EURO 2012 Poland/Ukraine [OPEN SPOILERS]

[Yookeroo]

Originally Posted by RedFury

What I think is "douchebaggy" is calling any sport mainly played with your hands, "football." Never mind coming-up with a weak-sauced, American-only name such as "soccer" for the game the whole world know as as "football/futbol"

You're ignorance is showing. Not that there's any reason for a European to be knowledgeable about the roots of American football. Nor for a non native English speaker to know where the word "soccer" originates from. It might even be understandable that you don't quite get the the whole world doesn't call it "football/futbol". But to parade that ignorance to support some lame form of Euro-snobbery? Priceless. Keep going, please. If your sauce was any weaker, it would be pure water.

[Švejk]

Sigh...

Can we ever have a thread about football that does not derail into whether it should be properly called that, into whether it will or will not catch on in the US, and why, into whether it has the right set of rules or whether some of the rules and conventions associated are stupid or not? I guess not. Still, as the OP of this thread on the European Football Championship 2012, for whatever that is worth, let me ask all of you who are debating those issues and not the tournament, pretty please, with sugar on top, take it somewhere else. I absolutely did not start this thread to have it hijacked by people interested in arguing about whether the game as such has any merits or whether it has the right name.

Thank you, that will be all.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by Švejk

Sigh...

Can we ever have a thread about football that does not derail into whether it should be properly called that?...

Post 381 has to be my most inherently ironic post ever.

Anyway, the only objective way to determine what "real" football is would be to assess the actual balls being played. Before we begin, let's not forget that the "foot" part of the word is a description of the ball, not what's being done to it. Otherwise one of the balls in question would be called a "kickball", right? 2 questions: which of the balls is about the length of an adult human foot? And which ball is closest to 12 inches in length? So.... Which one is the football?

Thank you, that will be all.

Yes..yes it will.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Still, as the OP of this thread on the European Football Championship 2012, for whatever that is worth, let me ask all of you who are debating those issues and not the tournament, pretty please, with sugar on top, take it somewhere else. I absolutely did not start this thread to have it hijacked by people interested in arguing about whether the game as such has any merits or whether it has the right name.

Thank you, that will be all.

I honestly didn't read this part of your post... I just read the first line and the ending. Sorry for my rudeness. But it was an off day today, so perhaps you can forgive me.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by RedFury

What you call "audacious" I saw live as clearly "cheating." Semantics? Nope, it was simply cheating as the whole world saw & knows since them -- some later than other, admittedly. Some "genius" that Pelusa...

Personally I'm tired of the admiration and acceptance for things like this. He shouldn't be able to look back on that as a proud moment as he does. On a smaller scale you're always hearing commentators justifying deliberate fouling and similar behaviour. "Professional foul" - really?

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Yookeroo

Because teams are that strongly linked with physical location? I get that a "franchise" is such a foreign concept. But I don't see how it's a "far worse" concept. If I owned a team that was losing me money in one place, I sure as hell would like to move it to a place where it could succeed. Or is it that the idea that the team could succeed in a different location unreasonable?

Yes, the location shift would be seen as unforgivable. No way..........no way could a major team be relocated to another city and still remain as recognisably the same entity (and certainly wouldn't keep it's position in a league). And no way would they attract a large audience by doing so as every city has one or two major teams already with rather tribal and fanatical following.
Even fairly minor changes to locations within the same area or colours or nicknames or stadium names are greeted with apoplexy.
I'm not saying it is "far worse" concept in any objective sense, merely that the fans would consider it as such.
One huge reason for this is that there is no bar to anyone or anyplace creating a team out of thin air, funding it, being successful, attracting fans and rising to the highest level. Our league structure of relegation and promotion means a "franchise" concept is not needed. Success is open to anyone but it has to be earned not bought.

Stop! I want soccer to be a huge success in the US. Telling people that it will lead to rugby & cricket will derail that. (Actually, I think I could like rugby better than American football....cricket is still a harder sell).

It was tongue in cheek of course but I think there is still room in a country as diverse as America for all three to gain a foothold. I don't think they'll supplant the big three any time soon but with an ever-changing demographic they may hit enough popularity to have a TV presence and to be played within schools. That can only be a good thing.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Bozuit

Personally I'm tired of the admiration and acceptance for things like this. He shouldn't be able to look back on that as a proud moment as he does. On a smaller scale you're always hearing commentators justifying deliberate fouling and similar behaviour. "Professional foul" - really?

Agreed, I despise cheating in sport, Maradona was a great footballer but a dreadful human being and for all his skill I'd never hold him up as a role model for any young person going into football.

