World Cup 2006 Thread

[JJ]

Humphrey :

Batman : Considering that most of these players are my age (34)...


Oh and a little one I found :

You are shameless. You applaud Humphrey for justifying an utter dive, and then you make fun of other teams for doing the same thing.

The World Cup is the chalice of hypocrites.

[Mr.StayPuft]

Humphrey :

Batman : Considering that most of these players are my age (34)...


Oh and a little one I found :

You are shameless. You applaud Humphrey for justifying an utter dive, and then you make fun of other teams for doing the same thing.

The World Cup is the chalice of hypocrites.

[Toto le Héros]

You are a slow reader, or a slow "understander"...

There was a blatant foul on Henry. It's not U.S. Football, there can be a foul without including a broken bone.

The trouble is that it's the second time we win against Portugal on a penalty.
Once again, the whole world saw the hand of Xavier (the poor bastard was shown, looking at the game from the stands, on TV when yesterday penalty was given) except for the portuguese...


I can't believe you're serious about not seeing that foul.

I'm sure you're having fun, playing with my fanattitude.

[JJ]

You are a slow reader, or a slow "understander"...

There was a blatant foul on Henry. It's not U.S. Football, there can be a foul without including a broken bone.

The trouble is that it's the second time we win against Portugal on a penalty.
Once again, the whole world saw the hand of Xavier (the poor bastard was shown, looking at the game from the stands, on TV when yesterday penalty was given) except for the portuguese...


I can't believe you're serious about not seeing that foul.

I'm sure you're having fun, playing with my fanattitude.

The guy kicked him; I'll acknowledge that. I'm not for giving free goals to a guy who doesn't even try to play on but instead goes for the knee grab. [Have you ever watched hockey? A guy who gets tripped/mugged/hauled down still does his best to make a play. This is how sport should be.]

And the other defender was (at least arguably) going to get to the ball before Henry could shoot. So we've turned a 50-50 chance at a random shot at the keeper into the decisive goal.

Well done, soccer. Of course this game is obvious to Americans: you had two incidents out there (one on each side) -- one was called and the other wasn't. This decided the semifinal match. You may as well be flipping coins (you can still have your players dive in the background for effect).

I'd root for Italy in the final (they qualified from the toughest region and played well against Germany), but they won an elmination game from a random bad call as well. (Does the luck factor have to be so everpresent?)

Perhaps I'm expecting too much of this tournament to be decided on skill, and I should just acknowledge that the team who wins the cup has as much claim to being the best soccer squad in the world as the guy who wins the WSOP has to being the best poker player. Yes, you need talent, but you also need some absurd breaks.

[Mr.StayPuft]

Perhaps I'm expecting too much of this tournament to be decided on skill, and I should just acknowledge that the team who wins the cup has as much claim to being the best soccer squad in the world as the guy who wins the WSOP has to being the best poker player. Yes, you need talent, but you also need some absurd breaks.

Precisely. While in my recent soccer-watchings I have found that I am not as bored by the game itself as I used to be, but I simply can't understand why soccer players want to undermine their own game with such bullshit. What you mentioned about not trying to finish the play when fouled is a problem I've been having for some time, that soccer prides itself on being a passionate sport, indeed the most passionate of sports, while the players involved do all they can to discourage passionate play (at least on the World Cup stage, I can't speak for league play). Did a bloody nose ever stop anyone from finishing a play in a backyard game? If you needed to exaggerate then there wasn't really a foul, or at least not one of any kind of significance. Just play the game.

[Toto le Héros]

Perhaps I'm expecting too much of this tournament to be decided on skill, and I should just acknowledge that the team who wins the cup has as much claim to being the best soccer squad in the world as the guy who wins the WSOP has to being the best poker player. Yes, you need talent, but you also need some absurd breaks.

Precisely. While in my recent soccer-watchings I have found that I am not as bored by the game itself as I used to be, but I simply can't understand why soccer players want to undermine their own game with such bullshit. What you mentioned about not trying to finish the play when fouled is a problem I've been having for some time, that soccer prides itself on being a passionate sport, indeed the most passionate of sports, while the players involved do all they can to discourage passionate play (at least on the World Cup stage, I can't speak for league play). Did a bloody nose ever stop anyone from finishing a play in a backyard game? If you needed to exaggerate then there wasn't really a foul, or at least not one of any kind of significance. Just play the game.

