World Cup SA 2010

[suites]

No one talks about that Ghana got a gift because ref gave them a free kick on a bad call that gave then a kick in the box with no time left on clock. I thought that Suarez could have used his head. What about Spain game with two missed pk in one minute just great

[Synthesizer Patel]

Klose almost looked liked he was apologizing to the Argentinian goalie at the end of the game.

 

i think he was apologising for something he did earlier in the game - the ball came into the box and he put his leg up rather high (which is fine in that situation) to score, but hit the goal-keeper instead.

 

also, all this talk of cheating. the whole game of football involves cheating. it really is the most appalling game in that respect. think of the term "good sport" or "sportsman-like" and then look at football - it doesn't fit.

[Griddles]

No one talks about that Ghana got a gift because ref gave them a free kick on a bad call that gave then a kick in the box with no time left on clock. I thought that Suarez could have used his head. What about Spain game with two missed pk in one minute just great

What bad call? Suarez clearly used his hand to keep the ball out. How this could be a bad call is baffling.

[Calexico]

a kick in the box

 

Quoted just because it is much funnier over this side of the water than it is over there. I got a laugh out of it though.

[suites]

What bad call? Suarez clearly used his hand to keep the ball out. How this could be a bad call is baffling.

 

I was talking about the call that gave Ghana a free kick when they kicked it into the box and all the craziness happened. Not the Hand ball.

[Guest Jules]

I was thinking the same thing. I figured most non fans would think that purposely cheating can actually win you the match would confirm their thinking that it's a stupid sport.

Actually, the fact that it's illegal for a non-goalie to stop the ball confirmed this for me.

[Winston Legthigh]

Actually, the fact that it's illegal for a non-goalie to stop the ball confirmed this for me.

(with his hands)

[Guest Jules]

(with his hands)

As a "non-fan", I didn't think it mattered. The consequences seem logical (red card, 1 game suspension, etc), but to say the rules should allow the goal seems silly to this non-fan.

[Winston Legthigh]

As a "non-fan", I didn't think it mattered. The consequences seem logical (red card, 1 game suspension, etc), but to say the rules should allow the goal seems silly to this non-fan.

I agree with you. Justice was meted out. Ghana earned their penalty kick, which is in line with the rules. They blew it. Uruguay didn't win BECAUSE they cheated, as some have stated. They cheated AND won.

 

Every sport has rules and refs to hand out justice, instantly. Sometimes it's caught, sometimes it isn't.

[caliber66]

If Uruguay had not cheated, they would have lost. They had the opportunity to win because they cheated, which is not the same as winning because they cheated, but it's close.

[bjorn_skurj]

Well, it wasn't like Ghana had a great shot to beat Holland either.

[Guest Jules]

If Uruguay had not cheated, they would have lost.

This is impossible to determine.

[ih8music]

If Uruguay had not cheated, they would have lost. They had the opportunity to win because they cheated, which is not the same as winning because they cheated, but it's close.

But if the Ghana player hadn't taken the obvious dive to draw the penalty (also "cheating" in my book), they wouldn't have had those chances in the first place.

 

Had they scored in those final seconds, would you be complaining that they won because they cheated - or, rather, that cheating gave them an opportunity to win the game?

[caliber66]

This is impossible to determine.

No, it's pretty possible to determine. The penalty kick was the final play of the game. If it had gone in, the game would have ended then. Thus, the penalty happened within a minute of when the referee would have blown the whistle. Had Uruguay not played the ball illegally to stop the would-be goal, the odds they would have scored in the last :30 of stoppage time remaining are vanishingly small. Had the initial ball gone in the goal, Ghana would have won.

 

But if the Ghana player hadn't taken the obvious dive to draw the penalty (also "cheating" in my book), they wouldn't have had those chances in the first place. Had they scored in those final seconds, would you be complaining that they won because they cheated - or, rather, that cheating gave them an opportunity to win the game?

I'm not complaining about anything.

[bleedorange]

The only thing the World Cup has done this year is reaffirm my belief that soccer is a silly sport. From the horrendous officiating to the ridiculous dives to try to draw yellow cards to the discussion about the end of the Uruguay-Ghana game. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[uncool2pillow]

The only thing the World Cup has done this year is reaffirm my belief that soccer is a silly sport. From the horrendous officiating to the ridiculous dives to try to draw yellow cards to the discussion about the end of the Uruguay-Ghana game. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

If you don't like watching the World Cup or any brand of soccer, that's fine. To each their own, but all of your critiques listed here apply to other sports.

 

Horrendous officiating - Baseball, basketball (cheating ref in the NBA)

Ridiculous dives - Again, baseball (players leaning in to "take one for the team"), basketball, almost any athlete will feign injury to get a judgment from a ref. I will grant this happens more in soccer than other sports, but that's because of the nature of the fouling.

Uruguay-Ghana discussion - Almost any sport discussed on any discussion board.

[plasticeyeball]

it's the only sport i can watch.

