Uruguay and cosmic justice
in [World Football]
|
From: Bob on 6 Jul 2010 13:34 Alkamista wrote: > On Jul 6, 10:00 am, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> >> >> and, one more to be added to the pathetic liar/delusional poster >> column.- > > What has happened to you, seriously? Nothing. I have always called blatant liars just that. Have you even looked at the video? if you had, you'd know these people are lying. What's the point of discussing anything with people who lie blatantly?
From: Binder Dundat on 6 Jul 2010 13:43 On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > Alkamista wrote: > > On Jul 6, 10:00 am, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > > >> and, one more to be added to the pathetic liar/delusional poster > >> column.- > > > What has happened to you, seriously? > > Nothing. I have always called blatant liars just that. > > Have you even looked at the video? if you had, you'd know these people are > lying. What's the point of discussing anything with people who lie > blatantly? You must be great at parties Bob? What are you doing this weekend? I have a friend who claimed Schumacher never touched Battison in in 82 and since the ref never called a foul he must be right? You guys could go at that one for a weekend. I am sure i have a bottle of French Absinthe at the cottage.
From: Bob on 6 Jul 2010 14:06 Binder Dundat wrote: > On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> Alkamista wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 10:00 am, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> >>>> and, one more to be added to the pathetic liar/delusional poster >>>> column.- >> >>> What has happened to you, seriously? >> >> Nothing. I have always called blatant liars just that. >> >> Have you even looked at the video? if you had, you'd know these >> people are lying. What's the point of discussing anything with >> people who lie blatantly? > > You must be great at parties Bob? I like to have fun as much as anyone, may be not so much at 'parties'. Having to read bald faced lies and ad-hominems being reafirmed again and again, without nary a pip from the peanut gallery isn't my idea of fun. In fact, it questions the culture of the people who particpate here. > > What are you doing this weekend? > I have a friend who claimed Schumacher never touched Battison in in 82 > and since the ref never called a foul he must be right? The video evidence and the hospital bill show differently, it is therefore a poor analogy. > You guys could go at that one for a weekend. I am sure i have a bottle > of French Absinthe at the cottage. This is a newsgroup where people exchange news, analysis and opinions about football. A modium of intellectual honesty seems to be required to participate effectively.
From: MH on 6 Jul 2010 14:22 Bob wrote: > MH wrote: >> Bob wrote: >>> Andres Martinez-Alegria wrote: >>>> On Jul 4, 10:16 pm, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: >>>>> I just saw the repeat broadcast of the match Uruguay vs Ghana. >>>>> In that critical half-minute at the end, one of the worst dives of >>>>> the whole tournament, worse than the one Holland got a yellow card >>>>> for, set up the free kick at about 119'30 So it went in and you all >>>>> know what happened. The point is... had this play resulted in a >>>>> goal it would have been a massive ripoff against Uruguay. The free >>>>> kick was not at all justified. (Kudos to Benny for pointing this >>>>> out... I doubt a lot of people saw it in real time... knowing when >>>>> to look, it was quite obvious though. On the field it should have >>>>> been obvious.) >>>>> >>>>> Of course all the lily white moralists ("correct" if you agree with >>>>> them but you're morally inferior if you do not) have still never >>>>> mentioned this part of the play. So cheating is cheating, so why >>>>> are they not up in arms at the potentially crucial ripoff of >>>>> Uruguay? Doesn't fit their Manichean picture I suppose. Ghana are >>>>> the darlings and Uruguay, despite their very clean tournament, are >>>>> consigned to be the bad guys. Partly due to history, partly just >>>>> because they are South American... >>>>> I guess that's the way it is with some of these people, all of whom >>>>> come from northern countries. >>>>> >>>>> So as we know the penalty was missed and Cosmic Justice was served. >>>>> Ghana did not get a free goal at the end and the teams went to >>>>> penalties fair and square. Uruguay came up the better team but it >>>>> could have been otherwise. But the game was decided in the >>>>> penalties fair and square and not as the result of a terrible >>>>> error by the referee. As it happens, the result of that referee >>>>> error is that they are missing Suarez in the semifinals. >>>>> >>>>> So it was also for the US... fortunately the players overcame >>>>> whatever situation they were in, and whether you agree with the >>>>> calls or not, in the end they had no effect on the overall result >>>>> (we won our group). That's how it should be. >>>>> >>>>> Uruguay deserve their place in the last four. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ciao, >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ >>>> Bruce, >>>> >>>> THANK YOU! I was beginning to think I was the only one who had seen >>>> this! I had actually noticed it when it happened, and have watched >>>> it over and over to verify. It is a horrible dive (something Ghana >>>> has been developing a reputation for in the World Cup, >>> BS. >>> >>> which has taken >>>> them, in my list of teams to root for, from up high with the "little >>>> guys who deserve a chance" like South Korea or Slovakia, down to >>>> "dirty, disgraceful players" like Italy or Portugal). And Bob, since >>>> when do you need replay to make video footage worthwhile? >>> always when the original footage is from too far to see someone >>> tripping someone else >>> >>> Watching it >>>> real-time it is pretty obvious, Fucile was a good 2 yards away >>> lie >>> >>> AND >>>> backing off >>> blatant lie >>> >>> when Dominic Adiyiah fell. The free kick should have never >>>> been granted, but it was, and Suarez shouldn't have handled the >>>> ball, but he did. The difference is, Ghana didn't get penalized for >>>> its dive, Uruguay got penalized for its handball, but Ghana just >>>> couldn't convert! Anyways, if you go to espn3.com to rewatch it, >>>> drag the bar to the 2:59:40 mark of the telecast (about the 119:30 >>>> mark of the game) and see for yourself. >>> and, one more to be added to the pathetic liar/delusional poster >>> column. >>> >>> >> Hold on Bob. You can't conclude, based on the limited video evidence, > > Nobody can conclude anything and especially not that it was a dive since the > assistant ref less than 10 yards away called the foul. > >> that this was not a dive. All you can say is that in real time, and >> from that angle, there is no obvious foul. There may have been a >> slight shove in the back that was embelished, and the ref may have >> seen this and been correct in his call (his angle was completely >> different). We don't know. But you can't say for sure that this was >> not a dive. > > Wait a minute. I never said this wasn't a dive. I merely said there was no > evidence whatsoever that it was a dive. I would disagree. I think the limited evidence available, i.e. the real time video, suggests it was a dive. It is not at all conclusive, but there is also no conclusive evidence it was a foul. In the absence of such evidence, the referee should not have blown for a foul. What we don't know is what the referee saw or thought he saw. And it is certainly possible that the ref was right. I must say that I do find it strange > that you address these comments to me when Bruce has been posting all over > this forum that this was a dive without providing any evidence and despite > admitting there was no replay and/or close up images. Surely the default setting is "no foul" ? Sometimes, I really > feel like reality is upside down in this newsgroup. > >> And what about Appiah being offside? > > He may be in an offside position at the time the free-kick is taken but > there is no images that show it for sure. > >
From: Bob on 6 Jul 2010 15:56
MH wrote: > Bob wrote: >> MH wrote: >>> Bob wrote: >>>> Andres Martinez-Alegria wrote: >>>>> On Jul 4, 10:16 pm, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I just saw the repeat broadcast of the match Uruguay vs Ghana. >>>>>> In that critical half-minute at the end, one of the worst dives >>>>>> of the whole tournament, worse than the one Holland got a yellow >>>>>> card for, set up the free kick at about 119'30 So it went in and >>>>>> you all know what happened. The point is... had this play >>>>>> resulted in a goal it would have been a massive ripoff against >>>>>> Uruguay. The free kick was not at all justified. (Kudos to Benny >>>>>> for pointing this out... I doubt a lot of people saw it in real >>>>>> time... knowing when to look, it was quite obvious though. On >>>>>> the field it should have been obvious.