BLU
Active topics
  1. Germany is the best team. They play football as it was ment to be played. They stole our tactics though

    Hope Holland can lose the rustiness that is upon them now. Because our attack is non existant
  2. Originally posted by yeah:I don't get the fuzz about Suarez. Of course he was cheating. So was the player from Ghana when he dived to get the free kick that led to the situation. Also, Appiah was offside, when he shot on goal (the handball happened in the next situation). So technically, that problem shouldn't even have happened...
    And last but not least, Suarez was punished, it's not his fault when Gyan misses the penalty.

    Human error, i.e. the referee missing an incident is different to blatent unabashed cheating. If the Ghanaian player dived, I can't remember because I wasn't in the room at the time, that's also cheating but it's not denying a certain goal, so there's still no guarantee anything's going to come of it - Uruguay had as good an opportunity to clear it as Ghana did to make something of it. However, whatever came before, the fact is Ghana had a clear goal denied by outright cheating. There's a big difference between cheating to con the ref and cheating such as Suarez did, because that cheating denied a certainty, whereas . I'm not advocating diving because I dislike it intensely in all forms and think it should be punished,, but until a proper stand is actually made cheating will go on in all forms, and even moreso if people continue with this attitude of 'everyone would do the same' - if everyone would do the same, then it's got to be rammed home that it's not going to be tolerated. And yes, I am basically implying that all cheats should be punished, even if that means suspending a whole host of players after a match retrospectively - teams and managers would soon start to make their players stop, and indeed so would the players if they had 5-6 players suspended at the same time for cheating. The basic implication here I guess is a large overhaul of the game to stamp out bad sportsmanship and unfair play, however much it takes, because if we can't put together a game of football without having someone going against the spirit of the game and gaining an unfair advantage every 5 bloody minutes we might as well give up now.
    Originally posted by germcevoy:The ref should have spotted them. I dislike Suarez not just for this incident. My annoyance here is that Ghana didn't really gain anything from it but a sense of dejection. Sure they could have banged in the penalty but that's miles harder than watching a goal bound effort being caught from going in.

    Football is becoming an increasingly hard game to love and watch nowdays and it's down to little tits like Suarez. If everybody in the game was honest there would be no problems. If you are impeded to the point when you cannot stay on your feet then go down. If you cannot prevent a ball from crossing the line then let it cross the line.

    Thank god there's cricket

    Sad but true, although even then you get cheating in cricket - batsmen refusing to walk when they know they're out, bowlers tampering with the ball etc.. Not as common, but it still occurs.

    Cheating isn't allowed in the rules, so yes they can make an example of him, and more importantly, should. The key factor would be to then progress and make a stand against cheating with punitive punishment in relation to the game. At the moment, the only way players will take note is if the punishments enforced are extreme, i.e. lengthy bans or heavy fines. The rules should be changed re. incidents such as Suarez' and indeed Harry Kewell in the group stages, and similar incidents in turn - if a ball is prevented going over the line by an act of cheating such as a handball on the line, the referee should have the power to award a penalty goal, and also send off or caution the offending player accordingly.
  3. Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
    Human error, i.e. the referee missing an incident is different to blatent unabashed cheating. If the Ghanaian player dived, I can't remember because I wasn't in the room at the time, that's also cheating but it's not denying a certain goal, so there's still no guarantee anything's going to come of it - Uruguay had as good an opportunity to clear it as Ghana did to make something of it. However, whatever came before, the fact is Ghana had a clear goal denied by outright cheating.


    But the opportunity to score that goal was achieved by cheating. Suarez wouldn't have played handball if Ghana had not cheated before. To me the only thing debatable is that the ref didn't see the dive (and that the linesman didn't see that Appiah was offside). Can't see why Suarez action should be worse than the one by Ghana's diver. To me what matters is the action itself, not the consequences that arise from it... Wow, this could turn into a debate of deontology vs. Consequentialism...

    Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
    Cheating isn't allowed in the rules, so yes they can make an example of him, and more importantly, should. The key factor would be to then progress and make a stand against cheating with punitive punishment in relation to the game. At the moment, the only way players will take note is if the punishments enforced are extreme, i.e. lengthy bans or heavy fines. The rules should be changed re. incidents such as Suarez' and indeed Harry Kewell in the group stages, and similar incidents in turn - if a ball is prevented going over the line by an act of cheating such as a handball on the line, the referee should have the power to award a penalty goal, and also send off or caution the offending player accordingly.


    Again, they can't make an example of him. There's a clear punishment in the rules for an unfairness like that. They have/had to punish Suarez within these rules. After that, your suggestion can be considered.

  4. They could have suspended him for the final though, they thought about that.


  5. Yep, that's true. Still technically this would be just a 2 game ban. Hardly an exemplary punishment. (And I guess they didn't have much of a choice after the 1 game ban for Kewell)
  6. True, but suspending him for one match only suggest a minor incident. I have seen people being suspended for one match for accidental hands after a minor foul in a match earlier.

    Anyway we can bitch what we want... Holland will win and then it doesnt matter


  7. Even if that happens, people will bitch about a) Holland having had an easy way to the title and b) Holland playing ugly football.
  8. There's no happy outcome. See if Ireland were in the World Cup i'd be drunk during all of the matches and all these shady rules wouldn't bother me.

    On a more serious note though, the crap decisions and the cheating etc are no different to what happens week in, week out in all leagues. What is different though, is that we are watching nearly 2 games a day for a whole 4 weeks. That's a lot of football which is going to translate into a lot of injustices whereas during a standard season we are watching maybe 1 or 2 games a week and as a rule of ratio these injustices are not going to be as regular. Maybe this world cup isn't all that bad after all.
  9. Yep Holland is playing crap for some reason. But the fact is that all opponents we have played until now played crappier.

    Our main problem is the attack. Van Persie lacks fitness and people found out Robben can only do 1 thing. On the other side we dont have anyone.

    Solution:
    Robben on the left, so he cant do his frustrating repetive moves. And Van Persie on the right. Then Kuyt or Huntelaar as center forward and I promise goals with football we are used to from the Dutch
  10. Originally posted by Risto:Yep Holland is playing crap for some reason. But the fact is that all opponents we have played until now played crappier.

    Our main problem is the attack. Van Persie lacks fitness and people found out Robben can only do 1 thing. On the other side we dont have anyone.

    Solution:
    Robben on the left, so he cant do his frustrating repetive moves. And Van Persie on the right. Then Kuyt or Huntelaar as center forward and I promise goals with football we are used to from the Dutch


    Or it would be the old story: Holland plays beautiful football and goes home soon. This time, they're quite effective.
  11. Originally posted by yeah:But the opportunity to score that goal was achieved by cheating. Suarez wouldn't have played handball if Ghana had not cheated before. To me the only thing debatable is that the ref didn't see the dive (and that the linesman didn't see that Appiah was offside). Can't see why Suarez action should be worse than the one by Ghana's diver. To me what matters is the action itself, not the consequences that arise from it... Wow, this could turn into a debate of deontology vs. Consequentialism...

    I'm not denying that the free kick awarded wasn't achieved through cheating - I'm not saying it was or wasn't, because like I say I didn't see it and haven't seen a replay. If if he dived, he dived and he should be punished henceforth, but the referee can only call what he says, and like I say it's human error on his part, but he cannot be to blame if he has been conned. You could argue here to be another case to put forward for TV replays, because then if he suspected the player of diving, he'd have an opportunity to see it again, and then we wouldn't be having this debate at all because chances are the ensuing goalmouth scramble wouldn't have taken place. However, the fact is, it has happened and we're all discussing it and I feel it's a positive discussion to be having.

