OK, the draw has been made - anybody brave enough to tip a winner?

My hope is one of the African countries gets up, because of their great entertainment over a number of years, Cameroon would be nice

First match of Group C will contribute to a few posts on this site!

i will be supporting every team that plays those dirty cheating french who only got in because the head of fifa and uefa are french. Though i will be putting a few quid on the spanish as they look like a good squad with great potential.

i will be supporting every team that plays those dirty cheating french who only got in because the head of fifa and uefa are french. Though i will be putting a few quid on the spanish as they look like a good squad with great potential.
Wasn't it the hand of god that knocked out the Irish this time too?

for anyone who is interested here is a spreadsheet for the world cup.

for anyone who is interested here is a spreadsheet for the world cup.
Tut, tut, tut - should not this be a database????

yes it probably should be but I had it from a previous world cup and thought I would share

Previous poster reported for spam, however I like to point out a small bug in the sheet.

The sorting doesnt happen if score is changed in column F, easy enough to fix, but ...

There does not appear to be a "Group of Death" this time around. Advancing countries should be:

Group A - France in a walk with South Africa though Mexico may suprise.
Group B - Argentina easily with the best of the rest.
Group C - England should with the USA. USA men have somthing to prove as the women are rated #1.
Group D - Germany with the second spot up for grabs.
Group E - Netherlands and probably Cameroon
Group F - Italy with whoever gave up the fewest goals to Italy.
Group G - Brazil for sure. I like Ivory Coast for the second spot.
Group H - Spain and cannon fodder for the next round.

The world cup should not be played in places like South Africa - it's too far away and too expensive for the fans to get there. It should be restricted to Europe and close neighbours.

That way the matches are on at a good time on the telly.

Col

I take it, this is a wind up - the difference between the UK and Sth Africa time zones is virtually 0

But as long as you're alright Jack, the rest of us are happy

I take it, this is a wind up - the difference between the UK and Sth Africa time zones is virtually 0

But as long as you're alright Jack, the rest of us are happy

Yes, that's been my motto for years - always look after No.1 and you'll be ok.

The best football is in the European area and South America, so that's where the finals should be. Most other places, (USA, Oz etc.) look on football as a joke so keep it to those who know about it. That way more people can afford to go, after all, who on earth wants to go to South Africa? It's a dreary place. Europe is easy, we can drive there.

Col

..., who on earth wants to go to South Africa? It's a dreary place.


Extremely dreary, especially in the morning :rolleyes:

Extremely dreary, especially in the morning :rolleyes:

Actually, if you want a good sunrise, go to Varanassi in India and watch the sunrise over the Ganges. It is an extremely holy place for Hindu's and to bathe in the Ganges at sunrise is the sort of equivalent of the freak show baptism in christianity.

A good sunset place is Lady Maquarie's Chair overlooking the harbour in Sydney with the sunset over the bridge and opera house.

Col

Looking forwad to the World Cup starting, plugs the gap from the close season for the club football! Just a shame Scotland didn't make it (As I keep being reminded):rolleyes:

Hay

Looking forwad to the World Cup starting, plugs the gap from the close season for the club football! Just a shame Scotland didn't make it (As I keep being reminded):rolleyes:

Hay

Hi Hales,

Did Scotland enter the group stages? I heard they couldn't even raise a team?

Col

FIFA World Cup 2010 schedules (http://www.merinews.com/fifa-worldcup/schedule.jsp) and fixtures:

Group A

Match Date - Time Venue Matches between
1 11/6/2010 16:00 Johannesburg - JSC South Africa Mexico
2 11/6/2010 20:30 Cape Town Uruguay France
17 16/06 20:30 Tshwane/Pretoria South Africa Uruguay
18 17/06 20:30 Polokwane France Mexico
33 22/06 16:00 Rustenburg Mexico Uruguay
34 22/06 16:00 Mangaung / Bloemfontein France South Africa

Group B

Match Date - Time Venue Matches between
3 12/6/2010 16:00 Johannesburg - JEP Argentina Nigeria
4 12/6/2010 13:30 Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Korea Republic Greece
19 17/06 16:00 Mangaung / Bloemfontein Greece Nigeria
20 17/06 13:30 Johannesburg - JSC Argentina Korea Republic
35 22/06 20:30 Durban Nigeria Korea Republic
36 22/06 20:30 Polokwane Greece Argentina

They can hold it wherever they wish as long as it's a long time til Asia.
In the eastern time zones of N. America the matches started at:
3AM - asleep
5 AM - Do I get up or not?
and 10AM - Sorry, at work.
Of course now I understand what the Asians have been complaining about for years.

I have been trying to figure out the start times in South Africa but since it will be autumn there, do they have Daylight Saving Time?

