Your World Cup Predictions

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Guru of Ipswich said:
so basically you don't like anybody disagreeing with you, and i did give reasoning when i said about neymar's look and JC moving towards the croat.so your argument crashes down there fella.

this thread was back on track until you reared your head again in the bid to stir trouble (yes i know im not an angel, just innocent on all charges here im afraid)

well done. <applause>
Click to expand...

No I didn't like you disagreeing with me without giving a reason. Where someone is looking is not a thorough analysis. The whole "oh if I disagree with you and then you disagree with me that means you think your word is gospel" argument that people regularly come out with when they don't like someone destroying their argument (people particularly seem to enjoy doing this to Superman and think it's somehow a "win") is tedious, ad hominem and logically fallacious.

I was discussing this with JK, nothing to do with you, he asked me the question. Nice try, angel, but you're kidding nobody. The lady doth protest too much, as usual
 
Canary Rob said:
Penalty decision: wrong - clearly in slow mo from the side that he doesn't get pulled down BUT if you look from where the ref is you can see Lovren's hand on Fred's shoulder that looks to be pulling him down. Poor, poor decision, but it was a difficult angle and this is hardly the first time that penalties have been given like that. You have to give "credit" (credit is the wrong word) to Fred for getting his dive spot on for the ref.

Neymar's yellow card: correct decision - do the England test. I would ahve been fuming if it had been an England player red carded for that. It would have been harsh. I agree that it's borderline, but I think you have to say that sort of incident should be a yellow

Croatia's disallowed goal: correct decision - soft, soft foul yes. But the rule is now that if you jump into the 'keeper in the six yard box, you will give away a foul. Yes, here the 'keeper had messed up and the Croatian had jumped higher, but that doesn't matter - the key is that he has jumped into the 'keeper. Those are the referee instructions given from on high, it's not the ref who has made a poor decision there, his hands are tied.


So I think all in all Croatia were hard done by on luck, and for their performance deserved a draw, but actually the ref got two of the three big decisions correct.
Click to expand...

Ok Rob I will try to reason with your arguments

Penalty Decision - I think we are on the same mindset on that, it wasn't a penalty in a million years and Fred fooled the ref.

Neymars Yellow Card - the pictures clearly show that Neymar took his eyes off the ball, looked towards the croat player, then raised his arm and jumped into the croat player hitting him in the face/neck area, that is a red card offence for deliberate dangerous play.

Disallowed goal - There is no such rule that you can't jump into the goalkeeper in the 6 yard box, that is a myth. You can challenge the keeper anywhere on the pitch just as long as you keep your arms down. In this instance JC was falling in a backwards direction, fumbled the ball and fell into the croat attacker who was jumping. that is not a free kick by the laws of the game. the ref mucked up again.
 
Spain v Holland has to be one of the hardest games to call from the group stages. Spain are, obvious, a class outfit, but they are definitely on the wane. Holland have been decent enough, but shouldn't really be in with a shout. However, football's odd and players like Robben can win games single handedly if they can be bothered.

I've got this odd suspicion that Holland are going to pull off a bit of a shock victory
 
Canary Rob said:
Spain v Holland has to be one of the hardest games to call from the group stages. Spain are, obvious, a class outfit, but they are definitely on the wane. Holland have been decent enough, but shouldn't really be in with a shout. However, football's odd and players like Robben can win games single handedly if they can be bothered.

I've got this odd suspicion that Holland are going to pull off a bit of a shock victory
Click to expand...

If Holland decide this time to actually try and play some football instead of trying to kick lumps out of the Spanish, It should be a really good game of Football.
 
Guru of Ipswich said:
Ok Rob I will try to reason with your arguments

Penalty Decision - I think we are on the same mindset on that, it wasn't a penalty in a million years and Fred fooled the ref.

Neymars Yellow Card - the pictures clearly show that Neymar took his eyes off the ball, looked towards the croat player, then raised his arm and jumped into the croat player, that is a red card offence for dangerous play.

