2014 World Cup

Seems that a couple of players bottled it and Vlaar was the men to step up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis van Gaal

Netherlands coach Louis van Gaal says two of his players refused to take the first penalty in their World Cup semi-final shootout defeat by Argentina.
Defender Ron Vlaar stepped up but Sergio Romero saved his kick. Argentina went on to win the shootout 4-2 and will face Germany in Sunday's final.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28240152

The sociopath inside me couldn't help but smile at every one of these:

http://sadbrazilians.tumblr.com/


The soccer lover inside me couldn't help but smile at every one of these:

http://sadbrazilians.tumblr.com/


The b4stard inside me guffawed at every one of these:

http://sadbrazilians.tumblr.com/



Every single time I see that SF score I actually grin to myself.

BRAZIL 1-7 GERMANY

Heh heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

The DFV were subsumed into the DFB in 1990 as the Nordostdeutscher Fußball-Verband

---

Subsume the Nordost, win the World Cup? (Even if it takes another 24 years?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Subsume the Nordost, win the World Cup? (Even if it takes another 24 years?)

---

Sure aren't we poaching from the Nordost as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I think Geysir is talking about the groups both teams formed between normal time and extra time.


I thought we saw the other side of the Krul substitution tonight - all the stuff said about Krul and the explanation could have backfired, with the Argentinians feeling more confident against a keeper who would have known he wasn't the first choice.

---

Martin O'Neill and Lee Dixon had a disagreement on ITV last night. MON said that the Costa Rican affair would have put some extra pressure on Cillesen. Dixon said no, it's always a no-lose situation for a keeper, he can only be the hero never the villain. I think MON called it right though, I think there was pressure on Cillesen and pressure + doubt slows the reactions. He could well have saved two of those last night.

If LVG had a spare sub to use last night he should have brought on Worm! That'd have got inside Argentina's heads and Worm is a good penalty saver.

(Is that his name, the Swansea guy?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Martin O'Neill and Lee Dixon had a disagreement on ITV last night. MON said that the Costa Rican affair would have put some extra pressure on Cillesen. Dixon said no, it's always a no-lose situation for a keeper, he can only be the hero never the villain. I think MON called it right though, I think there was pressure on Cillesen and pressure + doubt slows the reactions. He could well have saved two of those last night.

If LVG had a spare sub to use last night he should have brought on Worm! That'd have got inside Argentina's heads and Worm is a good penalty saver.

(Is that his name, the Swansea guy?)

---

More than anything else, it might leave Cillesen thinking that others are wondering what might have been had Krul been in goals for the shootout. That would be very unfair on a keeper.

(Vorm, i think it is)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I don't know. :)

Though this is more the one I was thinking of.

Maybe I've taken ye up wrong. Or even, with the passage of time, misrepresented ye in the post above. If so, apologies. I think the posts were in reply to my own giving out about the lack of catching, so I assumed ye were taking up a contrary position to my own.

But I still think catching has to be the first choice whenever possible, and there's been too many keepers in this tournament happy to parry when they could have caught. Iran for one have paid a heavy price for that. That's not anglophilia or GAA influence - it's just good goalkeeping.

---

No problem, I think we're broadly on the same page - I just have a bugbear with commentators, and several comments in the thread reminded me of it.

I wasn't necessarily being contrary. I think you echoed my original sentiments, though perhaps we would disagree on the perceived amount of punching relative to other tournaments.

I left one word out of that, which may have given more context; when referring to anglosphere I meant media (specifically tv commentators). It irks me when lazy commentators say 'he could/should have caught that'.

I agree with Danny, that if you've listened to these guys long enough, then you'd get the impression that punching is only something those continental types do, because they are inferior and incapable of catching the thing (must be why so many of them play in "the best league in the world"). Unless there specific statistics to back it up, the claims of a preponderance of punching are just the biennial blooming of this particular fallacy.

These things should be taken on merit, if a keeper opts to punch when perhaps he could have caught it - it doesn't automatically become a poor decision; it becomes a bad decision through poor execution, or if it leads directly to a goal. Similarly if a keeper opts to catch, it's not automatically a good decision; it only becomes one if properly executed.

Sure there are times when you wonder why did they do that. But not every instance of 'not catching the thing' should be filed under poor play.

