Italy vs France: Who Will Score First?

[Cyrus]

Italy Goalllllll!

 

[Pyrrhus]

Goaaal France!

 

[Cyrus]

Stupid france got lucky...

 

[Cyrus]

Italy Goalll~!

 

[ukmicky]

bloody italians

 

[Cyrus]

France Choked!

 

[ukmicky]

lines too wide

 

[Cyrus]

Italy Goalllll~~~~~!~

GO BACK HOME FRANCE!

 

[Cyrus]

Another By Italy~~

 

[ukmicky]

Italy will miss their last one

 

[Pyrrhus]

Goaaal France!, Come On!

 

[ukmicky]

Presure Presure

 

[Cyrus]

Italy Wins! Italy Wins! You Suck France

 

[Pyrrhus]

Damn, Italia won!, better luck next time!

 

[ukmicky]

Oh well life goes on

 

[siddharth]

I didn't enjoy the ending. Apart from the fact that I dislike penalties, Zidane's stupidity soured the game irredeemably.

 

[ukmicky]

England will win it next time .

 

[Pyrrhus]

I didn't enjoy the ending. Apart from the fact that I dislike penalties, Zidane's stupidity soured the game irredeemably.

I definately agree, damn!, Why did he do that??

 

[Cyrus]

Cuz he's FRENCH that's why! He knew they were going to loose!

 

[vanesch]

Horray for Italy !
After the stupid thing by Zidane, it would have been a shame that France won. Simply terrible. The fairy tale changed into a nightmare for the French at that moment.

 

[siddharth]

I definately agree, damn!, Why did he do that??

Materazzi must have something really really provocative, but still, there's no excuse for that behaviour. As Rob Smyth said, "that really put the the 'no!' in 'denouement' ". It's really sad to end your career like that, especially for a player of Zidane's quality.

 

[neutrino]

Two headers from Zidane; One was great, and the other down right stupid.

 

[Astronuc]

One just doesn't head butt other players!

This is a shame for Zidane! And to end a great career this way.

Great day for Italy!

Not a good day for France.


Clearly during regular play and OT, France had the better offense, although they made mistakes - the right side seemed weak - even though Ribery was busy and played a great game. Italy had a very good defense and kept France from scoring.

 

[Kalimaa23]

I thought you were Flemish, but these comments suggest you may be from Liège?

Lol... I'm actually from Brussels originally, with a German father. I live in Flanders now, but I try not to dwell on that

Why Liege?

 

[z-component]

France played so-so during the first half but came together after halftime. I still think they are the better team, but since shootouts come down to goalkeeper v. shooters, it doesn't matter who's better if you're tied up til then. Both teams did amazingly well during the shootout, and unfortunately, it was only a matter of one missed goal. I was cheering for France with only a few others in the room (I was in a recreation room at Penn State watching the game with about 20 others) and I think too many people underestimated France.

 

[vanesch]

One just doesn't head butt other players!

This is a shame for Zidane! And to end a great career this way.

Great day for Italy!

Not a good day for France.

Indeed, a terrible day ; as they said on the news, terrible, not so much because they lost the final, but because they lost a star. Some commentator said: "how are we going to explain that to the kids for whom Zidane was an example ?"

 

[vanesch]

Both teams did amazingly well during the shootout, and unfortunately, it was only a matter of one missed goal.

I cannot help but think that Trezeguet wanted to imitate Zidane, but with less technical skill... It's an extremely difficult shot he tried, for no good reason. If that's correct, it was again a matter of silly egos that ruined it for the french team.

 

[Cyrus]

I had the same conclusion after I saw the replay.

I must say, France did a good job the second half, the I-talians were out of energy.

None-the-less, had that goal not been offsides, the Italians would have won anyways.

Is it just me, or did the "French" team not look very french. It looked like a team from Africa with one Arab(Zidane).

 

[vanesch]

Is it just me, or did the "French" team not look very french. It looked like a team from Africa with one Arab(Zidane).

