Portugal vs Netherlands

  • Thread starter Monique
  • Start date
  • #51
223
0
marlon, I suggest you go and read the rules. You are sprouting utter nonsence and have been doing so since your first post here.

It is the rules. Every time I have asked you to back your 'statements' with some facts, you have been unable to do so.. in so much as you just ignore them totally. you are begining to really get on my nerves, and suffice to say I wont be participating in your little sledging game moving forward. if you want to debate then at least debate properly.
 
  • #52
NateTG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,450
6
Anttech said:
Deco held onto the ball for ~2 secs, do u honestly think he should have been sent off?

The ref had no choice but to give that second card, since FIFA has ruled from on high that delaying free kicks is an automatic caution. The problem isn't so much that Deco held on to the ball, but that he kept it away (with a blatant stiff arm no less) from the dutch player who had the free kick.
 
  • #53
223
0
Yes I know.. It was still WAY over the top...
 
  • #54
shmoe
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,992
1
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Good serves them right I have no tolerance of weak moralled players who will do anything and everything to bring dishonour on the game, zero tolerance is precisely how it shopuld be, good on ya ref....

There were no diving cards that I remember, many were dodgy challenges followed by someone falling over, the challenger ending up with a card that may or may not have been deserved (many were though). This refereee did not do much in the way of penalising the dishonourable. He lost control of the game. Admitedly the players had a large part in sending it out of control, but it should never have made it that far.


The Aussie penalty- what a shame. I'm of the opinion that the striker should continue to do everything possible to put the ball in the net, whether fouled or not, instead of falling down. It had the potential to be a gorgeous goal rather than a dodgy penalty.
 
  • #55
shmoe
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,992
1
Anttech said:
Yes I know.. It was still WAY over the top...

Why? It's in the rules right? Do you disagree with the rule or the decision?
 
  • #56
223
0
To send somebody off the pitch for holding on to the ball for 2 secs is 'over the top.' He wasnt time wasting so much, anyway, if he was add more time at the end.

The rules state you can be booked for time wasting, correct, but a ref has to be able to look at every situation with its own merit. IMO this time that did not desevere a red card (Second yellow)
 
  • #57
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
Anttech said:
It is the rules. Every time I have asked you to back your 'statements' with some facts, you have been unable to do so.. in so much as you just ignore them totally. you are begining to really get on my nerves, and suffice to say I wont be participating in your little sledging game moving forward. if you want to debate then at least debate properly.
No. Tripping, as a foul, is in the laws, but deciding what is a trip, what is impeding (obstruction), and what is just laying on the ground in humiliation is referee judgement. The Australian player made no attempt to trip the Italian. The Italian chose to be too clumsy to step over the prone defender.
 
  • #58
223
0
The Italian chose to be too clumsy to step over the prone defender.

Exactly, if you are on the floor in the box, you can expect this... He played for the foul, and understandabley so, got it.
 
  • #59
3,768
10
Anttech said:
marlon, I suggest you go and read the rules. You are sprouting utter nonsence and have been doing so since your first post here.

:rolleyes:

It is the rules. Every time I have asked you to back your 'statements' with some facts, you have been unable to do so..

Really, give me one example where that happened. Besides other then saying "It's the rules" your contribution is nihil. Anyhow, my opinion in this matter is completely similar to BobG's so there is no point in me stating the exact same thing as he does. I already made several references to his posts and yet you have never replied to that. Please do so. Also, to counter your Germany bashing posts i have given many examples to show where you are wrong. With respect to the star-players in a team i have countered that argument by asking you what France, etc etc achieved up till now in this WCup. Still no answer from your part. Why is that , my dear friend ?

iyou are begining to really get on my nerves, and suffice to say I wont be participating in your little sledging game moving forward.
Well, sorry but the fact that i am getting on your nerves is your problem, not mine. Besides, you should not mention that because who cares ? What is your point. If you don't wanna debate anymore or you don't want to answer my posts then please, by all means, be my guest. We all know what quitting stands for, no ?