You're right a bloody nose should not come in the way.
Remind me the rule about blood at basketball ?

If a player doesn't draw attention to the foul, even a non bloody one, he might really get hurt the next time. I suppose you were already watching one of your modern gladiators "game", but at the end of the game there was 2 yellow cards that should have been red.
I don't like to see matches like Portugal-Netherlands. That's not what football is about.
You're allowed to call it a sissy game because a player does not try to play after having his ankle twisted.


And once again :

You had two incidents out there (one on each side) -- one was called and the other wasn't.

Every single portuguese player "falling" in that area was not kicked, they just dived.
Prove me wrong.
I did send you the wonderful Ronaldo move.

The guy kicked him; I'll acknowledge that.

Hence the penalty.

I'm not for giving free goals to a guy who doesn't even try to play on but instead goes for the knee grab. [Have you ever watched hockey? A guy who gets tripped/mugged/hauled down still does his best to make a play. This is how sport should be.]

Again, a penalty kick can be stopped. It's far from a free goal.
Oh and you should play Doom or something. You obviously need some kind of discharge system, to get rid of your anger, your frustrations.

And the other defender was (at least arguably) going to get to the ball before Henry could shoot. So we've turned a 50-50 chance at a random shot at the keeper into the decisive goal.

Most irrelevant remark of all. How could you know, the action was stopped by a f.o.u.l.
Did you ever see Henry run at full speed once ? He's a rocket.

I'd root for Italy in the final (they qualified from the toughest region and played well against Germany), but they won an elmination game from a random bad call as well. (Does the luck factor have to be so everpresent?)

You're so right. On paper Brazil, Spain and Portugal are the weakest teams...

I'm expecting too much of this tournament to be decided on skill, and I should just acknowledge that the team who wins the cup has as much claim to being the best soccer squad in the world as the guy who wins the WSOP has to being the best poker player. Yes, you need talent, but you also need some absurd breaks.

You're expecting it to make you like the game. You're right : Too much.

I'm not to say that poker is pure luck. but if you don't have loads of it, you will not win a WSOP/WPT. ever.
I agree that the 1998 World Cup matches "looked" easy, but that's a draw. And if you have the nerve to argue that had to play great teams this year, you're hopeless.

[JJ]

I don't understand your last sentence, which makes the whole thing hopeless.

Whether someone could have gotten to the ball is extremely relevant. You're talking about giving a F.R.E.E. G.O.A.L. (in a game where 1-0 is a likely outcome) to a guy who might not have even gotten a shot off.

If he's unimpeded to the goal, and a guy trips him, that's one thing. That wasn't the case.

You're undoubtedly right that that's the rule (if you get lamely kicked and appropriately dive, then you get a free goal). I'm saying that the rules suck. Hence, the game sucks. Change the rules so that there are actually proportionate outcomes from respective penalties, and I might have some appreciation for the sport. Until then, it's just sweaty guys with bad hairdos trying to win the favor of some thankyoudrivethrough microphone wearing jackass who carries a book around. 90 minutes of hard work decided by one flop. Beautiful game, indeed.

[Hiller]

http://www.informationbuilders.co.uk/ontheball/wcuk.htm

Tracks the number of dives, red & yellow cards, arguements with refs, etc. Not sure how biased the opinions are of those keeping track. Italy leads in dives, France in tantrums and they are tied in the lead with Ref Bullying. I think that favors Italy.

[JJ]

http://www.informationbuilders.co.uk/ontheball/wcuk.htm

Tracks the number of dives, red & yellow cards, arguements with refs, etc. Not sure how biased the opinions are of those keeping track. Italy leads in dives, France in tantrums and they are tied in the lead with Ref Bullying. I think that favors Italy.

No fake injuries. U-S-A! U-S-A!

[Toasty]

You had two incidents out there (one on each side) -- one was called and the other wasn't.

