World Cup 2010

[ampersand]

If handling on the line is now to be considered as somehow acceptable

[ralph250]

Yep, but offside is one of those things which regularly called wrongly (in both directions) - it's an unavoidable aspect of the game. For discussion of that handball, it's an irrelevance - the offside wasn't called and so the ball was still in play.

If handling on the line is now to be considered as somehow acceptable, I suggest that all the teams tipped for the drop don't bother trying to play any match, and instead just line-up 10 players on the goal line, and play the goalie in front of them. A guaranteed 36 points, and relegation is avoided.

That's ultimately what you're advocating. That really would be 'the beautiful game'.

[eFestivals]

exactly. he was punished so discussion over. if gyan had done his job, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

i think neil's still upset about 86!

I'm upset by cheats and those who think that cheating is somehow acceptable.

Why not ask for the game to be played how you say it? Leg breaking tackles are fine. Who cares if that whole team have broken legs for half the season so they can't play any more matches, we broke their legs, we won, nerrr nerr ner ner ner.

I know the rules are what they are, but for cases like that one the rules are an ass. The only fair punishment for a handball like that which stops a goal is a 'penalty goal', a goal awarded against that team with the player sent off.

[eFestivals]

neil stop being a dick. no-one is saying this. he handled on the line and was sent off. what's your point? everyone agrees he should have been sent off.

The punishment doesn't fit the crime. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[oafc0000]

I'm upset by cheats and those who think that cheating is somehow acceptable.

Why not ask for the game to be played how you say it? Leg breaking tackles are fine. Who cares if that whole team have broken legs for half the season so they can't play any more matches, we broke their legs, we won, nerrr nerr ner ner ner.

I know the rules are what they are, but for cases like that one the rules are an ass. The only fair punishment for a handball like that which stops a goal is a 'penalty goal', a goal awarded against that team with the player sent off.

[ampersand]

I'm upset by cheats and those who think that cheating is somehow acceptable.

Why not ask for the game to be played how you say it? Leg breaking tackles are fine. Who cares if that whole team have broken legs for half the season so they can't play any more matches, we broke their legs, we won, nerrr nerr ner ner ner.

I know the rules are what they are, but for cases like that one the rules are an ass. The only fair punishment for a handball like that which stops a goal is a 'penalty goal', a goal awarded against that team with the player sent off.

[oafc0000]

The punishment doesn't fit the crime. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[ampersand]

The punishment doesn't fit the crime. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[eFestivals]

I'm not advocating anything of the sort. It's a foul, rightfully so, that was punished correctly according to the rules of the game. I'm just saying that 99.99% of players out there would do the same if in the 120th minute of a world cup quarter final. He took one for the team, same as if a defender caught up and took out a forward who'd broken the offside trap. More often than not, that wouldn't have worked out as the forward would've scored the resultant penalty.

I've said I don't agree with what he done, but I understand why he did it.

I understand why he did it. That's not any part of it. What is a part of it - what is ALL of it - is that the game would have been indisputably lost if he'd not cheated.

As for "taking one for the team", well, if (say) one of Chelsea's players was tasked with breaking Rooney's legs and then "took one for the team" as a result, Chelsea would very probably guarantee they'd win the league.

As in the minds of "fans" like you it's the winning that's important and not how you win, I'm looking forwards to you confirming that you'd appreciate that as fair - after all, the player got sent off and "took one for the team". 99.99% of players would be happy to do that, it's the winning that's important.

Or is it that you're only OK with cheating...

1. up to a point

2. when it advantages your own team but not another team

3. when your brain has been left at home for the day

?

[ralph250]

Equally Neil, as I've said, it's a probable dive to win the freekick. (I posted the video couple pages ago, leaves his leg out to me) Punishment not exactly fitting the crime if they score from that freekick to progress.

.....

Anyways let's change subject. Brought over from the football thread as linked to England/World Cup. Couldn't see it popular at all with existing lower league clubs but anyone else wonder whether the FA could consider it.

Strange things happening woth the Reserve leagues next season. Seems that Arsenal, SToke, Fulham, Birmingham and Spurs have all pulled out of the competition for next season. This despite a revamp of the competition that's been announced, trying to remove some of the North/South split. Apparently we'll be arranging lots of friendlies instead.

I wonder how much of this is a knock on from the new 25 man squad rules. It looks like we'll be sending a lot more players on loan this season. Anyone else heard much about this?

[oafc0000]

We don't need Arsenal B etc playing in the Championship / League One...

We need such teams to stop poaching kids and to start supporting the fantastic 92 professional clubs we have...

[eFestivals]

I hate cheating but I really am against the concept of a penalty goal...

I probably am in a practical sense, because it would be difficult to implement evenly.

But in this instance it would be impossible to claim a penalty goal wasn't fair, even taking into account your own view that the ball would have hit his face if he'd not used his hands - after all, he could have stopped the ball going in with his face, but he chose not to, and chose to cheat instead.

[ralph250]

I understand why he did it. That's not any part of it. What is a part of it - what is ALL of it - is that the game would have been indisputably lost if he'd not cheated.

[Cardboard Box City]

Stop bringing up legbreakers, as you're getting tiring now.

[ampersand]

We don't need Arsenal B etc playing in the Championship / League One...

We need such teams to stop poaching kids and to start supporting the fantastic 92 professional clubs we have...

[eFestivals]

handball on the line on a par with 11 broken legs? a lost arguement if ever i saw one!

if cheating in one manner is to be applauded and rewarded, why not in other ways too?

