Uruguay [R]
in [World Football]
|
From: HASM on 3 Jul 2010 09:06 William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> writes: > Absolutely - this rule in soccer is an absolute disgrace. There are no rules in association football, there are laws. There is no law in association football that addresses this situation, so now law can be a disgrace. I think what you're trying to say is "the lack of a paragraph in law 10 that addresses this situation is a disgrace". > If a player illegally prevents the ball from going into the goal, then > the goal should stand. Period. A goal is scored when the whole of the ball fully passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar. If someone prevents it from doing so, legally or illegally, there is no goal and nothing to "stand". If you were to add this situation to law 10, you would have to add the words "clearly" and "in the opinion of the referee", and then you would have created yet another point of dispute for those situation where that would happen not on the goal line, like the endless arguments on LBW in cricket. And then why not ask for a goal to be scored in any DOGSO situation and just limit yourself for handling the ball on the goal line? Aren't all those other situations just as obvious? I would disagree, but that is just my opinion. -- HASM
From: KaiserD2 on 3 Jul 2010 09:49 I was originally rooting for Uruguay but am very sad that Ghana didn't go through. Yes, Suarez cheated, but for heaven's sake, they got the penalty and Gyan missed it, and then they blew it in the shootout. That wasn't Suarez's fault. This isn't like Maradona in 1986 or 1990 (when he got away with a key handball save against Russia.) It is said that Uruguay has little or no chance without Suarez and, possibly, Lugano, but I'm rooting all out for the Dutch now so I'll look on the bright side. On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 06:06:43 -0700, HASM <netnews(a)invalid.com> wrote: >William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> writes: > >> Absolutely - this rule in soccer is an absolute disgrace. > >There are no rules in association football, there are laws. There is no >law in association football that addresses this situation, so now law can >be a disgrace. I think what you're trying to say is "the lack of a >paragraph in law 10 that addresses this situation is a disgrace". > >> If a player illegally prevents the ball from going into the goal, then >> the goal should stand. Period. > >A goal is scored when the whole of the ball fully passes over the goal >line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar. If someone prevents >it from doing so, legally or illegally, there is no goal and nothing to >"stand". > >If you were to add this situation to law 10, you would have to add the >words "clearly" and "in the opinion of the referee", and then you would >have created yet another point of dispute for those situation where that >would happen not on the goal line, like the endless arguments on LBW in >cricket. > >And then why not ask for a goal to be scored in any DOGSO situation and >just limit yourself for handling the ball on the goal line? Aren't all >those other situations just as obvious? I would disagree, but that is just >my opinion. > >-- HASM
From: Bruce D. Scott on 3 Jul 2010 12:49 Alessandro Riolo (alessandro.riolo(a)gmail.com) wrote: : I'd probably still like to see the Dutch to finally win a WC (I love orange : BTW, that would give me the pefect excuse to put orange shirts at the office : without people thinking I am working for the nearby supermarket), but I'd : not complain if Uruguay win it all. I really want to see a Dutch-Germans Final now, but I do think Spain will have something to say about that. Even in the past Germany never looked any good against Spain. David Villa still has IMHO the killer instinct of the tournament. But they must get past Paraguay first (i.e., they need to beat that defense). I don't dislike Uruguay, but HOL-GER would be the great classic that either BRA-ARG or BRA-URU would have been. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: Bruce D. Scott on 3 Jul 2010 12:54 Bob (Bob(a)Bob.com) wrote: : d0asta wrote: : > On 2 Juli, 23:52, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> 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. : > : > Of course it's the current rules that we talk about, and yes breaking : > them occasionally pays. Such as a foul in the midfield. : > : > And neither is cheating. : It is cheating to break the rule on purpose, whether it is sanctioned or : not. It is fair enough to take that position as long as you allow others to disagree. But for consistency given your position you should be just as much up in arms over a shirt pull that is just enough to put a player who might score, offside. Or to stop a dangerous situation on a corner. Either way, there is no attempt to harm the other player. For me, the love tap on the ankles from behind is far worse. I _hate_ the English color men on ESPN always saying a yellow is too harsh because the guy simply missed the ball. The attempt is sanctionable and is taken with a calculated risk of harming the opponent. English don't seem to understand this, it is a problem in their league, and they don't understand why they have trouble internationally with it. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: William Clark on 3 Jul 2010 16:38
In article <m3fx003eak.fsf(a)127.0.0.1>, HASM <netnews(a)invalid.com> wrote: > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> writes: > > > Absolutely - this rule in soccer is an absolute disgrace. > > There are no rules in association football, there are laws. There is no > law in association football that addresses this situation, so now law can > be a disgrace. I think what you're trying to say is "the lack of a > paragraph in law 10 that addresses this situation is a disgrace". Whatever. > > > If a player illegally prevents the ball from going into the goal, then > > the goal should stand. Period. > > A goal is scored when the whole of the ball fully passes over the goal > line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar. If someone prevents > it from doing so, legally or illegally, there is no goal and nothing to > "stand". > > If you were to add this situation to law 10, you would have to add the > words "clearly" and "in the opinion of the referee", and then you would > have created yet another point of dispute for those situation where that > would happen not on the goal line, like the endless arguments on LBW in > cricket. Exactly - this is vastly preferable to a legitimate goal being nullified by a player committing a deliberate and blatant foul. There are no "endless arguments" in rugby, which has the kind of law that soccer should. I guess it is a matter of who plays the game and how. > > And then why not ask for a goal to be scored in any DOGSO situation and > just limit yourself for handling the ball on the goal line? Aren't all > those other situations just as obvious? I would disagree, but that is just > my opinion. The goal should stand in any situation in which a goal would have been scored but for the illegal play. A player running with the ball into an open goal (no one between him and the goal line) who is deliberately tripped, for example. In such situations the penalty actually penalizes the team that has been wronged. |