Anyway, this time, I am on Brazil - maximum bet.

note also that South American Teams have always won when played in Southern Hemisphere,

Brazil are only Southern team to win when played in Northern Hemisphere (3 times in fact I think - I think Japan is Northern Hemisphere without checking - also in Sweden and US of A)

There does not appear to be a "Group of Death" this time around. Advancing countries should be:

Group A - France in a walk with South Africa though Mexico may suprise.
Group B - Argentina easily with the best of the rest.
Group C - England should with the USA. USA men have somthing to prove as the women are rated #1.
Group D - Germany with the second spot up for grabs.
Group E - Netherlands and probably Cameroon
Group F - Italy with whoever gave up the fewest goals to Italy.
Group G - Brazil for sure. I like Ivory Coast for the second spot.
Group H - Spain and cannon fodder for the next round.

Mainly agree though group G I would class as a group of death (providing Ivory Coast have Drogba fit) the strongest South American team vs the strongest Africa team vs a strong European team (yeh they haven't been on top form but they do have Ronaldo)

Group H - I would tip Chile to go through they play attacking football (3-3-1-3 formation), score loads of goals - ok they also let in a lot of goals but hey they play the Kevin Keegan way - if you score 3 we'll score 4 :p

Winners? - Brazil no doubt (providing they play to their potential).
Dark horse - Ivory Coast (because I have them in my sweepstake)
Watch out for - Germany, yes there not the team they were but they always seem to do well I'd bet semi finals.


Hi Hales,

Did Scotland enter the group stages? I heard they couldn't even raise a team?

Col


Hey we beat the might of Iceland both at home and away I'll have you know, it was only a 1-0 defeat by the awesome Macedonia that stopped us qualifying :p

Rest assured though the Tartan Army will be cheering on England.

EDIT Sorry sorry my combination of n o and t must not be working properly :p

I have been trying to figure out the start times in South Africa but since it will be autumn there, do they have Daylight Saving Time?


We should actually have so that the guys from Cape Town can stop bragging about their late sunsets in summer, but we don't.

Anyway, this time, I am on Brazil - maximum bet.

note also that South American Teams have always won when played in Southern Hemisphere,

Brazil are only Southern team to win when played in Northern Hemisphere (3 times in fact I think - I think Japan is Northern Hemisphere without checking - also in Sweden and US of A)



Mexico is N Hemisphere isn't it - in which case Brazil again - and Argentina.

Mexico is N Hemisphere isn't it - in which case Brazil again - and Argentina.

They generally speak in terms of "hemisphere" since the World Cup was only played in Europe or the Americas until recently.

Brazil is the only country to win outside its own hemisphere, having done it twice.

Is England in mourning?

Having drawn against a plucky (and, granted lucky) USA side, all the ex-Brits in Toronto are crying in their beer. :D

Is England in mourning?

Having drawn against a plucky (and, granted lucky) USA side, all the ex-Brits in Toronto are crying in their beer. :D

Knowing all you have to do to begin with is qualify out of the group - anyone with a brain knows as yet its not too much of a problem.

Thats not to say a win wouldn't have been better - obviously.

anyone with a brain knows as yet its not too much of a problem.

Could be a nice US sponsorship deal on the cards for Mr Green :p


http://www.americansweets.co.uk/ekmps/shops/statesidecandy/images/nestle-butterfinger-candy-bar-770-p.jpg

I don't know much about soccer and was watching some of the GER/AUS match and there was a constant buzzin, humming, loud noise in the back ground that sounded like thousands of fans were blowing those horn type things mounted on cans you carry around... Was that normal? What was that noise?

I don't know much about soccer and was watching some of the GER/AUS match and there was a constant buzzin, humming, loud noise in the back ground that sounded like thousands of fans were blowing those horn type things mounted on cans you carry around... Was that normal? What was that noise?

Its normal in SA football games. They are trumpets type things called vuvuzelas.

Many people really dont like the noise - I seem to tune it out so it doesn't bother me. But I suppose it does drwon out the atmosphere as we would want to hear it - ie Dutch, English fans or whoever singing.

But is in SA - so vuvuzelas are in.

I see. I hadn't ruled out my TV set going on the blink :p

Thanks for the insight, now I'll appear real smart when I explain it to my redneck buddies :)

I see. I hadn't ruled out my TV set going on the blink :p

Thanks for the insight, now I'll appear real smart when I explain it to my redneck buddies :)


A good bluff of knowledge is , whenever the ball goes out of play towards the opponents goal (ie off the side of the pitch) - shout loudly at the referee/tv whatever "Offside!" in an accusatory manner.

The rednecks will think your a genius - and the rest of the world will marvel at
your soccer knowledge.

I am being a little mischevious with this advice!

--

Lots of younsters play the game dont they - so many will know the rules from watching the kids, if not professional games?

I don't think I'll push my luck, somebody may actually know whats going on :p

With our 0-4 thrashing of Germany, the draw opens up nicely for Australia to march triumphantly through to the final !!!!!!

With our 0-4 thrashing of Germany, the draw opens up nicely for Australia to march triumphantly through to the final !!!!!!

I'm not sure you can repeat that success - cos your probably without Cahill now.

Theres always Harry Kewell - if you can pull him away from endorsements, photshoots , talking about himself , or the i'm injured list - honest , for long enough.

