• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

World Cup 2006

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Are you going to follow the FIFA World Cup 2006 games?

  • Yes, I'm a real soccer fanatic.

    Votes: 39 43.3%

  • Yes, As long as the US is still playing.

    Votes: 23 25.6%

  • No, I like soccer, but I'm more interested in the NBA, NHL, and/or MLB.

    Votes: 7 7.8%

  • No, The only football I'm interested in is one played with a ball that has pointed ends.

    Votes: 21 23.3%
  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
Sort by date Sort by votes
Bucklion said:
So given that, you believe the call in the ITA-AUS game should have been made...or not?
Click to expand...

Of course it should have been made. It was a no brainer call. Defender dives for the ball, misses it, and trips the offensive player. Can't get much easier than that.

It doesn't matter when it happens. PKs in soccer are so easy and scoring goals are so rare, that a PK oftentimes will decide a game (it would be interesting to see a stat about what percent of teams who score a PK goal in regulation end up losing...I bet it's pretty rare). so, it shouldn't matter when the penalty in the box happens - the 5th minute or the 91st minute. Either way, it's likely the PK will decide the game.
 
Upvote 0
If tibor is a "doctorb", does that make these World Cup refs "refereebs"?

The refs have been so bad in this World Cup that it's making me feel guilty about every time I've bitched about reffing/officiating/umping in any other sport ever in my life.
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
Of course it should have been made. It was a no brainer call. Defender dives for the ball, misses it, and trips the offensive player. Can't get much easier than that.

It doesn't matter when it happens. PKs in soccer are so easy and scoring goals are so rare, that a PK oftentimes will decide a game (it would be interesting to see a stat about what percent of teams who score a PK goal in regulation end up losing...I bet it's pretty rare). so, it shouldn't matter when the penalty in the box happens - the 5th minute or the 91st minute. Either way, it's likely the PK will decide the game.
Click to expand...

I don't know...I've seen more at midfield that hasn't even been called a foul. I guess that's my one big problem with soccer, even though I love to watch it...a lot of times, the calls in the box are entirely different than they are anywhere else, even though the call (a foul) is supposed to be the same.
 
Upvote 0
Well, Brazil downed Ghana 3-0. Ghana played pretty well, and Dida made a coupe of excellent saves to get the shutout.

lBut if I were their coach, I would not start Adriano for the next game. Twice he was approaching the goalkeeper, with a wide-open, on-side teammate even with him a few yards away in front of the goal, and he didn't pass the ball for an easy goal. Each time he shot and was stopped by the goalkeeper that was coming out toward him. The second time Ronaldinho was visibly disappointed that he didn't get the ball.
 
Upvote 0
Good. Fuck Ghana.

Just once... I'd like to see an American player who gets carded after a bullshit call on a dive take a dive himself and grab his knee in the most melodramatic fashion right as the ref puts the card over his head. Sure, he'd get sent off for it, but would be a damn good protest.
 
Upvote 0
IronBuckI said:
It takes more than one bad call to decide games in most other sports. One goal was scored the entire game, and it was on a questionable (at best). Bad calls seem a lot more weighted in soccer.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have made the call. I saw the replay many times last night, and if you watch closely, you'll see that the Italian player could have jumped over the Australian; however, once the Australian went down, the Italian fell too, hoping (correctly in this case) to get the call. His celebration immediately afterwards reinforced this conclusion.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyeboy said:
I wouldn't have made the call. I saw the replay many times last night, and if you watch closely, you'll see that the Italian player could have jumped over the Australian; however, once the Australian went down, the Italian fell too, hoping (correctly in this case) to get the call. His celebration immediately afterwards reinforced this conclusion.
Click to expand...

why should the italian jump? It wasn't as if the Italian player was charging a comotose or drunk Australian player on the ground. The australian dove and missed the ball and the italian tried to dribble and tripped on the drunk Aussie on the ground. Pretty simple call if you ask me.
 
