Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on June 17, 2006, 05:26:00 pm
-
USA v Italy - worst referee in the history of soccer, contrary to the bull**** claims of the british commentators who have their heads up their asses those were NOT even bookable - i have video of the entire game and i've watch those over and over
A) Both players got the ball first
B) Both players game from the side
C) In no previous match in the world cup, or no previous match i've ever seen in history, would those have been bookable offenses, let alone a straight red card
D) This referee missed the 2002 World Cup because his own country suspended him due to unspecified irregularities
PS: it clearly shows in the replay that Pablo Mastroeni's cleats were DOWN
-
You think that's bad?
I've seen red cards simply because a player did a friendly tap on another players back.
Complaining doesn't lead to anything.
-
Yes Ghostavo, but did you see those in the world cup
-
a)
watch the replay again. I'll be happy to pop up one once it's up on youtube. You will clearly see, in particular, Mastroeni clattering Pirlo on the ankle after the ball has moved away. It's blatantly obvious in fact.
Oh, and they're called studs, not cleats.
-
a)
watch the replay again. I'll be happy to pop up one once it's up on youtube. You will clearly see, in particular, Mastroeni clattering Pirlo on the ankle after the ball has moved away. It's blatantly obvious in fact.
Oh, and they're called studs, not cleats.
at regular speed you cant really tell, but in slow-mo its very obvious they were up
not like it really matters anyway 1-1 remember
-
The more important thing is, IMO, him taking away Pirlos ankle with a lunge in. If you dive in at that speed, regardless of how your foot is set up, and hit the ankle like that, it's dangerous.
-
Mastroeni's red card was clear as day. He was nowhere near the ball, in a sliding tacke, with studs first, directly on the ancle. He could have broken it easy had there been just a bit of bad luck involved, what with the speed he was going it. It was stupid and unnecessary, and he got what he deserved. Just like that Italian karate-kid wannabe who got the first one. Missed the 2nd US red so no clue if that was warranted or not.
-
Mastroenis red card was clear as day. He was nowhere near the ball, in a sliding tacke, with studs first, directly on the ancle. It was stupid and unnecessary, and he got what he deserved. Just like that Italian karate-kid wannabe who got the first one. Missed the 2nd US red so no clue if that was warranted or not.
2nd red was Pope sliding from the LHS (from behind) of Gilardino, and catching his inner leg. It was a yellow (2nd) rather than red.
-
And if anyone thinks that Pope got the ball before he got the Italians legs in that second challenge they must need their eyes checked. I doubt he even made contact.
I'll wait for the Youtube uploads but it's pretty easy to spot even at full speed, let alone in slow-mo
-
Taking the leg from behind is always at least a yellow, so guess that's warranted too then. Have to keep in mind that FIFA's line on such matters was tightened leading up to the tournament exactly in order to combat that kind of behaviour. Which was public knowledge, so they should know better than to tackle like that.
-
USA v Italy - worst referee in the history of soccer, contrary to the bull**** claims of the british commentators who have their heads up their asses those were NOT even bookable - i have video of the entire game and i've watch those over and over
A) Both players got the ball first
B) Both players game from the side
C) In no previous match in the world cup, or no previous match i've ever seen in history, would those have been bookable offenses, let alone a straight red card
D) This referee missed the 2002 World Cup because his own country suspended him due to unspecified irregularities
PS: it clearly shows in the replay that Pablo Mastroeni's cleats were DOWN
Told you.
-
Told you.
you'll forgive me for not instantly seeking betting advice on the basis of that prediction, I hope.
-
Anyway, the US should be happy. Draw vs Italy is a good result for any country, they put up a good fight and were very dangerous at time, and they can still advance with a victory over Ghana - Though that might be difficult as the africans also seem to have picked up their game big time.
Most importantly, they washed off the Czech defeat. Showed they can be contenders.
-
Taking the leg from behind is always at least a yellow, so guess that's warranted too then. Have to keep in mind that FIFA's line on such matters was tightened leading up to the tournament exactly in order to combat that kind of behaviour. Which was public knowledge, so they should know better than to tackle like that.
That particular rule isn't even new. It's been in for at least 2 or 3 World Cups. At least with the first red the player can claim that the whole lunging tackle thing is new.
No idea what defence De Rossi is going to make though. :p "There was a bee on his face about to sting him and I thought he might be allergic!"
-
problem is - they didn't come from THE SIDE
i just watched the replay AGAIN cleats were DOWN, ball was contacted
FURTHERMORE even if his cleats were up it's a yellow card, not a straight red on pablo
Studs were DOWN as he slid in and he contacted ball FIRST, got boot not ankle, was from the side
Eddie Pope replay - from the side, cleats down, ball first, contact was SHIN GUARD TO SHIN GUARD
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/italy/5044220.stm
I'm sorry for myself, my team and the fans," said the 22-year-old.
