World Cup 2010

[oafc0000]

Oh c'mon ... while a week ago I wouldn't have much cared, it just wouldn't be right for Uruguay to make the final seeing as they only made the semi via blatant cheating. If cheats are seen to prosper, then cheating will become even more the norm than it is already.

[ralph250]

Oh c'mon ... while a week ago I wouldn't have much cared, it just wouldn't be right for Uruguay to make the final seeing as they only made the semi via blatant cheating. If cheats are seen to prosper, then cheating will become even more the norm than it is already.

Edited July 6, 2010 by ralph250

[ampersand]

Oh c'mon ... while a week ago I wouldn't have much cared, it just wouldn't be right for Uruguay to make the final seeing as they only made the semi via blatant cheating. If cheats are seen to prosper, then cheating will become even more the norm than it is already.

[pink_triangle]

i agree with this, but i don't think a team with arjen robben can play the holier than thou card

[ampersand]

I agree with this, but then again are there any countries who dont cheat?

[Cardboard Box City]

there was something about ghana i didn't like though. no problems with uruguay being there.

[eFestivals]

exactly.

with uruguay, it wasn't a blatant attempt at conning the ref or anything. it was natural reaction that was punished. and fortunately for them, ghana didn't take the chance to fully punish them. and paid for it.

"gamesmanship" is not Fair Play. Is football about Fair Play, or is it about doing whatever it takes to win?

If it's about winning at all costs, then forget about Fair Play, forget about what football was, cheer when your team breaks the leg of any opponent, and admire the cheats over the ball players.

[ampersand]

"gamesmanship" is not Fair Play. Is football about Fair Play, or is it about doing whatever it takes to win?

If it's about winning at all costs, then forget about Fair Play, forget about what football was, cheer when your team breaks the leg of any opponent, and admire the cheats over the ball players.

[sifi]

I'd love to see the Dutch do well. Over the years they've given us absolutely great footballers that have thrilled me utterly.

Uruguay have given us Danielle Fonsecca.

[Cardboard Box City]

Uruguay have given us Danielle Fonsecca.

[Gre]

"gamesmanship" is not Fair Play. Is football about Fair Play, or is it about doing whatever it takes to win?

If it's about winning at all costs, then forget about Fair Play, forget about what football was, cheer when your team breaks the leg of any opponent, and admire the cheats over the ball players.

[sifi]

What about Recoba?

[Cardboard Box City]

Hardly Van Basten was he?

[ampersand]

Quite frankly that's bollocks. If football (or any sport ever) were about Fair Play, there wouldn't be any need for a referee.

Thinking about it, isn't there a team sport that doesn't have a referee... ultimate frisbee or something?

[ralph250]

good point, well made!

and football is about both. if you don't want to win, get the f**k off the pitch. i'd hate football if it was just about fair play. why bother keeping scores at all? as long as everyone tried their best and had fun!

Edited July 6, 2010 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

he instinctively stopped the ball crossing the line. he never broke anyones legs. he was punished, it wasn't his fault gyan shat his pants in the spotlight.

He cheated to stop what would otherwise have been a fair goal (on the basis that the ball was still in play).

I seem to remember extremely loud shouts from you of "CHEAT" against Henry, yet it wasn't Henry's (instinctive or not) handball that caused the ball to go into the Irish net.

It might have been instinctive or it might not have been - only one person knows the answer to that one. But that aside, this is an instance where the punishment doesn't fit the crime, so while the rules say that's how it works it can hardly be regarded as fair in any shape or form.

[oafc0000]

He cheated to stop what would otherwise have been a fair goal (on the basis that the ball was still in play).

I seem to remember extremely loud shouts from you of "CHEAT" against Henry, yet it wasn't Henry's (instinctive or not) handball that caused the ball to go into the Irish net.

It might have been instinctive or it might not have been - only one person knows the answer to that one. But that aside, this is an instance where the punishment doesn't fit the crime, so while the rules say that's how it works it can hardly be regarded as fair in any shape or form.

[eFestivals]

Quite frankly that's bollocks. If football (or any sport ever) were about Fair Play, there wouldn't be any need for a referee.

That's simply not true.

Some offences or calls are clear, but others are not and need a 3rd party to decide which way it should go - for example, where a ball bounces on the legs of opposing players several times before going out of play, or where there's a fierce tackle that may or may not have been a foul.

There was a time when the ref had to make the call far less than they do now, and not so long ago either. For example, nowadays it's rare for the ball to go out for a throw-in without both sides claiming the opponent had the last touch with one side knowing they're trying to cheat, yet that used to happen far far less than it does now.

[ralph250]

Not justifying it but slightly differentiated from Henry.

Henry's was 103rd minute so Ireland still had opportunity to score (and would've progressed on away goals if they had), and equally had France not scored via Henry's handball then France would still be in with an opportunity via penalties (as tied on away goals).

Uruguay were out, it was last kick of the game. It was last chance saloon and so instinct might've kicked in more.

[eFestivals]

Teams for years have used the rules to their own team's advantage.

Foul play is now an allowable part of the rules, is it?

...As I said, I don't agree with what Suarez did, but equally would expect any player to do the same in the 120th min at a world cup quarter final, and part of me is sypathetic to the fact that he's gonna miss a semi (and possibly a final if they do extend the ban) when play shouldn't have gone that far if the officials made the right calls. Equally as discussed, he didn't get away with it a la Henry. He was sent off and penalty given.

That's laughable, and about as pathetic as it gets.

"Getting away with it" is the result of any cheating, not whether it's spotted or not.

When a prem player foul-tackles your beloved Rooney and breaks his leg, do you say "it's alright, the ref spotted it was a foul and gave us a free kick. It's all fair".

As I said, laughable.

[eFestivals]

Do you not accept it would of hit his head anyway ?

I accept it might have been the case, tho it's not how I saw it at the time. I'd have to see it again.

[ralph250]

it can hardly be regarded as fair in any shape or form.

[ralph250]

Foul play is now an allowable part of the rules, is it?

[ampersand]

Equally as discussed, he didn't get away with it a la Henry. He was sent off and penalty given.

[eFestivals]

Neither would that "goal" be on Uruguay if it had gone in. As above, probable dive to win it and offside.

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'.