Uruguay and cosmic justice
in [World Football]
|
From: Bob on 6 Jul 2010 23:34 MH wrote: > 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, how would you see the foul from up in the stand facing the action when the foul was commited from behind. This is ridiculous. You are losing the plot, man. > and the Ghanaian threw > himself to the ground theatrically. He just fell abruptly from likely being tripped from behind. You are imagining things. (As did their defender Vorsah > earlier in the match in a yacking match with Suarez) is that proof of anyhting? > > 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 footage is inadequate to see anyhting, little less the absence of a foul > The suppression of > any replays is suspicious too. No. They had other matters to focus on. > > > 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. Come on Michael, the AR who signaled the foul was less than 10m away. Are you suggesting that a ref in that position is wrong more than 50% of the time? > >> >>> 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 23:34 Andres Martinez-Alegria wrote: > 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... MH didn't claim that Fucile was more than 2 yards away or that he was backing off like you did. Red card to you, liar.
From: Bob on 6 Jul 2010 23:37 Futbolmetrix wrote: > "Bob" <Bob(a)Bob.com> wrote in message > news:89hkudF70jU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> 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 view? > > It's not so clear. If it had been Muslera diving to parry a shot and > Appiah shooting on the rebound, it would definitely not have reset > the offside, and Appiah's position should have been sanctioned. > > But in this case Muslera makes more of a deliberate play, so one > could argue that his clearance puts Appiah back in play. > > > Here's a goal scored by Trezeguet in a Torino-Juventus of a couple of > years ago. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3as7o9AVrGE&feature=related > > Trez is clearly in an offside position at the time of the Juve > player's header forward. Is he put back in play the moment the Torino > defender attempts to play the ball? The goal was allowed to stand. I can see the defender's header backward toward the goal while Trez is still in an offside position. From my limited understanding of these difficult situations I'd say the goal is valid
From: Bob on 6 Jul 2010 23:41 MH wrote: > 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" Muslera actually makes a play to clear the ball. The ball doesn't just bounce off him inadvertantly. It seems like the offside laws could stand some clarifying. > >> view? >> >>> In any case, it was a very difficult case to judge. >>> >>> D
From: Andres Martinez-Alegria on 6 Jul 2010 23:41
On Jul 6, 11:34 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > AndresMartinez-Alegria wrote: > > 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... > > MH didn't claim that Fucile was more than 2 yards away or that he was > backing off like you did. Red card to you, liar. Ummm... he WAS about 2 yards away, and clearly had taken about 2 steps backing away to give himself more space to maneuver should the Ghana player try to run inside... a common move for most defenders. And I can see the dive because it is clear as day! I don't need to have a replay from right up next to the guy to be able to see that! Cry and whine all you want, but it looks very much like a dive and like no foul committed. Run it in slow motion and there is not even any contact before, during, or after the play. Dive. You still haven't been able to show where exactly the foul occurred... hand to the back? toe to the back of the foot? Where was it? I am sure we are all waiting. |