"I didn't intend to harm him. I talked with him and now I'm hoping the punishment isn't too harsh. I feel terrible about it. I explained what happened with McBride and he was very kind."
It's strange the neutral BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/4853182.stm) isn't criticising the referee, isn't it? Or were they bribed too?
NB: it doesn't matter where the studs are, it's the danger of the tackle. I'll pull up the fifa rules to show it;
http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulation/0,1584,3,00.html
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. receives a second caution in the same match.
hmm, does that mention studs atall? No? Shockeroony!
-
neither tackle qualified for anything on that list
-
Mastroeni's qualified for both 1 and 2, actually. Anyway, might be a good idea to suspend this argument 'till the replays are posted on a site somewhere, because we're clearly not going to ever agree without being able to capture frames showing what exactly happened.
-
Yep.
*mentions ankle snap again*
FIFA 2006 directives explicitly require punishment for lunging tackles. I'll have to try and find the guidelines themselves.
-
Mastroeni's qualified for both 1 and 2, actually. Anyway, might be a good idea to suspend this argument 'till the replays are posted on a site somewhere, because we're clearly not going to ever agree without being able to capture frames showing what exactly happened.
bull**** - i've watched the replay over and over (nice thing about having a DVR)
Pablo comes in from the side, cleats down, contacts ball first, caught some boot (not ankle)
not a red card offense - was not "violent conduct" or "serious foul play"
Yellow card maybe (Even that would be excessive harshness on a first offense), but red card - no way
No previous person making that "offense" even with their cleats up, unlike pablo, and catching ankle, unlike pablo, was issued a red card for that in this world cup - they were at most issued a yellow card
-
Stop shouting swear words and post the replay, then.
-
And stop calling them cleats. :nervous:
-
cleats is the american term
and it takes a while to split video out of a 6 gig file, hold on
[edit]
bah, virtualdub won't open the file.. grr
lemme see if i can try and get screenshots
-
Then cleats is definately wrong, isn't it?
Goodness sake, we invented it, we do know the correct names for stuff.
No screenshots. You can say anything with screenshots. I've seen the replay on the highlights multiple times, so I know what it shows.
A hack.
-
i just watched it for the umpteenth time, this time in SLOW MOTION
NOT a red cardable offense
MAYBE a yellow, maybe - cleats were down, contacted ball first, contacted boot not ankle
MAYBE a yellow - i wouldn't ***** about a yellow for pablo
not a straight red, no way in hell was that a sttraight red
as for pope - cleats were down and away from the italian player, contact was shin guard to shin guard - his back leg does sweap out at the end of the run but that wasn't intentional and the italian player was already taking the dive
virtualdub won't load the ****ing mpeg file (probably too big) and I cannot get a clean screenshot (****ing SD) - wish I had an HD stream to use instead of an SD
-
USA v Italy - worst referee in the history of soccer
I watched the game, and, in my opinion this referee was slightly better than the one for Engalnd Vs Paraguay, who repeatedly awarded free kicks to Paraguayan players when Peter Crouch jumped up to win a header.
contrary to the bull**** claims of the british commentators who have their heads up their asses those were NOT even bookable
These people are paid to analyse football and are neutral. You are not.
-
Mastroeni didn't come near touching the ball, what on earth are you watching?
EDIT; http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/live_scores/default.stm RHS for highlights. UK only, sadly. 2:05.
Oh, and his studs were raised. you can see them catch the top of the boot and raised off the ground.
-
The ball was something like 2-3 metres away at the time of contact, having already been passed.
-
you are ****ing blind - pablo's toe made contact with the ball, you even see a change in the direction of the ball, someone with an HD recorder (Who actually agrees with you guys) even pointed that out - i've already repeated the facts that the video replay shows - it was bull****
however, even IF A) the studs on his cleats were facing up (contrary to fact), B) He didn't make contact (Contrary to fact) and C) he got ankle (contrary to fact) that it a yellow card, not a straight red
WORSE call was actually the Eddie Pope call
Pope's cleats faced away and down, made solid contact with the ball, contact was shin guard to shin guard - not a yellow card, not even a foul
-
Red-white-and-blue tinted specs methinks. Oh dear.
-
**** you aldo - how often do I have a ****ing pro-US bias? seriously
Video replay contradicts you you ****ing jackass
ok i'm out of this thread - I'm getting too pissed talking to a brick wall filled with people who cannot see the broad side of a barn
-
Guess we'll have to see once a replay of the situation is up somewhere.
[Edit] Never mind, he removed it. And so will I.
-
**** you aldo - how often do I have a ****ing pro-US bias? seriously
Video replay contradicts you you ****ing jackass
ok i'm out of this thread - I'm getting too pissed talking to a brick wall filled with people who cannot see the broad side of a barn
Video replay proves me right, as countless others have observed - not just people here, but professionals paid to analyze football. Those with UK ips or ways to get round the BBC can view a replay in my earlier post as indicated, which clearly shows this.
