Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MarkowKette]

I just realized when comparing our top22 teams there are exactly 11 players in common for all of us that at least one of us didn't bench.

This final 11 would look a little weird as there are two keepers in it, but i guess Neuer does fine on a Libero position

[2.71828.....]

well that was fast

[ashersky]

well that was fast

Happened outside the box...embellishment by Robben (surprise surprise) was key to that.

Goal #2 was yet more poor defending.

[Davio]

Outside or in, should have been a red card.

[ashersky]

Outside or in, should have been a red card.

True.

And yet no card for the vicious and blatant attack on Ramires.  He's luckily his leg isn't broken.

[Davio]

Yeah, the ref is really off this match.
That yellow for Robben after a very minor foul was highly dubious as well.

At least the game is exciting because there's sooooo much space on midfield. All you have to do is pick up the ball in the back, and you can walk straight on through the other box.

[ashersky]

Yeah, the ref is really off this match.
That yellow for Robben after a very minor foul was highly dubious as well.

At least the game is exciting because there's sooooo much space on midfield. All you have to do is pick up the ball in the back, and you can walk straight on through the other box.

Ironic that there was finally a card for diving in a game featuring the Dutch and it didn't go to Robben.

[soulnet]

It should not have been a direct red card because there was still the goalkeeper. Its only red card for last resort is there is no opposing player between the ball and the goal line. It was not a penalty, and on the second goal, the player who made the assist was offside when he received the ball. Anyway, Brazil was totally disappointing and deserved the loss anyway.

What an awful match today. I am glad at least this puts Germany's performance a little bit more into perspective. Its incredible that a team playing as bad as the Netherlands did today can win 3-0 against a top-tier team (is it still ok to call Brazil that?)

Van Persie was non-existent once again. Robben had a couple of good dribbles, but nothing too impressive.

Also the Netherlands showing again that they are the new Uruguay. Lots of diving and fouling the Brazilians. Even with the advantage and Brazil having no clue of what to do, they continued their fouling to stop attacks strategy. I thought maybe I was too biased believing that on the semifinal, but today's match confirm they are a dirty team to say the least. I don't remember who was complaining about Uruguay's game at the beginning of this thread, but I hope you share my disappointment on the Netherlands. Especially because they used to be my favorite European team. Such nice football. I remember their team back in '98 (I will not speak about the '70s one, when I was not even born) and they were incredible. Probably more deserving than this team or the 2010 one.

EDIT: I just read Robben has stated he was not satisfied with the 3rd place because they deserved to play the finals. That guy has won my hatery to the point that I am glad he is so bitter (and I am not usually glad about that kind of stuff).

[nkirbit]

It should not have been a direct red card because there was still the goalkeeper. Its only red card for last resort is there is no opposing player between the ball and the goal line.

I'm almost certain that this just isn't true.  Players get red cards for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity", and that's what happened here.

[ashersky]

It should not have been a direct red card because there was still the goalkeeper. Its only red card for last resort is there is no opposing player between the ball and the goal line.

I'm almost certain that this just isn't true.  Players get red cards for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity", and that's what happened here.

The Dutch had a handball in the box in the second half that should have been a red but was not called, so I suppose that evened out.

[nkirbit]

It should not have been a direct red card because there was still the goalkeeper. Its only red card for last resort is there is no opposing player between the ball and the goal line.

I'm almost certain that this just isn't true.  Players get red cards for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity", and that's what happened here.

The Dutch had a handball in the box in the second half that should have been a red but was not called, so I suppose that evened out.

I wasn't able to watch the game... was it a deliberate handball?  If not, then it's not a red card.

[silverspawn]

i like red cards 

[ashersky]

It should not have been a direct red card because there was still the goalkeeper. Its only red card for last resort is there is no opposing player between the ball and the goal line.

I'm almost certain that this just isn't true.  Players get red cards for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity", and that's what happened here.

The Dutch had a handball in the box in the second half that should have been a red but was not called, so I suppose that evened out.

I wasn't able to watch the game... was it a deliberate handball?  If not, then it's not a red card.

I think so.  His arm was moving toward the ball on replays.  Even if it wasn't deliberate, nod therefore not a red, still should have been a PK.

[Awaclus]

i like red cards 

Me too, Hovel is my favorite.

[soulnet]

I'm almost certain that this just isn't true.  Players get red cards for "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity", and that's what happened here.

Well, I could not find an official ruling. But in many TV transmissions I have heard that "clear goal opportunity" actually means that everyone has to be beaten. In this case, the goalkeeper had a pretty decent shot at stopping the goal, had
Robben had a chance to shoot.

I think so.  His arm was moving toward the ball on replays.  Even if it wasn't deliberate, nod therefore not a red, still should have been a PK.

If the player is judged to be actively trying not to play the ball with their hands, I think its not even a free violation. In any case, it was not on a shot that was directed to the goal, so it would not necessarily have been a red card. BTW, I saw the rerun a couple of times and I am still unconvinced on what the ruling should have been.

[Davio]

The rule is very simple, once you're through past the last defender and he fouls you, it's red.

