World Cup 2010

[RB]

well, the octopus has well developed eyes for soccer, spain winning could be his biggest prediction yet and then we might as well advance him to a status of "oracle"

[msj]

Didn't get to see the Germany/Uruguay game until just now.

Saw parts of it in London Drugs while visiting Victoria today.

They had a 3D Panasonic playing it and I got to watch part of the game with the 3D glasses on.

Looking forward to when 3D is as normal as colour.

Watching the game at home tonight over a wireless connection on the laptop doesn't really compare well to 3D.

But then, sitting on my deck overlooking a beautiful sunset in the Strait of Georgia while watching the game on a sketchy connection is still pretty nice.

Good game.

Too bad Klose, Lahm and Podolski didn't play but this third place match will probably be considered more entertaining than the final match unless Robben ends up head butting Puyol .

[wyly]

well, the octopus has well developed eyes for soccer, spain winning could be his biggest prediction yet and then we might as well advance him to a status of "oracle"

he always go to the feed box on the right, put Canada's flag on there and he'll pick us as winners over Spain...

[ironstone]

it's bad enough to have the entire forum think you're an idiot but then you go and post something like this and confirm it...

your sports ignorance is out there now for everyone to see...

I have read some of your stuff in the past so I guess I shouldn't be too insulted by you calling me an idiot .If you had the chance,you most certainly wouldn't say it to my face

And who can honestly say diving in the World Cup isn't pathetic?

[msj]

Congrats to Spain for winning their first world cup.

They were the better and cleaner team on the day.

Funny thing: when the Netherlands beat Brazil I was impressed by their play although I found it to be subtly dirty and borderline awful acting at times. I still supported them if only because Brazil wins too much.

Seems like that was merely practice for the "spoil tactics" they employed in this game and the team should hang their heads in shame for it.

[Sir Bandelot]

I thought the final game was boring and anti-climactic. Both teams played too carefully, no on willing to make any bold moves or take chances. Sad in a way, I was beginning to think that this world cup match would generate more enthusiasm for soccer in north america. But now I have my doubts.

I also was not impressed by the number of "dives" and melodramatic acting by some teams. Think this too would not st well with many north american viewers.

There was some controversy about the goal. Was it offside, or not? They only showed it once on the replay, which I thought was a little odd, and the commentator sad "clearly off-side,".

[msj]

There was some controversy about the goal. Was it offside, or not? They only showed it once on the replay, which I thought was a little odd, and the commentator sad "clearly off-side,".

The goal was clearly on-side. Check the replay at cbcsports.ca.

[SF/PF]

They were the better and cleaner team on the day.

Funny thing: when the Netherlands beat Brazil I was impressed by their play although I found it to be subtly dirty and borderline awful acting at times. I still supported them if only because Brazil wins too much.

Seems like that was merely practice for the "spoil tactics" they employed in this game and the team should hang their heads in shame for it.

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.

[SF/PF]

I thought the final game was boring and anti-climactic. Both teams played too carefully, no on willing to make any bold moves or take chances.

The final was reasonably fast paced. Defence is as much a part of the game as offence, even if some people can't appreciate it.

There was some controversy about the goal. Was it offside, or not? They only showed it once on the replay, which I thought was a little odd, and the commentator sad "clearly off-side,".

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..

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball

touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,

involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

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.

[msj]

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.

There's nothing to interpret here: he was not offside on the first attempted pass. Take another look:

Iniesta's Late Late Goal

The linesman was in a better position to tell if Iniesta was closer to the goal line than the Dutch defender from the first TV angle. [Make sure you are watching the proper Dutch defender who is not closest to Iniesta but is as close to the goal line as Iniesta.]

The replay (after all the celebration) makes it clear that the linesman was right.

Remember this part of the rule book when watching the above:

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the

second-last opponent

Edited July 12, 2010 by msj

[msj]

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.