Well, Zidane is from Algerian ethnic origin, but was born in a poor neighbourhood of Marseille. That's why he was such an example in France: the French-born kid from a poor immigrant family who made it to the top. That's why he was so much adored over here, and that's why his last act was such a terrible thing.

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah, it was pretty bad. He didnt just do it once, he did it twice in a row. It's not like the world was watching......oh wait.

 

[vanesch]

The days before the game, there had been rumors about an Italian "anti-Zidane" plan (like putting 3 players constantly onto him or something of the style), and the TV-commentator said that finally, there didn't seem to be one. But in fact there was, and I think that the strategy was: irritate him all along the game, he'll crack at a certain point (this is clearly his weak point: his temper), they'll take him out and that will spoil it for the French - it was really "Zidane's team", everything turned around him - not so much the "French team". When he was out for the game against Togo, the team promised that he would not end his career like that, in the showers. It was for him that they played, not for France, or for themselves. Taking him out was equal to taking the team out. The strategy worked, and there was, after all, an anti-Zidane plan.

 

[J77]

Oh ZZ

Not my favourite nation, but respect to the I's for putting all 5 in - even though they only had to knock them past the little man

 

[Reshma]

What a match! I was rooting for Italy anyway, but what the hell was Zidane thinking! Never expected such behaviour from him!

On the other hand, Italy finally managed to break their penalty jink (they have never before won a penalty shoot-out)

Congrats to Italy!

 

[J77]

Zidane still got the Golden Ball for the tournament!

 

[Reshma]

Zidane still got the Golden Ball for the tournament!

Yes, just heard the "breaking news" on TV .

 

[Astronuc]

Hmmm.

Technically, Zidane probably deserves the Golden Ball - he is a great player and he demonstrated his leadership and skill in the WC final.

It's a pity he spoiled it with his last act on the field.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060710/1/8rik.html

In one of the tightest votes in history, the inimitable French playmaker Zinedine Zidane won the adidas Golden Ball at the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™. Although his team ultimately failed in their bid to lift the Trophy, Les Bleus No. 10 was voted the best player to grace the stage at Germany 2006. Behind ‘Zizou’ came Italy’s defensive rock Fabio Cannavaro, with the Juventus defender’s Azzurri team-mate Andrea Pirlo completing the podium.

Some commentators speculated Pirlo would bet the Golden Ball. The Italian defense was as strong as France's defence.

In the end, I think both teams were well matched, although Italy's offense was outdone by France's defence.

 

[BobG]

I wouldn't have expected either of these teams to make it to the finals.

I'm thinking Zidane goes out in style with a win for France, but I'm not sure how. No one scores on Italy except for Italy. Surely we can't have a WC final decided by an own goal!

I say France wins 2-1.

Well, Zidane did find a memorable way to go out. What a miserable end to what had been a great game for Zidane. I can't believe Buffon saved that header.

All the breaks seemed to even out. France got a cheap PK, but the referee ignored a more significant foul in the penalty area. Buffon saved the game, but the offside call on Italy was pretty darn close. I couldn't help but think the AR was calling the adjacent player offside. He was definitely off and a little to close to the play to just ignore. From the side, there would have been no way to know which player would get the ball.

Italy took their PKs the way you should. Take your best shot and if the keeper saves it, he saves it. Playing games in a shootout just gets you in trouble. Of course, if Barthez hadn't just been guessing, he could have saved the first shot. That was straight up the middle.

One thing I thought was interesting was the fact that the referee didn't see Zidane head butt the Italian player. He had to consult with the AR quite a bit after the fact - in fact, after the replay had already been shown on the big screen in the stadium. That could be an interesting ethical dilemma for the AR, couldn't it? Could he possibly say he didn't see the incident in real time after seeing it on the big screen? One of those things we might never really know the answer to. The trailing AR should be watching for things like that, so it's just as likely he did catch it, but it sure took a long time for the referee to get around to talking to him.

