Euro 2004, anyone interested?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
:D
 

Attachments

  • 00219530.jpg
    00219530.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 48
Guys, don't read The Sun, crap journalism

Our goalkeeper was aggressed, no goal, I suppose the TV transmission is the same for all the world, no?:dodgy:
Just think about what England did during all the game: defend the 1-0.
We win because during all the game we were the team that wanted to win.
We didn't even deserve to go to the penalties.
BTW, I'm gonna charge Beckham the big piece of grass he took off my Benfica stadium.:clown:
Oh, we were robbed against the greeks, and agains the russians, too penalties.
 
Ex-Moderator
Joined 2002
Re: Guys, don't read The Sun, crap journalism

carlosfm said:

We win because during all the game we were the team that wanted to win.

I agree, Portugal were easily the better side on the field, and did deserve to win...

But it still was a goal, the keeper was not fouled, even the linesman who was nearer than the ref kept his flag down...;)
 
Re: Re: Guys, don't read The Sun, crap journalism

pinkmouse said:
But it still was a goal, the keeper was not fouled, even the linesman who was nearer than the ref kept his flag down...;)

Nah...
Did you see that slowmotion from behind?
The keeper didn't get that ball because he was knocked on his face.
There is a rule in football that says that in the small area you can't even touch the keeper.

Holland next... :cannotbe:
 
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
Joined 2001
Wait Till Next Year!!!

The view from America, where soccer doesn't get a lot of attention. The sportswriter was in London to cover Wimbledon:

"LONDON - This is what England does best, the wringing of hands and the gnashing of headlines. A day after yet another national soccer meltdown, commuters were downcast, wonder-lad Wayne Rooney was in a foot cast with a broken metatarsal, and the newspapers were mostly blaming the Swiss referee or the soft sod around the penalty spot.

Oh, the sweet, comfortable agony of miserable, familiar failure."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/story/206300p-178050c.html

PS: This is not intended as a put-down, I just thought the writer had a wry view of the situation.
 
Brilliant article

Read that, good journalism:
"The call was unusual, and replays were inconclusive. But photos clearly showed Terry's forearm shoving away the neck of Portugal goalkeeper Ricardo, as the keeper tried to reach over Terry and compete with Campbell for the ball.

The headlines and writers ignored the evidence. "

What I'm puzzled is that everybody here (including me) saw that in the replay.
So, did we see the same film?:confused:
 
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
Joined 2001
Let's Kick This One Around Some More

Just to revisit that England-Portugal game for a moment.

There is one issue to deal with in regards to that foul. That is, is it common for that amount of contact to happen and the ref does not call a foul?

I don't know that much about soccer, but let me give an example from American football-you know, the kind with shoulder pads and helmets.

On passing plays, theoretically the offensive linemen cannot grab or hold onto defensive linemen trying to get to the quarterback.

In point of fact, on almost every pass play, a certain amount of holding by the offensive linemen occurs. The referee usually does not call it unless it it a more-than-normal amount.

Sometimes it happens that the ref calls it, and the replay shows the lineman did only the "normal" amount of holding. This is considered an injustice.

So the photo shows the goalie was interfered with somewhat. The question now is, on plays of that type, does the ref usually let that go, under the philosophy of "let the guys play hard"? Or is it called every time?
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.