Every single portuguese player "falling" in that area was not kicked, they just dived.
Prove me wrong.

two legs of the defender wrapped around those of the striker, with the ball clearly ahead of both.... not a foul??

[Mr.StayPuft]

That was probably a bad example. I wasn't referring to any "blood-rule" in sports, but rather just that a bloody nose is the more common injury from something like an elbow in that case (exaggerated elbowing being the most common dive I've seen this World Cup). I don't know the basketball blood rule, but for hockey it typically determines whether it is a minor or major penalty particularly with the high stick. There are plenty of ways to protect players through proportionate rules and competent officiating which doesn't necessitate them flopping all over the field. But I don't think you can really say that this is the reason players dive, as many are just trying to get the cheap penalty (I never saw a single penalty called on the most obvious divers either). Alot of it seems to be a really bad case of caring about the trophy more than the game.

[JJ]

That was probably a bad example. I wasn't referring to any "blood-rule" in sports, but rather just that a bloody nose is the more common injury from something like an elbow in that case (exaggerated elbowing being the most common dive I've seen this World Cup). I don't know the basketball blood rule, but for hockey it typically determines whether it is a minor or major penalty particularly with the high stick. There are plenty of ways to protect players through proportionate rules and competent officiating which doesn't necessitate them flopping all over the field. But I don't think you can really say that this is the reason players dive, as many are just trying to get the cheap penalty (I never saw a single penalty called on the most obvious divers either). Alot of it seems to be a really bad case of caring about the trophy more than the game.

If they didn't award a FREE GOAL for a ticky tack penalty in the box, maybe players might toughen up a bit and realize that getting a small kick to their shoe really didn't stop them from making a play on a ball 10 feet in front of them.

You give outrageous rewards for doing very little and then get indignant about people trying to cheat the system. What???!? Not just New Orleans residents took the free Katrina money?!?!??!

I'm being a bit unfair here. I should say "3 metres" instead of "10 feet".

[JJ]

[Mr.StayPuft]

That was probably a bad example. I wasn't referring to any "blood-rule" in sports, but rather just that a bloody nose is the more common injury from something like an elbow in that case (exaggerated elbowing being the most common dive I've seen this World Cup). I don't know the basketball blood rule, but for hockey it typically determines whether it is a minor or major penalty particularly with the high stick. There are plenty of ways to protect players through proportionate rules and competent officiating which doesn't necessitate them flopping all over the field. But I don't think you can really say that this is the reason players dive, as many are just trying to get the cheap penalty (I never saw a single penalty called on the most obvious divers either). Alot of it seems to be a really bad case of caring about the trophy more than the game.

If they didn't award a FREE GOAL for a ticky tack penalty in the box, maybe players might toughen up a bit and realize that getting a small kick to their shoe really didn't stop them from making a play on a ball 10 feet in front of them.

You give outrageous rewards for doing very little and then get indignant about people trying to cheat the system. What???!? Not just New Orleans residents took the free Katrina money?!?!??!

I'm being a bit unfair here. I should say "3 metres" instead of "10 feet".

The Cup of Gyges

[JJ]

[Toto le Héros]

A PENALTY KICK IS NOT A FREE GOAL !!!

Ask David Beckham about that. Ask Platini, Zico,...


You still compare Soccer and Hockey, but come on : We're not going to put helmets on soccer players !

And as for the seriousness of the foul : Having your own shirt pulled while you're in the the goal area gives you a free kick. A direct or an indirect one.

Oh and you can't say for sure what the player was about to do : Maybe he would have passed the ball to another who would have scored. It's not like poker when you ask to see the River when you've already folded.

[Punisher]

And in other World Cup news, most South Africans are looking forward to the 2010 finals being hosted here, some civic-minded individuals even going so far as to pave the way for tourists four years early:

10 TIPS FOR TOURISTS

- Leave your grandmother at home as she will be killed with a hammer.
- Leave your kids at home as they get raped.
- Keep away from rail transport as you will be thrown from a moving train.
- Keep away from combi-taxis as taxi operators shoot at each other.
- Don't travel in a vehicle passing any bridges as you will get a brick through the windscreen.
- Keep a distance from protest marchers as your vehicle windows will be smashed.
- If you are lucky to be alive, only your vehicle will be hijacked.
- Don't overstay on farms as you could be seen as a farmer and get murdered.
- Leave your mobile phone at home as you could be killed for it.
- Be fit as at shopping centres you will have to duck-and-dive to escape the police/robber bullets.

After reading that I'm astounded that I've lived to the ripe old age of 29 without being murdered, mugged, hijacked or raped. A statistical anomaly, that's what I am. Nkosi sikelel' iAfrica.

[Toto le Héros]

It's about time Africa gets the Cup.




JJ : Another question. Do you like Baseball ? Who decides if the ball is in the zone ? Who calls the safe or out decision ? Machines ? Robots ?
The whole game is in the hands of referees.


Oh and another bit of youtube evidence : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QSHB-AQZ1E

[Ze]

If they didn't award a FREE GOAL for a ticky tack penalty in the box, maybe players might toughen up a bit and realize that getting a small kick to their shoe really didn't stop them from making a play on a ball 10 feet in front of them.

Carvalho's tackle slowed Henry down and probably would have cost him a clear chance on goal. Foul in the box. Penalty kick. Why are we still discussing this?

[kinggrl]

If they didn't award a FREE GOAL for a ticky tack penalty in the box, maybe players might toughen up a bit and realize that getting a small kick to their shoe really didn't stop them from making a play on a ball 10 feet in front of them.

Carvalho's tackle slowed Henry down and probably would have cost him a clear chance on goal. Foul in the box. Penalty kick. Why are we still discussing this?

Because JJ clearly doesn't understand the rules. Also, it's painful for him to have others discuss a sport where he has no input or insight. Therefore, he creates drama.

Portugal lost. Actually, Portugal deserved to lose 2 rounds ago.

[Toasty]

And in other World Cup news, most South Africans are looking forward to the 2010 finals being hosted here, some civic-minded individuals even going so far as to pave the way for tourists four years early:

10 TIPS FOR TOURISTS

- Leave your grandmother at home as she will be killed with a hammer.
- Leave your kids at home as they get raped.
- Keep away from rail transport as you will be thrown from a moving train.
- Keep away from combi-taxis as taxi operators shoot at each other.
- Don't travel in a vehicle passing any bridges as you will get a brick through the windscreen.
- Keep a distance from protest marchers as your vehicle windows will be smashed.
- If you are lucky to be alive, only your vehicle will be hijacked.
- Don't overstay on farms as you could be seen as a farmer and get murdered.
- Leave your mobile phone at home as you could be killed for it.
- Be fit as at shopping centres you will have to duck-and-dive to escape the police/robber bullets.

After reading that I'm astounded that I've lived to the ripe old age of 29 without being murdered, mugged, hijacked or raped. A statistical anomaly, that's what I am. Nkosi sikelel' iAfrica.

Have you heard about the Rugby riots (and in game death) igoing on perennially in the Western Cape?
It's scary headlines every weekend. Yet Boland Rugby Union knows not waht to do... (shut down completely for at least one year).

[JJ]

If they didn't award a FREE GOAL for a ticky tack penalty in the box, maybe players might toughen up a bit and realize that getting a small kick to their shoe really didn't stop them from making a play on a ball 10 feet in front of them.

Carvalho's tackle slowed Henry down and probably would have cost him a clear chance on goal. Foul in the box. Penalty kick. Why are we still discussing this?

Because JJ clearly doesn't understand the rules. Also, it's painful for him to have others discuss a sport where he has no input or insight. Therefore, he creates drama.

Portugal lost. Actually, Portugal deserved to lose 2 rounds ago.

Soccer's full of teams who win who should have lost years ago. Mostly because many of the games are decided by whim and free goals rather than talent.

JJ understands the rules just fine. What is amazing is how far you supposedly educated futbolphiles will go to defend the system which is demonstrably and obviously unjust and unfair.

And you do rip on other teams for diving even when it's the only reason your own team advances. Well done. You guys would make great politicians.

The comparison with baseball (as far as refereeing) is fine. Baseball has as many arbitrary calls as any sport -- every pitch is a judgment call by the umpire. Do you have any clue what percentage of games the umpiring is noticeable enough to decide the outcome? I'd say less than 1%. In this cup I'd put the estimate at about 25%.