Disallowed goal - There is no such rule that you can't jump into the goalkeeper in the 6 yard box, that is a myth. You can challenge the keeper anywhere on the pitch. In this instance JC was falling in a backwards direction, fumbled the ball and fell into the croat attacker who was jumping. that is not a free kick by the laws of the game.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Pen - agreed. The only point I was trying to make in addition to everyone else's was that from the angle the ref had, I think it's (slightly) unfair to give him the level of abuse he has received so far.

Swinging arm - I haven't seen the latest guidance on this admittedly, but I understood that where you look isn't what matters (after all players have good all round vision and know where others are) it's to do with the amount force used and an objective (being the ref's view) measure of violent conduct. I accept that this is borderline - it goes both ways and I said as much. So the only thing I can say is that it clearly wasn't with significant force. That only leaves the question of objectively violent conduct. The only way I can think of is, as I mentioned in my first post, the England test. The bottom line is that if an England player got sent off for that we would be screaming blue murder because it would have been very, very harsh. But I accept that this is a fine line.


Disallowed goal - I know it's not in the laws. It's the referee guidance. I said that in my opening post. The referees have been instructed that protection of the goalkeeper is paramount and this means they are in trouble if they don't give fouls like he did there - the referee's hands were tied. Any touch that looks remotely forceful on the goalkeeper inside the six-yard box is likely to be given as a foul. The referee did not err here - it is the referee's instructions that people should be taking issue with
 
Canary Rob said:
Thank you.

Pen - agreed. The only point I was trying to make in addition to everyone else's was that from the angle the ref had, I think it's (slightly) unfair to give him the level of abuse he has received so far.

Swinging arm - I haven't seen the latest guidance on this admittedly, but I understood that where you look isn't what matters (after all players have good all round vision and know where others are) it's to do with the amount force used and an objective (being the ref's view) measure of violent conduct. I accept that this is borderline - it goes both ways and I said as much. So the only thing I can say is that it clearly wasn't with significant force. That only leaves the question of objectively violent conduct. The only way I can think of is, as I mentioned in my first post, the England test. The bottom line is that if an England player got sent off for that we would be screaming blue murder because it would have been very, very harsh. But I accept that this is a fine line.


Disallowed goal - I know it's not in the laws. It's the referee guidance. I said that in my opening post. The referees have been instructed that protection of the goalkeeper is paramount and this means they are in trouble if they don't give fouls like he did there - the referee's hands were tied. Any touch that looks remotely forceful on the goalkeeper inside the six-yard box is likely to be given as a foul. The referee did not err here - it is the referee's instructions that people should be taking issue with
Click to expand...

in regards to the 'elbow' the look is the factor on whether it was a deliberate act or not.

the disallowed goal, I know the refs have been told to clamp down on the holding at set pieces and the players who aren't looking at the ball just trying to block players, haven't heard anything about extra protection for keepers.

<ok>
 
Guru of Ipswich said:
in regards to the 'elbow' the look is the factor on whether it was a deliberate act or not.

the disallowed goal, I know the refs have been told to clamp down on the holding at set pieces and the players who aren't looking at the ball just trying to block players, haven't heard anything about extra protection for keepers.

<ok>
Click to expand...

"Deliberate" isn't actually in the laws - it simply has to be violent conduct. Inevitably, intention forms part of that, but you have to take "violent conduct" as a whole and assess the situation.

But as I said, it's borderline - you certainly can argue for a red and there are decent grounds. I'm just saying that if the boot was on the other foot we would call it very harsh and so for that reason alone, I'm going to go with the ref making the right decision.
 
Cracking effort from Root and England when you consider it was, what 120-5?

Bravo Root.

Though I feel we should have declared and 45 minutes ago - this whole "let him get his double-hundred", while gentlemanly, isn't really in keeping with cricket now being a professional, win at all costs, sport.
 
Here we go again - how to get from the world cup to bloody cricket in less than 5 pages! :grin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back