    To my mind the key difference is the referee's role, power and reading of the game, as well as his position in the situations concerned. He made a mistake in awarding the free kick if the player dived or if his linesman misses an offside call, but I believe being conned by simulation is different to seeing a player blocking a certain goal illegally. Unintentional human error is a part of life and a part of football, and unfortunately we have to accept that - the referee needs to be respected and recognised as being the arbiter on the field of play, and if he gets it wrong, he gets it wrong and that should be dealt subsequently, however such things are dealt with, but the fact is if there is no neutral authority running the match, then there's no point playing to the rules at all. I'm not condoning referees making mistakes because I would like to think that they are trained to recognise cheating, but you have to accept them because I believe referees try their hardest to get it right and everyone makes mistakes, but it is not their fault if they have been fooled by a cheat. In this case, if the cheat has got away with it in the game, he should be punished harshly and retrospectively.

    If you're on the wrong end of a bad decision, you have to accept it because referees are human and make mistakes. But a mistake is different to an act such as Kewell or Suarez' goal-line blocks because they're not mistakes - they were both deliberate illegal last-ditch acts to prevent a goal which should have the correct punishment applied. The problem for me is that I do not see the punishment, as the rules currently stand, being fit for the crime, so to speak, hence why I feel the rules should be changed.
    Originally posted by yeah:Again, they can't make an example of him. There's a clear punishment in the rules for an unfairness like that. They have/had to punish Suarez within these rules. After that, your suggestion can be considered.

    I'm well aware of that, but they can make an example of him by way of changing the rules henceforth. I'm not saying that as things stand, they have given themselves an opportunity to make an example of him but they can make an example if they use it to signal a change in the laws and the procedures they set in place. I'm essentially hypothesising.
  12. Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
    I'm not denying that the free kick awarded wasn't achieved through cheating - I'm not saying it was or wasn't, because like I say I didn't see it and haven't seen a replay. If if he dived, he dived and he should be punished henceforth, but the referee can only call what he says, and like I say it's human error on his part, but he cannot be to blame if he has been conned. You could argue here to be another case to put forward for TV replays, because then if he suspected the player of diving, he'd have an opportunity to see it again, and then we wouldn't be having this debate at all because chances are the ensuing goalmouth scramble wouldn't have taken place. However, the fact is, it has happened and we're all discussing it and I feel it's a positive discussion to be having.

    To my mind the key difference is the referee's role, power and reading of the game, as well as his position in the situations concerned. He made a mistake in awarding the free kick if the player dived or if his linesman misses an offside call, but I believe being conned by simulation is different to seeing a player blocking a certain goal illegally. Unintentional human error is a part of life and a part of football, and unfortunately we have to accept that - the referee needs to be respected and recognised as being the arbiter on the field of play, and if he gets it wrong, he gets it wrong and that should be dealt subsequently, however such things are dealt with, but the fact is if there is no neutral authority running the match, then there's no point playing to the rules at all. I'm not condoning referees making mistakes because I would like to think that they are trained to recognise cheating, but you have to accept them because I believe referees try their hardest to get it right and everyone makes mistakes, but it is not their fault if they have been fooled by a cheat. In this case, if the cheat has got away with it in the game, he should be punished harshly and retrospectively.

    If you're on the wrong end of a bad decision, you have to accept it because referees are human and make mistakes. But a mistake is different to an act such as Kewell or Suarez' goal-line blocks because they're not mistakes - they were both deliberate illegal last-ditch acts to prevent a goal which should have the correct punishment applied. The problem for me is that I do not see the punishment, as the rules currently stand, being fit for the crime, so to speak, hence why I feel the rules should be changed.
    [..]
    I'm well aware of that, but they can make an example of him by way of changing the rules henceforth. I'm not saying that as things stand, they have given themselves an opportunity to make an example of him but they can make an example if they use it to signal a change in the laws and the procedures they set in place. I'm essentially hypothesising.


    I'm all with you about the referee's role. And as I mentioned before, I think it's this human factor that makes the game that interesting and that evokes these discussions.

    Let's assume for a second that Suarez had not used his hand and that the ball was in. Would the outcry be the same about the diving player? And wouldn't punishing him retrospectively be the same as punishing Suarez now?


Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.