Italy vs France: Who Will Score First?

[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).

 

[klusener]

It was most likely a racist slur on the part of Materazzi, because if you look at Zidane's past related actions, they have always been preceded by a racist comment (alleged of course) by the opponent. Sad move on the part of Zizou though, still in the end, he will remain the legend.

 

[BobG]

It was most likely a racist slur on the part of Materazzi, because if you look at Zidane's past related actions, they have always been preceded by a racist comment (alleged of course) by the opponent. Sad move on the part of Zizou though, still in the end, he will remain the legend.

Here's a story on the speculation about what was said and Materazzi's response: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060710/sp_nm/soccer_world_france_zidane_materazzi_dc_1

Some stories in the French press say Materazzi called Zidane a 'Muslim terrorist', except with a few more expletives mixed in. Materazzi denied the accusation, claiming he doesn't even know what the word 'terrorist' means.

Then again, Brasilian press (thanks to bilingual lip readers?) reports that Materazzi called Zidane's sister a prostitute. The second has a little humor to it since, if you watch the whole clip of the incident, it's easy to see how Materazzi's rough handling of Zidane's left nipple could lead the conversation to matters of sex.

 

[devious_]

The Zidane-Materazzi incident:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395046&in_page_id=1770

 

[vanesch]

The Zidane-Materazzi incident:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395046&in_page_id=1770

I hope it is somehow true. Although still rationally a stupid move, it would then be a "personal choice" by Zidane, like: "even for the world cup, I don't bow for racist comments, and I hit every bastard that makes some". But that would then invite such an evident strategy against him that it sounds almost childish. Instead of waiting for a red card, he should then simply have walked directly off the field.

 

[MeJennifer]

I hope it is somehow true. Although still rationally a stupid move, it would then be a "personal choice" by Zidane, like: "even for the world cup, I don't bow for racist comments, and I hit every bastard that makes some". But that would then invite such an evident strategy against him that it sounds almost childish. Instead of waiting for a red card, he should then simply have walked directly off the field.

What do you mean personal choice.
It is always a personal choice, the motivation is irrelevant.

 

[vanesch]

What do you mean personal choice.
It is always a personal choice, the motivation is irrelevant.

I meant "personal choice worthy of some reflected principle" and not "hormone-driven stupid violent thoughtless act".

Animal-like reaction versus acting thoughtfully (which might seem silly to others, who don't use the same value scale).

 

[Astronuc]

If Materazzi did much such hostile and unkind comments, then I would hold him also responsible for the situation, since it was his personal choice and his objective to provoke Zidane to respond in such as a way that he would likely be penalized.

Shameful that adults behave in such ways.

 

[BobG]

I hope it is somehow true. Although still rationally a stupid move, it would then be a "personal choice" by Zidane, like: "even for the world cup, I don't bow for racist comments, and I hit every bastard that makes some". But that would then invite such an evident strategy against him that it sounds almost childish. Instead of waiting for a red card, he should then simply have walked directly off the field.

Some say it already was a strategy. He's reacted like this in the past and opponents already know there's a chance he could crack. There's a feeling that all it takes is a willingness to lower oneself to say the things that will make him crack.

'Trash talk' is considered a part of the game by some people. Even if not racial or ethnic slurs, constant little comments that get on an opponent's nerves and cause him to lose concentration is considered by some to be clever strategy.

I was never into 'trash talk', but, in my own way, I was just as bad. If an opponent complained to the referee about my hands, I tended to make it a point to have one of my hands touching him every chance I got. Childish, but I always found it amusing ... at least until I'd get an elbow to the stomach or something. But at least I never complained about the elbow.

 

[Gokul43201]

I hope it is somehow true. Although still rationally a stupid move, it would then be a "personal choice" by Zidane, like: "even for the world cup, I don't bow for racist comments, and I hit every bastard that makes some". But that would then invite such an evident strategy against him that it sounds almost childish.