 

[shmoe]

One thing I thought was interesting was the fact that the referee didn't see Zidane head butt the Italian player. He had to consult with the AR quite a bit after the fact - in fact, after the replay had already been shown on the big screen in the stadium. That could be an interesting ethical dilemma for the AR, couldn't it? Could he possibly say he didn't see the incident in real time after seeing it on the big screen? One of those things we might never really know the answer to. The trailing AR should be watching for things like that, so it's just as likely he did catch it, but it sure took a long time for the referee to get around to talking to him.

fifa denies the replay had any influence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164616.stm

on one hand it would be terribly wrong if they did go by the replay, that's just against the rules. On the other hand, no one can claim Zidane didn't deserve to be sent off so I would have a hard time crying for France if that was indeed the case.

Should they institute instant replays for certain situations? Off the ball iincidents like this are relatively rare and much easier for offiicials to miss, but it would be hard to draw a line on when to consult replays, too often will just slow things down. Maybe they should have something like in gridiron where teams can ask for replays and if it goes against them, they suffer some punishment. I'm not sure what punishment would be suitable, maybe institute a 'sin bin' like hockey or possibly just give a team x number of times asking for replays during a match to limit it. I dunno, post match punishments can handle alot, but it would have been a disgrace if zidane had stayed on and scored the winner a few minutes later.

 

[LeBrad]

Why is anyone surprised that a soccer player did something dirty?

http://zidanewantscandy.ytmnd.com/"

Besides, who doesn't want to http://tonaz.altervista.org/zidane.html" an Italian?

 

[shmoe]

Why is anyone surprised that a soccer player did something dirty?

This is in a completely different category than the usual dirty play whose purpose is to gain some advantage not inflict injury, diving, shirt pulling, etc. This was an outright assault no where near the play.

http://zidanewantscandy.ytmnd.com/"

Besides, who doesn't want to http://tonaz.altervista.org/zidane.html" an Italian?

nice.

 

[vanesch]

He had to consult with the AR quite a bit after the fact - in fact, after the replay had already been shown on the big screen in the stadium. That could be an interesting ethical dilemma for the AR, couldn't it? Could he possibly say he didn't see the incident in real time after seeing it on the big screen? One of those things we might never really know the answer to. The trailing AR should be watching for things like that, so it's just as likely he did catch it, but it sure took a long time for the referee to get around to talking to him.

Given the time it took for the referee to be informed (actually he was informed by the Italian players, and consulted afterwards to verify what might have happened), I think it is clear that the video images did play a role. And I also agree that it was the correct decision to send Zidane off (I was rooting for France until this incident, and then I hoped they would lose, because I couldn't accept the idea that such an act would be associated to a victory).

However, I think that this illustrates that it is a silly rule to outlaw video evidence, especially in important games like these. If there were, the game would become much cleaner. All the showdiving, and kicking and pulling would be punished and only real play would remain.
It wouldn't really slow down the game: after all, the public has the video replay a few seconds after something happens. Why can't there be a referee (or even 2 or 3 referees) just on the side watching the camera evidence, and inform the principal referee of what they see on the screen?

That said, maybe there should be audio surveillance too with parabolic microphones - we'll never know now what was the phrase that blew Zidane's fuse...

 

[Gokul43201]

Besides, who doesn't want to http://tonaz.altervista.org/zidane.html" an Italian?

That link gives me an error message.

Errore 403 :(

Non puoi accedere alla pagina o directory desiderata, ecco le possibili ragioni:

# La directory non contiene un file indice, comunemente index.html
# Non sei connesso con un numero IP valido (IP: xx.xx.xx.x, se stai usando un proxy puoi provare a disabilitarlo e riconnetterti.
# Il traffico verso quest'area del sito è bloccato, oppure non hai l'autorizzazione per accedere alla risorsa che hai richiesto

 

[George Jones]

France got a cheap PK

I'm not so sure that the penalty kick was cheap. I watched the replays of the incident quite closely, and here's my take on what happened.

