SF/PF

If Oil companies operated on a profit margin of less than 10%, every one of them would have gone bankrupt in the fall of 2008 when oil prices plummeted. In fact, rather than bankruptcy, they continued to see billion dollar profits. Refineries do operate on smaller margins than the oil industry as a whole. But its an outright fabrication to suggest that big oil operates on less than a 10% profit margin.

It will be a positive boon to the owners of those aerospace companies, and the small number of people that they employ. Its a $10 billion dollar boondoggle for the rest of us. The costs are publicized, the profits are privatized.

If players did not have the option of passing or moving the ball back across the centre, you would see a game in which the team possessing the ball constantly hit a brick wall when trying to progress into the offensive half. The attacking team would lose the ball in the mid-field constantly due to the other team being able to effectively lock down the field. I suspect that the ultimate effect of such a rule would be the teams going back and forth playing long balls that would resemble tennis more than anyhting. If the offence couldn't lay the ball back to supporting players, the risk of counterattacks would be too great for most teams to regularly try to bring the ball through the midfield.

That would probably have the exact opposite effect as intended. The most successful teams in the tournament were all very skilled at limiting the opponents progress and options in the mid-field. I think you'd see a stale mate in the midfield, with neither team willing to attack due to the risk of a counter-attack catching them light on defence. The offside rule really does add to the excitement of the game, since it requires well timed passes and cagey runs, rather than just trying to dump the ball to a cherry picker in behind the defence. It would also limit the defence's ability to join in the counter-attack, which are some of the most entertaining moments in the game.

New study finds that obvious physical play results in more foul calls than subtle cheap shots. News at 11! Your inability to understand the difference between physical and dirty doesn't reflect on anyone but yourself, my friend. Where has anyone here implied that he had something against the dutch? Webb lost his ability to control the game by handing out yellows like candy early on for both minor fouls and non fouls. At that point, his only option to try and exert control was to begin ejecting players. He didn't want to do that, and the game quickly devolved on both sides. Perhaps you noticed the Spanish team swarming the officials every time a Spanish player touched the grass? Or the Dutch team disputing several calls late in the game? Webb lost control of the match. Criticism of an official doesn't imply bias.

That I forgot about? The only doubt there can be on that replay relates to the interpretation of the "gaining an advantage" part of the rule. The Spanish attacker was quite clearly in an offside position.

Physical play is not in and of itself "negative", or "shameful." Intentional fouls to deny opponents oppurtunities (Suarez, anyone?) are. But there is nothing wrong at all with rugged challenges on 50/50 balls, which made up the bulk of what the Dutch were called for. They're perfectly legal, and perfectly fair. With regards to the intentional and malicious fouls, the two sides were a lot more even than people are admitting. You're certainly at the mercy of the officials ability to seperate legitimate fouls from players who flop over at the slightest touch. Unfortunatly, a player falling to the turf has, and will always have, a powerful effect subconsciously on an official. How to solve that problem is probably the single biggest problem FIFA faces in regards to cleaning up the image of their sport. I'm not sure what you're reasoning behind that statement is. The Dutch held their own throughout virtually the entire game in terms of scoring chances.. Was fitness, or lack there of, also a factor in Spains complete inability to mark Robben without hacking at his ankles and holding him? Spain lacked a single defensive player that could effectively mark Robben, and so resorted to "spoiler" tactics (as Brazil had) to try and contain him. The only difference was that Spain got away with it. Brazil didn't. Everyone is obviously entitled to their opinions on which rules violations they find more aesthetically palatable, but they ought to at least be consistent.

In that video, I think it quite clearly shows that the initial cross was for an offside player. When the ball was struck, the Spanish attacker was closer to the net than any of the Dutch defence or ball. The replay they show where they image in the line and shaded area is for a part of the play that was clearly not offside.

I don't have any issue at all with most of the calls and cards called against the Dutch. The only one I take issue with was the second yellow the Dutch defender received to be sent out of the game. He was carded and ejected for a hold that didn't even begin to compare with the hold on Robben during his breakaway. A foul committed against a player on a breakaway, by the way, is a MANDATORY ejection. A deliberate hop toss against an opponent is violent conduct, and is also a MANDATORY ejection under the laws of the game. At any rate, my main argument was that its a bit of a stretch to accuse the Dutch of dirty play when the Spanish were holding their own quite well in that regard. That certainly could have been a straight red for dangerous play. The only reason I think that the Dutch didn't receive a red for that was because it was the result of an over zealous challenge, rather than an intentional or malicious kick. In the end, there were dozens upon dozens of cleat first kicks, stomps and tackles from both teams in that game. The disparity in fouls and cards handed out is ultimately due to two factors, IMO: 1) The Dutch played a more obviously physical game, while the Spanish contented themselves with subtle grabs, trips, and holds. Physical play isn't neccessarily dirty. Little chips and pot-shots are. 2) The Dutch seemed more willing to try and play through a foul, rather than falling to the ground at every touch. The hold against Robben is a prime example. Had he fallen to the ground dramatically (like the Spanish player did to draw the ejection of the Dutch defender), he likely would have been rewarded a free kick and the defender carded.