Well, I was sitting with Dutch fans watching the game and even they noticed. I started the game not caring who won - only hoping for a good game.

But since both sides have so much Dutch history, it looks like something else had to be employed.

And I'm not the only neutral who thinks the Dutch used "spoiled tactics."

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.

One should not complain about all of the cards that should have been thrown against the other team when Holland should have been down to 9 men and yet the referee (rightfully imo) gave Robben a pass when he struck the ball into the net two seconds after being declared offside (that would have been his second yellow card).

Oh, and let's not forget de Jong's boot to the chest in the first half which should have been a straight red.

There is a reason Holland was shown 9 yellow and 1 red (a double yellow) - because they played the game smart enough to try to disrupt Spain's passing but not smart enough to not get called out for it by the referee.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

It should start later and end earlier...

So it doesn't conflict with CFL football on TV

[SF/PF]

One should not complain about all of the cards that should have been thrown against the other team when Holland should have been down to 9 men and yet the referee (rightfully imo) gave Robben a pass when he struck the ball into the net two seconds after being declared offside (that would have been his second yellow card).

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.

Oh, and let's not forget de Jong's boot to the chest in the first half which should have been a straight red.

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.

There is a reason Holland was shown 9 yellow and 1 red (a double yellow) - because they played the game smart enough to try to disrupt Spain's passing but not smart enough to not get called out for it by the referee.

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.

[SF/PF]

There's nothing to interpret here: he was not offside on the first attempted pass. Take another look:

Iniesta's Late Late Goal

The linesman was in a better position to tell if Iniesta was closer to the goal line than the Dutch defender from the first TV angle. [Make sure you are watching the proper Dutch defender who is not closest to Iniesta but is as close to the goal line as Iniesta.]

The replay (after all the celebration) makes it clear that the linesman was right.

Remember this part of the rule book when watching the above:

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.

[msj]

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'm talking about the attempted pass that was defended by a Dutch defender and rebounded to another Spanish player who then made the fatal assist (this second pass is the one shown as being on-side which was obvious in real time, it was the pass prior to it that is of interest here).

That was not offside because one of the Dutch defenders (not the one closest to Iniesta but one over closer towards the TV camera from where we are viewing from) was level with Iniestaas as the ball was being kicked.

Last time I checked, being level is not the same thing as being closer.

But who knows?

Maybe I should get my eyes checked along with the linesman who was standing in the proper position to make the call for offside right at the top of the screen pretty much level with the on-side player.

Even if it was offside, then it was so close that in real time the linesman couldn't make a call one way or the other and FIFA doesn't allow for challenges (and won't be) for such goals.

Perhaps the Dutch should have treated us to a better performance so we could hear the Spanish whine!

Actually, I'm thankful for the result because I can never seem to tolerate the whining from Spain/Portugal/Italy/England... yes, I find my ears bleed heavily when the English moan.

Edited July 12, 2010 by msj

[msj]

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.

The referee didn't give a free kick so obviously the referee didn't think there was a foul committed.

Perhaps the ref thought Robben was giving as well as he was receiving or perhaps Robben should have acted better.

The view we got from the front certainly makes it look worthy of an ejection but the referee doesn't get that view does he?

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.

It's not "dirty" play. It is "spoiler tactics." There is a difference. It is still a rather negative, and shameful, way to play the game but weaker teams often employ such tactics in order to win by a fluke goal against stronger opponents.

The fact that the Dutch recognized this was necessary is a credit to their coaching although it may be insulting to their talent.

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.

If you are going to play a "physical game" or, imo, spoiler tactics, then you live and die by your tactics.

Holland was barely staying even with Spain by playing such tactics and surely they knew that those tactics could lead to 10 or even 9 men.

At some point they should have planned for that but, looking over the replay of the goal again and seeing two Dutch defenders giving up (and out of position) I think fitness (or lack there of) was another factor for why Spain was better on the day (and likely would be better on another 6 or 7 days out of 9).