Personally I would love to see diving and other simulation retrospectively punished, and hard! 3 match ban minimums and points deductions for repeat offenders.
When any manager complains about a referee being fooled by simulation from the other team I would love the interviewer call "bullshit" on it, and ask him directly what he does to ensure that his team never do it as well.

[RedFury]

Originally Posted by Yookeroo

You're ignorance is showing. Not that there's any reason for a European to be knowledgeable about the roots of American football. Nor for a non native English speaker to know where the word "soccer" originates from. It might even be understandable that you don't quite get the the whole world doesn't call it "football/futbol". But to parade that ignorance to support some lame form of Euro-snobbery? Priceless. Keep going, please. If your sauce was any weaker, it would be pure water.

Whatever, dude. I'll respect the OP's wishes and let John Cleese respond instead:

John Cleese rants - Soccer vs Football

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm not sure what it means when the OP asks everyone to take the hijack elsewhere and four of the next six posts ignore the request.

Originally Posted by RedFury

Even though I am an atheist, I have a much better concept of "God" than Maradona scoring with his hand and jumping all over the field as if it was legit.

Ah, but the reason he did that is that he knew the ref was watching and thought he wouldn't give the goal unless he acted normal. There was an interview with him where he mentioned that he was angry at his teammates for not celebrating with him, because he thought the referee might notice their reaction.

Originally Posted by Bozuit

Personally I'm tired of the admiration and acceptance for things like this. He shouldn't be able to look back on that as a proud moment as he does. On a smaller scale you're always hearing commentators justifying deliberate fouling and similar behaviour. "Professional foul" - really?

Most fouling is, sort of by definition, within the rules of the game. It's not golf. If a defender commits a handball to keep a shot out of the goal in the last minute, he's going to be sent off, but nobody would ever say he shouldn't do it.

[Švejk]

Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut

I honestly didn't read this part of your post... I just read the first line and the ending. Sorry for my rudeness. But it was an off day today, so perhaps you can forgive me.

I'll forgive, but I won't forget

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I'm not sure what it means when the OP asks everyone to take the hijack elsewhere and four of the next six posts ignore the request.

Neither do I. I realize a hijack free thread is a bit of an impossibility, so I guess I'm just trying to contain it.

Most fouling is, sort of by definition, within the rules of the game. It's not golf. If a defender commits a handball to keep a shot out of the goal in the last minute, he's going to be sent off, but nobody would ever say he shouldn't do it.

I agree with you that people shouldn't argue that, but that's not how a lot of people reacted to Suarez's handball against Ghana in 2010.

[Švejk]

First day of quarter finals. Here's hoping the Czechs beat the Portuguese! Do toho!

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Most fouling is, sort of by definition, within the rules of the game. It's not golf. If a defender commits a handball to keep a shot out of the goal in the last minute, he's going to be sent off, but nobody would ever say he shouldn't do it.

I would. And this exactly the attitude I don't like - that it's just a cost/benefit trade off with no thought for sporting conduct.

Anyway, so far I'm really enjoying watching the Czech Republic play. I expect Portugal will get a couple of goals because of some mistakes but overall I don't see the Czechs being significantly outplayed.

[Novelty Bobble]

Portugal ramping it up now though................oooooooooooo! what an effort from Ronaldo, that would've been a corker.

Half time now though, Portugal will be miffed that they aren't ahead. they were only dominant for the last 10 minutes though.

[Maserschmidt]

Originally Posted by Švejk

I agree with you that people shouldn't argue that, but that's not how a lot of people reacted to Suarez's handball against Ghana in 2010.

Same example I was going to give. I recall it being pretty split between douchebag vs hero.

[Maserschmidt]

Ugh. Cannot stand watching CR celebrate.

[Bozuit]

"CR7" you mean

[RedFury]

Originally Posted by Bozuit

...Anyway, so far I'm really enjoying watching the Czech Republic play. I expect Portugal will get a couple of goals because of some mistakes but overall I don't see the Czechs being significantly outplayed.

So I thought for the first 35 minutes or so. After that, it should, could have been a massacre.

[Really Not All That Bright]

My DVR spaced out and didn't record the match. That's okay, though, because I would have been very upset to watch Portugal for 90 minutes and not get to see Ronaldo cry at the end.

The statistics were astonishingly lopsided. How did the Czechs only manage two shots?

[mkecane]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

My DVR spaced out and didn't record the match. That's okay, though, because I would have been very upset to watch Portugal for 90 minutes and not get to see Ronaldo cry at the end.

The statistics were astonishingly lopsided. How did the Czechs only manage two shots?

The second half was just all Portugal. In the middle of the 2nd, they showed the shots and the Czechs had 2, but I figured they'd up that a good bit once they were down a goal. Instead, Portugal almost put on a clinic of possession for the last 10 minutes.