Or go to plan 'B' - change allegiance to New Zealand

Or go to plan 'B' - change allegiance to New Zealand


Seems a popular - or unpopular idea!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/world-cup-2010/new-zealand-iire-at-australias-glory-by-proxy/story-fn4l5n4r-1225880557223

Wrong result, wrong opponents.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/york-post-world-cup-match

Its not the first time theres been confusion RE - Opponents and victories though.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

I'm looking forward to Germany v Serbia today - the right wingers will be dangerous.

I'm looking forward to Germany v Serbia today - the right wingers will be dangerous.
Germany 0 - Serbia 1

Highlights the magnitude of Australia's performance - We made these hacks look good !!!!

The refs have been incredibly inconsistent in this tournament.

The guy who did Germany/Serbia must have thought that this will be his only World Cup match. He was trying to set the record for most bookings in a match.

I may have missed it in the media but I am still awaiting the reason the USA goal was not allowed.

The refs have been incredibly inconsistent in this tournament.

The guy who did Germany/Serbia must have thought that this will be his only World Cup match. He was trying to set the record for most bookings in a match.

I may have missed it in the media but I am still awaiting the reason the USA goal was not allowed.


The refs have been right up there with the goalkeeping - both terrible

USA goal not allowed because 'outsiders' are not supposed to upset the existing Europe / South America heirarchy

Australia only have 2 world class players (Cahill & Kewel) both have been sent off for non existant fouls !!!! Following last world cup where we got robbed by an Italian dive, it is clear we are not meant to be here!!

The refs have been right up there with the goalkeeping - both terrible

USA goal not allowed because 'outsiders' are not supposed to upset the existing Europe / South America heirarchy

Australia only have 2 world class players (Cahill & Kewel) both have been sent off for non existant fouls !!!! Following last world cup where we got robbed by an Italian dive, it is clear we are not meant to be here!!

I wish that I could disagree with you but I cant as I feel that there has been bias against the African teams too.

Brian

There is hope yet - Italy 1 - New Zealand 1: Plan B looks pretty good. Go you Kiwi's

I wish that I could disagree with you but I cant as I feel that there has been bias against the African teams too.

Brian

Well it just wouldn't be right for an African or Australasian team to win the cup.

Still, at least it does encompass all continents under the title "world cup" unlike the American "world" series which is restricted to just two nations.

Col

Well it just wouldn't be right for an African or Australasian team to win the cup.

Still, at least it does encompass all continents under the title "world cup" unlike the American "world" series which is restricted to just two nations.

Col
So in the case of the World Series, only two countries are allowed to actually play and have the opportunity to actually win, but in the World Cup, the countries are all allowed to play but not all are allowed to actually win. :D

Wow - New Zealand held Italy to nil all. To be honest, as much as this Soccer world cup is interesting (bit like watching the Winter Olympics once every four years), rugby is still the focus of most kiwi's hearts, it would be a strange world if soccer were to take hold.

Anyway, drawing with Italy has been likened to the All Blacks Drawing against Israel, just unthinkable.

So good on the All Whites and as long as we get more points than the Aussies, it's all gravy really :)

So in the case of the World Series, only two countries are allowed to actually play and have the opportunity to actually win, but in the World Cup, the countries are all allowed to play but not all are allowed to actually win. :D

Yes. That's exactly it, it makes it much more fair, and tin-pot little countries get to play teams they wouldn't normally meet.

Col

Kewell and Cahill were fouls but very unlucky to get a red card.

Now Kaka's sending off was no foul.

Wouldn't want the Brazilians upsetting the usual suspects!

Wouldn't want the Brazilians upsetting the usual suspects!

...and here, of course, lies the heart of the problem.

For me, football is about the wonderful France / Uraguay match where I know I can switch on and doze off for 90 minutes knowing full well nothing was going to happen.

Those bloody Brazillians seem to think they can swan about the pitch and score goals from wherever they like!! This awful trend was started by the Prince of Darkness (Pele) and Fifa has taken no action to curb them. They will be the death of game.

"So Called" Sepp Blatter must get off his pampered backside and get the game back in shape so the fans can get back to 'The Beautiful Sleep'

Wow - New Zealand held Italy to nil all. To be honest, as much as this Soccer world cup is interesting (bit like watching the Winter Olympics once every four years), rugby is still the focus of most kiwi's hearts, it would be a strange world if soccer were to take hold.

Anyway, drawing with Italy has been likened to the All Blacks Drawing against Israel, just unthinkable.

So good on the All Whites and as long as we get more points than the Aussies, it's all gravy really :)

Why don't the All Whites perform the haka? (maori war challenge)

If you had studied history, you would know the Italians would have immediately surrendered and you would have picked up the full 3 points on forfeit

Why don't the All Whites perform the haka? (maori war challenge)

If you had studied history, you would know the Italians would have immediately surrendered and you would have picked up the full 3 points on forfeit

They swopped side at half time - as always.

Not really a good look skinny white boys doing a Haka, but if they get into the next round I would expect to see a Haka at some point.

