Uruguay - South Korea [R]
in [World Football]
|
Prev: Shall we expect excitement today? or we shall we wake up for the penalties?
Next: Shall we expect excitement today? or shall we wake up for the
From: Red Cloud on 27 Jun 2010 05:07 On Jun 26, 7:10 am, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:03:28 -0400, Manx Gunner wrote... > > 7,000+ empty seats? Embarassing for both FIFA and South Africa. > > > Gamewise, Uruguay dodge a bullet in the 2nd minute as Park Jisung is on > > a good run, has two teammates with him in good positions each, and flubs > > his attempt to pass to one of them. A good pass and South Korea is on > > the board in the 2nd minute, I think. > > Uruguay scores against the run of play... moment of stupidity from the > South Korean defense and goalkeeper... unreal. 1-0. SK dumb defense has been the problem. SK players lack of controlling of the shooting. Lee faced with goal keeper 1:1 and his shooting was totally mishandled. The national team player should not miss that chance. This game suppose to be won by SK. They just got no luck.
From: Red Cloud on 27 Jun 2010 05:14 On Jun 26, 9:17 pm, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: > Mark V. (markvande...(a)yahoo.com) wrote: > > : On Jun 26, 11:35=A0am, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote: > : > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:30:59 GMT, Diabolik wrote... > : > > > Part of the problem is people thinking that it matters whether or not > : > > > it's deliberate in all cases. =A0It doesn't. > : > > : > > Of course it does. It has to be intentional. > : > > : > Of course it doesn't, as numerous officials have stated in the past. > : > > : > If your arm is away from your body and stops the ball on the line, it's > : > a penalty - period, and with no whining arguing about whether or not you > : > meant to cheat the other team out of a goal or not. > > : Game on! Suarez goal in the 80th! > > Fantastic goal, unstoppable if the guy succeeds in putting a curve on > like that. It also justly punished the Koreans for giving away the > initiative without being forced to, after they scored. > > -- > ciao, > Bruce > > drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ Korean 40 millions population can't beat the Uruguay only 3 millions population. The fact is dumb korean just can't control the ball. They lost the game even though their possession of ball 60:40. Uruguay player surely have better technique of shooting... The last goal was beautiful how the ball going curve....
From: MH on 27 Jun 2010 17:44 Manx Gunner wrote: > [MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca>] > [Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:50:01 -0600] > > : IN other words you haven't a clue what you are talking about. By this I meant when you said that intent did not matter, when the rule clearly states otherwise. No other offense intended. > > There is a very large difference between deliberately for you and me and > deliberately for a professional athlete with that kind of body control. > > Arm out away from the body = intent to have it be in play, 99.99% of the > time, as has been consistently called and pointed out by officials on > the rare occasions that they've spoken to the media about this (or > fairly often in the case of Dermot Whatshisname on Sky Sports). > Then what do you make of this: .. the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement That is written in there, in the advice for the referees. It would be nice if they illustrated with examples, but as the rule (DELIBERATE) and advice to referees are written, I think a ref is perfectly within his or her rights not to consider something like Frings vs. USA, Kewell vs. Ghana, or John Collins (or was it Tommy Boyd) vs. Netherlands (1996) not to be a handball, and , interestingly, in 2/3 of those cases the decsion went in favour of the defender.
From: Manx Gunner on 27 Jun 2010 19:11 [MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca>] [Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:44:55 -0600] : Manx Gunner wrote: : > [MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca>] : > [Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:50:01 -0600] : > : > : IN other words you haven't a clue what you are talking about. : : By this I meant when you said that intent did not matter, when the rule : clearly states otherwise. No other offense intended. No worries at all; I can handle a spirited debate. :) : > There is a very large difference between deliberately for you and me and : > deliberately for a professional athlete with that kind of body control. : > : > Arm out away from the body = intent to have it be in play, 99.99% of the : > time, as has been consistently called and pointed out by officials on : > the rare occasions that they've spoken to the media about this (or : > fairly often in the case of Dermot Whatshisname on Sky Sports). : > : Then what do you make of this: : : . the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an : infringement : : That is written in there, in the advice for the referees. It would be : nice if they illustrated with examples, but as the rule (DELIBERATE) and : advice to referees are written, I think a ref is perfectly within his or : her rights not to consider something like Frings vs. USA, Kewell vs. : Ghana, or John Collins (or was it Tommy Boyd) vs. Netherlands (1996) not : to be a handball, and , interestingly, in 2/3 of those cases the decsion : went in favour of the defender. I reckon that's to protect against a player who's struck from a meter away when his hand is flailing about but it's pretty clear that he's not flailing about to interfere with play. Messy, no? -- "Look at the way teams play against Arsenal. They don't believe they can win. They don't believe." -- Jose Mourinho
From: MH on 27 Jun 2010 22:39
Manx Gunner wrote: > [MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca>] > [Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:44:55 -0600] > > : Manx Gunner wrote: > : > [MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca>] > : > [Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:50:01 -0600] > : > > : > : IN other words you haven't a clue what you are talking about. > : > : By this I meant when you said that intent did not matter, when the rule > : clearly states otherwise. No other offense intended. > > No worries at all; I can handle a spirited debate. :) > > : > There is a very large difference between deliberately for you and me and > : > deliberately for a professional athlete with that kind of body control. > : > > : > Arm out away from the body = intent to have it be in play, 99.99% of the > : > time, as has been consistently called and pointed out by officials on > : > the rare occasions that they've spoken to the media about this (or > : > fairly often in the case of Dermot Whatshisname on Sky Sports). > : > > : Then what do you make of this: > : > : . the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an > : infringement > : > : That is written in there, in the advice for the referees. It would be > : nice if they illustrated with examples, but as the rule (DELIBERATE) and > : advice to referees are written, I think a ref is perfectly within his or > : her rights not to consider something like Frings vs. USA, Kewell vs. > : Ghana, or John Collins (or was it Tommy Boyd) vs. Netherlands (1996) not > : to be a handball, and , interestingly, in 2/3 of those cases the decsion > : went in favour of the defender. > > I reckon that's to protect against a player who's struck from a meter > away when his hand is flailing about but it's pretty clear that he's not > flailing about to interfere with play. Messy, no? > Too messy. The rules and advice should be written more clearly. |