Moreso, I have no resorted to swearing like a 12-year-old or insulting people who have the audacity to point out little obvious things such as evidence from a cursory glance at a TV feed shared amongst all the World Cup broadcasters.
AHA!
highlights!
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/w/highlights.html
Ok, it's pretty ****ty because you don't have a load of angles and rewind, etc, but it shows what you need to see :)
-
Told you.
you'll forgive me for not instantly seeking betting advice on the basis of that prediction, I hope.
Probably a good Idea. I got my flatmate to put 10 Euros on Australia to beat Brazil for me at 15:1. 250 AUD when they shock the world and win though. :D
-
Hehe, watching that own goal again made me crack up all over again. Well, onto the fouls. Had to use IE though :(
[Edit] Ok, the ball was closer than I remembered, but from the second angle it's obviously still almost a metre away at the moment of contact, and contact is never made with the ball - Only with the ancle. Definite red. I can see how from the first angle it might look like contact was made with the ball, but that's due to poor perspective, the higher shot makes that abundantly clear. Whether it was from the side or behind is debatable, but given the brutality it doesn't matter one bit.
Finally got to see the 2nd american sendoff too. Definitely yellow. Not red, certainly, but he had to get yellow for that. Dangerous tackle from behind, no doubt about it.
[Edit] Bah... print screen won't capture it. Annoying.
-
Was a bit daft wasn't it?
-
All three reds were idiotic. No idea what either side was thinking really.
-
Ahh screw it, will just use time references for the replay to illustrate since I can't seem to capture the frames in any way.
First angle.
1:19 - Pirlo passes the ball.
1:20 - Mastroeni impacts Pirlo - Right foot clearly studs first on his ancle, left foot seems to be on his boot but somewhat hard to see. Ball is a bit away from either player, but not clear how much.
Second angle.
1:23 - Pirlo passes the ball. Tip of Mastroeni's just visible as he comes charging from the left.
1:24 - Mastroeni impacts. Right foot as above, on the ancle with studs in front, but left foot clearly on the boot but with studs down. Ball very clearly not touched at any point by Mastroeni, in fact there's not any point from this angle where grass can't be seen between it and him.
Very much a red card.
-
cleats is the american term
You really don't know jack **** about soccer, do you? Hell, I only played a rec league for a few years in elementary school and I know better then that.
-
Kaz, noone is buying what youre selling, we all saw it.....red justified
-
Oh for ****s sake lets just end this.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Shot1.jpg)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Shot2.jpg)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Shot3.jpg)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Shot5.jpg)
Someone want to tell me how the ball is directly in front of Pirlo if Mastroeni was coming in at 90 degrees to him? I mean other than the fairly obvious conclusion that the ball wasn't there when Mastroeni actually made contact? Not that getting the ball means **** in this context. That kind of tackle could easily have broken Pirlo's ankle and that's why it was a red card offense regardless of whether Mastroeni touched the ball or not anyway.
As for the contact itself. I think we can see clearly in this pic that he is making contact between studs and ankle.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Shot7.jpg)
-
pwnt :p
-
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJCJKLSIUyE
Yiou'll want to look at about 48 secs in.
-
USA v Italy - worst referee in the history of soccer, contrary to the bull**** claims of the british commentators who have their heads up their asses those were NOT even bookable - i have video of the entire game and i've watch those over and over
A) Both players got the ball first
B) Both players game from the side
C) In no previous match in the world cup, or no previous match i've ever seen in history, would those have been bookable offenses, let alone a straight red card
D) This referee missed the 2002 World Cup because his own country suspended him due to unspecified irregularities
PS: it clearly shows in the replay that Pablo Mastroeni's cleats were DOWN
Which card are you talking about? There were quite a few in there.
I watched the whole game and I would say that I have to agree with the referee on most of the calls. The one was perhaps a bit suspect but a slide tackle with both feet missing the ball and nailing the guy. From the FIFA Handbook...that could be in the eyes of the referee as 'guilty of serious foul play'. Thats an automatic red card. I also have to agree with the Italian striker being thrown out for that elbow in the face. That was much on the same lines.
I'm glad the referee took a very strong approach to the game. Both teams were exceptionally physical in challenging each other for the ball. There was alot of unecessary fouling that went on and it just disrupts the flow of the game. I used to be a certified soccer referee and I hated doing games like that one. There is no flow...its just foul after foul. So maybe I have my head up my ass like the British comentators but I pretty much agree with the officiating from that game.
I have to admit I was cheering for Italy and not the US. I don't think the US has a team that is capable of winning the world cup this year...no passion and no feel on the field. But thats just a personal observation. I was cheering for Poland but they are toast and England is still in the runnings so I've got my two favourite teams to cheer for (based purely on family lines here).
