It also means they have locked up playing a 3rd place team in the Round of 32.

3rd from Group B/E/F/I/J - I believe which one of those is based on a draw and not even all of those groups will have a team in it (the 8 best 3rd place teams from 12 groups advance). So it is very much TBD.

Right now those could be:

B - Bosnia & Herz with 1 point from a tie with CAN
OR these other groups which have only played 1 match so far it will become clearer over the next few days
E - Ecuador and Curacao have 0 points but could make it
F - NED and JAP are tied with 1 point but could be SWE also
I - probably between Senegal and Iraq both currently have 0
J - Jordan and Algeria also have 0

Other than the group F possibilities those are not daunting.

akm91 said:

---

AustinScubaAg said:

---

94chem said:

---

Does US have anything to gain from Turkey match, or is their seeding locked in?

---

Nothing to gain. First in group no matter what.

---

This team doing things that haven't been done by USMNT in modern times. I know Poch is likely to sit players on yellow but wouldn't it be incredible to finish the group stage with 3 wins?

---

I mean even playing subs Turkey has nothing to play for but some pride I guess.

And yes the US have matched the most wins for a USMNT in the WC in just 2 games.

1930: US went 2-0 in group play and lost in the semifinal (2-0-1 overall)
2002: US went 1-1-1 in group play and then beat MEX before losing to Germany in the QF (2-1-2 overall)

And thats it.

I missed the first half of Paraguay - did you guys see Paraguay's Miguel Almirn made soccer history by receiving the first-ever red card under FIFA's new "Prestianni Rule" during a World Cup match against Turkey. He was sent off for covering his mouth while speaking to an opponent during a heated confrontation.


I love that rule. And a trend here in this WC so far to clean up some ugly stuff.

We've also had a penalty reversed by VAR and a yellow card instead for diving.


We already have more red cards in this WC than in either of the last 2 WCs with 7 straight red cards. The other 6 were for ugly tackles or a head butt that earned a 3 match ban.

They used to give a lot more 2002 had 28 red cards and 9 were straight red. And 1998 had even more.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

94chem said:

---

Does US have anything to gain from Turkey match, or is their seeding locked in?

---

They have the top seed from their group locked up. Paraguay or Australia with a win in their last match could tie the US on points (if the US loses to Turkey) but both lose out on the head to head tiebreaker for the group.

---

That's not how tie-breakers work in the group stages.

WC 2026 Groups

Quote:

---

Tie-breaking criteria for World Cup groups
If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points after the completion of the group stage, the following criteria, in the order below, shall be applied to determine the ranking:
Step one

• greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned
• superior goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned
• greatest number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned

---

agracer said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

94chem said:

---

Does US have anything to gain from Turkey match, or is their seeding locked in?

---

They have the top seed from their group locked up. Paraguay or Australia with a win in their last match could tie the US on points (if the US loses to Turkey) but both lose out on the head to head tiebreaker for the group.

---

That's not how tie-breakers work in the group stages.

WC 2026 Groups

Quote:

---

Tie-breaking criteria for World Cup groups
If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points after the completion of the group stage, the following criteria, in the order below, shall be applied to determine the ranking:
Step one

• greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned
• superior goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned
• greatest number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned

---

---

Yes it is.

And you even quoted the one that applies. They very first tiebreaker:

• greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned

So between the US and Paraguay if they were tied at 6 points, the US would have 3 and Paraguay 0 between the teams concerned.
And between the US and Australia if they were tied at 6 points, the US would have 3 and Australia 0 between the teams concerned.


it doesn't say in all group matches, it says in the group matches between the teams concerned.

It's also meant to cover three way ties but in ties where it is 2 teams head to head matters if it was not a tie.

The first 2 way tie breaker is H2H. It's why we already clinched the top of the group. We beat both the teams on 3 and the best either one of them can do is tie us at 6.

Mathguy64 said:

---

The first 2 way tie breaker is H2H. It's why we already clinched the top of the group. We beat both the teams on 3 and the best either one of them can do is tie us at 6.

---

I don't know why you're telling me thats what I said.

agracer told me thats not how tiebreakers work and then quoted the rule that shows that is how they work.

Having seen the hydration breaks in person, they really don't need to be more than 90 seconds tops.