The Materazzi was to the right of Malouda, and contact between the players caused the French player's right leg, while behind the left leg, to be bumped to the left. The top of Malouda's right foot then got caught on the back of his left calf/ankle as the right foot was trying to come from the back to the front (as it should during the natural motion of running), causing a trip.

I think this is what happened, but even after watching several replays, I am not 100% sure. While playing sports, I have been tripped up (usually unintentionally) in this way several times.

I think there are two questions. Was it a dive? Was it a penalty?

I am curious to know if anyone else saw what I saw.

but the offside call on Italy was pretty darn close.

Very difficult to tell.

 

[shmoe]

It wouldn't really slow down the game: after all, the public has the video replay a few seconds after something happens. Why can't there be a referee (or even 2 or 3 referees) just on the side watching the camera evidence, and inform the principal referee of what they see on the screen?

Watch any sport with video replays and you'll know there can be considerable delays while officials debate how to make the call. Some are obvious and quick from the replay of course, like Zidane's header. Others less so, like the penalty on Malouda, and the debate can go on and on and on.

 

[BobG]

I'm not so sure that the penalty kick was cheap. I watched the replays of the incident quite closely, and here's my take on what happened.

The Materazzi was to the right of Malouda, and contact between the players caused the French player's right leg, while behind the left leg, to be bumped to the left. The top of Malouda's right foot then got caught on the back of his left calf/ankle as the right foot was trying to come from the back to the front (as it should during the natural motion of running), causing a trip.

I think this is what happened, but even after watching several replays, I am not 100% sure. While playing sports, I have been tripped up (usually unintentionally) in this way several times.

I think there are two questions. Was it a dive? Was it a penalty?

I am curious to know if anyone else saw what I saw.



Very difficult to tell.

In real time, it definitely looked like a PK. Materazzi came in in a very bad position. He was trying to back out of a bad play and, in slow motion, it looked like he did. Very little contact actually occurred, if any. Not necessarily a bad call, but very borderline - i.e. a 'cheap' PK vs. a blown call.

I looked at another replay and I've changed my mind on the offside. Just prior to the kick, three Italians are offside, but the French defenders reacted quicker than the Italians. I think the French defender caught up to Toni which made the call more understandable, since I don't think the defender ever did quite pull up even. Still very close, but probably right.

 

[BobG]

Given the time it took for the referee to be informed (actually he was informed by the Italian players, and consulted afterwards to verify what might have happened), I think it is clear that the video images did play a role. And I also agree that it was the correct decision to send Zidane off (I was rooting for France until this incident, and then I hoped they would lose, because I couldn't accept the idea that such an act would be associated to a victory).

However, I think that this illustrates that it is a silly rule to outlaw video evidence, especially in important games like these. If there were, the game would become much cleaner. All the showdiving, and kicking and pulling would be punished and only real play would remain.
It wouldn't really slow down the game: after all, the public has the video replay a few seconds after something happens. Why can't there be a referee (or even 2 or 3 referees) just on the side watching the camera evidence, and inform the principal referee of what they see on the screen?

That said, maybe there should be audio surveillance too with parabolic microphones - we'll never know now what was the phrase that blew Zidane's fuse...

If they were to use video replays, then I'd go with the way they do it in hockey - only to decide on a goal or non-goal.

The delays in American football are pretty prolonged, even for a sport that has constant stoppages. For a non-stop sport like soccer or hockey, it just doesn't work very well. If the video images were used, they were used more effectively than they would be if the laws required them. If they were used, they were only used because it was so obvious that Zidane should be ejected that everyone would have been left with a sick feeling in their stomach if he wasn't ejected.

Hence the ethical dilemma. Having seen the image, would it be better for the referee to find an official who had 'seen' the offense (in this case, it was actually the fourth official, not the AR) or to let the offense go if none had seen the offense in real time?

In this instance, I would liken it to ending the game. The game is over when 90 minutes are up, but only the center referee actually knows the exact instant that occurs. Coincidently, there never seems to be a shot on its way to the goal at the exact instant that the game ends.