EDIT: Aldo...I think you hit a nerve there.
-
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Shot3.jpg)
italians toe is above pablo's boot, ball still there, challenge from the front and side, referee's view is obstructed
bad call, hands down - all the certified refs i know agree
-
Icefire is a certified ref.
-
You've got to be kidding... look at the youtube video that's been posted, he pushed the guy's foot...
-
(http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3962/tacklemarked1ys.th.jpg) (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tacklemarked1ys.jpg)
Tell me, then. In this image (click for larger version), what is happening in the red circle I marked? Oh, and what does the black bar I inserted show? Well I'll tell you: They show a studded American boot on an Italian ancle, and a very clear gap between the American boot and the ball, respectively. If all the certified refs you know can't see this, they should not be certified refs. In fact, they should be seeing an eye doctor.
-
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Shot3.jpg)
italians toe is above pablo's boot, ball still there, challenge from the front and side, referee's view is obstructed
bad call, hands down - all the certified refs i know agree
theyre also all american and biased, he's also not at Pirlo yet he's stilll got a couple milliseconds before hes there in which time it goes up or Pirlo's goes down, something like that
-
I'd imagine Kazan probably doesn't know any world cup standard refs with the FIFA guidelines for 2006.
-
The thread title made me ROFL. I watched the game zapping through swiss and german TV. And all the commentators and experts agreed that the best man on the field was the ref. And mind you, the german commentators were pro-US, since they were positively surprised by the US team.
The only mistakes IMO were the goals both teams made, but weren't counted since the refs were calling offside (Italy in minute 35, US sometimes in the 2nd half). Judging by the replays, it was a questionable decision, both times.
First red card, no discussion necessary. De Rossi is an asshole and he's known for it. He pulled something similar in a test game against Switzerland just before the WC.
Second red card was clear too. I've seen the replay several time on a big TV. He didn't touch the ball, just slammed into Pablo's foot.
Pope's 2 yellow cards were both justified, although it looked like the ref forgot that Pope already had a yellow card when he issued the 2nd. He got the red card out, just when he was writing down Pope's name on his paper thing.
All in all, crazy game. US team played well, Italy played like ****. But the first goal proved that the Italians can score out of nothing.
-
even if pablo's was justified - popes was not
pope came in studs down and away from the italian, got solid ball contact before touching the player, contact was shin guard to shin guard - italian clearly dove
-
Doesn't matter what it is...argue till the sun explodes....
Ref made the right call at the time. It doesn't matter who said what or what footage is replayed later. The guy is on the field and has to make the decision and it can't be made later...it has to be right away. If you haven't been a game official in that sort of capacity before you should probably pack your bags now because its ALOT harder than it looks and sounds.
Even if footage disagrees with the referee's assessment it doesn't matter. That was the call. You don't win any friends by changing your mind after you've already indicated it.
-
pope came in studs down and away from the italian, got solid ball contact before touching the player, contact was shin guard to shin guard - italian clearly dove
Looks like I have to find pictures again cause he did nothing of the sort.
Here we go. Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCGG0GCYc0g&search=pope%20card) of the incident. From the forwards angle it may look as though he does make contact with the ball you can see from the reverse angle that
a) He doesn't touch it.
b) He smacks into the back of the italian's legs pretty hard.
Definite yellow card offense.
-
I'm pretty sure a tackle from behind is considered dangerous play irrespective of getting the ball nowadays anyway; I think that rules been about since 1998.
EDIT;
aha http://access.fifa.com/en/history/history/0,3504,2,00.html
1998
Law XII - Fouls and Misconduct
A tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Acts of serious foul play are punishable by a red card.
-
True but I don't think Pope was sent off cause his tackle was dangerous enough to merit a red. The ref seems to take a while to realise that he's already given pope a yellow previously and has to now give him the red.
In fact if you watch the video closely he even appears to get ready to write Pope's name down on the yellow and then notices that he's already there before going for the red. :D
-
Yep. I think there was doubt enough about intent to stop it being straight red.
-
Did look like he was going for the ball, but he hit the italian from behind instead. So that was a dangerous tackle by any account, and merited a yellow. Ref did look rather flustered when he realised it was going to be a red, but strictly speaking refs shouldn't take into account prior bookings anyway so in a sense he was just doing it right :p
-
Well what about Romanias game with Denmark with thatUrsz something was his name hows that for obvious stealing a game. They did a formakl complaint to the FIFA but to no use. They even awarded him some prize not long after. Well at least the comentators said something i will never forget and that is that he has to be insane to come in Romania in vacation or otherwise.
-
Well what about Romanias game with Denmark with thatUrsz something was his name hows that for obvious stealing a game. They did a formakl complaint to the FIFA but to no use. They even awarded him some prize not long after. Well at least the comentators said something i will never forget and that is that he has to be insane to come in Romania in vacation or otherwise.