That's said, and I try here not to detract from the effort that is being put into this tournament by most of the teams and players, but soccer is GAY.

And I don't want to offend Gays here either and perhaps GAY is not the correct word but GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY Gayer then BIG GAY AL leading a gay madigas.

I watch the highlights of the DIVING (didn't know that was it's name in the sport) so far in the competition and I am filled with a feeling of revulsion for the sport.

How can the result of such a low scoring sport balance on the performance of gay prima donnas all tripping over each other to dupe the ref into awarding penalties that are ripping off fair playing teams! How is this allowed to happen?! In your/our world cup, shouldn't this sort of behavior been stomped out years ago?

In short I am left thinking it's less a "beautiful game" and more of a con job as this big teams don't seem to even know the meaning of fair play.

This is what getting taken out by the other player looks like.
http://conversationalrugby.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/39513412_tackle_ap1.jpg

I'll stick to rugby, where there is less cheating and real tackling.
Freaking sad :(

I thought players were punished for Professional Fouls which included faking injuries and incidents.

Remember the player a few years ago that faked a ball injury when standing in the corner.

I wish Bill, I wish. And I have to agree with this wee Aussie blogger (http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/06/22/attention-footballers-%E2%80%93-harden-up/) that perhaps its just a antipodean thing and we are just a little tougher.

I thought players were punished for Professional Fouls which included faking injuries and incidents.

Remember the player a few years ago that faked a ball injury when standing in the corner.

He was banned for 2 games for that.

Brian

I thought players were punished for Professional Fouls which included faking injuries and incidents.

Remember the player a few years ago that faked a ball injury when standing in the corner.

How do you fake a ball injury - walk knock kneed and talk high pitched?

A ball injury can be very painful - and with all such trauma injuries can have serious implications like testicular cancer later on.

How about????

When a player goes down, the referee will give him 15 seconds to get back up.

If the player in not back on his feet within the 15 seconds, the referee will blow the whistle and call in the first aid staff. At this point, the player MUST leave the pitch. The referee will not allow the player back on for FIVE MINUTES regardless of the number of magic sponges applied.

The player may be substituted for at any time.

How about????

When a player goes down, the referee will give him 15 seconds to get back up.

If the player in not back on his feet within the 15 seconds, the referee will blow the whistle and call in the first aid staff. At this point, the player MUST leave the pitch. The referee will not allow the player back on for FIVE MINUTES regardless of the number of magic sponges applied.

The player may be substituted for at any time.

So someone really hurt - say being kicked in the nads - need a couple of minutes to recover - must have at least 5 minutes out of the real game.

Put politely - thats a rubbish idea.


I dont think theres too much problem with it as it is as the moment - apart from diving - as with so much in the sport - application of TV replays to ban divers , cheats etc afterwards - would stop most of it, and ban the remaining very few, and not impact the sport as its played at all. (though i would have it through the game - as the correct decision can be reached by TV very quickly - just as quickly as the ref talking to the linesmae or whatever.)

The thing that amazes me most about this thread is that the Rugby fans seem to think that no cheating or foul play occurs in their sport.

Brian

So someone really hurt - say being kicked in the nads - need a couple of minutes to recover - must have at least 5 minutes out of the real game.

Put politely - thats a rubbish idea.


I dont think theres too much problem with it as it is as the moment - apart from diving - as with so much in the sport - application of TV replays to ban divers , cheats etc afterwards - would stop most of it, and ban the remaining very few, and not impact the sport as its played at all. (though i would have it through the game - as the correct decision can be reached by TV very quickly - just as quickly as the ref talking to the linesmae or whatever.)

Did not express myself well...
If it's an obvious injury, rule would not apply. It it's a dramatic play for a free kick or yellow card, invoke the rule. Ref's call. Basically, keep the game moving. If the ref did not call a foul at the time, it's not likely he's going to if the player keeps writhing on the ground. Likewise, if you got the free kick, why are you still play-acting?

The linesman is rarely the best one to rely on as he's watching the players in advance of the ball for offsides more than he's watching the play.

OK, just cause I'm so psyched! USA Won! Wahooooooooo!

USA and England both advanced today. :D

usa and england both advanced today. :d

wahooo!!!!

wahooo!!!!

And the even better part is that the US advanced as the number 1 out of the group with Englad SECOND to us :D (so there is that little fun spot if we do no better further on down the line)

Did not express myself well...
If it's an obvious injury, rule would not apply. It it's a dramatic play for a free kick or yellow card, invoke the rule. Ref's call. Basically, keep the game moving. If the ref did not call a foul at the time, it's not likely he's going to if the player keeps writhing on the ground. Likewise, if you got the free kick, why are you still play-acting?

The linesman is rarely the best one to rely on as he's watching the players in advance of the ball for offsides more than he's watching the play.

How about if the ref decides hes feigning (is that right?) injury - one of the opponents is invited to kick the culprit. Which would stop the feigning instantly.

Re: why players are writing on the ground

Answer: They are trying to influence the ref into giving a yellow or red card to the other player.