Sometimes a lie is more ethical than the truth.

 

[Lisa!]

W00T!

That was the only 2006 world cup that I watched!

 

[NateTG]

Well, there's a wide range of possibilities for replay:

There's video review followed by possible censures. This is already in use and led to, for example, Torsten Frings being barred from the Germany v. Italy game. It's also in use when teams appeal rulings (Scolari appealed Deco's first yellow card from the - I think - Portugal v. Holland game.).

Video reviews are also used to evaluate referee performance.

Using video review after the fact has the advantage that it does not add extra stoppage to the game, but has the disadvantage that it does not alter the game's outcome.

It seems like actively using video review to assign cautions for diving or other unsporting behavior is an appropriate use of the technology.

A more aggressive approach might allow for review of the game during half-time.

If instant replay is allowed mid-game (even only during natural stoppages) teams would almost certainly use it to extend stoppages for rest (if it stops the clock) or to waste time (if it does not) neither of which is desireable.

 

[vanesch]

It seems like actively using video review to assign cautions for diving or other unsporting behavior is an appropriate use of the technology.

Agreed. But, as you say, it is only "after the fact" and the damage is done. That said, it might motivate players to play fair. It is the problem with the actual system: those who play fair are in fact put at disadvantage over those that are great actors. So this would indeed already motivate individuals (if not teams) to refrain from acting or playing dirty.

If instant replay is allowed mid-game (even only during natural stoppages) teams would almost certainly use it to extend stoppages for rest (if it stops the clock) or to waste time (if it does not) neither of which is desireable.

Yes, every possibility that you allow to a team will be abused by "smart" teams to gain advantage. So it shouldn't be to the teams to decide. But I think that a referee, when in doubt, should be allowed to use all information sources that are available. Now, we have a referee that has to rely on what he saw, and reports from his assistant referees. Sometimes the referee knows that *something* happened, but can only guess WHAT, while the information is readily available for the average tv watcher. This is a crazy situation: the only guy who's NOT knowing what happened is the one who has to decide. So I think the referee (and ONLY the referee) should have the right to REQUEST video information (as seen by an assistant referee). His decision would still be final, and it would be his decision to use, or not use, this information. When not clear, he would use his intuition, as he does now, in any case.
For instance, if a player REQUESTS an error of the opposing party (like requesting a penalty), *some* action must be taken: or the player requested illegally a penalty, in which case he must be sanctioned for trying to fool the referee, or a penalty must be assigned. He's still master of the decision, but can, if he wants so, request video assistance.

And a good referee would not need too often video assistance, but only in those cases where things weren't clear for him by what he saw (or didn't see) with his own eyes.

 

[BobG]

Hmmm.

Technically, Zidane probably deserves the Golden Ball - he is a great player and he demonstrated his leadership and skill in the WC final.

It's a pity he spoiled it with his last act on the field.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060710/1/8rik.html
Some commentators speculated Pirlo would bet the Golden Ball. The Italian defense was as strong as France's defence.

In the end, I think both teams were well matched, although Italy's offense was outdone by France's defence.

Hmm, pretty typical.

FIFA puts pressure on referees to be quicker to card players for misconduct such as delaying restarts, diving, dissent, tactical fouls. Their goal is to eliminate 'dirty play' and to restore soccer as the 'beautiful game'.

Sepp Blatter says Ivanov, the Netherlands-Portugal referee, should be given a yellow card, himself, for handing out too many cards ... in spite of the fact that, if anything, Ivanov was too lenient in giving out cards.

FIFA gives the Golden Ball award to a player that violently head butts an opponent.

A bit of a mixed message there.

If you had to go with a player that made the final (as usually happens), I would have gone with Cannavaro. In fact, voters splitting between Cannavaro and Pirlo may have been what gave the edge to Zidane.

Best player of the entire tournament was Klose or Figo (although he wasn't exactly a model of discipline, himself).