SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 3, 2010 7:24:29 GMT -5
What the Suns did was game the system. What Suarez did was cheating. There's a big difference. For the Suns, there was no advantage gained from the timeout itself - it was just a wrinkle in the rules that gave them the advantage with the inbounds. For Suarez, the entire advantage was gained in the act of breaking the rules. Using your hands to keep the ball out of the net when you're not the goalie is fundamentally against the rules of soccer. Doing it deliberately with the intent of stopping the other team from scoring is cheating, plain and simple. It was a riveting game though, especially at the end. One of the remarkable things about the World Cup is that it makes you pay attention to the "lesser" soccer nations. A matchup between that Ghana team and that Uruguay team would probably always be a good game, since they were very level sides that are better up front than they are in back. But outside of the World Cup they'd probably never play each other, and if they did, nobody would care. It might be a great game, but nobody would see it. The World Cup gives those entertaining oddball matches meaning and an audience, and games like we saw this afternoon are the result. Of course, a Brazil-Netherlands game is always going to get attention, and we finally had a big name game at this World Cup lives up to the hype. As bad as the Dutch looked in the first half, I had a strange feeling they'd come back. This Dutch team just might have what it takes to do what previous Dutch teams couldn't do. Maybe they need a rules change. Sticking with your basketball comparison, it's like Goal Tending. But in that case, the goal always counts -- negating any advantage. Maybe a handball - intentional or otherwise - that prevents a clear goal should always result in the goal counting anyway? OK, so now we need to change a rule and add instant replay on goals.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 3, 2010 10:25:38 GMT -5
Disagree. The rule is fair. Not only did Uruguay go down one man, the other team got a Pk. It was Suárez's only option and he knew what the penalty was going to be. But it was better than going home. It's a severe and right penalty for breaking the rules of the game.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 3, 2010 10:31:37 GMT -5
Germany up by 3!!! Get ready for a Maradona melt down.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 3, 2010 10:53:05 GMT -5
Stop the hurting!!!! Beautiful passing and finishing by the German machine! Btw, Messi sucked.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 3, 2010 11:10:58 GMT -5
I am admittedly not the Soccer and/or World Cup expert, and maybe I am guilty of listening to the talking heads too much, but I thought Argentina was going to give the Germans a good fight and even had a good shot to win the whole thing. But they were boys amongst men today. I got the impression from watching that game that if those two teams played 10 times, Germany would win 9 of them if not all 10.
As for questioning the rule, I think that it's as fair as it could be. The player is kicked out of the game and the opponent -- victims in this case -- get a penalty kick. The only oddity here is that there really wasn't much of a "penalty" to the team of Uraquay -- at least in this game. Because of the timing, it came down to a single penalty kick initially. Once that was missed, then they were back on even terms. Should Uraguay have only had 4 penalty tries to Ghana's 5? Maybe. But think of it this way: if everything happened just like it did, but this play happened at the end of scheduled time, then after the penalty was missed, Ghana would have had a man advantage the entire extra time. I see the complaints and the sentiment for Ghana getting screwed, and I must agree that they did. But I don't know any more equitable solution other than maybe removing one of Uraguay's penalty tries.
Thoughts?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 3, 2010 11:13:21 GMT -5
Disagree. The rule is fair. Not only did Uruguay go down one man, the other team got a Pk. It was Suárez's only option and he knew what the penalty was going to be. But it was better than going home. It's a severe and right penalty for breaking the rules of the game. During the normal flow of play, you're right. The PK + 1 man down is a severe enough penalty. But in the last minute of stoppage time in extra time, the 1 man down penalty basically becomes irrelevant, so it becomes a much weaker penalty. Anyways, enough of that. Ze Germans! Superb! The funny thing is that in the flow of the game, it was fairly even. But the Germans were so much better near the Argentine goal, and the Argies' defense was unbelievably porous.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 3, 2010 11:29:47 GMT -5
Stig, what would you suggest as an alternative? I agree that the penalty wasn't as severe as it "should" have been. But these are the only real alternatives I can think of:
1. Count the goal. It clearly would have gone in and the game would have essentially been over. That's tough love, but you could make a strong case for it.
2. Give 2 penalty kicks in these situations. The argument is that the illegal act clearly prevented a goal, so giving the victims "merely" the chance to earn that one goal doesn't seem right on the surface, at least. 2b. If you wanted to get fancy, you could award 2 penalty kicks, but have 1 be from the normal spot with the second one coming from further back -- maybe the penalty box line. That might be a more fair team penalty for the illegal action.
3. Take away a player for the penalty tries. In this particular case, this might have been the most fair. But how often are situations exactly like this going to come up?
4. Finally, you could allow the penalty kick and then allow additional added time with the offending team playing a man down.
Those are really the only options I come up with off the top of my head. There is an argument for each of them, but I'm not sure that the counterarguments aren't every bit or more solid.
thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaFM on Jul 3, 2010 12:34:50 GMT -5
This situation seems like fouling a big man while he is going in for a lay up. Those two points are almost guaranteed, but much less so from the stripe. Shaq does not get four free throws for getting hit with 3 seconds left in a tie game. Gyan should have put away that PK, but there cannot be wacky other permutations for PKs during certain time frames.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjackson21 on Jul 3, 2010 13:00:51 GMT -5
Hind sight bias here because Ghana missed the penalty kick. The awarding of the penalty kick is a just penalty and i don't care if there's zero time on the clock. Penalty kick conversion is almost 90% so right before Ghana attempts the penalty kick, Ghana is almost 95% to advance assuming the PK shootout is close to 50-50. 95% is plenty of edge for Ghana and they had their chance and unfortunately blew it. The fact that there's no time is almost irrelevant. I think that if you gave Uruguay the option to have 20 extra minutes and playing a man down right before the penalty kick, they would take it because if Ghana makes the PK then they would at least have a chance to come back in the game. If Ghana makes the kick and there's no time on the clock, you have no chance of winning.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 3, 2010 14:35:04 GMT -5
I think every player under the same conditions would have done the same thing. It's allowed and the alternative is going home. Now, if it was the 20th min, you wouldn't do it because your team would be down for 70+ mins. That's why you don't see field players using their hands in all the corners, direct and indirect kicks. It's a strategic and legal move.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 3, 2010 14:53:33 GMT -5
Wow! Two stops by the keepers and more controversy! Game on! I don't think either team wants to get to PKs.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjackson21 on Jul 3, 2010 15:03:44 GMT -5
Did a little research and for the World Cup, penalty kick conversion is significantly lower than for regular league soccer play. 71.2% for all penalty kick shoot outs. Obviously the bigger stage and added pressure makes it much harder to convert.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jul 3, 2010 15:06:42 GMT -5
Hind sight bias here because Ghana missed the penalty kick. The awarding of the penalty kick is a just penalty and i don't care if there's zero time on the clock. Penalty kick conversion is almost 90% so right before Ghana attempts the penalty kick, Ghana is almost 95% to advance assuming the PK shootout is close to 50-50. 95% is plenty of edge for Ghana and they had their chance and unfortunately blew it. The fact that there's no time is almost irrelevant. I think that if you gave Uruguay the option to have 20 extra minutes and playing a man down right before the penalty kick, they would take it because if Ghana makes the PK then they would at least have a chance to come back in the game. If Ghana makes the kick and there's no time on the clock, you have no chance of winning. You should probably tell that to Alonso and Cardozo. At some point yesterday, I heard that misses on PKs (unclear if that meant missing the target or just not converting) were twice as frequent in the World Cup as in the top-flight league play. I don't think that a red and a PK are sufficient punishment for a deliberate handball on the goal line. I doubt FIFA changes the rule any time soon, but I think it should be a red and the goal awarded. If you have rules that encourage awful sportsmanship, you should probably look into changing that rule.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 3, 2010 15:32:04 GMT -5
Spain just makes it by again. They're living dangerously. Cannot do thar against Germany...
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Jul 3, 2010 21:28:56 GMT -5
On the Uruguay-Ghana discussion, I don't see how what happened there is any different than a cornerback committing pass interference in the endzone to prevent a TD. It's a smart play, since the offense gets the ball on the 1, but you still have the hope of a fumble or something along those lines. The penalty is even worse in soccer, since you get ejected, which a corner wouldn't in football. I've never had a problem with it in football, and don't really see the difference between that and what happened here.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 4, 2010 11:54:45 GMT -5
FIFA has handed Suárez a one-match suspension. FIFA could have extended that to two to three matches. Obviously, FIFA didn't feel it was cheating. The rule is staying as is.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 4, 2010 12:59:56 GMT -5
FIFA has handed Suárez a one-match suspension. FIFA could have extended that to two to three matches. Obviously, FIFA didn't feel it was cheating. The rule is staying as is. Good. All Suarez did was commit an infraction because the penalty was worth the potential benefit to his team. He misses the most important game of his life because of it. But his team gets to play that game. I have no problem with any of this. With all the shameful officiating in this tournament, FIFA has bigger issues to worry about. This is the one thing they got right.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jul 4, 2010 13:05:29 GMT -5
FIFA has handed Suárez a one-match suspension. FIFA could have extended that to two to three matches. Obviously, FIFA didn't feel it was cheating. The rule is staying as is. This is horrible logic. Just because they did not alter Suarez's punishment from a regular red card absolutely does not mean that they won't change the rule in the future. That's like saying that because FIFA didn't allow Michael Ballack to play the 2002 WC Final that they would never change the rule on yellow cards in successive matches. It takes a huge controversy to get FIFA to look into rules or procedural changes, even when the situation could be imagined quite easily beforehand. For example, can you see how playing the final match of group stages on different days could go horribly wrong? Well, FIFA didn't, then the 1982 World Cup happened. What about if the goalkeeper could just drop the ball and pick it back up? Then keepers could control the ball for several minutes and make the unwatchable 1990 World Cup. And if the penalty for a slide-tackle from behind on a player who is away on goal is just a yellow card, like it was for the 1980 FA Cup Final, wouldn't everybody do that? FIFA may still not change the rule since awarding a goal when the ball doesn't cross the line may be something FIFA is unwilling to do. But as it stands, the rule encourages players on the goal line in many late-game situations (certainly in extra-time of a knockout game, maybe to try to preserve a one-goal lead and three points in league play) to commit deliberate handballs, and I don't see that as a desirable rule.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 4, 2010 14:38:15 GMT -5
The rule is fine in my opinion I think it's sufficient punishment and there's no reason to change it.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 4, 2010 20:33:54 GMT -5
Free, it's FIFA logic. Like you mention, it takes a huge controversy to get FIFA to look into rules or procedural changes. In the Suárez case, the fact that FIFA has given him a one-match ban indicates that FIFA did not view it as a huge controversy or a worse unsportsmanlike offense (or cheating) meriting a two- or three-match ban. Time will tell if FIFA will look at it at its ref review session following the WC and if this case will be brought up along with the goal-line issues, extra assistants, use of technology, etc... Here's the link: sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/world-cup-2010/07/03/suarez.banned.ap/index.html
|
|