Solution: Yellow card anyone who simulates an injury. Simulation (i.e. diving) is a foul, so why isn't simulating an injury?

Re: why players are writing on the ground

Answer: They are trying to influence the ref into giving a yellow or red card to the other player.

Solution: Yellow card anyone who simulates an injury. Simulation (i.e. diving) is a foul, so why isn't simulating an injury?

It is I think. But its very hard to prove. We have a resident ex referee here - perhaps they can tell us.

And the even better part is that the US advanced as the number 1 out of the group with Englad SECOND to us :D (so there is that little fun spot if we do no better further on down the line)

And, on paper, have an easier route to the semi-finals that England - if they beat Ghana they play either Uruguay or South Korea. England have to beat Germany then probably Argentina.

USA England final?

And, on paper, have an easier route to the semi-finals that England - if they beat Ghana they play either Uruguay or South Korea. England have to beat Germany then probably Argentina.

USA England final?

I'm not a fan of Danny Baker - but I liked his comment that England are not good enough to go out yet (in the group).

You can just see it cn't you beat Germany and the hope rises, beat Argentina the same - then we'll lose to someone and it will all crash to earth again.

I got odds of 25 - 1 for england to win the world cup yesterday. Too much below that and I wouldn't be interested - unless I could lay it.

I'm not a fan of Danny Baker - but I liked his comment that England are not good enough to go out yet (in the group).

You can just see it cn't you beat Germany and the hope rises, beat Argentina the same - then we'll lose to someone and it will all crash to earth again.

I got odds of 25 - 1 for england to win the world cup yesterday. Too much below that and I wouldn't be interested - unless I could lay it.

I heard Baker too. We were talking in the pub last night and sort of agreed with him. England start playing well and then get knocked out by either (a) cheating - Maradonna hand ball / opposition getting our best player sent off or (b) penalties.

If a match goes to penalties I don't think I will ba able to watch.

Baker also predicted France would go thorugh - I'm glad he got that one wrong - especially after the behavour of their coach after the match.

How about if the ref decides hes feigning (is that right?) injury - one of the opponents is invited to kick the culprit. Which would stop the feigning instantly.

Now we're talking !! Given we are now in Africa, how about being fed to the lions?

I heard Baker too. We were talking in the pub last night and sort of agreed with him. England start playing well and then get knocked out by either (a) cheating - Maradonna hand ball / opposition getting our best player sent off or (b) penalties.

If a match goes to penalties I don't think I will ba able to watch.

Baker also predicted France would go thorugh - I'm glad he got that one wrong - especially after the behavour of their coach after the match.



Very unsporting indeed - just like the henry incident supposedly behind the snub. Whilst the Irish may like the French going out, what a waste of a spot that could (only could) have been theirs.

I hope England can beat Germany but man, they are going to have to play a whole lot better than they have been.

IMO Germany Argentina and Uruguay look like the strong teams of those who have qualified for the round of 16 so far (Wed.)

Originally Posted by Yarp http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=976845#post976845)
Re: why players are writing on the ground

Answer: They are trying to influence the ref into giving a yellow or red card to the other player.


It is I think. But its very hard to prove. We have a resident ex referee here - perhaps they can tell us.


Ex-FIFA ref here... (a long time ago). if I thought a player was feigning an injury I let play continue. After all, they are penalizing their team by basically playing a man short while they are down on the ground holding their ankle or whatever part of their body they wanted me to think had been destroyed.

Fun to look at this now with both France and Italy headed home after the group stage. Too bad for Australia and New Zealand, would have liked to see either side go through and they played well - esp. the Kiwis with amateurs on their side - how cool is that.

Ex-FIFA ref here... (a long time ago).

Oh interesting - what do you think of the standard of refereeing so far ? personally there have been a few good decisions but overall I have to say it's been poor, specifically with yellow cards, they seem to be dishing them out for anything.

Point proven - there's one for time wasting (apparently) 11 mins into the Denmark vs Japan match :rolleyes: - tell him to get on with it or he will get a yellow ffs no need to simply banish a yellow.

One good thing I have noticed is that all the matches seem to have finished at their allotted time, including extra time (unlike matches at Old Trafford :p).

As I'm typing this Denmark 0 - Japan 1.

So what was the highlight of your refereeing?


Point proven - there's one for time wasting (apparently) 11 mins into the Denmark vs Japan match :rolleyes: - tell him to get on with it or he will get a yellow ffs no need to simply banish a yellow.

and an other one :confused::confused:

I'd agree the refereeing has been a bit spotty - reds against Klose and Kaka for example - and one game with 9 yellows? That seems a bit much - these aren't particularly violent teams. I always try to appreciate the perspective of the officials, but sometimes they make it really hard. And some disallowed goals for invisible infractions? Not that I'm a fan of the Yanks, particularly, but they were pretty clearly robbed of at least one goal. Let's hope the officiating is more consistent in the knock-out rounds.