What on earth are you wibbling on about?
-
I think I remember... If it's what I think, that one was bad enough that I could see it even despite danish bias. Besides, there's no point for the refs helping us, we'll fail qualifying anyway :p Once we get to a tournament we're terrific, but we tend to need **** like Yugoslavia being thrown out in 1992 to actually make it in.
-
Soccer?
Who cares?
-
Soccer?
Who cares?
The world. Or at least, more people than for any other sporting event.
-
"cough" Whats that the "World series?" where the rest of the world doesn't paricipate? "cough" :lol:
-
Well what about Romanias game with Denmark with thatUrsz something was his name hows that for obvious stealing a game. They did a formakl complaint to the FIFA but to no use. They even awarded him some prize not long after. Well at least the comentators said something i will never forget and that is that he has to be insane to come in Romania in vacation or otherwise.
Urz Meier? I remember he disallowed a perfectly good England goal in Euro 2004, and we ended up going out on penalties.
The one thing I hate most about the video Kara posted is that the Italian goes down like he's in absolute agony, and looks like he'll never play again. In a couple of minutes he was back up perfectly fine. Play-acting really pisses me off.
-
Well what about Romanias game with Denmark with thatUrsz something was his name hows that for obvious stealing a game. They did a formakl complaint to the FIFA but to no use. They even awarded him some prize not long after. Well at least the comentators said something i will never forget and that is that he has to be insane to come in Romania in vacation or otherwise.
Urz Meier? I remember he disallowed a perfectly good England goal in Euro 2004, and we ended up going out on penalties.
Except that Terry was holding down the keeper and stopping him from jumping, making it a technically correct decision as you can see by perusing replays of it.
(Leading to a hate-mail campaign spurred on by the english tabloids).
-
It's not play acting. It's "helping" the referee see that you were fouled :p
Seriously though I tend to agree with you on that point.
-
Except that Terry was holding down the keeper and stopping him from jumping, making it a technically correct decision as you can see by perusing replays of it.
He wasn't even looking at him, he was just trying to get the ball, we could argue about it until the cows came home but it wouldn't make any difference (and we're a couple of years late).
(Leading to a hate-mail campaign spurred on by the english tabloids).
That's sickening.
It's not play acting. It's "helping" the referee see that you were fouled :p
Seriously though I tend to agree with you on that point.
Found a wonderful quote about Vincenzo Iaquinta
Italian striker Iaquinta displays the kind of skill you can only learn in Serie A - turning to the referee with your arm up to appeal for a penalty even while you're still in the process of tumbling theatrically to the ground. Iaquinta is carried off the pitch on a stretcher only to miraculously recover as soon as he's on the sideline, and three minutes later he makes the game safe
The Italians have some outstanding Physios, it has to be said.
-
It's not play acting. It's "helping" the referee see that you were fouled :p
Seriously though I tend to agree with you on that point.
We have at least seen a few yellow cards given out for diving, which is a start.
He wasn't even looking at him, he was just trying to get the ball, we could argue about it until the cows came home but it wouldn't make any difference (and we're a couple of years late).
Yes. It looked a fair call to my eyes on the replay - a bit like IIRC Campbell scoring in 98 whilst Shearer was obstructing the Argentinean keeper - but who cares now?
-
Whats a cleat meant to be? :confused:
-
Whats a cleat meant to be? :confused:
A stud.
-
They're actually different things. Studs are IIRC screw-in, cleats are integral.
-
As in a football boot stud?
They've been called studs since the 1930's and earlier.
Hell the septics call rugby balls footballs in Armoured Wankball...........
Im surpised Earth isnt call planet America :D
Studs are studs whether they are detatchable or not... (it applies to golf shoes as well)
ANyway back to cleats i mean football..
HowscROONAY gonnaa do tomorrow, do ya think he'll play for more than the first half if sven whacks him in at the start?
-
They're actually different things. Studs are IIRC screw-in, cleats are integral.
Some people called blades 'cleats', though, so it's a mite confusing.
And that's ignoring mouldies, which are studs, but integral rubber ones. And of course dimpled astroturf boots.
Anyways, as far as I'm concerned/aware cleats are the hacky metal things in American Football boots, which some annoying git in a Florida Nike Factory store directed me to when I asked for football boots. Tsch.
-
Meh @ Armoured Wankball............ :no:
-
Hell the septics call rugby balls footballs in Armoured Wankball...........
Im surpised Earth isnt call planet America :D
rugby ball is differnet than an American football, rugby ball is bigger, more round
and if yall wouldnt pay attention to us like we dont pay attention to yall none of this would be an issue :p
-
amazing random fact: other than their win, france has never progressed passed the opening round of the world cup.
and that's a pretty nasty looking tackle.