[bleedorange]

If you don't like watching the World Cup or any brand of soccer, that's fine. To each their own, but all of your critiques listed here apply to other sports.

 

Horrendous officiating - Baseball, basketball (cheating ref in the NBA)

Ridiculous dives - Again, baseball (players leaning in to "take one for the team"), basketball, almost any athlete will feign injury to get a judgment from a ref. I will grant this happens more in soccer than other sports, but that's because of the nature of the fouling.

Uruguay-Ghana discussion - Almost any sport discussed on any discussion board.

 

I'm not a big fan of basketball, either.

 

Baseball is probably the best officiated sport in the world. And "leaning in" to a pitch is nowhere near the shenanigans that take place on a soccer field. And I'm talking about the specific discussion talking about how the one player should be banned for life and the rule should be changed to allow a goal, etc. It's nothing more than a tackle taking down a defensive end who has gotten past him to avoid giving up a sack. A hand ball is against the rules just like holding is, but there are established consequences, which were enforced in this instance. If the player from Uruguay hadn't done everything he could have to prevent the goal, he would be a goat.

[pillowy star]

They cheated AND won.

 

Like Germany against England. Disgusting and embarrassing if you like me are cursed with a German passport.

[caliber66]

I'm not a big fan of basketball, either.

 

Baseball is probably the best officiated sport in the world. And "leaning in" to a pitch is nowhere near the shenanigans that take place on a soccer field. And I'm talking about the specific discussion talking about how the one player should be banned for life and the rule should be changed to allow a goal, etc. It's nothing more than a tackle taking down a defensive end who has gotten past him to avoid giving up a sack. A hand ball is against the rules just like holding is, but there are established consequences, which were enforced in this instance. If the player from Uruguay hadn't done everything he could have to prevent the goal, he would be a goat.

You say leaning into a pitch is not comparable to players attempting to bend the rules to their advantage in soccer, and then you suggest that a defensive player playing the would-be game-winning goal in a World Cup quarterfinal on the goal line with his hand is comparable to a player tackling a defensive end going for a sack. You're rationalizing.

[MattZ]

Maybe I am thinking about this too narrowly, but how is it "cheating" if the game contemplates it and has an established penalty for it. Similar to a flagrant foul in basketball, or pass interference in football. Seems these sports recognize that these things happen, and as such, have dictated strict penalties in each instance. To tackle a player on a breakaway to the hoop or a wide receiver who beats you down the sideline isn't cheating, is it?

[Winston Legthigh]

Maybe I am thinking about this too narrowly, but how is it "cheating" if the game contemplates it and has an established penalty for it. Similar to a flagrant foul in basketball, or pass interference in football. Seems these sports recognize that these things happen, and as such, have dictated strict penalties in each instance. To tackle a player on a breakaway to the hoop or a wide receiver who beats you down the sideline isn't cheating, is it?

So, if a cyclist dopes his blood for the Tour de France, it isn't cheating because the rules contemplate such a situation?

 

Conversely, how could anything not contemplated by the rules be considered cheating? A player has to know what the rules are in order to devise a plan to break them.

[MattZ]

So, if a cyclist dopes his blood for the Tour de France, it isn't cheating because the rules contemplate such a situation?

 

Conversely, how could anything not contemplated by the rules be considered cheating? A player has to know what the rules are in order to devise a plan to break them.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear -- I mean within the context of the game itself. It seems to me that to "cheat" you need to be bringing externalities into the game. Either doping in cycling, or nail files in baseball, or paying off refs in basketball.

 

I am open to being convinced otherwise. What about my analogies to basketball and football -- both examples of defenders "breaking the rules" to prevent a score.

[Winston Legthigh]

Maybe I wasn't clear -- I mean within the context of the game itself. It seems to me that to "cheat" you need to be bringing externalities into the game. Either doping in cycling, or nail files in baseball, or paying off refs in basketball.

 

I am open to being convinced otherwise. What about my analogies to basketball and football -- both examples of defenders "breaking the rules" to prevent a score.

I see what you are saying - if something is open and flagrant, (endzone interference, holding, goaltending, etc.) and the rules contemplate such "infractions", then is it cheating?

 

I think the term itself is fuzzy, and I agree that it implies that you are also hiding the fact that you are breaking the rules. There's definitely a difference between openly and strategically breaking the rules - and accepting that the penalty (1st down on the 1 yard line, 10 yards, penalty kick) is better than what would have happened if you didn't interfere, hold the guy, hand-ball, and hiding the fact that you're breaking the rules, such as blood doping, corking a bat, etc.

[Guest Jules]

No, it's pretty possible to determine. The penalty kick was the final play of the game. If it had gone in, the game would have ended then. Thus, the penalty happened within a minute of when the referee would have blown the whistle. Had Uruguay not played the ball illegally to stop the would-be goal, the odds they would have scored in the last :30 of stoppage time remaining are vanishingly small. Had the initial ball gone in the goal, Ghana would have won.

No way of knowing it would have gone in.