Lucky bassas...
Printable View
Lucky bassas...
Because it looks bad, I suppose. I'm not denying that Robben dives - he did earlier in the game and was denied a clear penalty probably because of his theatrics - but there was clear contact here. I disagree with geysir - if somebody times their tackle badly enough that they disrupt your movement, it's a foul. It's the defenders responsibility to get the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Some of you have clearly never played the game...a lot of the time, even at the lowest level, the forward goes down like they've been shot, so them crying foul doesn't always mean there is one. And 'disrupted movement' is as likely to be self-inflicted...by either party FFS.
I think CD's point is that if a defender slides across or attempts to tackle an attacker but fails to get the ball it can be a foul, especially if the attacker takes evasive action that costs him control.
A foul doesn't require contact, and contact doesn't mean a foul. The ref has discretion to opine, that's hard wired in the rule. A foul is a foul if the ref considers it a foul.
I wouldn't have given the pen myself, the scale of the theatrics would have deterred me even if I had seen the contact. But that's not to say he was wrong
I haven't read that Poll article yet but in the past he has said he only awards pens for stonewall incidents. I think that's probably a good policy.
Nigeria really are an enigma.
Oi! That was my gag. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by strangeirish
That clearance off the line was casual as ****!
I think this tournament just proves that a good team can contain players outside the top levels.
The English soul searching in the media is all about whether the players are technical enough and their latest buzzword is game management. I think the big thing in this tournament is team cohesion. All the good teams, even the less heralded ones, are all in tune with each other.
Garth Crooks, most irritating pundit ever, was on the radio yesterday saying all the English players are technically excellent and rubbished the observation, or at least he importance of it, that English players don't like receiving the ball under pressure. I think that's key, and one of the reasons I really rate Darron Gibson.
Criminal goalkeeping from Enyeama there.
More goals have already been scored now in this World Cup than were scored in the entirety of South Africa 2010.
I used to tell my defenders that if I come out far for a cross to cover the line. I think the Nigerian defenders were ball watching there. At least one of them should have had the savvy to anticipate the keeper not properly making that corner.
They all got caught under the ball and nobody was at the back post or on the line.
Nice to see the team in front defending their lead in their opponent's half.
Nigerian defence asleep again. Yet still managed to score an own goal.
Shame. Would have liked an upset or two in this round, but it looks highly unlikely now.
You were too subtle with it Danny :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I should have stuck two exclamation marks on it! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Razors left peg
I might have thought that contact was an implicit prerequisite to carelessness, recklessness or excessive force, but perhaps not. You make a good point; the rules do explicitly mention that careless, reckless or excessively forceful attempts to kick, trip or strike can constitute fouls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
If a player has reasonable opportunity to get out of the way of a defender's outstretched leg though, isn't that what he should be doing in the interests of honesty, fair play and all that, rather than dragging his leg into the defender's leg in order to manufacture contact? As geysir says, there's no entitlement to manufacture contact or exaggerate its effect. I suppose if referee's called tacklers up on causing impediment without bringing the tackled player to ground, attacking players would feel less of a need to force the issue by contriving a dive.
Suarez has apologised for the bite after having had time to reflect with his family: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28099336
A step in the right direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC Sport
In light of the bonus disputes earlier in the tournament, a story like this certainly warms the heart: https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...133423113.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eurosport
I have to say our players' dispute with the FAI over their Euro 2012 bonus really rankled with me.
Anyone else think Suarez is a bit of a Michael Jackson character?
So shielded from the real world that he can barely function in it as an adult.
What about Duff in Suwon? He could have avoided the leg but chose to get tripped by it. Dishonest? Not really because the defender's slide missed the ball, cut across a Duff and would have cost Duff control of it. Penalty for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
What about Pires at Highbury all those years ago? Definite dishonesty. He did what Duff did to an extent but the defender's outstretched leg didn't interfere with his travel but Pires altered the direction if his leg purely to make it look like it was a trip.
What about Huth on David Meyler? No contact but definite foul. Meyler jumped away to avoid having his ankle broken.
What about Hutton on Long? He met the ball full on but only Long's athleticism avoided a leg break. Won the ball but definite foul.
