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
Is Van Persie fit? I just think Spain will have too much for them in this one but I expect them both to qualify out of the group.
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
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.
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
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.
"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.
We get a crack at them with the New Ball before Tea and hope that we can get into them quickly! Sangakara will have other ideas though!
