England World Cup Discussion Thread

[StevieH]

you want to use video replays for fouls too? and handballs? seriously? because they're no different from diving.

fouling and for want of a better word 'cheating' are part of the game. that a minority of fans like yourself who feel some misplaced sense of moral outrage cannot accept that it is not a reason to bring in video replays for every, single infringement.

Fouls and handballs are a form of cheating, yes, that's true, but they usually get dealt with by the ref at the time. The problem we are discussing here concerns the type of cheating that is hard for the ref to identify and to make a decision on in the split second he is afforded.

As far as using video replays for every single infringement that occurs in a game, you have taken things to an extreme. Video technology i agree needs to be introduced in a measured and controlled fashion. There needs to be parameters. There are many different thoughts on how it could be used and i can see merit in a number of different ideas. One suggestion is allowing the manager to "go to the video ref" after a decision he has disagreed with. Obviously there would need to be limits on what offences it could be used for and the number of times a manager can ask for it.

Goal line technology that gives the ref a signal to his watch when the ball has crossed the line is a complete no brainer.

I don't claim to have it all worked out in terms of how video technology might be used, i just know that in some form it could be used and would help enormously in making games more just.

Your theory that injustice is why people love the game i'm not buying for one second.

well you should. without mistakes and errors to talk about, football fans would have little to discuss. its imperfection is one of the game's most attractive traits.

FWIW this world cup has brought me round to having goal-line technology. such as in the lampard case i can no longer see a rational argument against a 'cyclops' style camera in the goal which confirms whether or not a ball has crossed the line.

but as for referees not being able to spot a dive requiring video replays? nah, never. have better refs. take people who have played the game to a reasonable level and who can spot when a player is faking or not and train them to be top class referees instead of taking accountants and teachers.

[LaoPo]

Maybe I missed it but the BIGGEST CHEAT on this tournament has been committed by the German goalkeeper when he grabbed that bloody ball when it bounced up-and-bounced-down again ON the line from BEHIND the goal-line and thus CHEATING BIG TIME on England since that goal was a 100% goal for England.

If he would have been a Gentleman's "fair play" football player, he would have given the ball away, acknowledging that he saw that the ball was behind the line and admitting he KNEW that ball was a goal

The German goalkeeper did not cheat. All he did was play on. It's not up to the players to officiate. Players play to the whistle and to follow the orders of the ref. Of course it would be gentlemanly for players to admit and tell the ref when he gets it wrong, but nobody is really naive enough to expect this to happen. Because it doesn't does not mean the players are cheats.

No doubt there will be a YouTube video after the world cup about the greatest cheats during the World Cup 2010 and I can guarantee you here and now that the German Goalkeeper is on #1, next to Suarez's handball stop against Ghana, indirectly responsible for Ghana's defeat. But personally I don;t qualify that as a cheat since it was a reflex action by Suarez but maybe you think differently.

Yes i do think differently. The handball was cheating. It denied a certain goal and the punishment from that was a penalty plus a red card - neither of these punishments guarantees getting back the goal that was stolen from you. What's fair about that?

Reflex action excuse is a cop out.

You contradict yourself....

"The German Goalkeeper didn't cheat....." ........but Suarez cheated in his reflex.

The German Goalkeeper's reaction was NOT a reflex ?

I rest my case Rixalex.

LaoPo

[StevieH]

<br>The German goalkeeper did not cheat. All he did was play on. It's not up to the players to officiate. Players play to the whistle and to follow the orders of the ref. Of course it would be gentlemanly for players to admit and tell the ref when he gets it wrong, but nobody is really naive enough to expect this to happen. Because it doesn't does not mean the players are cheats.<br><br>Yes i do think differently. The handball was cheating. It denied a certain goal and the punishment from that was a penalty plus a red card - neither of these punishments guarantees getting back the goal that was stolen from you. What's fair about that? <br><br>Reflex action excuse is a cop out.<br>

<br><br>you seem to be trying to redefine what 'cheating' is rix, and you're missing the point. all deliberate fouls and handballs are cheating, where they happen on the pitch is not relevant - there are laws in place to deal with them and that's then in the referee's hands. 

<div><br></div><div>that the ghana / uruguay incident was so close to the goal and so late in the game is just tough - it's not a reason for fundamentally amending the laws of the game.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div>

[cardholder]

ok, same question to you then - do you also want to remove fouling, handballs, offsides and every other infraction of the games laws which carries a penalty, from the game? because they're all 'cheating' by your definition but are all also intrinsic parts of the game.

football isn't perfect, the reason it's so loved is actually that it is imperfect.

Surely to rules are there to deal with fouling, cheating, handball, offside etc.

The simpler therules, the easier is to play within them.

Abolish offside bewteen the 18 yard boxes - that way linesmen can just cover 18 yards and might be 'up with play' to see whena ball crosses the goal line.. Better still sit them on the goal line.

You can do away with the need for traditional linesmen if you forget about 'who touched the ball last' and simply take it in turns to have throw ins - there would be a few long balls 'finding touch' then.

[rixalex]

You contradict yourself....

"The German Goalkeeper didn't cheat....." ........but Suarez cheated in his reflex.

The German Goalkeeper's reaction was NOT a reflex ?

I rest my case Rixalex.

LaoPo

Rest your case all you like.