Portugal looked stagnant in most of the 1st half, but soon after Postiga went out and Almieda came in, they looked much better. I'm not sure how much of that was due to personnel change and how much of it was just Portugal taking the initiative.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Thanks. IMHO, Postiga has looked pretty wooden throughout the tournament, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was the former.

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

My DVR spaced out and didn't record the match. That's okay, though, because I would have been very upset to watch Portugal for 90 minutes and not get to see Ronaldo cry at the end.

The statistics were astonishingly lopsided. How did the Czechs only manage two shots?

That seems a little off to me.
The Czechs did seem like they were turtled up and playing for a 0-0 tie for huge chunks of the second half, pretty much giving midfield possession to Portugal. So you could say Portugal dominated a big part of the game. It seemed to me especially after halftime, when Portugal started playing a slower possession build-up the attack game rather than trying to quickly slip a long pass through (and possibly the Czechs sat back a little more).

But there were a few decent chances by the Czechs; I guess they just all of the 'just missed connecting on the cross' type, rather than the 'only connected well enough to get a slow easily-saved shot off' type.

If the Czechs had gotten one in and didn't make the single defensive lapse to let Ronaldo run free, I'd have called them a little lucky, but it wouldn't have been a travesty, IMHO.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Quercus

But there were a few decent chances by the Czechs; I guess they just all of the 'just missed connecting on the cross' type, rather than the 'only connected well enough to get a slow easily-saved shot off' type.

If the Czechs had gotten one in and didn't make the single defensive lapse to let Ronaldo run free, I'd have called them a little lucky, but it wouldn't have been a travesty, IMHO.

I have to disagree. The Czechs created almost nothing to my eyes, whereas with a better final ball Portugal could have had three or four, they were the better team by quite a distance.

[RedFury]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

I have to disagree. The Czechs created almost nothing to my eyes, whereas with a better final ball Portugal could have had three or four, they were the better team by quite a distance.

This. As I wrote in my last post outside of the first 30 minutes, there was only one team on the pitch. One of the most lopsided matches at the Euros so far. 3/4 nil Portugal would have done what was shown on the pitch, justice.

I also couldn't understand why Baros played the whole match -- the Czechs played a man down; didn't do a damn thing all match long. Talk about living off past glories!

[by-tor]

I disagree that Portugal has looked "wooden" this tournament. When they are on, I think they have looked better than Germany or Spain (this tournament so far). When France has been on, they do too.

[JoseB]

OK -- tonight, Greece-Germany. Is anybody else having flashbacks to the Monty Python's sketch of the soccer-playing philosophers? Or is it just me?

[Ximenean]

Well if you thought last night was one-sided, it's got nothing on this.

[Švejk]

1-0 Germany

It's remarkable that Loew's kept Gomez on the bench - what's the deal with that?

[chizzuk]

Originally Posted by Ximenean

Well if you thought last night was one-sided, it's got nothing on this.

As a Germany supporter, I'm going crazy right now. They should be up like 4-0, I'm waiting for some freak stupid thing to happen and the Greeks equalize.

[Bozuit]

Ah, good news from ITV - the Greeks are now debt-free. Merkel can sleep well tonight whatever the result here, then.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by chizzuk

As a Germany supporter, I'm going crazy right now. They should be up like 4-0, I'm waiting for some freak stupid thing to happen and the Greeks equalize.

And there you have it from the Celtic man.

But dear ITV commentator: "The Greeks have wiped the debt out"? Really?

[JoseB]

Well, the Greek have equalized just now. Nice attack of Salpingidis who passed to Samaras, who kicked the ball (somewhat chaotically) into the net.

BTW, did you see that Greek supporter dressed like an hoplite?

Whoops, and right now Germany scored! Does that mean that Greece is back in debt? :P

[Lantern]

Wow the game has really come alive in the last 10 minutes. Don't think Greece will get another one though. My guess is Germany wins 3-1 with Greece conceding another goal as they push forward near the end.

[JoseB]

Whoopsie, Germany scores yet again! 3-1

Greece's chances never were good, to begin with, but now they have become really infinitesimal.

[RedFury]

Originally Posted by chizzuk

As a Germany supporter, I'm going crazy right now. They should be up like 4-0, I'm waiting for some freak stupid thing to happen and the Greeks equalize.

I did -- happen -- but it's over now. Congrats & enjoy!

[Švejk]

Bam! 4-1!

[JoseB]

Obviously Germany got angry and "hulked out" when Greece scored...

And penalty for Greece! Greece scores! 4-2

[Ximenean]

First successful penalty of the tournament, although god knows how that was adjudged handball. Still no 0-0s, though.

[JoseB]

Game over. Germany wins 4-2 against Greece. The result was to be expected, but I have to say that the Greeks had some nice moments there.

