World Cup 2010

[oafc0000]

Neil disagrees. look over the page.

[ampersand]

2-1 if they scored the resultant penalty...so would have 40 minutes to not concede against 10 men.

If missed then yeah, scores remain equal, 40 minutes to find a winner against 10 men.

As I said, it's the timing of the goal that's causing the most contention I think.

[ampersand]

Why not? It would encourage players not the cheat, wouldn't it? And maybe try and head the ball clear, rather than pretending to be a goalkeeper? Rush goalies don't exist, y'know.

[sifi]

not really cos at the minute they know that if they do something wrong, they get punished.

Edited July 7, 2010 by sifimaster

[eFestivals]

But the punishment/crime ratio is made more even from the offending team being reduced to 10 men. It's the timing of the incident that's causing the contention. If that same incident was in the 50th minute for example, then the punishment would've been deemed as fair. No punishment for breach of the rules in football is contingent on when it happens, it's standardised throughout the game.

Ghana would've still had an opportunity to score and would've had a man advantage for 40mins.

I agree that the timing of the offence gave the offence a greater impact on the result of the game than (probably) would have been the case if it had happened earlier, and I don't disagree with standardised punishments.

But I can't agree that things would have been "fair" if it had happened earlier in the game. Ghana were denied a goal by cheating, and so the only thing that would have been fair would be for them to have had that goal awarded to them (yes, I know the rules don't allow it) ... as for the sending off, that should have happened to, as punishment for the attempt at cheating.

This is simply a case - and I realise that they're rare - where the cheating gave a far greater advantage than the punishment from cheating. It means that the rules actually encourage a player to cheat in circumstances like this incident, because it's a no-lose situation - and that if nothing else surely says that this is a circumstance where the rules have it wrong.

If Suarez had been given an extra match ban then I'd have been a little happier about things, because then at least they'd have been much less chance of Uruguay winning the ultimate prize via cheating.

[ampersand]

They also know that if it's the last kick of the game, and they prentend they are Gordon Banks, there is a chance of a penalty shootout rather than losing the game - which in itself encourages cheating, doesn't it?

Think about it. You are Suarez. If you do nothing, your team will go out. Handle the ball and keep it out, there is a chance your team will go through.

What are you going to do?

[sifi]

instincitvely, the exact same thing that he did. but i think the rules are fine. he is severely punished cos he missed out on the chance to help his team to the final. and ghana had the chance to put the out from 12 yards and failed.

[eFestivals]

Neil must be blind if he thinks it would not of hit his head... It wouldn't of hit his face.... Would of hit the top part of his head...

Small argument it would of gone upwards / backwards and in... but more likely would of gone up and over...

The one in need of the eye test is you.

It might have hit his head, BUT ONLY BECAUSE HE'D MOVED TOWARDS IT.

Because he moved towards it and then used his hands to stop it, then what might have happened with his head ceases to be relevant. If he could have stopped it with his head he should have done. He didn't, he stopped the ball going into the net with his hands. He denied a goal thru foul play, and I can't see it as anything except a deliberate decision to cheat.

[ralph250]

Neil must be blind if he thinks it would not of hit his head... It wouldn't of hit his face.... Would of hit the top part of his head...

Small argument it would of gone upwards / backwards and in... but more likely would of gone up and over...

[ralph250]

The natural human instinct is avoid the impact - and so a person would move away, and not towards, an object coming towards them.

The only exception to that would be to protect themselves from the impact (most probably with their hands/arms) - but that wouldn't involve first moving hugely towards the ball as Suarez did.

A footballer* obviously has developed an instinct towards the ball to some extent, but it would be a secondary instinct layered on top of the natural human instinct, and so with some amount of conciousness to that 'developed instinct'. It would be a delayed reaction (if only by a minuscule amount), because the person would firstly have to reject the instinct to move away from the ball.

(*I'm excluding goalies from what I'm saying here - they'd have a much greater developed instinct towards the ball with their hands).