The play was quite possibly offside earlier, prior to the actual goal. When the first Spanish player attempted to cross it into the middle, the target of his pass was offside. At that point, it really hinges on how you interpret the offside rule.. Does being the target of a pass while in a goal scoring, and offside, position mean that you're gaining an advantage? Some argue that you're gaining an advantage by altering the way that the goaltender and defenders must play the ball while right in the front of the net. Others take a more literal interpretation. Personally, I'd like to see an official interpretation by Fifa saying that if you're in the goal area, and in an offside position, you're gaining an advantage by affecting the play of the defenders. I saw goals in this tournament where the goaltender was beat on a strike because he had no way of knowing whether the opposing player was onside or offside, and thus had to try and play both the shot and the pass/cross or deflection.

The Netherlands played a physical game, to be sure, but I wouldn't call it dirty by any stretch of the imagination. There were definitely some fouls in overzealous tackles and challenges, but that isn't dirty play. Its physical play. Dirty is hip tossing your opponent right in front of the referee. Spain was lucky not to receive a straight red for that one.. as well as the holding on Robben during his breakaway. One can only assume that the reason the ref didn't call it at all was because its a mandatory red card if he does. I think a fairer assessment is that Netherlands played a more physical game. If any team was "dirty" in that game, it was Spain.

Video review really does interrupt the flow of the game. Honestly.. next time you see one in hockey or football, break out the stop watch and see just how much time they eat up. And then consider how often the game changing call is a referee's decision that is non-reviewable... free kicks, penalty kicks, offsides, etc. I'm not 100% for or against video review, but I don't think it is accurate to suggest that there is no good reason to not bring it in.

Down to the final four, and I'm a happy man! My two teams are in, and my most hated teams are out... My predictions for the semi-finals.. Netherlands gets by Uruguay in dominant style, but close score.. 2-1 ORANJE! Germany squeaks by Spain... 1-0 DIE MANNSCHAFT!

Eskies to win the cup at home! We're cheering fight, fight, fight on Eskimos!

Yup. It seems to me that it will be Holland/Spain in the final.. possibly Holland/Germany.

In case it wasn't clear that I was being sarcastic toward your claim that protesters want us all to be poor.. uhm.. well yeah. Glad I could clear that up for you.

I realize that rhetoric can be fun.. but.. what does the location of a meeting have to do with democracy? I suspect that if you asked most Canadians if they think the meeting should be held in a more tax payer friendly manner, your view would be in a small minority. Any why is that?

And yet I offered an alternative that would cost virtually nothing. And your response was "IF you don't like it, don't watch it." You don't make a lot of sense...

I'm not watching it... but I'm footing a pretty ridiculous bill for it. See how that works?

Do you deny that the meeting could have been held more cheaply, easily, and safely in another location? Even if we accept that these meetings are neccessary, a dubious claim in itself, I fail to see how one can support having such meetings in a location that requires the highest possible expenditure of tax payer money to foot the bill. Honestly.. can you think of another location in Canada that could possibly have cost more than this?

So have the meetings at the UN after general assembly meetings, do the dirty work fast, cheap, and easy.. and get on with it. No billion dollar boondoggle, no subjugation of civil rights, no protesters or violence in the streets.

Sooo basically.... you want a police state? Gotcha.

The right to legitimately protest was undermined when protesters began being shoved into protest zones. Yes...the thugs are, largely, responsible for the violence and vandalism. And the government and organizers are responsible for wasting a billion dollars on a meeting that could have been held via video conferencing for.. a couple hundred bucks.. tops? Its unclear that the meeting would deliver value-for-money at a price tag of $200... Lots of blame to go around.

When they want taxpayers to cough up a billion dollars for their little shindig, your damn right they need to justify it. Yep.. its a global economy. But that doesn't mean that the global economy is a net benefit to the people paying for this powwow. This country is in a deficit situation, and we're paying a billion dollars to host a meeting for a group that, given its own way, would see more jobs lost to third world nations?

I disagree. In order to justify the spending on security, the meeting itself needs to be justified. That hasn't been done yet.