if you want to debate then at least debate properly.
:rolleyes:

marlon
 
Last edited:
  • #60
3,768
10
BobG said:
No. Tripping, as a foul, is in the laws, but deciding what is a trip, what is impeding (obstruction), and what is just laying on the ground in humiliation is referee judgement. The Australian player made no attempt to trip the Italian. The Italian chose to be too clumsy to step over the prone defender.
Indeed, that's exactly what i mean by : "one cannot just apply the rules but one always has to look at the context of a certain situation". The Italian player was not tripped. No penalty should have been called.

marlon
 
  • #61
shmoe
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,992
1
Anttech said:
He wasnt time wasting so much, anyway, if he was add more time at the end.

They can always add more time at the end, so why bother with a "time wasting" rule at all? The line has to be drawn somewhere. This was the bad kind of time wasting in my opinion as well, he wasn't being slow on taking a free kick, but kept the ball from the opposing team so they could not get going. This also falls under unsportsmanlike in my book. (So was the Dutch guy's earlier play that sparked Deco's first yellow, but alas you can't give a card for violating the unwritten rule of returning the ball after an injury)

Anttech said:
The rules state you can be booked for time wasting, correct, but a ref has to be able to look at every situation with its own merit. IMO this time that did not desevere a red card (Second yellow)

If he didn't have the first yellow, would you think the time wasting one was still unjustified?

Anttech said:
Exactly, if you are on the floor in the box, you can expect this... He played for the foul, and understandabley so, got it.

This is exactly what many people, myself included, think is garbage (irregardless of the correctness of the call). Playing for a penalty is against every fibre of sportsmanship I have.

How celebrated would it have been if he continued on to put the ball in the net after deftly leaping over the defender? Those are the moments I watch world cup games for, not people falling over and playing for penalties.

I have a vivid image of the 2002 italy vs korea game. The italian player, Totti iirc, was charging towards the net. A korean defender grabbed onto his shirt, and gave that nike jersey a great stretch. Rather than just fall down, he used his strength to power on. That's what I like to see.
 
  • #62
223
0
They can always add more time at the end, so why bother with a "time wasting" rule at all?
Yeap good point, untill it become rediculas. A foul should be given not a card, and not a second yellow.

I am not condoning this type of play, but I am relistic enough to know that in the 90'th min in a 0-0 draw and someone is STUPID enough to roll allong the floor inside the box with a striker 2 meters away, that person is about to give a penalty away.

How celebrated would it have been if he continued on to put the ball in the net after deftly leaping over the defender?
How stupid would he have looked if he missed...

Its part of the game, get over it or choose another sport to watch, really! I know that is hard, but footballers have been for a long time, 'playing for the foul' Its now an massive part of the game.
 
  • #63
NateTG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,450
6
Anttech said:
To send somebody off the pitch for holding on to the ball for 2 secs is 'over the top.' He wasnt time wasting so much, anyway, if he was add more time at the end.

When people are running downfield, 2 seconds corresponds to 20 meters. That's plenty of time for players that were out of position to get back in. A defending player holding the ball after a defensive foul is not just time wasting, it's also unsportsmanlike.

It's really really simple: Deco held the ball deliberatly, and should have been well-aware of the consequences of his cynical behavior. Of all of the calls in the game, Deco's second yellow card has to be one of the least controversial descisions the referee made during the game.
 
  • #64
223
0
NateTG said:
When people are running downfield, 2 seconds corresponds to 20 meters. That's plenty of time for players that were out of position to get back in. A defending player holding the ball after a defensive foul is not just time wasting, it's also unsportsmanlike.

It's really really simple: Deco held the ball deliberatly, and should have been well-aware of the consequences of his cynical behavior. Of all of the calls in the game, Deco's second yellow card has to be one of the least controversial descisions the referee made during the game.