That's my take on it, anyhow.

[eFestivals]

Not convinced seeing the view from behind the goal. Tis slightly to his right, Suarez moves towards the ball. Think at best it might have made it hit the side of the head and gone in/gone out into danger area/possibly bounced back of the other defender.

I reckon that at best it would have hit his head and gone in.

I reckon he knew that too - after all, his movement was as tho he was going to head it, and then used his hands when he realised he wasn't going to reach it or reach it enough to stop it going in.

But we can only speculate. The fact is he chose not to use his head, so when he used his hands it becomes him stopping a certain goal by foul means.

[oafc0000]

I wonder if fans in other countries are still discussing this

[Nedson]

I wonder if fans in other countries are still discussing this

[ralph250]

I agree that the timing of the offence gave the offence a greater impact on the result of the game than (probably) would have been the case if it had happened earlier, and I don't disagree with standardised punishments.

But I can't agree that things would have been "fair" if it had happened earlier in the game. Ghana were denied a goal by cheating, and so the only thing that would have been fair would be for them to have had that goal awarded to them (yes, I know the rules don't allow it) ... as for the sending off, that should have happened to, as punishment for the attempt at cheating.

This is simply a case - and I realise that they're rare - where the cheating gave a far greater advantage than the punishment from cheating. It means that the rules actually encourage a player to cheat in circumstances like this incident, because it's a no-lose situation - and that if nothing else surely says that this is a circumstance where the rules have it wrong.

If Suarez had been given an extra match ban then I'd have been a little happier about things, because then at least they'd have been much less chance of Uruguay winning the ultimate prize via cheating.

[ampersand]

I'm a proponant for video tech to be introduced though. Think there's too much money at stake in the modern game for it not to be.

[sifi]

I wonder if fans in other countries are still discussing this

Edited July 7, 2010 by sifimaster

[Nedson]

video technology would ruin the game

[ampersand]

just watched the penalty again. and before gyan hit it, two uruguayans were in the box! and this has been the case for the majority, if not all of the penalties. so why were just spain punished? not that it mattered overall.

[sifi]

video technology would ruin the game

[eFestivals]

I'm a proponant for video tech to be introduced though. Think there's too much money at stake in the modern game for it not to be.

I'm not. It's a game that should be able to be played on any park. I reckon this is about the only thing that Blatter has got right.

As for the money, that's the fault of those who punted that money on a game. It's a game, it's not a business.

It's the money that's f**king things up, and it should be pandered to less - not more.

[eFestivals]

How can you possibly know that? I say at least try it. Goal-line technology is a shoe-in, that won't take more than one second to indicate if the ball has crossed the line. I can't see why a two way radio between the ref and the fourth official watching a live feed would really ruin the game.

As I say, at least try it.

Goal line technology I've no problem with, it's not something which stops the game or which stops a game being played on any park.

More than that I'm against.

[pink_triangle]

How can you possibly know that? I say at least try it. Goal-line technology is a shoe-in, that won't take more than one second to indicate if the ball has crossed the line. I can't see why a two way radio between the ref and the fourth official watching a live feed would really ruin the game.

As I say, at least try it.

[ampersand]

I'm not. It's a game that should be able to be played on any park. I reckon this is about the only thing that Blatter has got right.

As for the money, that's the fault of those who punted that money on a game. It's a game, it's not a business.

It's the money that's f**king things up, and it should be pandered to less - not more.

[ampersand]

Most offside goals could be done just as quick using the same technology. So why use it for goal lines and not the offsides. To be honest the goal-line problem happens so rare, I dont see the point investing too much into it. Why look for solutions to problems which dont really exist. How many times in a season does this really happen

[Nedson]

How can you possibly know that? I say at least try it. Goal-line technology is a shoe-in, that won't take more than one second to indicate if the ball has crossed the line. I can't see why a two way radio between the ref and the fourth official watching a live feed would really ruin the game.

As I say, at least try it.