-
and proving my point that in no other game in this world cup was that tackle a red card
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372019
EVEN THAT REF ISN'T GIVING STRAIGHT REDS FOR EVEN WORSE VERSION OF THE SAME TACKLE IN OTHER GAMES
-
I love how some guy appears in that thread saying those fouls should have been red like that for Mastroeni and we have yours truly Kazan saying he is blind. :lol:
-
no the guy is saying pablo deserved the red
-
This is getting quite pathetic, really.
-
Kazan, he does deserve the red.
-
yeah, you and your pathetic denials that it was a makeup call
yellow card perhaps
red totally unjustified - they aren't handing out straight reds for much worse tackles
he was .5 second late and caught the guy with one boot
yeah - it's ****ing pathetic that you guys are trying to rewrite the ****ing rulebook just for one damn game
bull**** ghostavo!look at the rest of the ****ing calls for that SAME ****ING TACKLE AND WORSE in this not being ****ing reds
you are a bunch of blind ass hypocritical pro-inconsitent calling dumbasses
seriously
-
Wow... you kiss your wife with that mouth?
Anyway, I agree with the guy you called blind, those should have been red as well.
And football rules are somewhat strange with their execution. That's why I prefer chess. :p
-
Ah well, you can see what I mean. So much strange, blind rage after so long. Tragic, really.
-
Wow, is this still being debated? Oh well, here we go again I guess. The ref was completely correct in giving out that red. If other refs are not giving reds for worse offenses, they are the ones in the wrong... but aside from the first red of that match, I haven't seen any worse offenses yet in the matches I've watched (and I've only missed three so far).
Facts are simple: He did not hit the ball... not even close in fact. He hit the ancle studs first with a sliding tackle (This is not debatable anymore, not after the replays became available online. Just look at the frame I posted with the exact place marked with a red circle showing the point of contact). The tackle was dangerous as hell. And that, according to the FIFA guidelines, has to give a straight red. No ifs, no buts, just a red card. We are not misinterpreting the rules - you are.
And we also mostly happen to be not Americans, not Italians, and thus not biased. As said before, none of us have any vested interest in that game but the entertainment value (which was considerable), except for you - and the other Americans on this board... most of whom seem to agree with us. We even mostly agree the Americans played a great game. But the ref did not decide the outcome.
-
Facts are simple: He did not hit the ball... not even close in fact. He hit the ancle studs first with a sliding tackle (This is not debatable anymore, not after the replays became available online. Just look at the frame I posted with the exact place marked with a red circle showing the point of contact). The tackle was dangerous as hell. And that, according to the FIFA guidelines, has to give a straight red. No ifs, no buts, just a red card. We are not misinterpreting the rules - you are.
you're blind
he was 0.5 seconds late - he made contact with the ball clearly indicated by a changei n direction with the ball, he made contact with boot and then his foot slid up to the ankle - ONE FOOD CONTACT
dangerous play and therefore yellow card - yes
red card NO
and BS according to fifa guidelines that is NOT a red - if it was from behind it would have been, but it wasn't from behind
that SAME REF even is only handing out yellows for worse versions of that offense in other matches
it was an inconsistent with the rules and inconsistent with the rest of the tournament call flat out
-
Ah well, you can see what I mean. So much strange, blind rage after so long. Tragic, really.
strange? your country gets two bogus red cards in one match and puts you into a position where your own fate isn't in your own hands alone and you call it strange?
neither of eddie's cards were justified, straight red was not justified for pablo - plain and simple no if-ands-or-buts about it
blind rage? my rage is pretty directed - directed at anyone who cannot equally apply the rulebook to the american team and the rest of the teams in the tournament as evidenced by everyone arguing here that pablo's straight red was justified when even the ref that issued it is giving only yellows for more severe offenses of late sliding tackles in other matches
-
Capitals, eh? Remember to put them at the start of sentences as well as THE MIDDLE of them. Oh, and I've heard that bold, red or _underscore_ surrounded text is considered an accepted method of communicating in the internet, making you seem a well reasoned, logical and polife individual who is not shouting like a loony by any means.
EDIT; whoops, I see we have the bold.
-
Guess this bears repeating, then. Care to explain to me what exactly is going on in this picture? Points of interest, namely foot/ancle contact and distance between ball and foot marked for your convenience.
(http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3962/tacklemarked1ys.th.jpg) (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tacklemarked1ys.jpg)
-
Guess this bears repeating, then. Care to explain to me what exactly is going on in this picture? Points of interest, namely foot/ancle contact and distance between ball and foot marked for your convenience.
