A soccer match as theater is maddening when its outcome leaves us aghast with disbelief, and particularly when our tightly-held concept of fairness isn't reflected in the final result. Give us justice, give us right, give us reason to believe some cosmic force holds sway over a game played by twenty-two men on a patch of grass; why should ninety minutes of battle be decided by a single moment when we we know - KNOW - in our hearts that the outcome is rightly determined by the play of the teams on balance. If Team A "has the better of play" yet still loses to Team B because a single mistake leads to a goal, Team A fails to put the ball in the net when presented with chances, or because the referee intercedes and calls a decisive foul or penalty, then the validity of the outcome is roundly questioned.


Goals, or perhaps more specifically scorelines at the final whistle, are not always to be trusted. They don't tell the whole story, they cannot accurately reflect the totality of the game, and they too often lead to descriptions that attempt to contextualize the outcome (i.e. "The scoreline flatters them"). So much of the game takes place away from the goal, in the vast expanses of the middle of the field and along the wings, that thrusts and parries, controlling the ball, and the visible supremacy of one side over another comes to count for almost as much as the tallies themselves. Fouls, called or uncalled, are items to be weighed; game-changing moments we deem to be mistakes on the part of referee color our perceptions.


So of course there was backlash when Americans (and a few others) moaned loudly over Koman Coulibaly's call of a phantom foul on Mo Edu's apparent winner. The injustice of an American victory would have been obvious; not only did the Yanks play terribly in the first half and fall behind by two goals, but Clint Dempsey's early elbow was judged to be egregious and worthy of a red card. He should have been sent off, which would have certainly changed the complexion of the match. With that the case, Coulibaly's call was cosmic balance restored; the U.S. simply didn't deserve to win the game.


Yet, the point of the game is to score; it doesn't matter when you play well enough to win, just that you do. The U.S. played a terrible first half and allowed two Slovenian goals; with their tournament coming down to the second forty-five minutes, they rose up and put the ball into their opponents' net three times. The grayness of officiating allows for some question on the disallowed goal, but few have stepped up to defend Coulibaly's decision. How then, no matter Dempsey's early elbow, can the result be termed "fair"? Goal scoring plays carry more weight, and rightly so, than more subjective fouls far away from the net. Dempsey not being given a red doesn't make it acceptable that Coulibaly got it wrong later in the match, and one cannot simply sweep away the problem of a fair goal disallowed by pointing to something else early in the match that is more debatable.


None of it matters now, with the result carved into FIFA-issued World Cup stone; let's hope the team itself has forgotten it the best they can and is at this moment working towards eliminating the early letdown that plagued them Friday. Coulibaly's call changed the dynamics of their tournament but didn't preclude them from advancing. Algeria lays in front of them, and if they cannot seize the opportunity to win their way into the knockout rounds, they have no one to blame but themselves.


The fans, on the other hand, have every right to grouse and do so loudly. Of course, everything becomes tiresome after a point, and the suggestion that American fans should put Slovenia and Coulibaly behind them is valid; what is not valid is the idea that fans are wrong to complain because the Americans didn't "deserve" to win, that Dempsey's elbow negates their right to indignation, or that soccer is somehow not about putting the ball in the net more times than your opposition.


There must be room for pragmatism.