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course all the lily white moralists ("correct" if you agree >>>>>> with them but you're morally inferior if you do not) have still >>>>>> never mentioned this part of the play. So cheating is cheating, >>>>>> so why are they not up in arms at the potentially crucial ripoff >>>>>> of Uruguay? Doesn't fit their Manichean picture I suppose. Ghana >>>>>> are the darlings and Uruguay, despite their very clean >>>>>> tournament, are consigned to be the bad guys. Partly due to >>>>>> history, partly just because they are South American... >>>>>> I guess that's the way it is with some of these people, all of >>>>>> whom come from northern countries. >>>>>> >>>>>> So as we know the penalty was missed and Cosmic Justice was >>>>>> served. Ghana did not get a free goal at the end and the teams >>>>>> went to penalties fair and square. Uruguay came up the better >>>>>> team but it could have been otherwise. But the game was decided >>>>>> in the penalties fair and square and not as the result of a >>>>>> terrible error by the referee. As it happens, the result of that >>>>>> referee error is that they are missing Suarez in the semifinals. >>>>>> >>>>>> So it was also for the US... fortunately the players overcame >>>>>> whatever situation they were in, and whether you agree with the >>>>>> calls or not, in the end they had no effect on the overall result >>>>>> (we won our group). That's how it should be. >>>>>> >>>>>> Uruguay deserve their place in the last four. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ciao, >>>>>> Bruce >>>>>> >>>>>> drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ >>>>> Bruce, >>>>> >>>>> THANK YOU! I was beginning to think I was the only one who had >>>>> seen this! I had actually noticed it when it happened, and have >>>>> watched it over and over to verify. It is a horrible dive >>>>> (something Ghana has been developing a reputation for in the >>>>> World Cup, >>>> BS. >>>> >>>> which has taken >>>>> them, in my list of teams to root for, from up high with the >>>>> "little guys who deserve a chance" like South Korea or Slovakia, >>>>> down to "dirty, disgraceful players" like Italy or Portugal). And >>>>> Bob, since when do you need replay to make video footage >>>>> worthwhile? >>>> always when the original footage is from too far to see someone >>>> tripping someone else >>>> >>>> Watching it >>>>> real-time it is pretty obvious, Fucile was a good 2 yards away >>>> lie >>>> >>>> AND >>>>> backing off >>>> blatant lie >>>> >>>> when Dominic Adiyiah fell. The free kick should have never >>>>> been granted, but it was, and Suarez shouldn't have handled the >>>>> ball, but he did. The difference is, Ghana didn't get penalized >>>>> for its dive, Uruguay got penalized for its handball, but Ghana >>>>> just couldn't convert! Anyways, if you go to espn3.com to rewatch >>>>> it, drag the bar to the 2:59:40 mark of the telecast (about the >>>>> 119:30 mark of the game) and see for yourself. >>>> and, one more to be added to the pathetic liar/delusional poster >>>> column. >>>> >>>> >>> Hold on Bob. You can't conclude, based on the limited video >>> evidence, >> >> Nobody can conclude anything and especially not that it was a dive >> since the assistant ref less than 10 yards away called the foul. >> >>> that this was not a dive. All you can say is that in real time, and >>> from that angle, there is no obvious foul. There may have been a >>> slight shove in the back that was embelished, and the ref may have >>> seen this and been correct in his call (his angle was completely >>> different). We don't know. But you can't say for sure that this was >>> not a dive. >> >> Wait a minute. I never said this wasn't a dive. I merely said there >> was no evidence whatsoever that it was a dive. > > I would disagree. I think the limited evidence available, i.e. the > real time video, suggests it was a dive. Wow! if there were anyhting that suggested it was a dive you'd say what it is (why don't you?) but you don't because there absolutely no evidence that suggest it was a dive beside the defensive player protesting with the ref. It is not at all > conclusive, but there is also no conclusive evidence it was a foul. > In the absence of such evidence, the referee should not have blown > for a foul. > > What we don't know is what the referee saw or thought he saw. precisely, yet here you are arguing it was probably a dive. go figure. And it > is certainly possible that the ref was right. More like there is no evidence that he was wrong. > > > I must say that I do find it strange >> that you address these comments to me when Bruce has been posting >> all over this forum that this was a dive without providing any >> evidence and despite admitting there was no replay and/or close up >> images. > > Surely the default setting is "no foul" ? Not when the ref called one and there is no evidence showing the ref was wrong. Unless you think you can see better from your couch. I can't believe you are saying this. > > Sometimes, I really >> feel like reality is upside down in this newsgroup. >> >>> And what about Appiah being offside? >> >> He may be in an offside position at the time the free-kick is taken >> but there is no images that show it for sure. |