(not explicitly punching, more example of perceived lazy commentary)
Take Tim Howard - think it was against Belgium at one point he dived backwards and pushed the ball over the bar for a corner. One commentator claimed he had time to get his feet right to catch the ball. So according to this guy three steps backwards and to the side, catch the ball on the line, while your momentum is taking you towards goal and opposition within ten yards was preferable to conceding a corner. Really? With a place in the quarter finals of the world cup at stake?

y y

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

This Krul thing is a red herring. I have a Geordie friend who says he is a terrible penalty stopper and lightening very rarely strikes twice anyway. Van Gaal knew that. The trouble is the Dutch missed two penalties. They have a penalty shoot out record almost as bad as England's. As I said in the second Costa Rican penalty shoot out, to ask players to do it in two consecutive games to the same standard is asking an awful lot. The funny thing, the one Dutchman who I was sure would miss, scored: Kuyt.

So on we go to Europe v South America as it should be and hopefully the Argentinians can continue to defend as well and for the magician to score the wonder goal the tournament awaits from him.

---

The funny thing is the one player i was sure would score, scored: Kuyt. His record from the spot is brilliant.

A good catch is better than a good punch. A good punch is better than a bad catch.

I still don't know what Shay was thinking for the David Silva goal in Gdansk. As I've said here before I saw him practicing punching routine catchable shots in his extended warm up 30 mins before the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Seems that a couple of players bottled it and Vlaar was the men to step up.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28240152

---

So much for Dutch courage, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

A good catch is better than a good punch. A good punch is better than a bad catch.

I still don't know what Shay was thinking for the David Silva goal in Gdansk. As I've said here before I saw him practicing punching routine catchable shots in his extended warm up 30 mins before the game.

---

Agreed. Though, at the risk of opening another can of worms, margins of better/worse would depend on what you do after you catch it. Lump it to far end of field to be contested as a fifty-fifty, or build up from the back? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

These things should be taken on merit, if a keeper opts to punch when perhaps he could have caught it - it doesn't automatically become a poor decision; it becomes a bad decision through poor execution, or if it leads directly to a goal. Similarly if a keeper opts to catch, it's not automatically a good decision; it only becomes one if properly executed.

---

This is true. There are absolutely times to punch. Stutts mentioned Shay; I remember him punching everything against Saudi Arabia in 2002, but it was lashing rain and the ball was greasy. Fair enough.

Last night, there was a corner that was right down Romero's throat. He punched and even as the commentators were saying it was a good punch, Holland had retrieved the ball and were lining up another cross. He punched that one too, and Holland got another cross in. Ridiculous stuff.

Compare that to Cillesen, who pulled off a very nice save in particular from Messi's free kick. Held it; attack over. Such a big difference to parrying out for a corner.

I think what annoys me is that parrying tends to look like the save was more difficult, and commentators buy into it, when often (absolutely not always) it's actually a sign of worse technique.

After the game, Van Gaal said of Argentina's keeper Romero, who played under him at AZ Alkmaar between 2007 (aged 20) and 2009:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis van Gaal

I taught Romero how to stop penalties, so that hurts.

---

Is he Roddy Collins in disguise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

After the game, Van Gaal said of Argentina's keeper Romero, who played under him at AZ Alkmaar between 2007 (aged 20) and 2009:



Is he Roddy Collins in disguise?

---

Yeah, I saw that on the BBC. I've read elsewhere that Van Gaal is a very arrogant guy - this would be an example of that.

I also saw on the BBC that Messi didn't touch the ball once in the Dutch penalty area in the entire 120 minutes. That's incredible really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Martin O'Neill and Lee Dixon had a disagreement on ITV last night. MON said that the Costa Rican affair would have put some extra pressure on Cillesen. Dixon said no, it's always a no-lose situation for a keeper, he can only be the hero never the villain. I think MON called it right though, I think there was pressure on Cillesen and pressure + doubt slows the reactions. He could well have saved two of those last night.

If LVG had a spare sub to use last night he should have brought on Worm! That'd have got inside Argentina's heads and Worm is a good penalty saver.

(Is that his name, the Swansea guy?)