I aggree with the TECHNICAL aspect, but I dont aggree with the severity. I have seen teams kick the ball in the opposite direction (Much more annoying and more cynical) and not get anything. If he WASNT on a yellow already, yeh Book him, but because he was already on a yellow card, I thought it was a harsh desion, really harsh. It was litteraly 2 secs, and you could see the steam coming out of the refs ears. He totally lost control of the game, under normal circumstances I doubt he would have been sent off.

This is my oppinion of the matter. Not the refs and it seems not yours :)
 
  • #65
214
0
shmoe said:
This is exactly what many people, myself included, think is garbage (irregardless of the correctness of the call). Playing for a penalty is against every fibre of sportsmanship I have.

How celebrated would it have been if he continued on to put the ball in the net after deftly leaping over the defender? Those are the moments I watch world cup games for, not people falling over and playing for penalties.

I have a vivid image of the 2002 italy vs korea game. The italian player, Totti iirc, was charging towards the net. A korean defender grabbed onto his shirt, and gave that nike jersey a great stretch. Rather than just fall down, he used his strength to power on. That's what I like to see.
Quoted for truth.

Anttech said:
Its part of the game, get over it or choose another sport to watch, really! I know that is hard, but footballers have been for a long time, 'playing for the foul' Its now an massive part of the game.
Yes, because the technology did not exist back then to instantly rewatch a play from several different angles to determine what actually happened. Baseball, Basketball [American] Football have all adapted to this, so why can't soccer? What does it say when a sport cares more about preserving some ridiculous tradition than actually getting the calls right?
 
  • #66
shmoe
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,992
1
Anttech said:
If he WASNT on a yellow already, yeh Book him, but because he was already on a yellow card, I thought it was a harsh desion, really harsh.

I don't think this should be a factor at all. Why let a player get away with a cautionable offence because you've already cautioned him for something else?

Anttech said:
How stupid would he have looked if he missed...

I have way more respect for someone that doesn't give up no matter what crap is thrown at them and lets the ref call fouls as they actually happen without embelleshment. The totti play I mentioned from '02 didn't lead to a goal, but it was an excellent display of strength. I would rather have that shape my view of Italian football than inexcplicable losses of balance.

Anttech said:
Its part of the game, get over it or choose another sport to watch, really! I know that is hard, but footballers have been for a long time, 'playing for the foul' Its now an massive part of the game.

I much prefer playing over watching to be honest. I just think it's a shame that such cheap displays can overshadow pthe arts of the game that are totally brilliant. Lose this nonsense and I guarantee popularity will grow dramatically in north america (and I'd wager popularity in Australia will take a hit from this).
 
  • #67
223
0
LeBrad said:
Quoted for truth.


Yes, because the technology did not exist back then to instantly rewatch a play from several different angles to determine what actually happened. Baseball, Basketball [American] Football have all adapted to this, so why can't soccer? What does it say when a sport cares more about preserving some ridiculous tradition than actually getting the calls right?

Exactly. Thats football, you dont get it do you? I aggree some stuff (Off side) should be done with the help of technology. But thats about it...


Its the beautiful game, and I love it.. (and so does most of the world)
 
  • #68
223
0
Really, drawing a foul is an art in its self. If you play to a good standard you would know what I mean. If you are stuck with the ball in the corner or you have nowhere to go, and you know your opposite man will lunge in. Play for it, get a foul and a free kick.

Its totally part of the game, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Play acting is another thing all together... Something which is taken to far, and diving should be carded...
 
  • #69
shmoe
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,992
1
LeBrad said:
Yes, because the technology did not exist back then to instantly rewatch a play from several different angles to determine what actually happened. Baseball, Basketball [American] Football have all adapted to this, so why can't soccer? What does it say when a sport cares more about preserving some ridiculous tradition than actually getting the calls right?