Sweden was back out on the field by then most of the time and the Netherlands were just standing around having conversations.

Oh well.

Watching the game live, today was the first time Fox didn't cut away to a commercial. I wonder if FIFA is already adjusting things

Welp nevermind

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Having seen the hydration breaks in person, they really don't need to be more than 90 seconds tops.

Sweden was back out on the field by then most of the time and the Netherlands were just standing around having conversations.

Oh well.

---

Dumbest thing in the world (cup) is that they keep the clock running on the hydration break too. So dumb. But the entire clock thing, random added minutes, and nebulous whistle are among the most aggravating things about soccer (and I've been watching since 1986 this isn't some noob comment). So of course let it run. Just add more on the end which makes the post hydration break last much longer than the pre hydration break.

I've got a like a dozen ways to improve soccer of course but their refusal to update some things that were from an era when you did not have precise clocks or other technology is beyond stupid. Like having a guy have to stand at the sideline and hold up what is now a digital sub board and flash it around the stadium when they are using very advanced technology for VAR for example boggles the mind.


But the unknown amount of time is so antiquated its mind boggling. Time the average amount of time the ball is in play across EPL, WC, Euro, MLS, etc... and then have a clock that stops when the ball is out of play. So damn simple. And it immediately eliminates all of the time wasting tactics that are sooooo annoying. When it is out of bounds or blown dead by the ref for a penalty or foul or whatever just stop the damn clock. All of this BS is gone:

• goalies wasting time before putting it in play
• throwins where they avoid the ball, then pass to another guy, drop it, another guy runs in, etc.
• wasting time on corner kicks
• kicking or tossing the ball away from the other team to waste time on a restart
• substitutions used late for wasting more time as the guy slowly crosses the field
• getting up slow from any fall especially the fake dramatic ones

Maybe it's like 35-40 minutes actual game time so make that the time per half and take all the BS time wasting out of the game. And then there is no added time. When it hits 35 or 40... or you know 0:00 if you run it backwards like every other sport the half is over.

That would not change the dynamics of the game at all but would improve the viewer experience 10x

Again I've been watching WC since 1986, US M and W since about 1990 and EPL since 2007.

Rant over.

Agree. A clock that stops would eliminate a massive amount of nonsense.

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

Agree. A clock that stops would eliminate a massive amount of nonsense.

---

I wish the MLS would adopt this and the rest of the world would see it is so much better.

Of course they would dismiss it as silly (late to the party) americans trying to change the game.

I also expect them to never change it. I think it's one of those stubborn "it may be dumb AF but we've done it this way forever" deals they won't give up.

Lots of timing things are changing and will help.

The Law change last year on GK time wasting to give a corner.

The new Law change to give corners in GK time wasting on goal kicks. The new law change on time wasting throwing the ball in. Forcing "injured players" who require a stoppage to leave the field for 1 minute ( I personally think it should be longer but it's a start). Not allowing subs on for a minute if you take too long leaving the field (again I think it should be longer but it's a start)

I guess that's progress but it involves more complexity, a ton of ref judgment, and teams pushing the gray area to see what they can get away with when there is a very simple fix

Did look and confirm that the US would stay on the west coast through the quarterfinal and would feed into the Dallas game for the semifinal if they get there.

Went to the Dallas FanFest, had a blast, would recommend. Go early to beat the crowds, we left after the first game today, folks pouring in.

We were there this morning for the first match as well. Fun time

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

I guess that's progress but it involves more complexity, a ton of ref judgment, and teams pushing the gray area to see what they can get away with when there is a very simple fix

---

Yep. Whereas all of it is fixed with a clock that stops when the ball goes out of play or the ref blows his whistle.

No gray area, no time wasting tactics, no random time added, no indeterminant final whistle, and take as long as you want on subs the clock is stopped anyway.

Hell I might punish them on subs - ref signals for subs and you have 30 seconds, otherwise the ball is put back in play and if your sub is not on yet you play a man down. That'll eliminate even the walking across the pitch drama.

Yes, subs could just be a preset stoppage.

In reality, they've decided a fair amount of this is part of the strategy of the game. Crazy to me, but that seems to be the thing keeping it. It's too easy to fix for it to be any other explanation. These other changes are to give the ref some options to limit excessive abuse of these strategies, but as we all know, those can vary widely in enforcement.