[SF/PF]

The referee didn't give a free kick so obviously the referee didn't think there was a foul committed.

Perhaps the ref thought Robben was giving as well as he was receiving or perhaps Robben should have acted better.

The view we got from the front certainly makes it look worthy of an ejection but the referee doesn't get that view does he?

Thats precisely my point. My issue isn't with the official, who has to make split second decisions with imperfect information, but with the people who had the benefit of multiple replays seeing the play, and still bemoaning Holland's "spoiler" tactics and celebrating Spain's "technical play."

It's not "dirty" play. It is "spoiler tactics." There is a difference. It is still a rather negative, and shameful, way to play the game but weaker teams often employ such tactics in order to win by a fluke goal against stronger opponents.

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.

If you are going to play a "physical game" or, imo, spoiler tactics, then you live and die by your tactics.

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.

Holland was barely staying even with Spain by playing such tactics and surely they knew that those tactics could lead to 10 or even 9 men.

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..

At some point they should have planned for that but, looking over the replay of the goal again and seeing two Dutch defenders giving up (and out of position) I think fitness (or lack there of) was another factor for why Spain was better on the day (and likely would be better on another 6 or 7 days out of 9).

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.

[msj]

SF/PF, we will have to agree to disagree.

I really didn't have a vested interest in either team so it really doesn't matter to me who won/lost.

Even when I do have a vested interest, it still doesn't matter.

The history books will remember Spain won and any ugliness of the game (whether it be spoiler tactics or diving) will be long forgotten.

To those who care about such things it will be a big deal.

For people like me, well, I look forward to Euro 2012 and attending World Cup 2014 (but I want to see the 3rd place game because that one is usually more entertaining than the finale - barring any head butts of course!).

-------------------

Jonathan Doyle of the Globe and Mail is an avid football fan and pretty good TV critic.

I have always enjoyed his writing even during those times I get fed up with TV and cut the cable (as I'm going to do now that World Cup is over and I have an ocean view and beach front to enjoy).

Anyway, his latest column is about some of the issues that came up earlier in this thread so I thought I would point it out since I largely agree with him that football around the world has a different narrative than North American style sports.

Sorry if you think soccer sucks. But nobody cares what you think

[msj]

Another story:

Last week I talked to one of my staff about the World Cup.

She is from Germany originally but was supporting the Dutch for the World Cup (although she preferred Germany to be there instead).

I asked her about relations between Dutch and Germans since it seems that Dutch dislike Germans and Germans don't seem to care about Holland one way or the other (sort of like Canada/US in some ways).

She agreed that it is kinda like that.

So, in London Drugs on Saturday watching Germany/Uruguay, as mentioned in another post above, I make my usual joke to my wife (a German fan) that it doesn't matter who wins because both sides are from Germany (since so many Nazi's fled to Uruguay after WWII...).

A Dutchman standing near us laughs but despite my little joke he is cheering on Uruguay because he wants those Germans to lose! He was adamant on this point.

Funny how people are people.

Anyway, I saw my staffer today and asked her what she thought of the game and her first words were: the Dutch played dirty.

Hmmm, maybe people are people or maybe they did play dirty or maybe a little bit of both.

[wyly]

Congrats to Spain for winning their first world cup.

They were the better and cleaner team on the day.

Funny thing: when the Netherlands beat Brazil I was impressed by their play although I found it to be subtly dirty and borderline awful acting at times. I still supported them if only because Brazil wins too much.

Seems like that was merely practice for the "spoil tactics" they employed in this game and the team should hang their heads in shame for it.

every team plays that way, it's arough physical game and what you see on replays only scratches the surface...plus you see fouls where none exist at least three of the yellow cards awarded the dutch for fouls never happened...Heitinga the man who was ejected his first yellow card was a phantom foul, the Sapanish are experts at diving and conning the ref for fouls when none have occured...is a misstimed tackle more of a foul than another player rolling around on the turf in agony over a tackle that never connected?..where's your annoyance with deception to have players ejected for fouls they never commited?

