Uruguay and cosmic justice
in [World Football]
|
From: MH on 6 Jul 2010 18:19 Bob wrote: > Futbolmetrix wrote: >> "Bob" <Bob(a)Bob.com> wrote in message >> news:89h6s4Ffm2U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> 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. >> He looks very much in an offside position at the time of Boateng's (?) >> header. I'm not sure though whether Muslera's attempted clearance >> should count as a deflection/rebound, or the beginning of a new play. > > Why wouldn't Muslera's clearance reset the play from an offside point of � �gaining an advantage by being in that position� means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position Depends what you the ref considers "rebounds to him" > view? > >> In any case, it was a very difficult case to judge. >> >> D > >
From: MH on 6 Jul 2010 18:17 Bob wrote: > 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?) I think it was a dive. There, I have said it. I saw no evidence of any foul by Fucile, and the Ghanaian threw himself to the ground theatrically. (As did their defender Vorsah earlier in the match in a yacking match with Suarez) I admit the possibility that I was wrong and the ref saw a real foul, but I don't see any foul on the footage available. The suppression of any replays is suspicious too. 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. All I am saying is we the viewers saw no foul, and refs do make mistakes. > >> 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: Andres Martinez-Alegria on 6 Jul 2010 23:08 On Jul 6, 6:17 pm, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > Bob wrote: > > MH wrote: > >> Bob wrote: > >>> MH wrote: > >>>> Bob wrote: > >>>>> AndresMartinez-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 missingSuarezin 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, andSuarezshouldn'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?) > > I think it was a dive. There, I have said it. > I saw no evidence of any foul by Fucile, and the Ghanaian threw himself > to the ground theatrically. (As did their defender Vorsah earlier in the > match in a yacking match withSuarez) > > I admit the possibility that I was wrong and the ref saw a real foul, > but I don't see any foul on the footage available. The suppression of > any replays is suspicious too. > > 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. > > All I am saying is we the viewers saw no foul, and refs do make mistakes. > > > > > > >> 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. Speaking of suspicious, did anyone watch the pregame on ESPN to Uruguay-Netherlands. In it, they showed the "foul" but only showed #18 already on the ground, sliding. From that angle, if ESPN were willing to show just 2 more seconds before it, I think we would all have a clear view of the "foul"/dive. Suspicious indeed. We all know Ghana was a sentimental favorite...
From: Andres Martinez-Alegria on 6 Jul 2010 23:11 On Jul 6, 10:00 am, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > AndresMartinez-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 missingSuarezin 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, andSuarezshouldn'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. Bob, it's obvious that you refuse to be convinced, but I would like to know what exactly you see to cause the foul? If you are going to call me a lier, at least have the balls and be a man and say WHY I am a liar? Please show us HOW Fucile fouled Adiyiah?
From: Andres Martinez-Alegria on 6 Jul 2010 23:13
On Jul 6, 6:17 pm, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > Bob wrote: > > MH wrote: > >> Bob wrote: > >>> MH wrote: > >>>> Bob wrote: > >>>>> AndresMartinez-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 missingSuarezin 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, andSuarezshouldn'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?) > > I think it was a dive. There, I have said it. > I saw no evidence of any foul by Fucile, and the Ghanaian threw himself > to the ground theatrically. (As did their defender Vorsah earlier in the > match in a yacking match withSuarez) > > I admit the possibility that I was wrong and the ref saw a real foul, > but I don't see any foul on the footage available. The suppression of > any replays is suspicious too. > > 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. > > All I am saying is we the viewers saw no foul, and refs do make mistakes. > > > > > > >> 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. Be careful, MH, Bob will add you to his list of delusional blatant liars... |