Strange penalty, though.

[Donnerwetter]

Here are some stats:

ball possession: GER 70 % GRC 30 %
corners: GER 10 GRC 1
passes: GER 652 (92 % successful) GRC 158 (74 % successful)
goals: GER 4 GRC 2

(courtesy of German soccer radio 90elf)

The German team is the youngest participating team in the tournament.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

But dear ITV commentator: "The Greeks have wiped the debt out"? Really?

I'm glad someone else found that amusing too.

[Maserschmidt]

Well finally Germany won by more than the minimum necessary! I only saw the second half, but that was clearly where all the action was...and especially pleasing to see some of the kids with quality time on the pitch.

Originally Posted by Ximenean

First successful penalty of the tournament, although god knows how that was adjudged handball. Still no 0-0s, though.

Originally Posted by JoseB

Strange penalty, though.

I dunno, arm away from the body, deflecting the ball in the box. I think that gets called 9 times out of 10. Of course, I'd be less forgiving if my team had lost.

[Ximenean]

Originally Posted by Maserschmidt

I dunno, arm away from the body, deflecting the ball in the box. I think that gets called 9 times out of 10. Of course, I'd be less forgiving if my team had lost.

Plenty of handballs get called incorrectly, true. Whether the ball was heading into a dangerous area or not should be irrelevant. The sole criterion is supposed to be whether it was deliberate or not. In this case, the player had his back to the ball and if anything looked like he was trying to get his arm out of the way of possible contact.
I don't think they'd have given it had it still been 1-1. But it didn't matter, and hey, consolation goal for Greece.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's not whether it's deliberate or not. It's whether the arm is in a "natural position". The idea is that players should learn to keep their arms down. Think about it: if the ball was going into the goal, who should suffer because it hit a defender in the wrist? The innocent attacking team, or the at-fault-even-if-not-deliberately defending team?

[Maserschmidt]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It's not whether it's deliberate or not. It's whether the arm is in a "natural position". The idea is that players should learn to keep their arms down. Think about it: if the ball was going into the goal, who should suffer because it hit a defender in the wrist? The innocent attacking team, or the at-fault-even-if-not-deliberately defending team?

I think at least historically the formal definition has been deliberate, but I agree that in practical terms, arms not by the sides gets a call. And that makes sense - only calling handballs where it was obviously deliberate would result in a lot of guys in the box swinging their arms around 'innocently'.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Laws of the Game say "deliberate" but there was a FIFA directive that went out in... 1998ish that said factors to be considered in determining whether a handball was deliberate was the speed of the ball, the distance between the player and the guy who kicked it, and whether the hands/arms were in a natural position.

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The Laws of the Game say "deliberate" but there was a FIFA directive that went out in... 1998ish that said factors to be considered in determining whether a handball was deliberate was the speed of the ball, the distance between the player and the guy who kicked it, and whether the hands/arms were in a natural position.

I want to say it was after the 2002 WC where Germany benefited from such a judgement call against the US.

[hammos1]

This is the most impressive performance yet from Spain in this tournament. They're keeping the French- who are no bad side- entirely out of the game.

[RedFury]

The French appear hypnotized by Spain's wizardry with the ball -- although we're still lacking in the finishing department, as a Spanish fan, I haven't felt threatened at all. The completed passes and possession stats must be staggering by now.

Let's hope we continue this way...preferably with a goal within the first ten minutes of the second half.

Vamos España!

[Ximenean]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It's not whether it's deliberate or not. It's whether the arm is in a "natural position". The idea is that players should learn to keep their arms down. Think about it: if the ball was going into the goal, who should suffer because it hit a defender in the wrist? The innocent attacking team, or the at-fault-even-if-not-deliberately defending team?

It does have to be deliberate. The question of whether a player had their hands raised is part of deciding whether it is deliberate or not. My cite is the actual laws of the game, and the offcial interpretation of the rules.

Law 12:
A direct free kick is awarded [if a player] handles the ball deliberately.

Interpretation of the Laws of the Game:
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement

The official interpretation is still a bit vague, but it is clear that handball must be deliberate to be an offence.

[Švejk]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The Laws of the Game say "deliberate" but there was a FIFA directive that went out in... 1998ish that said factors to be considered in determining whether a handball was deliberate was the speed of the ball, the distance between the player and the guy who kicked it, and whether the hands/arms were in a natural position.

Obviously the ref has to base his decision on a proxy measure of deliberate handling. An actual test would include what - asking the player? He could lie. Hooking them up to a polygraph? That's ridiculous. So that's why the ref bases his decision on the actions of the player, but these actions are treated as revealed intentions. Obviously, this is an imperfect system that leaves room for some misinterpretation, but still, that's the legal basis that refs are going on.