From: MH on 3 Jul 2010 19:29 Adama wrote: > "Mark V." <markvanderv1(a)yahoo.com> a �crit dans le message de news: > 13290436-1e74-422f-ae33-3f874f646c2a(a)y21g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > >> A free kick from the penalty spot isn't an automatic goal. That ball >> was on its way in and it was stopped by an illegal action. The kick >> did not ensure that Ghana was done justice. > > Indeed. You can't say decreasing the chance of a goal (it was 100% a goal. I > don't know the official stats, but penalty kicks are goal about 75% of the > stats) is enough of a sanction when it is coupled with irrelevant stuff (A > red card ... in extratime's overtime ? How does that even matter ?) and > gives the opponent's momentum. > > I think that after the Lex Ballack (you don't miss the final if you take > your second yellow in the semis), FIFA will come up with a Lex Ghana. (goal > saved by a blatant handball = goal). Funny you should mention the Lex Ballack, because in his case he missed the final due to a highly deserved yellow for a blatant foul to break up quite a dangerous Korean attack - like Suarez, he "took one for the team" and was praised for it in at least some quarters. It seems a travesty that he would have been allowed to play in the final with today's rules. That would be the equivalent of Rugby's > penalty try. (for those who don't follow rugby union, when a try was > inevitable had the defender not fouled, the try is given). > > > Now, I don't blame Suarez. I exploited the rules. Good for him and Uruguay. > It doesn't mean the rules aren't flawed. > >
From: Lleo on 3 Jul 2010 20:08 On 3 jul, 20:29, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > Adama wrote: > > "Mark V." <markvande...(a)yahoo.com> a crit dans le message de news: > > 13290436-1e74-422f-ae33-3f874f646...(a)y21g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > >> A free kick from the penalty spot isn't an automatic goal. That ball > >> was on its way in and it was stopped by an illegal action. The kick > >> did not ensure that Ghana was done justice. > > > Indeed. You can't say decreasing the chance of a goal (it was 100% a goal. I > > don't know the official stats, but penalty kicks are goal about 75% of the > > stats) is enough of a sanction when it is coupled with irrelevant stuff (A > > red card ... in extratime's overtime ? How does that even matter ?) and > > gives the opponent's momentum. > > > I think that after the Lex Ballack (you don't miss the final if you take > > your second yellow in the semis), FIFA will come up with a Lex Ghana. (goal > > saved by a blatant handball = goal). And Lex Ghana they should call it. I remember complaints that red card + penalty was "excessive punishment", when it was Harry Kewell doing that in the first round, against... Ghana! But really, I think that Lex Ghana would be a nonsensical rule. I'd say, counting only goals that actually cross the line already seems to give us enough trouble sometimes :-) Let's keep it like that. JMHO, of course. > Funny you should mention the Lex Ballack, because in his case he missed > the final due to a highly deserved yellow for a blatant foul to break up > quite a dangerous Korean attack - like Suarez, he "took one for the > team" and was praised for it in at least some quarters. Exactly! > It seems a travesty that he would have been allowed to play in the final > with today's rules. Chagney's proposal (three games without a card and you're clear, wasn't it?) sounds like a good idea for cases like this. -- Lléo
From: MH on 3 Jul 2010 20:52 Lleo wrote: > On 3 jul, 20:29, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >> Adama wrote: >>> "Mark V." <markvande...(a)yahoo.com> a crit dans le message de news: >>> 13290436-1e74-422f-ae33-3f874f646...(a)y21g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >>>> A free kick from the penalty spot isn't an automatic goal. That ball >>>> was on its way in and it was stopped by an illegal action. The kick >>>> did not ensure that Ghana was done justice. >>> Indeed. You can't say decreasing the chance of a goal (it was 100% a goal. I >>> don't know the official stats, but penalty kicks are goal about 75% of the >>> stats) is enough of a sanction when it is coupled with irrelevant stuff (A >>> red card ... in extratime's overtime ? How does that even matter ?) and >>> gives the opponent's momentum. >>> I think that after the Lex Ballack (you don't miss the final if you take >>> your second yellow in the semis), FIFA will come up with a Lex Ghana. (goal >>> saved by a blatant handball = goal). > > And Lex Ghana they should call it. I remember complaints that red card > + penalty was "excessive punishment", when it was Harry Kewell doing > that in the first round, against... Ghana! > > But really, I think that Lex Ghana would be a nonsensical rule. I'd > say, counting only goals that actually cross the line already seems to > give us enough trouble sometimes :-) Let's keep it like that. JMHO, of > course. > >> Funny you should mention the Lex Ballack, because in his case he missed >> the final due to a highly deserved yellow for a blatant foul to break up >> quite a dangerous Korean attack - like Suarez, he "took one for the >> team" and was praised for it in at least some quarters. > > Exactly! > >> It seems a travesty that he would have been allowed to play in the final >> with today's rules. > > Chagney's proposal (three games without a card and you're clear, > wasn't it?) sounds like a good idea for cases like this. Actually it was my proposal (two or three games, with my preference for three). But maybe Luiz Mello with two LLs is right after all and there simply should not be any amnesty. They do have 23 man squads after all. > > -- > Ll�o >
From: Bruce D. Scott on 3 Jul 2010 22:48 Bob (Bob(a)Bob.com) wrote: : I don't have to allow or disallow others to disagree; that's a pretty : strange way of thinking. What? Yes you do have to allow others to disagree. You can try being more consistent while you're at it. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: William Clark on 4 Jul 2010 12:27
In article <m3tyog1a8m.fsf(a)127.0.0.1>, HASM <netnews(a)invalid.com> wrote: > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> writes: > > > Exactly - this is vastly preferable to a legitimate goal being nullified > > Almost goal ... No, tell us what other force of nature could have stopped this ball from going into the goal, save for Suarez' arm. That's right - absolutely nothing. It was a certain goal. > > > There are no "endless arguments" in rugby, which has the kind of law that > > soccer should. > > But soccer doesn't, and not every one agrees with you. I respect your > opinion but this was never considered, and I don't think it will anytime > soon. Just like goal line technology, I suppose? Why is it that FIFA, alone of all the goverrning bodies of major sports, can somehow bumble along as if this is 1910, not 2010? The law needs to be changed. Period. > > > The goal should stand in any situation in which a goal would have been > > scored but for the illegal play. > > Respectfully disagree, Then you are an idiot and a dinosaur. Sorry. |