2014 World Cup

[DannyInvincible]

And then there's their goalkeepers taking free-kicks. Rogerio Ceni's 100th career goal sparked magical scenes:

[DannyInvincible]

And what about this for a foolproof wall?:



Great inventiveness, but you'd think the lunatic on the floor would cover either his head or his balls for protection rather than hiding his hands behind his back!

[gastric]

James is turning into my personal favourite player of the tournament. I am loving watching Columbia, would love to see them win it, but probably not to be. I think our very educated Americans associate anyone from down south as being brothers and sisters of Che Guevara. Please God the republicans never get to run the US again!

[DannyInvincible]

Apparently right wing neo con commentator Ann Coulter is complaining about the moral decay that foot all's new found popularity is bringing into America. I thought it'd be the usual tosh about diving and stuff but her gripe was that football espouses the team over the individual, a metaphor for communism's ethos over that of capitalism. Well, sorry Ann, explain how Columbia score a stunning individual goal and a stunning team goal and both are things of absolute beauty.

It must be the red shirts worn by those officials telling everyone what to do and the red cards they freely hand out. Even this got three plays:



Worst of all is, erm, those flashy red sponsorship boards...

Coulter is a clown of Bill O'Reilly proportions - nothing more than a performance artist/provocateur of the left - but it is disconcerting to see the bitter, disingenuous nonsense her sort spout accepted as rational political discourse in the US. A bit more on her weird attack on the World Cup: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...alism-team-usa

With Team USA suddenly in the round of 16, and World Cup fever allegedly sweeping the nation that football forgot, the American right has sprung into action. Determined to preserve American exceptionalism against a rising tide of baguette-munching ball-juggling pinko Europhile hippy surrender-communism, Ann Coulter has come to the rescue: "Any growing interest in soccer," she wrote to widespread amusement, "can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay."

Her reasons for hating football are manifold, and typically hilarious – chiefly, the suspiciously popular game with the round ball seems to show all the key indicators of socialism. The New York Times likes it. It's foreign. Foreigners like it. Obama likes it. It is even, somehow, "like the metric system". For arch conservatives like Coulter, the culture wars never stop, and the sudden spike in interest in the World Cup is just the latest assault on The American Way, accompanying the barrages of promiscuity, multiculturalism, Islam, R'n'B, and trains: "The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO's Girls, light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton."

It's not just that the wrong people like it – Coulter thinks football as a sport is intrinsically socialist. "In soccer," she laments, "there are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child's fragile self-esteem is bruised." Unlike the glorious sports of basketball, American football and baseball, she says, all individual talent is subsumed into the back-patting, winning-isn't-everything comradeship of football. (Because obviously, no one minds if you win or lose a game of football – and at the full-time whistle, after meditating for a while, the players pool their wages with the fans, before shyly retiring to their modest homes and ascetic lifestyles.)

In any case, are American sports really a Randian festival of untrammelled capitalist heroics, as she claims? Besides being more arcane, bureaucratic and hyper-managed than anything the Soviet Union ever dreamt up, the draft system used in most American team sports sends the very best young players to the clubs that did most poorly the previous season, in order to establish parity and fairness the following season. Have you ever heard of anything more socialist in your life? As if that wasn't enough, the NFL, MBA and NHL even have salary caps! Negotiated by – wait for it – trade unions! The MLB, meanwhile, has something called a "luxury tax" on its richest teams. What kind of lefty nonsense is this?

Of course, people always project their politics on to sport. Without naming and shaming, during the USA's game against Portugal, I saw one leftwing tweeter ask with plaintive, stony-faced sincerity "how can anyone be supporting the imperialists?" – as if Clint Dempsey had personally signed off on the CIA's covert military operations in Nicaragua (the poor lad has enough to handle with his burgeoning rap career).

What Coulter hasn't noticed is that even in the global game, Team USA is comporting itself with its usual bombastic exceptionalism, strutting around with an eagle tattooed on its chest. "I believe that we will win!" is exactly the kind of ridiculous army recruitment advert of a chant that you would expect from our cousins across the Atlantic.

Admittedly, there has been a bit of sour grapes in the English response to the success of Dempsey et al, and no doubt we will be treading those grapes into wine and drinking ourselves into oblivion if Team USA get much further – they are, as today's typically excitable NY Daily News front page informs us, now just "four wins from glory".