(http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3962/tacklemarked1ys.th.jpg) (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tacklemarked1ys.jpg)
care to read what i actually typed before blindly defending a referee who cannot even consistently make the same call?
came in 0.5 second late, initial contact was foot to foot but his foot slid up - yellow card at most
not a single straight red has been issued for that same tackle or even worse versions of it (ronadlo's cleat marks on his leg anyone?) in any other match in this tournament including matches reffed by the same guy
-
hey aldo it may help if you actually pay attention to what i'm saying you bloody wanker :hopping:
-
Guess this bears repeating, then. Care to explain to me what exactly is going on in this picture? Points of interest, namely foot/ancle contact and distance between ball and foot marked for your convenience.
(http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3962/tacklemarked1ys.th.jpg) (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tacklemarked1ys.jpg)
Well, quite clearly the Italian is cheating, by ruthlessly driving his ankle into Mastroenis' completely innocently outstretched leg, which is in no way a lunge and has clearly curved round Pirlos leg, hit the ball, before snapping back into position as we see here.
Oh, and **** bloody etc etc nonsense rambling big sweary words etc etc.
-
hey aldo if you cannot actually address what i said then you're clearly admit that you have no answer to it
simple facts of World Cup 2006 is that much worse sliding tackles than pablo's are not getting red cards - even from the same referee
-
There was foot to foot contact, certainly - It was his left foot that hit the boot. His right foot hit directly on the ancle, as evidenced by the replays linked a couple of times on this thread already. It is so blatantly obvious from the videos in fact that I cannot fathom how you can't see it, even with national bias and all (which, lets face it, we're all vulnerable to when our teams play no matter how well meaning we are).
-
it was 1 foot contact not two foot contact, how can you not see that
how do you ignore the fact that much worse versions of the same challenge are not given red cards in any other match in this world cup, including by the same ref
-
hey aldo if you cannot actually address what i said then you're clearly admit that you have no answer to it
simple facts of World Cup 2006 is that much worse sliding tackles than pablo's are not getting red cards - even from the same referee
Ok.
You're clearly biased, blind to the obvious facts in front of you as expressed by not just everyone here but myriads of professional, paid pundits, and shouting like a combination of a drunk idiot and a toddler pouting in the corner replate with insulting everyone with the audacity to show up your egotistic, arrogant and downright wrong position. The very fact you are coming back to this 3 days later, simply because some similarly biased individuals might agree, is both pathetic and hilarious.
EDIT; sorry nuetral and sane peeps, I just couldn't hold it in any longer. That's my piece said. I've not doubt something suitably sweary and purply faced - perhaps with a spittle flecked keyboard action - will follow in response.
-
hey aldo if you cannot actually address what i said then you're clearly admit that you have no answer to it
Yeah. Careful, aldo, or Kazan might 'win.'
-
yeah and the paid pundits that say it was the wrong call are also wrong right eh? and all the refs, including the guy who made the call, are wrong when they sanction more severe dangerous slides with only yellows
give it up - it was a bad call, even this same ref isn't making that same call in other matches for far more dangerous sliding tackles
-
Impressively measured. Little too much bold, though. Implies truth rather than the actual opinion that it is.
-
yeah because sliding tackles that leave marks are not more dangerous than ones that do not
you just don't wish to admit you're wrong
-
give it up - it was a bad call, even this same ref isn't making that same call in other matches for far more dangerous sliding tackles
Every situation is different. The decision made in one match will never be exactly the same as a decision made in another match because each situation is unique. This is not well understood by folks who have never done the job. So you just cannot make that sort of argument. Part of the determining factor is perceived intent...that can't be done by algorithm or by robot...a human has to make a judgement call and thus that human has to employ his decision making facilities and cannot be robotic about it in any way.
As an aside I'll suggest that you folks drop it. As usual Kazan you're unwilling to drop an argument after its been started and others here are goading you on. I don't want to see you or anyone else drawn into a flame war and possible repercussions. We aren't there yet thanks to some incredible restraint but we're getting there. Discuss if you want to continue but the swearing needs to be toned down. Thats all I'll say. I don't mind a good debate...heck I'm taking part :)
-
yeah because sliding tackles that leave marks are not more dangerous than ones that do not
you just don't wish to admit you're wrong
so are you saying if you try to kick someone in the head and just miss, it's not dangerous, but if you do hit someone on the leg or somesuch, it is? I've had hundreds of miscellaneous knocks and injuries in my time, and having a mark alone does not imply intent.
-
this isn't a good debate because no matter how much I point out that this call was A) not sanctioned by the LOTG, B) is inconsistent with the rest of the calls in the cup, etc it just gets ignored by aldo et al
you just scream "it's a good call!" - i can understand refs being somewhat partisan to refs - but grow a pair and admit that it was a bad call - should have been a yellow card - a very justified yellowcard (hey i've given concession on that! at first it didn't even look like a yellow to me from the angle I had)
aldo: the foul i was refering to was the on on Ronaldo - no way to defend the Pablo red card as justified when the dude who committed that foul gets a yellow only
-
Video.