Upvote 0
You reap what you sow all too often in futbol. The Aussie's were unable to take advantage of a man advantage for the longest time during that game. Only belatedly did they adjust their formation to bring another forward up to help Viduka. Only too late did they sub in someone with fresh legs and imagination.

As happy as I have been for those Socceroos, Hiddink's management of the side was pathetic in this game.

For not taking full advantage when they could do so, for failing to use their bench till too late and for failing to make the simplest of form tackles in the penalty box late in the game.

As for the call - you can't just lay down as an obstacle, especially when that invites the appearance of tripping an opponent.

If seen as tripping, which is surely what the referee called it, then that is a direct free kick - in the penalty area, so a PK.

If it were to have been seen as merely obstruction then it would still have been a free kick, an indirect free kick. By rule ALL opposing players would have had to be 10 yards from the ball at re-start. (Yep - you too goalie). Given the proximity to goal that is arguably an easy chance for a goal - there was no room for a defensive wall.

Either way you slice and dice it Italy got what they needed, if the PK was harsh, the alternative would not have been any less decisive.
 
Upvote 0
What did you guys think of the end of the France/Spain game? the French player won an Oscar for that supposed elbow to the face, which was actually more like half an elbow to the shoulder. While the yellow card was a crock, it still seemed as if a penalty was in order so I guess the resulting free kick was legit.

Still, I really would like to see some crybaby faker get a yellow or even a red card for diving.
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
What did you guys think of the end of the France/Spain game? the French player won an Oscar for that supposed elbow to the face, which was actually more like half an elbow to the shoulder. While the yellow card was a crock, it still seemed as if a penalty was in order so I guess the resulting free kick was legit.

Still, I really would like to see some crybaby faker get a yellow or even a red card for diving.
Click to expand...

I think the French guy was Henry...the British commentators on the radio were absolutely going off on him, even saying "The goal resulted basically from cheating by Henry"
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
why should the italian jump? It wasn't as if the Italian player was charging a comotose or drunk Australian player on the ground. The australian dove and missed the ball and the italian tried to dribble and tripped on the drunk Aussie on the ground. Pretty simple call if you ask me.
Click to expand...

See, that's just it. If the refs didn't constantly reward such theatrics, maybe the Italian player would make an athletic move despite the hurdle and still score. IMO, the game would be better served that way than it would by some guy faking a fall to get a PK that decides the match. I'm not saying that you're wrong here; I think that you and I just see things differently when it comes to how soccer should be officiated. IMO not making that call could improve the game, whereas making the call leads to the kind of theatrics and begging for a call that ruins other games as well, as you claimed happened in today's France game.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyeboy said:
See, that's just it. If the refs didn't constantly reward such theatrics, maybe the Italian player would make an athletic move despite the hurdle and still score. IMO, the game would be better served that way than it would by some guy faking a fall to get a PK that decides the match. I'm not saying that you're wrong here; I think that you and I just see things differently when it comes to how soccer should be officiated. IMO not making that call could improve the game, whereas making the call leads to the kind of theatrics and begging for a call that ruins other games as well, as you claimed happened in today's France game.
Click to expand...

one difference is that there really were no theatrics in the Italy game. the Aussie player really did get in his way and really did interfere with him and really did trip him.

One thing I've always wondered if i there could be 2 types of penalty kicks. The PK as it is awarded now is reserved for egregious penalties in teh box, i.e. hand ball, tripping a player on a breakaway, etc, For all other minor infractions in the box, the ball is placed further out (i.e. maybe near the line of the penalty box) and the PK takes place there.
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
one difference is that there really were no theatrics in the Italy game. the Aussie player really did get in his way and really did interfere with him and really did trip him.

One thing I've always wondered if i there could be 2 types of penalty kicks. The PK as it is awarded now is reserved for egregious penalties in teh box, i.e. hand ball, tripping a player on a breakaway, etc, For all other minor infractions in the box, the ball is placed further out (i.e. maybe near the line of the penalty box) and the PK takes place there.
Click to expand...

And if the acting is not deemed completely oscar-worthy by the ref then we can place the ball at the half-way line. (Or for egregious hamming it up, outside the stadium).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top