Uruguay [R]
in [World Football]
|
From: MH on 2 Jul 2010 20:08 Bob wrote: > MH wrote: >> d0asta wrote: >>> On 3 Juli, 00:12, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >>>> d0asta wrote: >>>>> On 2 Juli, 23:30, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!.com> wrote: >>>>>> [Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.ri...(a)gmail.com>] >>>>>> [Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:27:40 +0100] >>>>>>> This night they did what they had to do, WC are won any way you >>>>>>> can really, and as already stated, this wasn't cheating, Ghana >>>>>>> got the chance to right it, and squandered it ... >>>>>> I'm sorry, Alessandro, but to say that's not cheating is just >>>>>> plain stupid. Of *COURSE* it is bloody cheating! The fact that >>>>>> the rules don't adequately punish it doesn't make it any less >>>>>> dishonourable. >>>>> Eh, the fact that the event was punished according to the rules, >>>>> means it of *COURSE* wasn't cheating. >>>> It was cheating. That is why it was punished to the full extent of >>>> the law by the referee. >>> Is every player who commits a fouls a cheater? >> Yes. By definition, breaking the rules is cheating. > > Really? I'd say it's cheating only if the foul is purposeful, otherwise it > could be incidental. If it is accidental, then in some cases (hand balls for sure) it should not be a foul. If it is incidental in the sense that the player had no intention of committing a foul, but he caused another player to trip, or whatever, doesn't it mostly come under the rubrics of careless play, excessive force etc in the laws of the game? A mistimed tackle is cheating because it is reckless. > >
From: Jim Goloboy on 2 Jul 2010 20:30 On Jul 2, 6:31 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > MH wrote: > > Bob wrote: > >> d0asta wrote: > >>> On 2 Juli, 23:30, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!.com> wrote: > >>>> [Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.ri...(a)gmail.com>] > >>>> [Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:27:40 +0100] > > >>>>> This night they did what they had to do, WC are won any way you > >>>>> can really, and as already stated, this wasn't cheating, Ghana > >>>>> got the chance to right it, and squandered it ... > >>>> I'm sorry, Alessandro, but to say that's not cheating is just plain > >>>> stupid. Of *COURSE* it is bloody cheating! The fact that the rules > >>>> don't adequately punish it doesn't make it any less dishonourable. > >>> Eh, the fact that the event was punished according to the rules, > >>> means it of *COURSE* wasn't cheating. > > >> No, it just means that with the current rules, cheating occasionally > >> pays. > > > Occasionally? Do you really think a team that stayed entirely within > > the rules 100 % of the time would have a prayer of winning (at > > football or many other sports). For that to work, referees would > > have to be more astute than is humanly possible, and would have to > > call everything. Even then, our angelic team would have to be > > technically far better than their opponents to get away with it. > > I agree, but more often than not the penalty for cheating should be > sufficient to dissuade cheaters (if the rules are enforced) but in this is > one case cheating is always worse the risk of getting caught because the > aggrieved team trades a sure goal for a pk. Is there any penalty that would deter a player from handling the ball in this situation? From Uruguay's standpoint, nothing could be worse than allowing the ball to go into the net. Even if the penalty a goal line handball was an awarded goal, it still would have been the correct play due to the chance of the referee not making the call.
From: El Kot on 2 Jul 2010 20:44 Jim Goloboy wrote: > On Jul 2, 6:31 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> MH wrote: >>> Bob wrote: >>>> d0asta wrote: >>>>> On 2 Juli, 23:30, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!.com> wrote: >>>>>> [Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.ri...(a)gmail.com>] >>>>>> [Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:27:40 +0100] >>>>>>> This night they did what they had to do, WC are won any way you >>>>>>> can really, and as already stated, this wasn't cheating, Ghana >>>>>>> got the chance to right it, and squandered it ... >>>>>> I'm sorry, Alessandro, but to say that's not cheating is just plain >>>>>> stupid. Of *COURSE* it is bloody cheating! The fact that the rules >>>>>> don't adequately punish it doesn't make it any less dishonourable. >>>>> Eh, the fact that the event was punished according to the rules, >>>>> means it of *COURSE* wasn't cheating. >>>> No, it just means that with the current rules, cheating occasionally >>>> pays. >>> Occasionally? Do you really think a team that stayed entirely within >>> the rules 100 % of the time would have a prayer of winning (at >>> football or many other sports). For that to work, referees would >>> have to be more astute than is humanly possible, and would have to >>> call everything. Even then, our angelic team would have to be >>> technically far better than their opponents to get away with it. >> I agree, but more often than not the penalty for cheating should be >> sufficient to dissuade cheaters (if the rules are enforced) but in this is >> one case cheating is always worse the risk of getting caught because the >> aggrieved team trades a sure goal for a pk. > > Is there any penalty that would deter a player from handling the ball > in this situation? From Uruguay's standpoint, nothing could be worse > than allowing the ball to go into the net. Even if the penalty a goal > line handball was an awarded goal, it still would have been the > correct play due to the chance of the referee not making the call. What would deter a player handling the ball in situations like this would be if the game was played according to my stoppage time management proposal. Knowing that one has 5 (and eventually more) minutes to turn the game around, they would be less prone to risk such handballs. In addition, if my rules were in effect, we wouldn't have had the incident at all, because the game would have already gone to penalties at the end of regular extra time (adding stoppage time in cases like that explicitly forbidden). -- No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: Chagney Hunt on 2 Jul 2010 20:51 On Jul 2, 8:30 pm, Jim Goloboy <jim.golo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 6:31 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > > > > > MH wrote: > > > Bob wrote: > > >> d0asta wrote: > > >>> On 2 Juli, 23:30, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!.com> wrote: > > >>>> [Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.ri...(a)gmail.com>] > > >>>> [Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:27:40 +0100] > > > >>>>> This night they did what they had to do, WC are won any way you > > >>>>> can really, and as already stated, this wasn't cheating, Ghana > > >>>>> got the chance to right it, and squandered it ... > > >>>> I'm sorry, Alessandro, but to say that's not cheating is just plain > > >>>> stupid. Of *COURSE* it is bloody cheating! The fact that the rules > > >>>> don't adequately punish it doesn't make it any less dishonourable. > > >>> Eh, the fact that the event was punished according to the rules, > > >>> means it of *COURSE* wasn't cheating. > > > >> No, it just means that with the current rules, cheating occasionally > > >> pays. > > > > Occasionally? Do you really think a team that stayed entirely within > > > the rules 100 % of the time would have a prayer of winning (at > > > football or many other sports). For that to work, referees would > > > have to be more astute than is humanly possible, and would have to > > > call everything. Even then, our angelic team would have to be > > > technically far better than their opponents to get away with it. > > > I agree, but more often than not the penalty for cheating should be > > sufficient to dissuade cheaters (if the rules are enforced) but in this is > > one case cheating is always worse the risk of getting caught because the > > aggrieved team trades a sure goal for a pk. > > Is there any penalty that would deter a player from handling the ball > in this situation? Sharia law? :-)
From: Futbolmetrix on 2 Jul 2010 22:42
On Jul 2, 5:55 pm, "Alessandro Riolo" <alessandro.ri...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There is plenty of more dishonourable than that, I actually think it was > eroic, if not legendary, the guy sacrified himself to save his team and > ultimately played a big part on taking that to their 1st semifinal in 40 > years, they will truly put up statues of him overlooking the Rio de la Plata I agree 100% |