Danny, I think you read these situations like a lawyer would rather than a guy who just gets what's a foul and what isn't, if you don't mind me saying. But yes, if refs called fouls without players going to ground more often, then players wouldn't feel the need to go to ground. The Arsenal v West Ham situation was a perfect example of refs almost being conditioned to requiring a player to hit the ground to constitute a foul.
Why is it really bad for German fans to blacken their faces but not bad for Nigerian fans to whiten theirs?
Why are the Ivory Coast players referred to as Ivorians, and not Coastians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Fair enough, but if everything was based on 'attempts', then there could be a lot of abandoned fixtures...Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Impractical in reality, no matter what the rules state. And the thing about impediments is just too subjective.
The Nigerians I saw, looked white, or whiter than the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
And not bad for the Germans either, if as part of their flag. Otherwise a bit daft on both counts.
And Ivorians comes from the French name of the colony. See about 500-odd posts back.
I don't agree at all AB (your post 1341).
The rules are absolutely bang on and cover it perfectly. Lots of refs penalise correctly on the basis of the "impediment". It's the pundits who confuse everyone with their "there was contact" or "there was no contact" red herrings.
As if a quarter-final place isn't motivation enough for Algeria. they'll face France if they make it through. That'd be a real juicy contest. Can't really see it happening, mind.
Lovely sweeper work from Neuer. He did similar to put off Stokes in Cologne.
Good call by the linesman there. But what a goal to have to rule out!
Algeria are well up for this.
I hope the Germans persist with CBs as full backs when we play them. McGeady, McLean and Pilkington would love it.
Germany are a mess. The high line is bizarre, their full backs are centre halves and they have a full back who's a ghost playing in holding midfield. It's like watching Stan all over again, except with better players.
The more this world cup is going on the more its p1ssing me off that Trapattoni had managed to convince the players and lot of the fans that its ok to accept that we cant compete with the big teams.
I hope every Irish player is glued to this world cup and thinks that they are every bit as good if not better than most of the players for Costa Rica, Greece, Chile, Mexico, Nigeria, USA, Switzerland,Algeria etc.
Its early on it this game but look at how the Algerians are having a go at the Germans already. Yes, they might get beaten but they are not afraid to try to win.
When the draw was made for the qualifiers for the next Euros some of the Irish players were already talking about how Germany will definitely top the group and that we are playing for 2nd place. If they do nothing else I hope O'Neill and Keane manage to get that attitude out of them.
He's great at it. So effective in defence, possession retention and kick-starting attack, rather than drilling it up the field like a more conventional keeper might do. It's surprising more keepers aren't encouraged to perform similar roles for their teams. He's quite a rarity. They probably lack the ability/confidence in their footwork. For some reason, poor David James springs to mind. I vividly recall once seeing footage of the master of blunder himself attempting some footwork under pressure and well outside the box for Portsmouth a few years ago. He was like a deer in the headlights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Algeria looking dangerous this evening. Upset on the cards?
Very impressed with Algeria so far. Men behind the ball but one player always pressing the man on the ball or the man receiving the ball. The recipient is really struggling to do anything with it. Then, when Algeria win the ball they get forward with pace.
There was an interesting interview with Buffon pre-WC where he had a contrasting view. He reckons the emphasis on footwork and distribution means there are fewer proper shot-stoppers out there, which he considers proper goalkeeping.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Germany with 65% so far, and doing next to nothing with it.
Germany are coming into it more now. Might they have weathered the desert storm?
It's surprisingly like watching UCD when we're playing well actually.
Even down to the fact that Algeria haven't scored yet.
Well, one lives in a bubble, but there's no proof the other was ever in Bubbles.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The general lack of caution during this tournament, for want of a better description, has made for some great entertainment. The games have been so open. Who'd have thought Algeria would have approached this game so audaciously?
And why so many goals? I mentioned it earlier, but there are more goals already in this tournament - and we're not even thorugh the second round - than there were during the whole of the 2010 World Cup. Is it a broader emphasis on attacking styles of play, the rules possibly favouring attackers, the ball perhaps?...
Right down to having an Algerian striker who can't score.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Brad Friedel is real!
Great spot! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin