For the most part (with boxing being a possible exceptions, which the mob is heavily involved in), we expect our refs to be impartial. It has something to do with the spirit of fair-play and sportsmanship which most of us get pounded into our heads growing up I think. A professional sports referee (or even non-professional one) in the states who blatantly shows bias would be run out of the game. We know these guys can make bad calls, but even with egregiously bad calls, we tend to think the guy is blind or an idiot, not that he is biased (unless you're the Oakland Raiders, they do think that everyone is out to get them). Since we do not have experience with biased officials in our sports (NHL, NFL, and baseball anyway) like you say you do in FIFA, maybe this is why North Americans do not question the integrity of the NHL refs in Olympic hockey. Further maybe this is why we find it difficult to understand that the athletes and olympic officials representing another country would question the integrity of a North American referee. I'm not saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that bias does not exist amongst North American refs, I'm just saying that for the most part this is something North Americans might find hard to believe.
Originally posted by Jason Menard: Since we do not have experience with biased officials in our sports (NHL, NFL, and baseball anyway) like you say you do in FIFA.
Never said that. I dont know 1 case of a international footbal match with a really corrupt referee. There were some scandals with corrupt players in the 70ties german football league in connection to comercial betting. Fair play culture is not confined to a relatively small area between Pacific and Atlantic ocean. And the referees of the hockey tournament were o.k.
Originally posted by Axel Janssen: Thomas. I haven't seen your daughter playing soccer, but there might be some difference in the professionality of her soccer league and the finish hockey league with great teams like Turku PS.
And do you think Turku PS is as competitive as the NHL?
Actually saying "Germans" would be historically accurate thinking. The fact that the "fascist" army was the German army is indisputable. The more specific and correct term is "German",since it was the German army that was beaten, fascist or otherwise. . I would say, it was the fascist army that was beaten, German or otherwise. After all, were these only Germans? My opinion is that using the term fascist, while also being true, has more of a negative connotation than you may have wanted to portray You confused me again. You think, I wanted to say "defeat Germans" without any negative connotations? I swear, I wanted to say "defeat fascism", precisely. Let me give a counter example. Which of these sounds more neutral and less offensive: "The Mujahadeen defeated the Soviet troops.", or "The Mujahadeen defeated the Communist Troops". Hm... I do not see big difference. "Soviet" and "Communist" are pretty much synonyms, and I am sure you do not imply that "Germany" and "fascism" are synonyms. IMHO the terms fascist and communist are placing value judgements where maybe that isn't the intent. Further, political correctness is often a tool used to rewrite history, as your example somewhat indicates. Stick to the facts without emotion and say what you mean, don't try to attempt to rewrite history because it is unpleasant. But this is getting off track... To rewrite history? Because I said "defeat fascism" instead of "defeat Germany"? It's not my idea, somebody else said that fascism was defeated, not Germany, and I agree. By saying "Germany was defeated" we are essentially saying "Germany = fascism", whereas, correct ratio is "Germany > fascism", IMHO.