In the unlikely event that they do win the World Cup, I can see Coulter coming round to football. In the second verse of the The Right Brothers' tribute, I'm In Love With Ann Coulter, the ultra-conservative duo inadvertently sum up the appalling partisan burlesque that is modern American politics: "I've been driving liberals crazy / I bet I've quoted half her book at work / To those godless jerks who can't debate me". Like the woman herself, Coulter's armchair fans are completely unwavering in their faith, shout themselves hoarse, and are chauvinistic to the point of comical absurdity in their hatred of their opponents. Sound like anyone you know?

[NeverFeltBetter]

That little corner trick by the Colombians in the first half where Zúñiga took it without anyone in the stadium realising, bar James Rodríguez, was great. Rodríguez dandered over to collect it from where Zúñiga had stealthily tapped it to, just outside the corner quadrant, before dribbling it without challenge towards the unprepared Uruguayan box only to be called back by the ref for a re-take. What was actually illegitimate about the manner in which the corner was taken? Weren't they free to go ahead and take it? Too inventive for even refs to keep up, it seems. They tried it against Ivory Coast too, but had it similarly pulled up by Howard Webb. If there's one thing I'd hold against Webb this tournament, it'd have to be that!

I remember a United/Chelsea game a few years ago where Rooney and Giggs tried that, scored, and were then infuriated to see the ref had called it back. There isn't anything wrong with it, but the ref is usually badly placed to see what's happened and assumes shenanigans- so, in essence, the subterfuge works too well.

[pineapple stu]

Thing is, it was the linesman who called it here, and did so the moment the second player touched the ball. He saw exactly what happened.

Was the initial corner taken before the ref was ready/whistled? Only thing I can think of.

[BonnieShels]

What's the infringement?

[Crosby87]

Ann Coulter says a lot of things tongue in cheek, just so you know.
What do you chaps think about sundays matches? And Gastric the Dems are all well and good until you read the tax bill. But I digress...

[BonnieShels]

What's the infringement?

Other than it being "unsportsmanlike" there's no infringement on the corner being played this way. The only realistic infringement that could possibly happen is if the kicker touches the ball a second time before another player touches it. But even in this case the penalty for this is an indirect free kick for the defending team.

[NeverFeltBetter]

You could say the kick might have taken place before the ref's authorisation - that happens occasionally with free-kicks elsewhere on the pitch after all.

[DannyInvincible]

This was the attempt by Rooney and Giggs against Chelsea a few years ago from which Ronaldo actually scored a (disallowed) header:



Looked like the linesman was sleeping there as he was the one who raised his flag for some infringement. Is it necessary for the ref to give authorisation for a corner kick to be taken?

[NeverFeltBetter]

I would assume so. Don't they have to give authorisation for every place kick? I mean, I know in practise that this often isn't the case, but if they saw what looked like shenanigans at the corner flag they'd just be cautious and assume the corner kicker had made some infringement, and blow for that reason.

[DannyInvincible]

Now that Uruguay are out, is it still OK to talk about Suarez?

I'd meant to respond to this earlier but was occupied with work and then indulged in the day's games.

It was a well written piece by Donal Og but I still think that there are lots of people with troubled pasts and it still doesnt give anyone the right to continue to bite people.

I think it would be unfair to suggest Dónal Óg was attempting to establish for Suarez some sort of right to continue biting people because of the player's troubled past. He was offering more an objective explanation rather than a justification, whilst avoiding moral condemnation, and was encouraging the finding of a compassionate solution over the dishing out of bare retribution. I think it's a really graceful and considered piece of writing. He writes with an authority derived from a whole hurling career of experience of the challenging emotional and psychological issues (or simply human issues, even, because sports stars are humans first, after all) endured by many participants in sport. Advocating the sympathetic provision of constructive help to a transgressor doesn't have to be seen as an apology for his conduct or as a defence of some right for him to continue engaging in it. There's a middle ground to be found somewhere between the punishment and media frenzy at one end and the total sense of denial and victimhood of the Uruguayan camp at the other; I think Dónal Óg is pretty close to pointing us in the right direction.

I actually think the bigger problem is that Suarez is constantly surrounded by people that keep telling him he doesnt do anything wrong. I heard a journalist from Liverpool on Off the Ball the other day saying that Suarez lives in a small little bubble of a gated housing area where he is surrounded by family, friends and other hangers on.

Aye, Stutts had mentioned that too. It definitely is a worrying aspect to the whole sorry episode. Acknowledging a problem is the first step towards mending it. Is it likely Suarez will even seek psychiatric help for the control and management of his more intense and anti-social urges if he not only fails to acknowledge any personal misbehaviour but actually thinks he's the solitary victim here, or worse, in the right? You'd have to think Liverpool, as his employers (assuming they'll stick by him), would demand he undergoes some sort of behavioural therapy or treatment, but obviously coercion isn't optimal...

His official defense in the suspension hearing was laughable. He just tripped,lost balance and landed on Chiellini.... Its like the script from a bad porn movie, the cheating wife gets caught and says that she just tripped,fell and landed on yer man!

"The teeth were just resting on his shoulder, Dougal!"

The denial is counter-productive and that the Uruguayan camp happily encourage it for their own benefit is disheartening. This form of "support" won't assist Suarez and will only drive him further from being able to find a way to manage his urges. I've seen the news articles featuring quotes from the panel's conclusion. Has the conclusion been published then? I wonder is the full transcript available anywhere online, or have the media merely gotten a hold of certain snippets? I've not been able to find it. Some of FIFA's reasoning has at least been revealed though: http://www.theguardian.com/football/...face-chiellini

The player could be seen holding his teeth following the incident with Chiellini but the seven-strong panel dismissed Suárez’s argument after studying the incident from 34 camera angles. The bite was “deliberate, intentional and without provocation”, the ruling read. “He bit the player with the intention of wounding him or at least of destabilising him.”

...

The ban was more severe because it was not the first time the player had been involved in a biting incident. Suarez has received bans for biting opponents while playing for Ajax and Liverpool.

Another reason for the unprecedented punishment was the Uruguayan showed no repentance for the incident and previous bans had not changed his behaviour, according to the Brazilian newspaper O Estado de S Paulo. “At no time did the player show any kind of remorse or admit to any violation of Fifa rules and therefore showed no awareness of having committed any infraction,” the Fifa document read. The document showed a proposal for a six-game ban was considered but rejected as insufficient. “The minimum punishment was not sufficient to have the necessary dissuasive effect,” Estado quoted the document as saying. “Previous bans did not have an effect.”

This article is by-and-large awful: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/wor...fit-crime.html

I read it in work as that rag's website and MSN.com are the only two sites not censored on our office computers. Nevertheless, there are one or two points in it relating to the justness of the effect upon Liverpool that I thought were worth acknowledging (only one or two, mind you!):

There will be predictable howls at FIFA’s punishment and its extension to his club career. Suarez, after all, was not banned from playing for Uruguay when suspended by the Football Association. Yet the FA is an organisation under the umbrella of FIFA. The bigger body can pass its rulings down, the smaller body cannot pass its rulings up.

It is unfortunate that Liverpool, who have worked so hard at reforming Suarez’s unpalatable excesses, are now punished beside Uruguay - who have done nothing but indulge and excuse him, and shamefully so since last Tuesday. Yet what else was there to do?

...

And what message would that send if a player who had brought the World Cup into disrepute then became the most expensive signing of the summer?

FIFA had to include Liverpool in their reckoning if any penalty was not to become worthless.

Weren't you saying something earlier in the thread, Stutts, about the FA potentially having the authority to ban a foreign Premier League player from international action with an England fixture impending for that player's country? Or were you saying they didn't have such power? Surely, the FA couldn't possibly have any capability to pass a ban upwards, if you will? Suarez wasn't banned from competing for Uruguay after the Ivanović incident, was he?

[bennocelt]

Apparently right wing neo con commentator Ann Coulter is complaining about the moral decay that foot all's new found popularity is bringing into America. I thought it'd be the usual tosh about diving and stuff but her gripe was that football espouses the team over the individual, a metaphor for communism's ethos over that of capitalism. Well, sorry Ann, explain how Columbia score a stunning individual goal and a stunning team goal and both are things of absolute beauty.

-------

I thought Brazil v Chile was gripping from start to finish myself. The context and tension was everything and made up for a lack of artistry.

She is a buffoon. She was also banging on about how Americans great great grandfathers wouldn't support soccer, ie its Mexicans and Hispanics with their pesky soccer. Had a quick look at the USA's team of the 1930's which got to the last four. Team had a Scottish/English/Italian/Old world feel to it!

Enjoyed the two games yesterday. For all the good midfield play by Chile, they also didnt really test the Brazilian goalie that much over the hour and a half or so of football. Tika taki on steroids?
Colombia on the other hand, get the ball and full steam forward, brilliant second goal, a great team effort. As for their first, wow.

[DannyInvincible]

There was one rare moment yesterday when one of the Brazilian players in midfield passed the ball backwards and the crowd actually booed his decision not to move it forward such was their demand for free-flowing, attacking football from their team. The BBC commentator also remarked upon it.

She is a buffoon. She was also banging on about how Americans great great grandfathers wouldn't support soccer, ie its Mexicans and Hispanics with their pesky soccer. Had a quick look at the USA's team of the 1930's which got to the last four. Team had a Scottish/English/Italian/Old world feel to it!

It's just veiled racism really. I'm glad she doesn't have much time for it all, to be honest. Generally, it is safe to assume that the position directly opposite to the one taken by Coulter is the correct position!

Scotland-born Jimmy Gallagher surely had Irish roots. Just looking through the other 1930 teams and the only competing squad to contain players playing outside of their home league was the Yugoslavia squad. Three of their players were based in France.

[pineapple stu]

Remember the Americans kind of cheated back then. Their 1950 squad had three guest players. Joe Gaetjens, who scored the goal against England, was Haitian, Geoff Coombes was English, Gardassanish was Italian (ish - war makes geography a bit tricky), Maca was Belgian, McIlvenny - who later playerd for Waterford - was Scottish (and took a bit of stick over playing in those finals I think) and Wolanin was Polish. They were all playing in the US at the time, and had declared their intention to take out US nationality, which made them eligible. Compare this to the Baker brothers, who had to play for the country of their birth (US and England) despite being Scottish. Same thing as the 1930 team really.

[Stuttgart88]

A really common thing I've found in reading and in person in America is this label of football being a "communist" sport. I think maybe it was just a natural thing to call it during the Cold War, where anything the States wasn't good at was to be scorned and derided. Preferably as the work of the "enemy".

And of course the irony of US sports sharing revenues and restricting upward / downward mobility is over her head too!

Edit: sorry. I hadn't noticed Danny's article saying same thing.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Aye, that was then, but this is now. As the eligibility thread proves, there are far more dubious cases, in other sports...

Though Diego Costa 'playing' for Spain is still a joke though.

[Stuttgart88]

Now that Uruguay are out, is it still OK to talk about Suarez?

I'd meant to respond to this earlier but was occupied with work and then indulged in the day's games.



I think it would be unfair to suggest Dónal Óg was attempting to establish for Suarez some sort of right to continue biting people because of the player's troubled past. He was offering more an objective explanation rather than a justification, whilst avoiding moral condemnation, and was encouraging the finding of a compassionate solution over the dishing out of bare retribution. I think it's a really graceful and considered piece of writing. He writes with an authority derived from a whole hurling career of experience of the challenging emotional and psychological issues (or simply human issues, even, because sports stars are humans first, after all) endured by many participants in sport. Advocating the sympathetic provision of constructive help to a transgressor doesn't have to be seen as an apology for his conduct or as a defence of some right for him to continue engaging in it. There's a middle ground to be found somewhere between the punishment and media frenzy at one end and the total sense of denial and victimhood of the Uruguayan camp at the other; I think Dónal Óg is pretty close to pointing us in the right direction.



Aye, Stutts had mentioned that too. It definitely is a worrying aspect to the whole sorry episode. Acknowledging a problem is the first step towards mending it. Is it likely Suarez will even seek psychiatric help for the control and management of his more intense and anti-social urges if he not only fails to acknowledge any personal misbehaviour but actually thinks he's the solitary victim here, or worse, in the right? You'd have to think Liverpool, as his employers (assuming they'll stick by him), would demand he undergoes some sort of behavioural therapy or treatment, but obviously coercion isn't optimal...



"The teeth were just resting on his shoulder, Dougal!"

The denial is counter-productive and that the Uruguayan camp happily encourage it for their own benefit is disheartening. This form of "support" won't assist Suarez and will only drive him further from being able to find a way to manage his urges. I've seen the news articles featuring quotes from the panel's conclusion. Has the conclusion been published then? I wonder is the full transcript available anywhere online, or have the media merely gotten a hold of certain snippets? I've not been able to find it. Some of FIFA's reasoning has at least been revealed though: http://www.theguardian.com/football/...face-chiellini



This article is by-and-large awful: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/wor...fit-crime.html

I read it in work as that rag's website and MSN.com are the only two sites not censored on our office computers. Nevertheless, there are one or two points in it relating to the justness of the effect upon Liverpool that I thought were worth acknowledging (only one or two, mind you!):



Weren't you saying something earlier in the thread, Stutts, about the FA potentially having the authority to ban a foreign Premier League player from international action with an England fixture impending for that player's country? Or were you saying they didn't have such power? Surely, the FA couldn't possibly have any capability to pass a ban upwards, if you will? Suarez wasn't banned from competing for Uruguay after the Ivanović incident, was he?

I think what I saying is that it'd be very tricky if a national association could pass a suspension upwards because it'd open the door to associations banning players from teams their country is about to play.

As in other walks of life, though, hard cases usually make for bad laws so maybe just best to leave things alone. Liverpool should be within their rights not to pay Suarez while serving a ban for an offence not committed while playing for Liverpool, but again, that'd only serve to reduce the attraction of international football to some players, at the markings at least.

[DannyInvincible]

Remember the Americans kind of cheated back then. Their 1950 squad had three guest players. Joe Gaetjens, who scored the goal against England, was Haitian, Geoff Coombes was English, Gardassanish was Italian (ish - war makes geography a bit tricky), Maca was Belgian, McIlvenny - who later playerd for Waterford - was Scottish (and took a bit of stick over playing in those finals I think) and Wolanin was Polish. They were all playing in the US at the time, and had declared their intention to take out US nationality, which made them eligible. Compare this to the Baker brothers, who had to play for the country of their birth (US and England) despite being Scottish. Same thing as the 1930 team really.

It seems the surname was actually Gardassanich, which was of Croatian origin. He had moved to the US in 1949 and, as was the tradition of many immigrants keen to quickly immerse themselves in the American melting pot, deforeignised his surname. He changed it to Gard, but Gardassanich already looks like an Anglicised transcription of a South Slavic surname anyway...

Aye, that was then, but this is now. As the eligibility thread proves, there are far more dubious cases, in other sports...

Though Diego Costa 'playing' for Spain is still a joke though.

Diego Costa is a Spanish citizen though and has permanently lived in Spain for seven years, if I'm not mistaken, contributing in that time to Spanish cultural and sporting life as well as the country's economy, amongst other things. Stutts posted up an article in the eligibility thread a while back which mentioned that he would be perfectly entitled to represent Spain politically in the European parliament by virtue of his Spanish citizenship, so it would seem only right that he'd be similarly entitled to represent his adopted home in the comparatively more trivial matter of international football.

As in other walks of life, though, hard cases usually make for bad laws so maybe just best to leave things alone. Liverpool should be within their rights not to pay Suarez while serving a ban for an offence not committed while playing for Liverpool, but again, that'd only serve to reduce the attraction of international football to some players, at the markings at least.

What's the likelihood that FIFA might be in infringing upon Suarez's right to work or make a living? If Liverpool were within their rights to withhold wages, surely such questions would be raised. I know FIFPro raised the issue the other day. You'd imagine club contracts would legally feature clauses in respect of potential breach through long-term playing bans and the like though.

Edit: According to this, Liverpool might well have grounds for legal action against Suarez for breach of contract: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...m-9562535.html

Glenn Hayes, employment law partner at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: "The general position is that Suarez's behaviour in the work environment would usually represent gross misconduct (given that it could be classified as an assault) and would usually result in the dismissal of an employee in most circumstances.

"If the matter has occurred outside of work and is not connected to it, for example in the form of a work social, the issue for the employer would usually be whether the actions of the employee had brought the business into disrepute.

"In the case of Suarez this could easily be argued - particularly as it is the second time an incident like this has happened whilst he has been with the club (and third time overall), and the Anfield club stood by the player last time despite risk to their reputation and despite his lengthy ban.

"The decision for Liverpool however is not really about whether they do what a 'normal employer' may do.

"With Barcelona and Real Madrid apparently planning to make significant bids for the player after the World Cup, the decision is whether they are willing to dismiss a player and waive a potential huge transfer fee.

"Much will depend on what punishment FIFA hands down but if the ban is sufficiently long so that Suarez is unable to fulfil his contract, this so-called 'frustration of contract' could lead to claims by Liverpool for breach of contract on the part of Suarez."

I suppose we'll see what type of club Liverpool really are. Will they rally round their man in his time of need, or will they hang him out to dry?