Some of y'all may not be aware, but the early days of MLS had some experimentation with things like a clock that counted down a la NFL. It did not take.

Also just discovered they've recently petitioned to institute clock stoppages for in game to combat time wasting:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/may/20/mls-stopped-clock-ifab-discussions-trial

I recall those Burn days. It was MLS trying to balance appealing to new fans vs ultimately caving to try to fit in with a more traditional international style to be perceived as more legitimate with long-time fans of the sport. It would address this stuff, but I don't think they want to

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

agracer said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

94chem said:

---

Does US have anything to gain from Turkey match, or is their seeding locked in?

---

They have the top seed from their group locked up. Paraguay or Australia with a win in their last match could tie the US on points (if the US loses to Turkey) but both lose out on the head to head tiebreaker for the group.

---

That's not how tie-breakers work in the group stages.

WC 2026 Groups

Quote:

---

Tie-breaking criteria for World Cup groups
If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points after the completion of the group stage, the following criteria, in the order below, shall be applied to determine the ranking:
Step one

• greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned
• superior goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned
• greatest number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned

---

---

Yes it is.

And you even quoted the one that applies. They very first tiebreaker:

• greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned

So between the US and Paraguay if they were tied at 6 points, the US would have 3 and Paraguay 0 between the teams concerned.
And between the US and Australia if they were tied at 6 points, the US would have 3 and Australia 0 between the teams concerned.


it doesn't say in all group matches, it says in the group matches between the teams concerned.

It's also meant to cover three way ties but in ties where it is 2 teams head to head matters if it was not a tie.

---

ah, I misunderstood that part. Is that new, b/c in the past I always thought it was solely based points and goal differential.

agracer said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

agracer said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

94chem said:

---

Does US have anything to gain from Turkey match, or is their seeding locked in?

---

They have the top seed from their group locked up. Paraguay or Australia with a win in their last match could tie the US on points (if the US loses to Turkey) but both lose out on the head to head tiebreaker for the group.

---

That's not how tie-breakers work in the group stages.

WC 2026 Groups

Quote:

---

Tie-breaking criteria for World Cup groups
If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points after the completion of the group stage, the following criteria, in the order below, shall be applied to determine the ranking:
Step one

• greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned
• superior goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned
• greatest number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned

---

---

Yes it is.

And you even quoted the one that applies. They very first tiebreaker:

• greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned

So between the US and Paraguay if they were tied at 6 points, the US would have 3 and Paraguay 0 between the teams concerned.
And between the US and Australia if they were tied at 6 points, the US would have 3 and Australia 0 between the teams concerned.


it doesn't say in all group matches, it says in the group matches between the teams concerned.

It's also meant to cover three way ties but in ties where it is 2 teams head to head matters if it was not a tie.

---

ah, I misunderstood that part. Is that new, b/c in the past I always thought it was solely based points and goal differential.

---

I believe it is new - changed for this WC. It was still GD and then goal in 2022.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

I guess that's progress but it involves more complexity, a ton of ref judgment, and teams pushing the gray area to see what they can get away with when there is a very simple fix

---

Yep. Whereas all of it is fixed with a clock that stops when the ball goes out of play or the ref blows his whistle.

No gray area, no time wasting tactics, no random time added, no indeterminant final whistle, and take as long as you want on subs the clock is stopped anyway.

Hell I might punish them on subs - ref signals for subs and you have 30 seconds, otherwise the ball is put back in play and if your sub is not on yet you play a man down. That'll eliminate even the walking across the pitch drama.

---

You don't need a clock that stops every time the ball goes out of play. That would make the game A LOT longer. Football is no different. When play stops, the clock continues to run (in the NFL) except when it goes out of bounds in the last 2m of the 1st half and last 5m of the 2nd half (IIRC) except in Team of Official time outs and other situations. But it mostly continues to run.

The clock actually stops in HS on goals, cards, injuries, and when the winning team subs in the last 5m of the game or if the referee signals for it to stop b/c he/she believes a team is wasting time. It does work pretty well, but it really does not need to stop every time the ball goes out of play. You'd add 30-minutes to some games.