Oh interesting - what do you think of the standard of refereeing so far ? personally there have been a few good decisions but overall I have to say it's been poor, specifically with yellow cards, they seem to be dishing them out for anything. :confused::confused:

As I am in the U.S. I have not been able to watch all the games I would like since many of them happen during my working hours. I have been able to record a few. I think the officiating has been generally pretty poor, but then I have thought so the last few Cup games. The Euro Championships were much, much better. I think there are several factors that play into this. First and foremost is the pressure. You as a ref are on the world stage here and not many have ever experience that before (I haven't) and of course the harder you try to be perfect the more glaring mistakes you make! Second, FIFA is pushed to use refs from a lot of small, third world countries that never have the level of play expected in the Cup. Mali is a good example. Add the inexperience to the mix. Third, there is a definite language barrier. I am sure that many of the refs would rather caution the players verbally before pulling out that card but it is difficult to do that when you don't speak their language and I am sure even accents get in the way during the speed of the game. And don't forget the ego of the players. Lastly, I have no idea if FIFA itself is putting on a lot of pressure to hand out those cards.

The aggressiveness of the play in the Cup is far beyond what we see in professional football even at the upper levels. I never went beyond officiating semi-pro teams but if I had seen much of the play at those levels years ago I would have worn my pocket out pulling cards! I understand it is all part of the game now and at this level.

Note that none of the above excuses some of the outright bonehead calls I have seen made. One can only hope that such calls do not alter what would have been the outcome anyway, but things like the mystery nullified goals, or the double-handballs that were not called do alter it. And that is a tragedy. If we expect these players to be the best in the world and the team that wins to be World Champion then we should expect best-in-the-world officiating and that is just not happening.

I think overall the refereeing and the linesmen have been great. Apart from the handball and the Kaka sending off.

The aggressiveness of the play in the Cup is far beyond what we see in professional football even at the upper levels.

I think its the opposite, but then again I've never watched football in the US so I don't know what it's like there. I watch alot of premiership and 1st division football in the UK and it is much more aggressive than the world cup has been.

Rough play can be controlled by the Governing Body.

Australian Rugby League of the 70's and early 80's was just one punch up after the other until the Refs were told to rain it in.

Nothing like playing with half your team sin binned to get the play back to a good sporting game.

I think overall the refereeing and the linesmen have been great. Apart from the handball and the Kaka sending off.



There have been some brilliantly called matches that I have watched. The USA/Algeria match was one, except for the call by the RA that denied a perfectly good goal that could have been a crucial mistake. Unfortunately when an attacker pushes so close to "even" the RA has to be in exactly the right place or risk blowing the call. I suspect that is what happened. As a ref I always instructed my RAs that in the case of a close one, do not call offside unless you are absolutely 100% sure. The Belgian ref in this match called an outstanding game and that certainly contributed to this match being one of the best and most suspenseful so far of the Cup.

But others I have watched have not been so well called. One can hope that the less capable officials have been weeded out now and the remaining rounds will be well officiated. Recent history of Cups, unfortunately, have shown that this is not usually the case. But one can hope.

I don't like football and had mixed feelings when Britain were knocked out of the tournament yesterday. Sad that my country were beaten, albeit that it should have been 4-2 instead of 4-1, but elated that I don't have to watch re-runs of the match every five minutes for the next 40 years! Three cheers for Germany on that count. Bad luck Britain, maybe next time ;)

England (not Britian) were knocked out. I really hope that was done on purpose.

England (not Britian) were knocked out. I really hope that was done on purpose.

My apologies. It seems to me that when a sports man/woman does well, they are usually "British" (eg the young Murray bloke that's in the tennis just now), it's only when they lose they become members of their respective countries - Scotland; Wales or Ireland. I don't see Britain as being losers in this respect, we got to the World Cup, that's something to celebrate and we weren't knocked out in the first rounds. We did well - well done Britain :rolleyes:

As a proud englishman, I would never claim that we did well in the world cup if Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Ireland did well there. I follow England. I would be happy for them, as long as they didn't beat England on the way!!:D

Andy Murray is a little different, he plays under the British flag and not the Scottish flag, that said, I am a little non-plussed about the fella. Hope he does well, as he is British, but don't really mind either way. My favourite tennis player at the moment is Nadal anyway.

As a proud englishman, I would never claim that we did well in the world cup if Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Ireland did well there. I follow England. I would be happy for them, as long as they didn't beat England on the way!!:D Awe, but we're all one country aren't we? I just wish I'd seen Adrian Chile's face at the end of the match. If anyone has a picture of it, please post! That'll keep me smiling for months, even though our poor old Blighty lost ;)

Andy Murray is a little different, he plays under the British flag and not the Scottish flag, that said, I am a little non-plussed about the fella. Hope he does well, as he is British, but don't really mind either way. My favourite tennis player at the moment is Nadal anyway. Again, I don't follow tennis, but I will say that I'm totally shocked at that young man. You'd think with the money he's made already he would get those teeth fixed, then he'd be able to smile! I'm sure he'd look half decent with a smile on his face, or maybe we should just slip a Saltire in his bag :D

Awe, but we're all one country aren't we?