---

Saw this myself and had to agree with Martin. How could any keeper not be feeling pressure on his shoulders in a shoot-out situation? Sure, he might not be singled out as a villain for failing to save a penalty, but there's still an enormous amount of responsibility in making sure you keep at least one or two of the opposing team's penalties out. In Cillesen's situation, there was bound to be extra pressure upon him due to the whole Krul thing and, erm, the fact it was the biggest game of his life to date. He looked so small and worried in those goals; I felt slightly sorry for him. He definitely could have done better for one or two of them.

I think Vorm is a great keeper though. He's always impressed me any time I've seen him and I'm surprised he's not their regular starter. Cillesen did well during the game, nevertheless. His catching was top-notch, to be fair. None of that punching sh*t that stu hates! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

After the game, Van Gaal said of Argentina's keeper Romero, who played under him at AZ Alkmaar between 2007 (aged 20) and 2009:



Is he Roddy Collins in disguise?

---

I think he was being sarcastic

Yes, he was definitely trying to say it with humour.

Didn't Romero also come out and say how indebted he is to Van Gaal? I hope he's only paying simple interest.

*groans*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centre mid

I think he was being sarcastic

---

Ah, I'd only seen it in written form and being reported as if he was being completely serious. Fuppin' Daily Mail on otherwise-monitored work computers...

He should get set for a lot of that kind of reporting when he takes up the reins at Old Trafford proper.

Anyway, I love this - The most common words used to describe every team at the World Cup: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28247716

Poor Korea.

An interesting dissection of last night's penalty shoot-out by London School of Economics professor and "definitive penalty expert" Ignacio Palacios-Huerta: http://www.thescore.ie/argentina-hol...64101-Jul2014/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignacio Palacios-Huerta

A most important aspect was van Persie being brought off. Afterwards, Van Gaal said that he would have introduced Tim Krul had he more subs left. I’m not sure it’s entirely ‘correct’ to put Ron Vlaar first. If you construct an index of ‘penalty kick importance’, it looks like a U-shape – that is the most important penalties are the first and the last. This is why I thought Van Gaal had Van Persie take the first kick against Costa Rica. Perhaps Van Gaal thought that Vlaar, who had an excellent game, was in the right psychological frame of mind and was the best possible choice. But Argentina chose Messi as their first taker!

...

With Vlaar missing and Messi scoring, Holland’s initial 60-40 advantage quickly turned into a 31-69 disadvantage. But why didn’t Cillessen stop Messi’s kick? Last season, Messi put 5 kicks to the right and 4 to the left. 1 goalkeeper dived to the right and 8 to the left. Surely Messi was thinking that the right side was working very well for him. Did Cillessen know this? If he did, did he remember this?

...

---

Indeed, Van Gaal did state that he'd asked Vlaar to go up first because he "thought he was the best player on the pitch so should have confidence". I'm not sure how that apparent expression of faith in hindsight corresponded with him supposedly having also asked two refuseniks to take the first penalty before resorting to asking Vlaar, though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Netherlands coach Louis van Gaal says two of his players refused to take the first penalty in their World Cup semi-final shootout defeat by Argentina. Defender Ron Vlaar stepped up but Sergio Romero saved his kick. Argentina went on to win the shootout 4-2 and will face Germany in Sunday's final.

---

They don't call it, needing Dutch courage, for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

An interesting dissection of last night's penalty shoot-out by London School of Economics professor and "definitive penalty expert" Ignacio Palacios-Huerta: http://www.thescore.ie/argentina-hol...64101-Jul2014/



Indeed, Van Gaal did state that he'd asked Vlaar to go up first because he "thought he was the best player on the pitch so should have confidence". I'm not sure how that apparent expression of faith in hindsight corresponded with him supposedly having also asked two refuseniks to take the first penalty before resorting to asking Vlaar, though...

---

It's par for the course from Van Gaal. He's the clear winner of the WC 2014 self-grandiosment award :)

In the qf shoot out, the Dutch were excellent, a focussed group and confidently scored all their efforts. Van Gaal steps up to receive the praise for his intervention, a masterstroke, a genius a brave decision etc Van Gall basked in his glory for a few days.
For the SF shoot out, it was the players who bottled it, not Van Gaal.