After all, it's all the same thing, just a teeny weeny bit of rule breaking.

i disagree. do you then give a 'penalty goal' for a person who was 99% sure to put it past the keeper before he was hacked down? course you don't. the rules for this side of thing are perfect.

As i've already posted, I'm not really advocating penalty goals, as it would be near impossible to work it fairly, particularly without resorting to video replays. But that doesn't alter the fact that in this particular instance it would have been a fairer outcome than just a sending off and a penalty - and so the rules aren't "perfect".

If I were advocating penalty goals, then I'd limit them to goal-line hand balls of a similar type to that instance, where the ball going into the net is a certainty without a handball. The argument that it would have hit his face wouldn't apply to void it - he could have let it hit his face, and then there would be none of this discussion.

[eFestivals]

if gyan had scored, it would have fitted the crime. it's not anyones fault other than ghana's that they didn't win that game. we all know the rules before we go into it, and the rules have worked perfectly well for around a century.

Oh FFS, how dense are you?

It's Suaraz's(sp?) fault that Ghana didn't win that game. If he'd not cheated, then it can't be disputed that Ghana would have won, given it would have been the last kick of the game.

Yes, we all know the rules. And yes, I agree with playing to the rules.

What I'm saying is this: in this case the rules have been shown to be a long way from the 'perfect' you claim for them. The punishment is far weaker than the crime deserved in this instance.

[ampersand]

if cheating in one manner is to be applauded and rewarded, why not in other ways too?

After all, it's all the same thing, just a teeny weeny bit of rule breaking.

[eFestivals]

Equally Neil, as I've said, it's a probable dive to win the freekick. (I posted the video couple pages ago, leaves his leg out to me) Punishment not exactly fitting the crime if they score from that freekick to progress.

Yes, I realise that there's sometimes hundreds of decisions in a game which can be disputed and said to have been called wrongly. That doesn't stop you complaining when (a very rare occasion) a penalty is wrongly awarded against Utd ... tho laughably, you chose to take the opposite view with a undeserved penalty awarded to Utd this season, applauding Utd's cheating.

What I'm doing is managing what "fans" like you can never manage because your head is too far up the arse of your club. A consistent view, and from that wanting (as much as possible) a consistent implementation of the rules and a fair result for the teams on the pitch from those rules.

The saying goes "cheats never prosper". Well they do, and with the full blessing of "fans" like you - tho only when it works for you, you're STILL banging on today about Chelsea's "offside" goals which you claim cost Utd the title.

One day you might get to realise that a partisan "fan" like you is no fan of football, and certainly isn't in any place where they're able to say what is fair and what isn't.

So anyway, I've decided to be a "fan" like you. I hope it's broken leg for Rooney this season rather than offside goals that weren't that cost you the title. And you approve of that.

[ampersand]

Oh FFS, how dense are you?

It's Suaraz's(sp?) fault that Ghana didn't win that game. If he'd not cheated, then it can't be disputed that Ghana would have won, given it would have been the last kick of the game.

[Lithium05]

Nah, Suarez should have been forced to go in goal...

Or Uraguay shouldn't have been allowed a goalkeeper for such a blatant cheat. He should at least be banned for the rest of the tournament.

Contrary to all that, I kind of want Uraguay to win the whole thing, the form of Forlan deserves to be rewarded with a winners medal!

[oafc0000]

Oh FFS, how dense are you?

It's Suaraz's(sp?) fault that Ghana didn't win that game. If he'd not cheated, then it can't be disputed that Ghana would have won, given it would have been the last kick of the game.

[Cardboard Box City]

Yes, I realise that there's sometimes hundreds of decisions in a game which can be disputed and said to have been called wrongly. That doesn't stop you complaining when (a very rare occasion) a penalty is wrongly awarded against Utd ... tho laughably, you chose to take the opposite view with a undeserved penalty awarded to Utd this season, applauding Utd's cheating.

What I'm doing is managing what "fans" like you can never manage because your head is too far up the arse of your club. A consistent view, and from that wanting (as much as possible) a consistent implementation of the rules and a fair result for the teams on the pitch from those rules.

The saying goes "cheats never prosper". Well they do, and with the full blessing of "fans" like you - tho only when it works for you, you're STILL banging on today about Chelsea's "offside" goals which you claim cost Utd the title.

One day you might get to realise that a partisan "fan" like you is no fan of football, and certainly isn't in any place where they're able to say what is fair and what isn't.

So anyway, I've decided to be a "fan" like you. I hope it's broken leg for Rooney this season rather than offside goals that weren't that cost you the title. And you approve of that.

[eFestivals]

so a shoplifter is the same as a murderer then? they're both crimes afterall, why differentiate.

Ahhhh, you see, this where your own argument falls down, but not mine.

The law in regard to crimes DOES differentiate between crimes, and award different punishments on the basis of those crimes.

Yet a tickle on the chin in the box or a handball on the line to stop a goal has the same punishment.

So, if the punishment for a goaline handball is fair in your view (and you say it is), then you can't possibly complain that a leg-breaker has been treated leniently.

so i'll kick a ball at your face and see how you react. you wouldn't try to defend your face with your arms, no? you'd just take it like an honest man!

I ain't paid thousands of pounds each week to be used to having a ball coming perhaps towards my face at 70mph.

But anyway, that's no part of any argument I've made. I've not criticised him for choosing to defend himself (if that's what he was doing - which you don't know is the case).

I've said he cheated, and he did. Making an action in contravention to the rules is cheating, whether meant or not.

I've said the resultant punishment wasn't fair for the crime. Given that it was a goal if he'd not have cheated, you'd have to be brain dead to disagree.

[ampersand]

Why is "fan" seemingly italicised throughout that post?