Printable View
He just had a shout there and not too dissimilar to the Dejagah case. Sanchez running through, pursuing the ball as it bounces wide, Cillesen comes to challenge for it, may get a nick on it, but mainly cleans out Sanchez. In this case, I'd say no penalty as the ball was already beyond Sanchez and bouncing out, but again the keeper/tackler got next to nothing on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Well, he'll undoubtedly see a good deal of it upon arrival in the Greater Manchester area next season...Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I think that's still a foul. That the player wasn't going to the ball just means it can't be a definite goal scoring opportunity (and so no red card).Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I think.
2-0 Spain. Torres.
Switched over to the Spain game, the other one's a bit too sterile...two teams able to cancel each other out?
Holland ahead. Fer play!
Down with that sort of thing!!
Not the best of marking. In fact, hardly any sort of marking at all.
Hmm. Interesting penalty call. No way should the arm have been around the player's chest. So if the ball hits the arm grappled around the player...?
3-0 Spain. Mata.
I'd say the minimal touch on the ball is enough in that case. The later contact didn't affect the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Yeah, I didn't think it was a penalty; the keeper got there. But had the keeper missed the ball, I think you can give a penalty even if the player wasn't going to get the ball. Just it can't be a professional foul.
And again, it was surely a corner?
Good enough for Chile there. A nice counter goal while a Chilean player dives to the ground for a free in vain.
I don't suppose you saw the discussion I was having with osarusan on the tackler making contact with the ball a few pages back? Are there instances where you think contact to the ball wouldn't be enough to justify the awarding of a penalty? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as, if I recall correctly, you were critical of the "expert opinion" and thought the Zabaleta tackle in the Iran game constituted a foul even though he had made contact with the ball? If I was reading him correctly, for osarusan it was a simple case of: penalty if no contact made with ball; no penalty if contact made with ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'm sure you love this story, TOWK!: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27969231 :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
I saw a bit of it but was cycling through the thread quickly so didn't get to read it all. Yeah, I am of the opinion that making contact with the ball isn't enough - you need to make enough contact to affect the ball, otherwise it's a foul. Kenny Cunningham on the highlights show on RTE yesterday morning said exactly what I was thinking. Dejagah flicked the ball and its lightly brushed Zabaleta's foot with no real effect on the ball, then he barrelled through the player. Has to be a penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Nothing to do with bad management in England then?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
So John Kenny on RTÉ it is.
1-0 Brazil so.
I have a vague hope - and I know I'm being horrible to Cameroon - that Brazil will find this match as easy as or easier than Croatia found Cameroon, and might even use it to get some of their swagger back. They've been one of the disappointments of the tournament so far, even though they're on course to win all three games.
They'd be lost without Neymar though. Having a great tournament,
1-1 Cameroon still 16-1 which is just stupid 2-1 would be about right.
Brazil looking great in attack and chaotic in defence. Great header by Paulinho against his own bar just before Cameroon's goal. This is the Brazil we all want to see! :)