Not if Salmond gets his way we won't be:mad:

There were questions about the officiating in the Cup earlier and I expressed my dismay at the relatively poor level I had seen in the preliminary rounds, at least the matches I was able to watch. As the Cup has progressed however, I think that the refs have done an outstanding job for the most part in the elimintations and quarters. Maybe the ones not up to the task were weeded out along with the weaker teams. What do you think?

There were questions about the officiating in the Cup earlier and I expressed my dismay at the relatively poor level I had seen in the preliminary rounds, at least the matches I was able to watch. As the Cup has progressed however, I think that the refs have done an outstanding job for the most part in the elimintations and quarters. Maybe the ones not up to the task were weeded out along with the weaker teams. What do you think?

Yep - the better performing refs are supposed to stay around.

I can't get over the Uruguay save - poor Ghana - the rules must change - or blatant cheating can win you games - everyone knows it. Thats not sport.

I can't get over the Uruguay save - poor Ghana - the rules must change - or blatant cheating can win you games - everyone knows it. Thats not sport.

The fact that Fifa doesn't use video replays for reffing is what makes it not a sport in my book. I mean come on, its 2010, almost every professional sport in the world (in fact every sport I can think of) uses some form of video replay to assist in tough calls.

The fact that Fifa doesn't use video replays for reffing is what makes it not a sport in my book. I mean come on, its 2010, almost every professional sport in the world (in fact every sport I can think of) uses some form of video replay to assist in tough calls.


Rugby? Hurling? :o

Too fancy for my tastes :o I mean more along the lines of sports like Hockey and American Football

Maybe the ones not up to the task were weeded out along with the weaker teams. What do you think?

You're right, the standard of play got much better once the weaker teams (Italy, England, France) were knocked out

Rugby? Hurling? :o

Rugby has video replay. It has the TMO (Television Match Official).

Obviously a few soccer fans congregate here. I would like to ask a question as a USA guy not well-informed about soccer.

I watched several games before watching the Spain/Nederlands final so I knew a little bit about the way the game works. Perhaps not the nuances, but an overview anyway.

I came away from the final with the impression that the Spain side was far more aggressive than the Nederlands side, but that the Nederlands side was extremely effective defensively speaking.

I was reminded of the old "irresistable force, immovable object" problem. Spain appeared to be the irresistable force, always pushing into the Nederlands half of the pitch. Nederlands was ineffective in clearing the ball. Defensively, they seemed to resist the onslaught very well. The two sides were so evenly balanced that it took the second overtime period for a momentary opening to occur that allowed the game to be decided by play rather than by a series of penalty kicks.

As I said, that is what I took away from the game. Do the experienced soccer fans here agree with my opinion of what I saw?

Obviously a few soccer fans congregate here. I would like to ask a question as a USA guy not well-informed about soccer.

I watched several games before watching the Spain/Nederlands final so I knew a little bit about the way the game works. Perhaps not the nuances, but an overview anyway.

I came away from the final with the impression that the Spain side was far more aggressive than the Nederlands side, but that the Nederlands side was extremely effective defensively speaking.

I was reminded of the old "irresistable force, immovable object" problem. Spain appeared to be the irresistable force, always pushing into the Nederlands half of the pitch. Nederlands was ineffective in clearing the ball. Defensively, they seemed to resist the onslaught very well. The two sides were so evenly balanced that it took the second overtime period for a momentary opening to occur that allowed the game to be decided by play rather than by a series of penalty kicks.

As I said, that is what I took away from the game. Do the experienced soccer fans here agree with my opinion of what I saw?

I gotta say, as an avid soccer fan, that the game yesterday was pretty bad. It was a ugly ugly game! No way should 2 of the top teams in the world hack and slash their way up and down the field like they did. Felt like I saw a card every 2 minutes!!

As far as the game play went, I don't think either team played particularly well. Netherlands got away from their style of play, and like you said had a hard time clearing. Netherland's few chances looked nothing like they had in the previous games... Spain was superb earlier in the tournament, minus their first game and they just didn't seem like they had it all together yesterday... maybe its just me, but i was not impressed by the final!

One of the worst games of football that I have ever seen.
I think the Doc summed up the "play" very well. It should have been 2 attack minded teams playing attractive end to end football.

Brian

The Dutch were disgraceful & their coach should be banned for life for sending his team out to kick the sh*t out of Spain

Generally the final is very rarely a good game, but this is right up there with Germany / Argentina in 1990

The Dutch were disgraceful & their coach should be banned for life for sending his team out to kick the sh*t out of Spain

Generally the final is very rarely a good game, but this is right up there with Germany / Argentina in 1990

Do you mean down there.

Brian

Up / Down - hard to tell: depends if you agree with modern football trends..