Pundits.
Agree.
Job done.
You can dance around it all the time you want, but take that foul on video, and it's dangerous and reckless - a lunge - and thats a red card under the guidelines for this world cup.
-
The fact that other refs may have failed to act when they should, does not mean this ref was wrong. I'll reiterate what I've said before, if worse fouls than this were committed, I certainly think they ought to have given straight reds also. But lets face it, sometimes a ref either doesn't see it, sees it from a bad angle, is afraid of being/looking biased if he has made a lot of calls against the team already, or hell in some cases I think they just don't have the guts to send a man off.
This ref just happened to have a perfect view to the foul, from just 15 feet away, and he was not afraid to call it as he saw it. Right or wrong, it's done. And the US still has a decent chance for advancement - If Italy beat the Czechs (which seems likely), and the US beats Ghana, that will do it.
-
i cant figure out why youre still *****ing about this :confused:
the games over, the reds been given, youre constant talking like a jackass wont change that
everyone in the world, save our american commentators which have no credibility, say it was deserved
its over, move on, hope they get lucky against ghana and get help from someone else on the GD
-
The fact that other refs may have failed to act when they should, does not mean this ref was wrong. I'll reiterate what I've said before, if worse fouls than this were committed, I certainly think they ought to have given straight reds also. But lets face it, sometimes a ref either doesn't see it, sees it from a bad angle, is afraid of being/looking biased if he has made a lot of calls against the team already, or hell in some cases I think they just don't have the guts to send a man off.
This ref just happened to have a perfect view to the foul, from just 15 feet away, and he was not afraid to call it as he saw it. Right or wrong, it's done. And the US still has a decent chance for advancement - If Italy beat the Czechs (which seems likely), and the US beats Ghana, that will do it.
you'd have an argument if it was it was occasionally
but it's not
even by the SAME REFEREE
the pablo red card was the singular exception, not the rule
-
He's the worst referee in football because you disagree with a decision he made?
-
He's the worst referee in football because you disagree with a decision he made?
Yup.
-
I think this thread should merge with the world cup one.........
-
He's the worst referee in football because you disagree with a decision he made?
No because he's making calls inconsistently with the rest of the calls he, and every other referee, are making in this cup - and he was buying every italian dive hook line and sinker
-
I don't have a clue what you guys are talking about, but I have decided that I disagree with Kazan.
-
He's the worst referee in football because you disagree with a decision he made?
No because he's making calls inconsistently with the rest of the calls he, and every other referee, are making in this cup - and he was buying every italian dive hook line and sinker
One bad match makes him the "Worst Referee in the history of Soccer"? Get your head out of your arse.
-
I actually heard a radio interview with FIFA supervisor for the referees during this WC this morning (he's a Dane, hence our radio getting the interview ;)). Note again that we're talking about the top FIFA official on referee matters during the world cup here. He was asked about the line of the referees so far, and in his answer singled out 3 games where the ref had been particularly good. One of them, USA vs Italy. The important part, roughly translated: "3 red cards were given, all of them correct". He considered the elbow attack the worst of the 3, but they were all correct.
So that's the official FIFA opinion on the matter.
For anyone who happens to understand danish, the program is available online at http://www.dr.dk/netradio/ -> P3 -> Go' Morgen P3. 3 hours long though so you'd best be patient. Can skip forward but I can't remember exactly when the interview was.
-
Pff. What would a FIFA official know about the 'LOTG'!!11one ROFLMAO STFU! :mad:
-
It looks to me like a red card too, but there's a sizeable number who disagree with it. For instance, the commentator in this video:
http://usa.worldcupblog.org/group-e/the-mastroeni-tackle.html
Also, this guy (born in the US but living in Italy) calls the red card "absurd". Though Kazan will probably discount his opinion on the grounds that he writes for WND. :)
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/06/fortunate-anomaly.html
-
this isn't a good debate because no matter how much I point out that this call was A) not sanctioned by the LOTG, B) is inconsistent with the rest of the calls in the cup, etc it just gets ignored by aldo et al
you just scream "it's a good call!" - i can understand refs being somewhat partisan to refs - but grow a pair and admit that it was a bad call - should have been a yellow card - a very justified yellowcard (hey i've given concession on that! at first it didn't even look like a yellow to me from the angle I had)
aldo: the foul i was refering to was the on on Ronaldo - no way to defend the Pablo red card as justified when the dude who committed that foul gets a yellow only
Debates are about considering ideas...not about winning arguments. Pretty much everyone else disagrees with you but we know exactly what you are saying about the situation and hopefully you know exactly what we are. Thats all there is to it. Why do we have to agree with you? Why do you swear at people who don't?
-
I think he has insecurity issues.......
-
I think we should take a breather and probably let this thread die. It doesn't look like an agreement will be reached and in that case the arguement will become circular.
-
lol already has