[wyly]

I thought the final game was boring and anti-climactic. Both teams played too carefully, no on willing to make any bold moves or take chances. Sad in a way, I was beginning to think that this world cup match would generate more enthusiasm for soccer in north america. But now I have my doubts.

I also was not impressed by the number of "dives" and melodramatic acting by some teams. Think this too would not st well with many north american viewers.

There was some controversy about the goal. Was it offside, or not? They only showed it once on the replay, which I thought was a little odd, and the commentator sad "clearly off-side,".

don't listen to commentators they're out of touch with the laws of the game, there were CBC commentators clinging to a rule that hasn't been in effect for 30yrs...

I know the offside situation referred to in this case, the initial ball played in was clearly offside but a Dutch defender played out but to a Spanish player who played it back in to the same player who this time was onside, years ago the play would have stopped at the first offside but not being a ref with up to date rules I can't say for sure if that is still the case...

and the game will continue to grow in N America, it is the most widely played game in Canada and the USA and grows every year...

Edited July 13, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

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.

I've seen far more physical games, I've been in far more physical games...

Dirty is hip tossing your opponent right in front of the referee. Spain was lucky not to receive a straight red for that one..

and he escaped that foul without even a yellow card, and yes since it was off the ball it could have been red...

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.

he already had one yellow this would've called for an ejection, the other thought is the ref or AR saw it but the ref choose to let play continue under the advantage, but once the advantage was lost Puyol should have been ejected...but we know the Spanish never cheat

I think a fairer assessment is that Netherlands played a more physical game. If any team was "dirty" in that game, it was Spain.

a foul is a foul, whether it comes by a hard mistimed tackle or dive or hold they still rate a yellow card to think only one side was fouling is niave...

[wyly]

There's nothing to interpret here: he was not offside on the first attempted pass. Take another look:

Iniesta's Late Late Goal

The linesman was in a better position to tell if Iniesta was closer to the goal line than the Dutch defender from the first TV angle. [Make sure you are watching the proper Dutch defender who is not closest to Iniesta but is as close to the goal line as Iniesta.]

The replay (after all the celebration) makes it clear that the linesman was right.

Remember this part of the rule book when watching the above:

sorry I've seen it a dozen times, Ineista was clearly offside on the initial attempt to play the ball to him...unless there has been a rule change that I'm not aware of (which is possible)the flag should have gone up for an offside...if it was legal then it would an interpretion of the rule that the offside situation ended when the dutch defender played the ball back...

[wyly]

Oh, and let's not forget de Jong's boot to the chest in the first half which should have been a straight red.

based on the preceeding game which no one is complaing about in which a dutch player was kicked in the head with such terrific force that he had to be taken to the hospital for scans...it's reckless play and card for that is yellow not red...red is given for intent to injure but then you have to prove intent, a player flying through the air to meet a 50/50 ball is certianly reckles but it's hard to prove intent, once a player leaves his feet to challenge for a ball there is no putting on the brakes or changing direction so there will be a inevitable collision...the optics are much worse than the tackle was, if he was intending to injure the opponent he wouldn't have gotten up...yellow card was the right call

There is a reason Holland was shown 9 yellow and 1 red (a double yellow) - because they played the game smart enough to try to disrupt Spain's passing but not smart enough to not get called out for it by the referee.

three of those yellows never happened, phantom calls...interestingly the annoucers remained quiet on the replays when they showed no contact...

[wyly]

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.

there's a cultural difference as well, different countries play different styles...the English and notorious for playing a hard tackling physical game, that's the way they play among themselves and expect nothing different...latino's I've played with for many years prefer the chippy covert tactics the refs don't see, kicks to the ankles, elbows, punches, spitting behind the play anything to get you to retaliate and take red card...of course both types are despised by the other side as unethical...I prefer the english version at least I know whats coming when I have the ball, the other type comes from nowhere...