Strategy against someone who is retiring from professional futbol?

 

[shmoe]

If Materazzi did much such hostile and unkind comments, then I would hold him also responsible for the situation, since it was his personal choice and his objective to provoke Zidane to respond in such as a way that he would likely be penalized.

Surely the final decision to assault Matterazzi was Zidane's though, or ultimately his own lack of control that's at fault. I'm more inclined to believe Zidane just snapped rather than consciously planned to head butt the guy, that just doesn't seem like a rational decision. If Zidane was out to make a strong statement about racism in the game, it seems he would have been better off with a verbal one while holding the world cup trophy in his hand.

No question that Matterazzi's comments were despicable (if true) and have no place in the game. Maybe everyone needs a microphone attatched to them. That would be interesting in it's own right if the fans could tap into on field speak. It's a really nice touch in curling broadcasts, and I've heard 0 racist comments coming from curlers, so the microphones must work as a deterrent for those potty-mouthed curlers .

 

[Astronuc]

'Trash talk' is considered a part of the game by some people. Even if not racial or ethnic slurs, constant little comments that get on an opponent's nerves and cause him to lose concentration is considered by some to be clever strategy.

For me 'trash talk' is not part of the game, in fact it ruins it somewhat.

I have always enjoyed playing against a strong opponent, otherwise there is not challenge.

I always admire the skills of an opponent, and I have no problem complimenting an opponents skill or style. For me it's nice to win, but it's not a big deal to lose, especially when the opponent is just as good. I just enjoy a good game and having fun.

After a game, I enjoy sitting and drinking with members of other team.

When my football team lost the final game (it ended in penalty kicks), I had a chance to sit with members of the other team and the coach later on. I received very kind remarks and compliments from the other players, who very much appreciated the qualilty of the game. It was just nice to just talk, laugh and drink beer with them.

 

[BobG]

For me 'trash talk' is not part of the game, in fact it ruins it somewhat.

I have always enjoyed playing against a strong opponent, otherwise there is not challenge.

I always admire the skills of an opponent, and I have no problem complimenting an opponents skill or style. For me it's nice to win, but it's not a big deal to lose, especially when the opponent is just as good. I just enjoy a good game and having fun.

After a game, I enjoy sitting and drinking with members of other team.

When my football team lost the final game (it ended in penalty kicks), I had a chance to sit with members of the other team and the coach later on. I received very kind remarks and compliments from the other players, who very much appreciated the qualilty of the game. It was just nice to just talk, laugh and drink beer with them.

Were you an only child?

I always enjoyed playing because it gives you a chance to feel like a kid again. And part of being a kid is figuring out what really bugs your brothers or sisters ... and maybe even how to handle having a few people around you who's sole purpose in life seems to be to try to find new ways to drive you mad. (Actually, my brother was a lot better at that than I was. He could drive me nuts even when we got older.)

I only got to take one of the penalty kicks once, and only because we were down to about the eighth or ninth penalty kick. I freaking missed, just on the outside of the post. Fortunately we still won on about the 10th or 11th kick. I think that's the only game I've ever seen go past 5 kicks.

And, actually, I usually got along with members of the other team, too, since most either had been team mates before or might be later on. In local adult leagues, most teams don't stay together forever so you better not create any lasting grudges.

 

[Astronuc]

Were you an only child?

No, I am one of 4 - two brothers and a sister - and the oldest. I had to take care of the my sibbings because both my parents worked with overlapping schedules. The older brother used to give me a hard time - and occasionally, we'd end up punching each other.

I prefer not to be unkind to other people - simple as that.

I always enjoyed playing because it gives you a chance to feel like a kid again.

There is that.

And, actually, I usually got along with members of the other team, too, since most either had been team mates before or might be later on. In local adult leagues, most teams don't stay together forever so you better not create any lasting grudges.

There were teams who were just surly or played rough. It took the fun out of the game. I think we got to finals undefeated.

