USA will beat an over rated Belgium Waffles side. 2-1 in extra time. Place yer bets now. Starts at 9 or 10 Dublin time Tuesday night. I expect all of you to be in fine form.
If Belgium play as well as they can - Hazard especially - they will make mincemeat of this American defence. It won't even be close. They (the US) faced a top quality in form attacking team for the first time in the tournament today, and even though that team was in second gear, the amount of breakthroughs they were able to get was really indicative.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Belguim will need to improve on performances so far though, they are one of the disappointments of the Tournament I think
Its really not that complicated!!!
Give over, no one goes onto a football pitch and expects to be bitten! That is weird. Depends who you are playing but elbows and knees can happen! Just look at France the other day!Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I'm sure there are plenty of weird things that can occur in life but that you'd never expect to witness on a football pitch. I won't try and list them...
But just because a particular incident might be the last thing Alan Shearer would expect to witness on a football pitch wouldn't, in itself, make it worthy of a long-term ban. Is he suggesting "an elbow here and there" can be tolerated? He's off his rocker.
As for the article, bit weak from the writer when you have to finish off comparing football to rugby, tut tut
Russia went to pieces after conceding, just hoofing crosses wide over and over again in the last 15 minutes. Time for Capello to take a pay cut. Germany/Algeria will be great. Belgium play ugly and win again. Must be doing something right.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
So the big question is: what are we gonna do tomorrow with no games on?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Collect the wife from the airport, I fear the good times are over!
Anything goin on with the Irish team that we can talk about ?
Its really not that complicated!!!
I think that's a surprisingly good point from Shearer actually. There was a lawyer on Radio Nova's World Cup show (with Roddy Collins - I know I know!) who was saying tonight that playing football is to some extent an acceptance of the fact that sometimes you're going to be victim of a bad elbow or a late tackle; it's unfortunate, but it's part of the game and the rules cover it. But you're not consenting to be bitten, so it's logical to punish offences like that a lot more seriously.
Thing is, punching the ball means you don't necessarily retain possession. Catching it does. Catch the f*@%ing thing. Nothing anglophilic about it; it's just better keeping in general.
Look at Iran - 92 minutes of an exceptional performance; the keeper punches when he could have caught, and 20 seconds later he's picking the ball out of the back of the net.
If only we had some manner of watching football in this country when it wasn't on the telly.
Great scenes with Algeria qualifying from the group. Russia were very disappointing throughout and deserve to be going home. Did Belgium convince tonight?
I'm not disagreeing that it is a weird and unexpected act. I'm saying the punishment is a disproportionate response to the crime considering we've witnessed several other violent incidents like Sakho elbowing, Song hatcheting and Balotelli kneeing various opponents of theirs at this World Cup already without any talk whatsoever of potential long-term bans being dished out. Some people seem almost affronted by the notion that such instances of serious violence might be comparable to, if not worse than, the Suarez incident. It's crazy. Within that context, I feel the punishment itself dished out to Suarez is actually weird and untenable.
Zidane's punishment of 7,500 Swiss francs and a three-match ban in 2010 (although he never served it due to retirement) looks distinctly lenient in comparison. Do headbutts just happen too then? You think that wasn't as serious an incident or as deserving of as harsh a punishment as Suarez received today because it might have been perceived as less weird or less unexpected? You can't assess the severity of a transgression on the field on the basis of such nebulous and immaterial grounds as its level of weirdness or the degree to which it could have been expected.
So what objective criteria did FIFA apply to the case in determining that Suarez deserved a record four-month ban then? They've not been all that transparent in explaining the rationale behind their verdict. The actual degree of harm caused would have to be a consideration surely, as you'd expect it to be in the evaluation of the seriousness of any form of foul play or violent conduct, but if you look at the bite from such a perspective, I'm not sure it measures up. Perceived weirdness or unexpectedness certainly aren't criteria that ought seriously be used in order to determine the appropriate level of punishment warranted by a player's conduct either. Why are those other more destructive examples of violence from this tournament not deemed to be as punishable as a bite? I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why a bite is deserving of such extraordinary treatment. In fact, when I hear people advocating its special category status, it sounds like they're implicitly suggesting that other more detrimental forms of violence are somehow ordinary, usual or tolerable on the football field and not actually as serious.
Moore wasn't comparing football to rugby. In what sense was his argument weak exactly? He was, in the context of what he deemed a "cultural issue", contrasting the reaction of the British media and public towards the bite of an English sportsman with the reaction unleashed upon a Uruguayan sportsman who has similarly bitten. He was highlighting how the Brazilian media were treating the episode in comical terms, as opposed to expressing a collective sense of horror like that expressed by the English media, whilst the Italian media were less scandalised and more focused on the result of the game, assigning Balotelli villain status instead. He was also suggesting there was a hypocritical double standard at play within the British media whereby the stereotypical "South American footballing bad guy" was condemned - with some clowns even arguing he should be locked up for life - whilst the English international rugby player was tolerated; he was later rewarded with further international caps. Sure, the rugby player was also punished for his bite at the time of the incident, but Moore's general position is a lot more level-headed than most of the over-the-top, emotionally-charged reaction I've encountered.As for the article, bit weak from the writer when you have to finish off comparing football to rugby, tut tut
That's somewhat disingenuous of him, I think. Intentional violence is the issue here; not an unintentionally-trailing arm or leg. One does not consent to intentional violence being inflicted upon them simply by their entry on to a football field. Nobody should expect or accept intentional violence in a game of football. Should a bite be treated more harshly than a headbutt, punch or (intentional) elbow? I'm not convinced it should be, but that appears to be FIFA's position, for whatever reason.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 27/06/2014 at 12:33 AM.
