra (104 lines)
      From: laurent thomas <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:08:45 -0700

18. USA-BRA
    • Re: USA-BRA (55 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:55:17 -0700

19. Usa-bra
    • Re: Usa-bra (28 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:55:35 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (32 lines)
      From: Rich Zumpone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:41:54 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (124 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:00:25 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (35 lines)
      From: Neil Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:26:38 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (93 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:30:43 +0000
    • Re: Usa-bra (43 lines)
      From: Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:09:39 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (105 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:39:23 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (179 lines)
      From: John Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:43:32 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (207 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:29:34 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (66 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:03:41 -0700
    • Re: Usa-bra (40 lines)
      From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:53:47 -0500
    • Re: Usa-bra (33 lines)
      From: Rich Zumpone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:04:50 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (85 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:19:18 -0400
    • Re: Usa-bra (46 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:14:32 -0700

20. was: good call? now egypt protest
    • was: good call? now egypt protest (43 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:40:31 -0700
    • Re: was: good call? now egypt protest (54 lines)
      From: Neil Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:25:28 -0400
    • Re: was: good call? now egypt protest (84 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:53:37 -0700

21. [SOCREF]Re: good call?
    • Re: [SOCREF]Re: good call? (33 lines)
      From: J.E. McGimpsey <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:51:30 -0600