I just like to play - win or loose.

In high school we'd play football for 3 or 4 hours in 95+°F (35°C) weather during the summer. I used to drink Gatorade by the gallon.

 

[vanesch]

I just saw on french TV an interview with Zidane about his incident. He appologizes for the act because it sent out a bad image and thinks of all the kids that have seen it, but he isn't ashamed for it, and said that it wasn't "blowing a fuse" but a reaction to an unsupportable insult, which he didn't repeat, but which did involve his mother and his sister in an untolerable way. He said that Materazzi said it once, and he asked him not to say that. Materazzi said it again, and he walked away. And then Materazzi shouted it again at him, and he told himself, ok, that's enough now... and he hit him. When asked if he'd do it again, he said that he could not say no, because not reacting would amount to accepting the insult, which he won't. But he regretted that it happened, and accepted also that he was punished for it - only, he found it unfair that the reaction was punished and not the provocation. In his view, violent words can be worse than physical violence, although both are bad things.
To the referee, he asked whether the referee really thought that during a world cup final, at 10 minutes before the end of his career, he'd do something like that if not seriously provoked, and whether it is not rather the provocation rather than the reaction that ought to be sanctioned.
He said that,yes, sometimes he's violent when provoked, and that's his dark side, but he's an honest man who will always try to be honest and defend his honor. If that implies punishment and other loss, then so be it. A bit fatalistic, he added: if this is how things are meant to be, then I accept that and I assume responsability for it. This is the way I am.

 

[DM]

Many players would act in the same way. I do not blame him at all.

 

[Astronuc]

I just saw on french TV an interview with Zidane about his incident. He appologizes for the act because it sent out a bad image and thinks of all the kids that have seen it, but he isn't ashamed for it, and said that it wasn't "blowing a fuse" but a reaction to an unsupportable insult, which he didn't repeat, but which did involve his mother and his sister in an untolerable way. He said that Materazzi said it once, and he asked him not to say that. Materazzi said it again, and he walked away. And then Materazzi shouted it again at him, and he told himself, ok, that's enough now... and he hit him. When asked if he'd do it again, he said that he could not say no, because not reacting would amount to accepting the insult, which he won't. But he regretted that it happened, and accepted also that he was punished for it - only, he found it unfair that the reaction was punished and not the provocation. In his view, violent words can be worse than physical violence, although both are bad things.

To the referee, he asked whether the referee really thought that during a world cup final, at 10 minutes before the end of his career, he'd do something like that if not seriously provoked, and whether it is not rather the provocation rather than the reaction that ought to be sanctioned.
He said that,yes, sometimes he's violent when provoked, and that's his dark side, but he's an honest man who will always try to be honest and defend his honor. If that implies punishment and other loss, then so be it. A bit fatalistic, he added: if this is how things are meant to be, then I accept that and I assume responsability for it. This is the way I am.

I don't agree with his action, but I commend his honesty. I am satisfied with his apology.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't agree with his action

Me neither! It would've been way cooler to bop Materazzi with the trophy instead.

 

[eljose]

I think that if Materazzi had done the "Head Butt" instead of Zidane...they would have been acused of "racist"...and banned for life from FIFA and football competition..we shouldn,t be so much hipocrite...

 

[Jehuty]

You guys don't know the half of what happened

http://zidanewantscandy.ytmnd.com/

Well...Materazzi did have his butterfinger...I don't blame him.

http://snapeheadbuttsdumbledore.ytmnd.com/

And spoiling a book for him...tut tut

I frankly love what Zidane did it, many people said it was a bad end to a career but I kind of liked it. He went out with a controversial bang that left people talking, hell people are still talking. I'd like to know what Materazzi said specifically. Something about his mom and sister, well it had to be pretty bad because something like "your momma is so fat, the army uses her as a defence sheild!" wouldn't get Zidane that provoked. Zidane knows the situation, he was pretty calm throughout the whole match.