I felt Dunphy and the panel made some good points on the incident during a discussion on RTÉ earlier: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/world...onal-response/
A lot more insightful and discerning than the uncritical BBC crew anyway who almost sounded like they were toeing some sort of official line with the usually-assertive Brad in particular looking like he was taking his cue from Neville and Hansen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28046123
Suarez clearly has a problem, but it's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the media/FIFA response that I find fundamentally problematic.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 27/06/2014 at 10:43 AM.
I feel for you. Let us remember the good times.Collect the wife from the airport, I fear the good times are over!
I don't think we've discussed Jack Grealish enough.Anything goin on with the Irish team that we can talk about ?
Don't talk crazy. There's no local soccer til August.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Now now Bonnie - sure aren't Celtic playing Champions' League next week?
What would have happened if it was the third time he'd done it? That's an important difference with Suarez. Does he do a Tyson next? It appears clear he needs psychological help as well obviously.
I agree the ban is a little bit harsh - I think I'd have left out the four-month club ban in particular - but there was arguably an extent to which FIFA's hand was forced by the previous bans.
There have been other big bans - Leonardo for four games and Mauro Tassotti for eight games in the 1994 World Cup, both for elbows. Again, what would have been the punishment if it was the third cheekbone Leonardo broke? And if Leonardo hadn't been apologetic? I'd have no problem with actions like that being more common.
On a side note, the fourth official apparently - maybe breaching his duties - ordered that Antonio Valencia be sent off against France for his lunge. I've said before that this is the only way a video ref could work in football. Let's say the Italy v Uruguay game had continued as it had, and then two minutes later, the fourth ref, having reviewed the replays, gave the ref the ok to send Suarez off. It'd look a bit silly being sent off two or three minutes after your actions, but would it be an improvement to the game? I think it would.
not that russia really deserved to win last night but they would have every right to feel very frustrated by the added time at the end of the match.
4 added mins were notified around the 89 min mark but following on from this algeria substituted (surely another 30 secs should have been added so?) a player who felt the need to embrace half the algerian team walking off and then an unused algerian sub kicks the ball away and the ref wastes even more time by walking over to give him a yellow. the ref then blows up bang on 94 mins! russia probably wouldn't have scored anyway but very poor officiating in my view
Last edited by jbyrne; 27/06/2014 at 7:55 AM.
I had to take a day off the internet yesterday. Firstly, Thanks to osarusan for pointing me to the totty thread. That Japanese girl has left a lasting mark on me, mentally rather than physically, unfortunately. That little bite thing she does at the end has to be the best bite of the World Cup so far, Suarez being a distant second.
Speaking of Suarez I liked this Glenn Moore article yesterday, well certainly the comparison to Dylan Hartley at least, although I just think biting is the lowest of the low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...e-9563690.html
As for the ban, I think Liverpool have a case to be aggrieved and the lack of symmetry between a club ban not extending to international duty, but an international ban can extend to club duty seems unfair too. I think rugby might have it right if I understand it correctly) in that red cards in themselves don't transfer over, but a suspension for extreme violent conduct can.
However, you could have a situation where the FA could ban a foreign player in advance of an international between his country and England, so bans for violent conduct might have to be imposed by UEFA or FIFA.
My personal view is that despite Liverpool being punished the fact remains that they bought a guy who they knew had issues. The top clubs didn't want him because they knew of his temperament. Also, it's just a fact of life that players can get crocked playing international football, or suspended. An economist would argue that all known factors and risks should be incorporated into a player's financial value. Sadly, it drives a wedge between club football and international football but hopefully clubs will be grown up enough to accept that such events are rare and rightly deserve punishment.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 27/06/2014 at 9:23 AM.
That Independent article is pretty poor. I don't understand why it's being so widely quoted.
Sorry, I'm playing catch up. I think Moore has a point. All of football's indiscretions get magnified beyond belief because of its significance and there are many in the rugby community who are too quick to pounce, in my opinion.Give over, no one goes onto a football pitch and expects to be bitten! That is weird. Depends who you are playing but elbows and knees can happen! Just look at France the other day!
As for the article, bit weak from the writer when you have to finish off comparing football to rugby, tut tut
I think it's a real shame because outside of a few crappy incidents the general tone of this tournament has been very positive, plenty of players playing with smiles, forwards and goalkeepers in banter etc.
I do think some of the worst incidents still add a fascinating twist to the tournament, especially the differences in mentality across the globe that they highlight. I love that scene in Mars Attacks when the aliens gun everyone down seconds after announcing that they have come in peace. It's outrageous from our cultural standpoint, but not theirs! The world contains honest people, morally brave people, cheats and moral cowards. So does football.
To be fair, you make a good point. You'd have to assume that his recidivism would have been a major factor in FIFA's decision.
It's the general gist of it and its urging for level-headedness that I found welcome. The reason's it's being so widely circulated, in spite of its faults, is probably down the fact it's one of the few mainstream pieces (that I've come across anyway) to go against the grain.
I don't think it really says anything that hasn't been widely agreed upon by all but the most hysterical hacks. Citing the lack of uproar in Italy is particularly misleading since it's obvious why it's not the major story there.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks