So... no World Cup thread yet? (also featuring TTLG fantasy world cup game) - by D'Arcy
SD on 5/7/2006 at 23:50
Quote Posted by Paz
Searching for this non-existant "English virtue" is just tragic and embarrassing, with an unpleasant whiff of accompanying nationalism.
Like it or not, it's also true. I'm not saying England are perfect, but the English players dive a lot less than players from Italy, France, Portugal, Holland, Argentina... you name it. Even Joe Cole was staying on his feet in this tournament, something that he doesn't do when he plays for Chelsea - under a Portuguese manager who, incidentally, has admitted that he tells his players to dive.
Fair Play is an English national trait. You may feel that's bordering on nationalistic or xenophobic or whatever, but it's a simple fact: the English cheat less.
Paz on 5/7/2006 at 23:55
How do you see it playing out, then? Fabio Grosso leaps, GAZELLE LIKE, over Neill (who, unless we've magically forgotten thanks to strange mind-rays, got nowhere near the ball) or something? Obviously Kewell, Viduka and Aloisi would have all done that; they've never gambled on a penalty in their lives.
I'd need to see it again, but whilst I agree Grosso left his leg in, in a "oh no, he fouled me!" way, I don't think he could avoid running into the guy in some fashion. It was a soft penalty. It was given. I don't see where else the discussion can go.
I have no problem with the way in which the Australian team subsequently tried to play mind-games with Totti by getting the ball re-positioned on the spot and so on - quite right and proper. Presumably all you paragons of moral value would have been outraged by such shocking gamesmanship though.
Maybe Hiddink should have asked FIFA nicely to let Croatia qualify instead because Australia's goal to make it 2-2 was offside? Or maybe when a side gets a lucky break, they take it. When a side gets a lucky break against them, they bitch about it - such is football. All are vital parts of the drama, each incident part of the beautiful narrative of this World Cup.
Quote:
Fair Play is an English national trait.
Well, look, I can't add up all the questionable incidents for every team in this World Cup and see how they compare with other sides. Even if I did, people would probably disagree with my categorisation. Maybe England would score quite highly in this hypothetical database, I don't know; but to suggest that "England never cheat - that's why we lose guys, hooray, now we don't need to worry about skill or anything!" is just pathetic and clouds the main issue.
Which is, of course, "England were crap".
Gorgon on 5/7/2006 at 23:57
Quote Posted by D'Arcy
I said it was a <u>stupid</u> penalty, not a non-existent one. And they were both stupid penalties. Oh, and in my oppinion, no matter how hard the portuguese media try to sell it otherwise, tonight's penalty was clearly a penalty too: Ricardo Carvalho did touch Henry's foot, and Henry simply made the most out of it. It's not written anywhere that he had an obligation to stay up. At least he was touched before going down, unlike several of our players who just dived even when no one touched them - Ronaldo's supposed penalty is a joke: that's not a penalty anywhere in the world.
Yes, he did touch Henry's foot, but that does not qualify as a penalty in itself. Lets see the definition of a foul elegible for a penalty:
There are 2 kinds of fouls, Direct Kick Fouls & Indirect Kick Fouls. :
(1) Direct Kick Fouls - For which the other team receives a "direct free kick" (meaning a goal can be scored by kicking the ball straight into the goal) or a "penalty kick" ("PK") if the foul occurs within the Penalty Box (Note: It doesn't matter whether the ball was in the Penalty Box or not; what matters is where the foul was committed). There are 10 direct kick fouls. The rules say that the referee should call a foul for numbers 1 thru 6 if he believes they are committed in a manner he considers "careless, reckless or using excessive force":
1)kicking or attempting to kick an opponent. Accidentally kicking an opponent while tackling the ball is not a foul unless it was careless, reckless, or there was excessive force. If a player slide tackles from the front, it will be considered at least "dangerous play" (which is an indirect kick foul), or kicking, or tripping, or "unsporting behavior", even if the ball is contacted, since it would at the least be reckless or dangerous. (See "Cards, Red Card, Serious Foul Play")
2)tripping or attempting to trip an opponent (if careless, reckless or using excessive force),
3)charging into an opponent (the goalkeeper can also be called for this if his action is careless, reckless or uses excessive force),
4)striking or attempting to strike an opponent (if careless, reckless or using excessive force),
5)pushing an opponent, including the goalkeeper (if careless, reckless or using excessive force),
6)jumping at an opponent in a careless or reckless manner or using excessive force (this includes jumping for a header if an opponent is carelessly or recklessly bumped, and jumping at the goalkeeper),
7)blatant holding or pulling (including holding clothing, using any part of the body to hold an opponent & "Sandwiching"),
8)makinng contact with an opponent before touching the ball when tackling an opponent to gain possession of the ball (Note: it is always a foul if the tackler contacts the ballhandler before touching the ball. However, it can still be a direct kick foul if the ball is touched first but the tackler was "careless, reckless, or used excessive force" and was judged to have kicked, tripped, charged or jumped at the ballhandler. Or, if the Referee believes the tackler played in a "dangerous manner", an indirect kick can be awarded),
9)spitting at an opponent, even if it doesn't hit the opponent (this is grounds for a Red Card),
10)deliberately handling the ball (a "hand ball" should not be called if a player is instinctively trying to protect himself from injury or if the ball hits the hand while it is in a natural position near the players side and has not been moved toward the ball. See "Hand Ball" for more details; this does not apply to the goalkeeper inside his own penalty area.),
Now, does the touch of Ricardo Carvalho to Henry's foot seemed to you as "careless, reckless or using excessive force"? Personaly, I cant say for sure, but it didn't seem that way. And in a penalty situation you can't just mark a penalty if you're not totally sure of it, because it will amlmost certainly be a goal. You see, touching an opponent by itslef does not make it automatically a penalty. We know he touched it. But was it "careless, reckless or using excessive force"? The referee decided yes. I'm not so sure.
D'Arcy on 6/7/2006 at 00:07
It was definitely careless, and he did trip Henry. To me that is a clear penalty. Ricardo Carvalho himself admitted that he did touch Henry.
Gorgon on 6/7/2006 at 00:15
Quote Posted by D'Arcy
It was definitely careless, and he did trip Henry. To me that is a clear penalty. Ricardo Carvalho himself admitted that he did touch Henry.
Then if he admits that he touched him and, I suppose, he also agrees that it was a deserved penalty, then he knows better than anyone else. In that case France just did what it should have done and scored. thats all I need to know. Fair play above all else. :)
Scots Taffer on 6/7/2006 at 00:31
Quote Posted by Paz
How do you see it playing out, then? Fabio Grosso leaps, GAZELLE LIKE, over Neill (who, unless we've magically forgotten thanks to strange mind-rays, got nowhere near the ball) or something? Obviously Kewell, Viduka and Aloisi would have all done that; they've never gambled on a penalty in their lives.
I'd need to see it again, but whilst I agree Grosso left his leg in, in a "oh no, he fouled me!" way, I don't think he could avoid running into the guy in some fashion. It was a soft penalty. It was given. I don't see where else the discussion can go.
I wasn't speaking so much to the specific incident as to your general attitude with regards to taking advantage of a situation such as that one (my opinion on that penalty lies somewhat more to the side of
"it was a really bad ref call, but they don't have video refereeing so what will you do? - I can see how it looked bad to him and of course, the Italian made a fucking 3-course meal out of a challenge he could've stepped around.").
In my opinion, being an extremely sporadic viewer of sport, I take personal offence to seeing people who earns millions dive when they could step around someone and take a shot at the goal, and I take offence at seeing them clutch their faces and lie screaming when all that happened was their arms got tangled in a clash for a header, these people are supposed to be professional sportsmen and as such, they should play the harder game.
Jesus. Go to a school playground and watch a game of footy in Britain, we all played it, sure, if there was a referee in those matches then there'd be only 2 players left on the field by the end of the game (both goalies, probably) but the players don't roll screaming when someone does a solid tackle or they are muscled off the ball. My point is that if kids can play with more determination to actually score a goal and win through skill, then surely the fucking professional elite footballers can too.
The antics of strategic diving and continual picking away at the professional rules like they were legal loopholes in this World Cup is really killing any buzz that I could get from spectating.
Paz on 6/7/2006 at 00:47
I don't agree that Grosso could have "stepped around" him. You (maybe) saw the blinder he scored against Germany - if the guy thought he could get a shot off, he would have done. Actually, as an aside, the Italy-Germany game was superb - if you need your faith in the game reaffirming, you should try to see it. It was played in a brilliant spirit and with a strong referee (which no doubt helped).
I'm with you on the "argh, my face!" antics. Drawing a foul is one thing, but faking unsustained injuries is quite another. Having said that, there are times when the viewer is the one who is deceived - I think there was one last night, where someone went down holding their head and I thought he was acting; in the slow-motion there was an obvious (accidental) connection from a knee to the bloke's head. That's gonna hurt like a bastard!
Comparing playground football to the real thing is basically quite futile. The kids don't have the equivalent muscle or physique. Little Johnny tackling Little Jimmy in his amateurish kind of way doesn't compare with Aaron Lennon flying down the wing at considerable speed and being stopped by the chunky leg of Patrick Viera. The second one is going to hurt A LOT more. These people are at peak physical fitness (except Ronaldo, obviously) and whilst I don't fully understand the science behind this, that seems to also make them quite prone to injury. Stuff seems to TWANG a lot more easily .. I dunno. I'm not saying there's no pretending, by the way - as there obviously is. Including from England goalkeeper Paul Robinson against Ecuador, "England never cheat" fans.
What kind of wacky playgrounds were you in anyway - they're about as far away from "fair play" as you can possibly get! Double-footed tackles and arguments about where exactly the fictional crossbar between two coats happens to be broke up every three seconds of play. Not to mention that 20-a-side games on concrete are clearly not sanctioned by FIFA.
Somewhat ironically, you could argue that it is the very making of millions of pounds which has resulted in the greater proliferation of a "win at all costs" mentality and, thus, 'cheating'.
Myoldnamebroke on 6/7/2006 at 00:51
The crossbar is at the maximum diagonial jumping height of whoever is in goal, obviously.
Paz on 6/7/2006 at 01:00
Unless it's your goal, then it's at waist-height of the smallest player on your team.
Favoured formations are 0-30-0, 0-0-30, or "wherever the ball is".
Offside simply does not exist.