In baseball, the ump can't award a hit batsmen a home run. In soccer, the ref can (and does, even if the guy wasn't hit). Vive la difference.

But I'm glad the World Cup gets such a stage. It's the time every four years when I'm reminded that Americans aren't so stupid after all.

And, please, I'm aching to know what special insight of the game everyone possesses. I've watched games with serious fans, never hearing any comment more intelligent than "good ball". Yes, I've played the flippin' thing. It's the easiest game in the world to understand (and yet, they've screwed it up so badly with poor rules poorly applied).

[JJ]

If they didn't award a FREE GOAL for a ticky tack penalty in the box, maybe players might toughen up a bit and realize that getting a small kick to their shoe really didn't stop them from making a play on a ball 10 feet in front of them.

Carvalho's tackle slowed Henry down and probably would have cost him a clear chance on goal. Foul in the box. Penalty kick. Why are we still discussing this?

Because none of you will admit that your rules are retarded.

Aladdin went to the market and probably stole a loaf of bread. No jury trial. Cut off his hand. Why are we still discussing this?

[Hiller]

If they didn't award a FREE GOAL for a ticky tack penalty in the box, maybe players might toughen up a bit and realize that getting a small kick to their shoe really didn't stop them from making a play on a ball 10 feet in front of them.

Carvalho's tackle slowed Henry down and probably would have cost him a clear chance on goal. Foul in the box. Penalty kick. Why are we still discussing this?

Because none of you will admit that your rules are retarded.

Aladdin went to the market and probably stole a loaf of bread. No jury trial. Cut off his hand. Why are we still discussing this?

That was a crap call. The loaf of bread dove!

[JJ]

Blatter worried World Cup could be lowest scoring ever

Associated Press

Berlin — FIFA President Sepp Blatter is worried that this year's World Cup might end up the lowest scoring ever, and he wants to figure out ways to "make football more attractive again."

The 2006 World Cup has seen 2.27 goals per contest so far, just a shade above the record low of 2.21 from 1990. This year's average would dip below that if no goals are scored in Saturday's Germany-Portugal third-place game and the France-Italy final Sunday.

"The football isn't that bad, but there aren't enough goals — and when there are too few goals, the public isn't very enthusiastic," Blatter told the German news agency DPA. "The essence of the game is goals."

Blatter wants to devise changes that will help attackers break through increasingly sophisticated defenses.

"We will set up a large symposium with the 32 World Cup coaches, the referees, the doctors and the technical study group of the World Cup," Blatter said. "We want to hear what they have to say about what we can do to make football more attractive again."

Ideas might include widening the goals and revamping offside rules. After the low-scoring 1990 World Cup, FIFA reacted by eliminating the pass back to the goalie.

Blatter ruled out one proposal of reducing teams to 10 men to counteract the growing speed and size of defenders. The Brazilian great Socrates has argued that would create space for playmakers such as France's Zinedine Zidane, Germany's Michael Ballack and Italy's Francesco Totti.

Blatter hopes instead that teams will adopt more attacking styles.

"If it's an open game, there is enough room for 11 players," Blatter said, "but with 11 defenders there is not enough space."

The symposium (which has doctors? WTF?) should include JJ, who (in spite of his lack of soccer upbringing) suggested all of those proposals (and others) many pages ago.

Only JJ can save this sport.

[Upon further reflection, the game with the most similar rule to soccer's "free goal" penalty kick is football, which awards the ball on the 1 yard line -- a free touchdown -- to any pass interference call in the end zone. This has definitely proved to be one of the most controversial and poorly applied rules. It has also led to a lot of Jerry Rice-ing, where the offensive player points at the defender and moans immediately after the play to try to draw a flag. However, it hasn't really led to diving -- the receiver still generally tries to catch the ball first.

I think the football rule could use some modification, but as a game-decisive call, it generally gets lost among other happenings in the higher scoring sport. It's a lot easier to bury a random decision in a 28-20 game rather than in a contest where it leads to the only tally in a 1-0 match.]