Play from both teams was very sloppy. And if you think Netherlands wins just by fouling, have you even looked at Brazil? They did basically the same thing and a lot of fouls by Brazil were designated as fouls by the Netherlands! Oh, such horribly refereeing.

While this Dutch team doesn't have the highest quality of players (that was most likely in '98), they did play as a team. I can understand Robben is very annoying because every time someone fouls against he dives like it's an attempt on his life. I thought he had lost this as he is playing some of the best football of his life and obviously doesn't need it, so I'm a bit disappointed.


The one thing which surprised me most this WC was how the players from our home competition did. Cillesen, Martins-Indi, de Vrij, Blind, Clasie and Janmaat all play for teams whose budget is a mere percentage of the top teams' budget. I hope they find good new clubs during the transfer period. I mean, Paris SG paid 40 million for David Luiz, they could have paid 4 million for de Vrij and have a defender who is just as good, David Luiz just doesn't impress me at all. If anything, he's more of a liability than a solid defender.


I guess we are the new Germany and Germany is the new Netherlands.

[MarkowKette]

I guess we are the new Germany and Germany is the new Netherlands.

The Germany from 98' ?
Netherlands definitely played better than that.

[soulnet]

And if you think Netherlands wins just by fouling, have you even looked at Brazil?

Oh, don't get me wrong, Brazil's performance is indefensible and the Netherlands certainly deserved to win the match. I said that before anything else, I think.

The one thing which surprised me most this WC was how the players from our home competition did. Cillesen, Martins-Indi, de Vrij, Blind, Clasie and Janmaat all play for teams whose budget is a mere percentage of the top teams' budget. I hope they find good new clubs during the transfer period. I mean, Paris SG paid 40 million for David Luiz, they could have paid 4 million for de Vrij and have a defender who is just as good, David Luiz just doesn't impress me at all. If anything, he's more of a liability than a solid defender.

That's a good point. From your list, I really liked Cillesen and Clasie, and maybe de Vrij and Blind a bit. Martins-Indi is horrible and the highest fouler in the team, and Janmaat looked pretty non-solid with the ball to me, even against Brazil.

I disagree with David Luiz, though. I think he is a good player, he just had a terrible WC, like most of the rest of the team.

I felt bad for Oscar yesterday, who was the only Brazilian player that showed some pried in trying to play something. But he was so alone.

I guess we are the new Germany and Germany is the new Netherlands.

Something like that. It would be nice if both could be old-Netherlands-like, though.

[soulnet]

The rule is very simple, once you're through past the last defender and he fouls you, it's red.

Do you have a link to an official ruling regarding this? I am sure I thought this before, and then was refuted by the TV or someone with higher knowledge than me saying that "last defender" actually counts the goalkeeper.

[Teproc]

The Netherands have been a nasty team for at least fifteen years... I'm not sure why it's surprising to see them being big foulers. I like them more than Uruguay because I like some of their offensive players (Van Persie, Kuyt, Sneijder) but yeah, they're not a team you would generally have a lot of sympathy for.

Not that Brazil was any etter this world cup. They were nasty against Colombia.

[pacovf]

The rule is very simple, once you're through past the last defender and he fouls you, it's red.

Do you have a link to an official ruling regarding this? I am sure I thought this before, and then was refuted by the TV or someone with higher knowledge than me saying that "last defender" actually counts the goalkeeper.

There's this, no sure how official it is...
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/03/17/13/23/obvious-goal-scoring-opportunity-denied-the-4-ds

[silverspawn]

it's starting soon. go Argentina!!!!!!!

[nkirbit]

The rule is very simple, once you're through past the last defender and he fouls you, it's red.

Do you have a link to an official ruling regarding this? I am sure I thought this before, and then was refuted by the TV or someone with higher knowledge than me saying that "last defender" actually counts the goalkeeper.

From the laws of the game:

"A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences... denying 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."

This raises the question... what is an obvious goalscoring opportunity?  The laws are vague, giving a lot of the decision making to referees.

"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
• the distance between the offence and the goal
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• the direction of the play
• the location and number of defenders
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick "

So we can't actually figure it out from the laws.. we have to look at actual in game examples to see how the referees have been instructed to apply the law.


If an obvious goalscoring opportunity only occurred when a goalkeeper was beat, we would hardly ever see non-goalkeepers sent off for denying such an opportunity.  There are rare cases that would happen (Luis Suarez at the 2010 world cup), but 99.9% of fouls committed by non-goalies occur in front of the goalie.  But field players are regularly sent off for professional fouls with the goalie behind them... I can't site the rulebook here as it's vague on the issue, but I can just tell you that's my experience from watching a decent amount of soccer.  100%.

The link pacovf provided states that "not more than one defender between the foul and the goal," and I agree that the rule is enforced that way.  99.9% percent of the time, that one player is the goalie, so it's almost always a question of, "Is the player committing the foul the last non-goalie defender."

[Davio]

It's up to the referees to judge, I guess. They could for instance only show yellow if another defender was coming in from the side at an amazing speed to stop the attacker from reaching a good shooting distance.

[silverspawn]

oh goddamnit........... agh. eh. eeeh.