Prev: The WC draw is a joke. Neither of JPN or PAR deserve to be in QF, but GER-ENG or ESP-POR must eliminate each other!
Next: World Cup games single thread - [R] after round of 16
From: Karamako on 30 Jun 2010 07:34
Paul C a �crit :

> Erm yes, hence the need for goal line technology.

Or another referee behind the penalty area...


From: d0asta on 30 Jun 2010 07:48
On 30 Juni, 12:47, "mungbean" <m...(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> What I would love to see is a video capturuing and ruling these bloody
> poofter dives and fake injuries - that has brought the game down - IMHO.

I can see it.

Player A makes contact with Player B. Player B acts like he has been
shot, and Player A gets his second yellow and is sent off the pitch.

On video re-play after the game, Player B was found guilty of diving,
and is suspended for one game.

So, Team A got knocked out of the tournament (partly due) to a call
that everyone including FIFA says was wrong.

Just like ENG - ARG /Beckham - Simone
From: Abubakr on 30 Jun 2010 07:58
On Jun 30, 6:49 pm, anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Quoting Huw Morris in rec.sport.soccer:
>
> >tuan wrote:
>
> >> Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next
> >> "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the
> >> Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still give
> >> Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German
> >> counterattack even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be.
>
> This is what icehockey does already. After the first whistle they check if
> was a goal, and then time is rewound to that point, and anything that
> happened afterwards... has not happened.

"and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" what like
a bone-crunching tackle from Terry to stop a certain goal from Klose
on the counter?
From: higgs on 30 Jun 2010 08:10
On Jun 30, 9:58 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 6:49 pm, anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Huw Morris in rec.sport.soccer:
>
> > >tuan wrote:
>
> > >> Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next
> > >> "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the
> > >> Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still give
> > >> Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German
> > >> counterattack even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be..
>
> > This is what icehockey does already. After the first whistle they check if
> > was a goal, and then time is rewound to that point, and anything that
> > happened afterwards... has not happened.
>
> "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" what like
> a bone-crunching tackle from Terry to stop a certain goal from Klose
> on the counter?

What you don't appear to realise is that that is not what happened.

What happened is that England were denied a quite perfectly valid
goal, as were Mexico awarded one against them.

You're worried that one of the teams that profited from these errors
might themselves have been disadvantaged?

If you're happy to accept disadvantage to a team, I don't see what
your problem is?

Further, I've seen you complain here in some instances about diving in
the area and winning flakey penalties.

Having a goal-line official might go some way to arresting that trend.

From: Clément on 30 Jun 2010 08:49
"Abubakr" escreveu:
>On Jun 30, 6:49 pm, anders t wrote:
>> Quoting Huw Morris in rec.sport.soccer:
>>
>>>tuan wrote:
>>
>>>> Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next
>>>> "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the
>>>> Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still
>>>> give
>>>> Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German
>>>> counterattack even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be.
>>
>> This is what icehockey does already. After the first whistle they check
>> if
>> was a goal, and then time is rewound to that point, and anything that
>> happened afterwards... has not happened.

> "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" what like
> a bone-crunching tackle from Terry to stop a certain goal from Klose
> on the counter?

I'm too busy to check the ice hockey rules right not, but from the top of my
mind the "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened"
situation does not apply to (disciplinary) penalties.

In the hypothetical situation you describe, Germany would not be warranted a
free kick (as they would have to resume the match from center field after
the goal), but Terry should get a card from the bone-crunching tackle -
which is only showed after the first whistle anyway, when the match is
already stopped.

Compare that with a cardable foul commited when the ball is out of play. The
referre cannot call the foul per se, but he still must punish the offending
with a card. It's basically the same thing, except that in the rewind
situation some action is considered to be "out of play" retroactively.


Abra�o,

Luiz Mello

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: The WC draw is a joke. Neither of JPN or PAR deserve to be in QF, but GER-ENG or ESP-POR must eliminate each other!
Next: World Cup games single thread - [R] after round of 16