I love how there are experts in the science of penalties. Ben Littleton (?) has just written a book on it.

Yesterday I was picking my son up from summer football camp. I was early. I took about 20 penalises into an open goal while I was waiting for him. I was trying to score "good" penalties, firm and close to the posts. About ten were just as I wanted them. About 5 were awful, if the keeper had guessed right he'd have saved them easily. About 5 were ok. Even a good guess and it was touch and go. I hit an early one over so I went low the rest of the time!

There was no science in it at all!

for anyone thats fancying having a nibble on Germany on Sunday, you can get them here at 3/1 if you have a PP account

Available to first 400 paddy power account holders- old and new. Just follow the link and input your paddy power acc details to get the enhancement.


http://cob.uy/6d0c7f

See the link embedded in this article, suggesting backspin nearly led to Vlaar's penalty going in.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/g...g-9600224.html


Here's another angle

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2AfxFelj4

I enjoyed this contribution by Mark Steel in today's Indy

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-9598686.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

See the link embedded in this article, suggesting backspin nearly led to Vlaar's penalty going in.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/g...g-9600224.html


Here's another angle

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2AfxFelj4

---

The footage from closer up shows Vlaar flicked the ball ever so slightly with his shoulder after it came back to him. It was very slight - it pretty much skimmed off him - but it was definitely enough to interrupt the ball's trajectory away from goal and possibly increase the back-spin on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpqM3-qCOX0

I don't know why some media outlets are still making out as if there is any debate over whether or not he touched it/it touched him. Well, it's saturation coverage, isn't it? It's pretty clear there was contact though. Besides, the ball stopped on the line as it returned back towards goal, so much ado about nothing really.

Is the old rule about a shoot-out penalty being dead once the ball stops going forward gone?

(Thinking Bruno Bellone in 1982, which shouldn't have stood)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Is the old rule about a shoot-out penalty being dead once the ball stops going forward gone?

(Thinking Bruno Bellone in 1982, which shouldn't have stood)

---

It must be. Are you sure the rule wasn't/isn't simply that the ball must be kicked forward? This one was given in a Moroccan fixture between FAR Rabat and Maghreb Fez in 2010 despite the ball going back from goal due to the keeper's save before backspin took it back in and over the line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Hnvkw9gHA

Here are the rules on penalty kicks: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footba...d=1290872.html

I assume whichever of those rules are applicable also govern shoot-out situations.

The Independent article above features this video of Vlaar's penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0qArCmZmFc

The touch of his shoulder is even clearer in that one yet they invite the viewer to "judge for yourself whether Vlaar touched it or not"...

Law 14 currently states:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FIFA

When a penalty kick is taken during the normal course of play, or time has been extended at half-time or full time to allow a penalty kick to be taken or retaken, a goal is awarded if, before passing between the goalposts and under the crossbar:

• the ball touches either or both of the goalposts and/or the crossbar and/or the goalkeeper

---

That would imply the ball can move away from goal before going in again and that the penalty is not complete until the ball stops moving (or until the ref deems it complete, as is also stated). It explicitly covers (and allows for) instances where the ball might rebound off a post away from goal, hit the keeper's back and bounce back into the net behind him.

Was the rule different in 1986? According to this, FIFA clarified the rule after the Bellone controversy: http://web.orange.co.uk/article/gaff...shoot-out-laws

How reliable that is, I'm not sure, but, if they clarified it rather than amended it, it would suggest the rule was always intended to be as is stated above.

Edit: A bit from Balls.ie on it: http://balls.ie/football/rule-clarif...-have-counted/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balls.ie

...

In the 1986 World Cup, during the France-Brazil penalty shoot-out, a penalty from France’s Bruno Bellone was awarded when hit the post, came out, banged off the goalkeeper and nestled in the corner. Brazilian captain Zico complained and was booked. The following year the law was clarified in support of the referee’s decision.

John Ward, the FAI’s National Referee’s Co-ordinator has further clarified the issue.

Had it spun back in, it would have counted. The penalty would be deemed to be complete had the ball gone had clearly moved away from the goal or had it gone wide, or ended up with a save. But in that case I’ve seen it and had it gone over the line, in my view it would have counted.