I'm not sure about replays. Soccer's not big on delays, no tv time outs for example. The flow of the game is generally a nice contrast to the start and stop of basketball, hockey, american football and the general standing around in baseball. Offsides are very tough to call though but much more obvious on replays, they would greatly benefit.

I wouldn't be opposed to handing out more fines (meaningfull ones) or penalties out after matches for diving seen on replays, and removing cards that were issued for non-fouls. This does happen sometimes for the very obvious (Rivaldo in '02) but it could be expanded. Of course the mistaken calls will still influence the game at hand, but I think this would be a compromise in the right direction.
 
  • #70
223
0
Soccer's not big on delays, no tv time outs for example.

Yeap the game doesnt revolve round the adverts, the adverts revolve round the game
 
  • #71
Anttech said:
Really, drawing a foul is an art in its self. If you play to a good standard you would know what I mean. If you are stuck with the ball in the corner or you have nowhere to go, and you know your opposite man will lunge in. Play for it, get a foul and a free kick.

Its totally part of the game, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Play acting is another thing all together... Something which is taken to far, and diving should be carded...

There is an art to cheating(albeit a dubious and underhand one) But you cannot convince me that cheating is art, playing for a foul happens, I just don't want to see it becoming commonplace, so common place that the referee has to spend wasted time trying to work out if the player is just faking a coronary heart attack(from acute agony) brought on by a light breeze from a players leg or is in fact injured. It's play like this that takes the excitement out of the game, and worse if a player is red carded for such a display of overacting, the game can be totally ruined. Men stand on their feet, it's only worms who lie on the ground.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
shmoe
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,992
1
Anttech said:
Really, drawing a foul is an art in its self.

If your play gives your opponent only one choice to stop you, a foul, then well done. Let the ref call it though. If you have to embellish in order to get the call, then you could probably have kept on going.

Anttech said:
Play acting is another thing all together... Something which is taken to far, and diving should be carded...

Absolutely.
 
  • #73
223
0
There is an art to cheating but you cannot convince me that cheating is art
Playing for a foul isnt the same as cheating.. But u are coming round to my way of thinking, at least someone understand what I am saying albeit doesnt aggree.

Playing for a foul doesnt mean the person has to DIVE like you put so well "faking a coronary heart attack(from acute agony) brought on by a light breeze from a players leg or is in fact injured" but if for example in the Italian game, the defender so happens to be lying at your feet, you are going to play for that foul.. and consequently win the game.

Diving and playing for fouls are not one and the same. Diving is cheating playing for a foul is an art...
 
  • #74
3,768
10
Schrodinger's Dog said:
There is an art to cheating(albeit a dubious and underhand one) But you cannot convince me that cheating is art, playing for a foul happens, I just don't want to see it becoming commonplace, so common place that the referee has to spend wasted time trying to work out if the player is just faking a coronary heart attack(from acute agony) brought on by a light breeze from a players leg or is in fact injured. It's play like this that takes the excitement out of the game, and worse if a player is red carded for such a display of overacting, the game can be totally ruined. Men stand on their feet, it's only worms who lie on the ground.
:approve: :approve: :approve:

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. trust me most soccer fans will tell you that playing for the faul is just lame and deserves no respect. It is no surprise that just the Italians are specialized in this (Divina Commedia no?). Anyhow, in this particluar case NO PK should have been given. This was not a situation of playing for the faul but bad and INCORRECT refereeing. Trust me, most soccerfans feel the same way about this specific situation. Don't take into account the opinion of one guy too much because it contradictis with general believes and actual refereeing rules.

Italy did not just "play for the faul :rofl: :rofl: here" :rofl: geezasss

marlon
 
  • #75
223
0
marlon said:
Don't take into account the opinion of one guy too much because it contradictis with general believes and actual refereeing rules

Aggreed! :zzz:

GO ITALY!!!!
 

Related Threads on Portugal vs Netherlands

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top