Brasil - given up their natural game
Dutch - ditto
Africans - given up natural game striving to be Europeans and failed
Germany - now plays like Brasil ?????
France - Given up playing altogether
Italy - Can't play

I can't make head nor tail of it

I know a lot of soccer enthusiasts will not like this but I always have a problem when two teams can play for nearly two hours and the result is decided by one lucky shot - sometimes.
Very sad outcome when the lucky shot can be from the perceived less skilled team.

A win is a win, I know.

How about reducing the number of players or widening the goal mouth?
Or some other way to have a result like 6 2 rather then 1 0.

With a higher score, you reduce the effect of a "bad" ref call which is always on the cards when humans are involved.

England had a bad ref call but as the result was more then one point difference the effect didn't lose the game for them but what if it had been 1 0 ? as it often is.

I have to admit that whether we are talking about what the USA calls soccer or what the USA calls football, low-scoring games frequently mean that neither offense is playing well enough to sustain an attack. Which usually means an end-to-end game. I don't find that to be so enjoyable. Actually, the same problem occurs in ice hockey.

I'm glad that others have confirmed my opinion on the aggressiveness of the Spanish side. I think I see what you mean about what happens when a team plays outside of their style / comfort zone. I recall that the Nederlands team was pretty aggressive earlier. I regret that I'm not enough of an expert to recognize whether the overall quality of Soccer has gone down this year.

Unfortunately I thought this was another game of "I don't want to lose" rather than "I want to win". Yes, I agree with all of you who were dismayed with the hack and slash of the match. No, I absolutely disagree with PNGBill and Doc Man about the low scoring aspect. To me, the easier the goal becomes in a game of any kind, the less excitement and interest there is.

All that said, not only did both teams go out with a "don't lose" attitude but the officials had a definite "don't make a BAD mistake" attitude that actually changed the match for the worse. A deliberate kick to the chest with no red card??? An arm around the throat in the box to prevent a breakaway goal with no red card??? 11 cautions with only one send off??? Call the game the way it should be called, by the laws. It does not matter if it is a World Cup Final or a team of 16 year olds playing.

And yes, I am an American who loves football/futball/soccer.

I know a lot of soccer enthusiasts will not like this but I always have a problem when two teams can play for nearly two hours and the result is decided by one lucky shot - sometimes.
Very sad outcome when the lucky shot can be from the perceived less skilled team.

A win is a win, I know.

How about reducing the number of players or widening the goal mouth?
Or some other way to have a result like 6 2 rather then 1 0.

With a higher score, you reduce the effect of a "bad" ref call which is always on the cards when humans are involved.

England had a bad ref call but as the result was more then one point difference the effect didn't lose the game for them but what if it had been 1 0 ? as it often is.



I'd have to disgree - that it is somewhat the beauty of the game - ie the major underdog can still have a chance.
If you were the major favourite and couldn't kill it off in 2 hours then too bad - and if you were the underdog - who managed to stay in it for 2 hour till getting a lucky break - well done.

If we gave the game to the most skillful team - well theres no point in playing the game is there.

The last thing I would want is an artificial highering of the scoring - each goal really means something, and goals change games. Sounds daft - but its not the case in something like basketball, to take it to the other extreme.

So every chance of a goal means something. So if you suspect its going to be a tight game - every time the ball is at one end of the pitch or the other - its a real possibility that it could become a goal that could be the games decider. So every piece of play becomes critical - That can only happen if its rather low scoring.

If we gave the game to the most skillful team - well theres no point in playing the game is there.

I absolutely agree with this point of view in ANY sport. It is why I used to play a lot of tennis (before the knees started complaining). I knew I was often outclassed, but I am not without some skills, so I gave it a shot to see how far I could go - and maybe even learn something useful in the process.

I am not saying that a nil-nil score at the end of regulation time would represent a totally bad game if there were many scoring opportunities and/or some brilliant defensive play. Sadly, that ending situation, as least in my experience, isn't usually the result of such brilliance. It is more often the result of mediocrity.

I surely wouldn't want soccer to have scores like USA football (or worse, basketball). Soccer and ice hockey are both expected to be low-scoring affairs. When good pitchers are involved on both sides, USA baseball will also be a low-scoring affair. However, perhaps I am jaded but I would rather see some well-played scores now and then, rather than a nearly perfect defensive game. I guess that's just me.

ChipperT, on a separate note, I don't want soccer goals to be as common as basketball goals. As you pointed out, the teams were playing "don't lose" rather than "win" - and the Nederlands suffered more than the Spanish (by one goal) because of that strategy shift.

The point occurs to me that when you "play to not lose" you pass up scoring opportunities that a "play to win" strategy would have taken. Perhaps it is tied into a risk and reward strategy. However, I think if you can't take a risk at all, you would never be rewarded except by accident.

I would prefer to play to win - but lose, rather than play to not lose - and win because of conditions not within my control. There is no satisfaction in winning DESPITE your play. That's just a gift. And there actually IS some satisfaction in losing by a respectable score that showed you were in the match. When you are playing a sport as it was intended to be played, it isn't about the destination, it's about the journey.

Perhaps the commercialization of winning at that level has damaged the game to some degree. I don't know. But I suspect it has.