There are directives around this. The ball is saved, spins out, up in the air, spins back. It’s one continuous motion almost, rolls along the ground and I would say had that gone in, the goal would have been allowed.

Now, the question here is whether that hit the player and obviously that would rule it out completely.

Ward discounts the ‘forward motion’ argument.

It would have counted because the ball can hit the crossbar, come out and hit the crossbar and go back in.

The FIFA ruling states:

A kick is successful if, having been touched once by the kicker, the ball crosses the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar, without touching any player, official, or outside agent other than the defending goalkeeper.

The ball may touch the goalkeeper, goal posts, or crossbar any number of times before going into the goal as long as the referee believes the ball’s motion is the result of the initial kick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nhvqIjgQ04

---

Bellone's penalty is at 3:50.

Danny, would you award this goal?

My little fella is the goalkeeper.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fB4jKw...ature=youtu.be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Law 14 currently states:



That would imply the ball can move away from goal before going in again and that the penalty is not complete until the ball stops moving (or until the ref deems it complete, as is also stated). It explicitly covers (and allows for) instances where the ball might rebound off a post away from goal, hit the keeper's back and bounce back into the net behind him.

Was the rule different in 1986? According to this, FIFA clarified the rule after the Bellone controversy: http://web.orange.co.uk/article/gaff...shoot-out-laws

How reliable that is, I'm not sure, but, if they clarified it rather than amended it, it would suggest the rule was always intended to be as is stated above.

Edit: A bit from Balls.ie on it: http://balls.ie/football/rule-clarif...-have-counted/



Bellone's penalty is at 3:50.

---

yep, my recollection is that the rev awarded the goal during the shoutout but at the time the rule was pretty much as soon as the shot had missed it was a miss. So, back then it shouldn't have been a goal.

I think there was a natural justice in the outcome though as France had a certain goal prevented by a professional foul during normal time, enforce the automatic red card rule was introduced too.

My memory is hazy though. Even those of us with autism can forget things.

I would per Law 14.

But I dunno. I'm a bit concerned that the goalposts in question aren't really regulation. I would say Danny has more truck with that as an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Danny, would you award this goal?

My little fella is the goalkeeper.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fB4jKw...ature=youtu.be

---

I'd award it over on an amortised basis over the course of five penalties :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

I'd award it over on an amortised basis over the course of five penalties :)

---

That's too simple. The issue was compounded by the fact that it hit the 'keeper.

Definitely a goal!

And pens are still rank. The only thing the US ever got right was that rushing thing from the halfway line, with 5 seconds to shoot...

The best idea is still extra time and taking a player off every 5 minutes, eventually you get a winner in open play...

Weren't the MLS penalty's dropped after they caused too many injuries or something? I could have sworn I read that somewhere, that goalies were just flinging themselves at the attackers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Danny, would you award this goal?

My little fella is the goalkeeper.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fB4jKw...ature=youtu.be

---

*desperately goes in search of rules mentioning tree trunks and buckets*

Hehe, I'd have to give it. That'll teach him not to step off his line early! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

yep, my recollection is that the rev awarded the goal during the shoutout but at the time the rule was pretty much as soon as the shot had missed it was a miss. So, back then it shouldn't have been a goal.

---

I'm not sure what the wording of the rule was back in 1986, but if it mentioned something along those lines, one could surely argue simultaneously that so long as the ball proceeded in a continuous motion caused by the taker's kick, the shot was still in process. What could be certain was that the shot going wide would constitute a miss, as would the ball, or shot, coming to a stop.

If the case was that the shot was deemed a miss as soon as the ball's trajectory was diverted from its initial line, what about penalties going in off the post or in off, say, the keeper's outstretched fingertips without having gone backwards? Should they have been discounted too? If you argue that those examples should still have counted, why should an instance where the ball might simply have hit a different part of the post and changed course but still ended up in the net by virtue of a rebound off the keeper's back or heavy back-spin on the ball not also have counted? When would the shot have been deemed a miss in those instances? I can't see how distinction could have been made unless the rule specifically mentioned that a penalty ceased to be in process once the ball was no longer moving forward towards the goal. If it did, then the referee would have been one hundred per cent in the wrong to award Bellone the goal. I have a feeling the rule wouldn't have been so clear-cut though.