EDIT TO ADD: In HS, still get coaches complaining about how fast we do/don't stop the clock on injuries, etc. Also, I ref HS and US Soccer (club, semi-pro adult, etc.) games. FIFA and US Soccer have been emphasizing in the last few years for officials to cut down on time-wasting and start handing out yellows when a player or team continues to waste time as you described after a verbal warning. Same with simulation (taking a dive). I've seen more yellows handed out in the last two years for this than in the previous 10-years I've been an official.

agracer said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

I guess that's progress but it involves more complexity, a ton of ref judgment, and teams pushing the gray area to see what they can get away with when there is a very simple fix

---

Yep. Whereas all of it is fixed with a clock that stops when the ball goes out of play or the ref blows his whistle.

No gray area, no time wasting tactics, no random time added, no indeterminant final whistle, and take as long as you want on subs the clock is stopped anyway.

Hell I might punish them on subs - ref signals for subs and you have 30 seconds, otherwise the ball is put back in play and if your sub is not on yet you play a man down. That'll eliminate even the walking across the pitch drama.

---

You don't need a clock that stops every time the ball goes out of play. That would make the game A LOT longer. Football is no different. When play stops, the clock continues to run (in the NFL) except when it goes out of bounds in the last 2m of the 1st half and last 5m of the 2nd half (IIRC) except in Team of Official time outs and other situations. But it mostly continues to run.

The clock actually stops in HS on goals, cards, injuries, and when the winning team subs in the last 5m of the game or if the referee signals for it to stop b/c he/she believes a team is wasting time. It does work pretty well, but it really does not need to stop every time the ball goes out of play. You'd add 30-minutes to some games.

EDIT TO ADD: In HS, still get coaches complaining about how fast we do/don't stop the clock on injuries, etc. Also, I ref HS and US Soccer (club, semi-pro adult, etc.) games. FIFA and US Soccer have been emphasizing in the last few years for officials to cut down on time-wasting and start handing out yellows when a player or team continues to waste time as you described after a verbal warning. Same with simulation (taking a dive). I've seen more yellows handed out in the last two years for this than in the previous 10-years I've been an official.

---

You missed the part where I said figure out the average amount of time the ball is actually in play now. It is nowhere near 45 minutes.

A 30ish minute clock and stopping when it was out of play or a refs whistle would be about the same. And remove all the time wasting.

That would be like making football four 4 minute quarters and stopping the clock as soon as the ball is dead on every play b/c despite being 60 minutes, the ball is only actually 'in play' between 11 and 18 minutes per game.

agracer said:

---

That would be like making football four 4 minute quarters and stopping the clock as soon as the ball is dead on every play b/c despite being 60 minutes, the ball is only actually 'in play' between 11 and 18 minutes per game.

---

Completely different. In football you have a play clock and that keeps things moving. And every play is a set play with strategy and personnel changes.

It's apples and oranges. Doesnt compare.

And it wouldn't be like that at all. It would just remove the most annoying behaviors that have nothing to do with game play.

But Imagine if football let the players just kick the ball around after a play to waste time. Or on an a punt there was no rush and the punter messed around while the clock was running. Or after an out of bounds play they could take however long they wanted to throw the ball back in. Or the clock kept running while a guy was writhing in agony on the field only to hop up and be fine. It's absurd. And easily fixed.

I think the sport is enjoyable enough and in a good enough place that it doesn't need to be massively re-worked.

Simulation and time wasting can be addressed by stricter refereeing and VAR. And if that can't address it during the game, institute some kind of retroactive punishment after review for egregious issues the same way incidents are reviewed in the NHL, for example.

It would seem to me that the reason why there is no clock stoppage in soccer is that purists don't want to allow for ad breaks.

Little Rock Ag said:

---

It would seem to me that the reason why there is no clock stoppage in soccer is that purists don't want to allow for ad breaks.

---

Do you have to be a "purist" to not like ad breaks? Do they enhance the experience either at the stadium or on the TV?

Little Rock Ag said:

---

It would seem to me that the reason why there is no clock stoppage in soccer is that purists don't want to allow for ad breaks.

---

Even if you had a clock that stopped no need to add commercial breaks - hell they have ads 360 degrees around the pitch running the entire game on those boards and sponsors on uniforms, etc.