The two examples you site are completely different. An outfield player using his hand to stop the ball going in the net is cheating. Referee not noticing that a ball has crossed a line, whether it be goal line or any other line, and a player continuing play is not cheating; it's continuing play. Players shouldn't question a referees decision, whether the decision goes against them or for them. Players do the playing, refs do the officiating. Stating the obvious i know but it seems that's where we are at.

[StevieH]

ok, same question to you then - do you also want to remove fouling, handballs, offsides and every other infraction of the games laws which carries a penalty, from the game? because they're all 'cheating' by your definition but are all also intrinsic parts of the game.

football isn't perfect, the reason it's so loved is actually that it is imperfect.

Surely to rules are there to deal with fouling, cheating, handball, offside etc.

The simpler therules, the easier is to play within them.

Abolish offside bewteen the 18 yard boxes - that way linesmen can just cover 18 yards and might be 'up with play' to see whena ball crosses the goal line.. Better still sit them on the goal line.

You can do away with the need for traditional linesmen if you forget about 'who touched the ball last' and simply take it in turns to have throw ins - there would be a few long balls 'finding touch' then.

the rules ARE simple. it's not broken so people should stop trying to fix it.

if you abolish offsides between penalty areas it would have a massive negative effect on the game. defences would just defend deeper and deeper without the ball resulting in yet further stifled play and more parking the bus. it would not be pretty at all.

'take it in turns having throw-ins'? that's one of the weirdest rule changes i've ever heard suggested, and would have absolutely no impact on players 'finding touch' as you put it.

[StevieH]

You contradict yourself....

"The German Goalkeeper didn't cheat....." ........but Suarez cheated in his reflex.

The German Goalkeeper's reaction was NOT a reflex ?

I rest my case Rixalex.

LaoPo

Rest your case all you like.

The two examples you site are completely different. An outfield player using his hand to stop the ball going in the net is cheating. Referee not noticing that a ball has crossed a line, whether it be goal line or any other line, and a player continuing play is not cheating; it's continuing play. Players shouldn't question a referees decision, whether the decision goes against them or for them. Players do the playing, refs do the officiating. Stating the obvious i know but it seems that's where we are at.

you're right, the german goalkeeper did nothing wrong. it wasn't cheating, it wasn't fouling, it was playing on. playing to the whistle, as players are told to do from the age dot.

[rixalex]

well you should. without mistakes and errors to talk about, football fans would have little to discuss. its imperfection is one of the game's most attractive traits.

Mistakes and errors would still be there for people to talk about, as players won't ever stop making them. Not having to sit around depressed with mates at yet another game being decided unfairly isn't something i would ever miss from my life.

FWIW this world cup has brought me round to having goal-line technology. such as in the lampard case i can no longer see a rational argument against a 'cyclops' style camera in the goal which confirms whether or not a ball has crossed the line.

Bearing in mind this sort of incident has happened on many occasions before, may i enquire why this latest recurrence of injustice suddenly swung your opinion?

[StevieH]

well you should. without mistakes and errors to talk about, football fans would have little to discuss. its imperfection is one of the game's most attractive traits.

Mistakes and errors would still be there for people to talk about, as players won't ever stop making them. Not having to sit around depressed with mates at yet another game being decided unfairly isn't something i would ever miss from my life.

game wasn't decided by it though was it? england would probably still have lost.

FWIW this world cup has brought me round to having goal-line technology. such as in the lampard case i can no longer see a rational argument against a 'cyclops' style camera in the goal which confirms whether or not a ball has crossed the line.

Bearing in mind this sort of incident has happened on many occasions before, may i enquire why this latest recurrence of injustice suddenly swung your opinion?

dunno really, perhaps i've just been convinced that it wouldn't actually harm the game or really undermine the referee to a significant degree. plus wimbledon's been on and i've been reminded how instantaneous cyclops is.

[cardholder]

"The German Goalkeeper didn't cheat....." ........but Suarez cheated in his reflex.

The German Goalkeeper's reaction was NOT a reflex ?

I rest my case Rixalex.

LaoPo

Anyone remember Paulo di Canio (yes the guy who pushed the referee over) catching the ball, rather than shooting, when the Everton keeper was injured.

Instinctive actions - I seem to recall a Stuart Pearce handball goal line clearance in an England game at Wembley. I believe he rubbed his chest (ala Geoffrey Boycott arm rub) to suggest he had not handled.

Ungentlemanly, strictly speaking yes

[rixalex]

Mistakes and errors would still be there for people to talk about, as players won't ever stop making them. Not having to sit around depressed with mates at yet another game being decided unfairly isn't something i would ever miss from my life.

game wasn't decided by it though was it? england would probably still have lost.

I was speaking in general terms mate. Not specifically about that match.

[rixalex]

Instinctive actions - I seem to recall a Stuart Pearce handball goal line clearance in an England game at Wembley. I believe he rubbed his chest (ala Geoffrey Boycott arm rub) to suggest he had not handled.

Ungentlemanly, strictly speaking yes

That wasn't ungentlemanly, it was cheating.

[StevieH]

Mistakes and errors would still be there for people to talk about, as players won't ever stop making them. Not having to sit around depressed with mates at yet another game being decided unfairly isn't something i would ever miss from my life.

game wasn't decided by it though was it? england would probably still have lost.

I was speaking in general terms mate. Not specifically about that match.

yeah which is kind of where i've come around to goalline technology. it would still irk me though that you couldn't have it at championship, league 1 and non-league level. it makes it so the money wins, which i fundamentally will always disagree with.

[StevieH]

Instinctive actions - I seem to recall a Stuart Pearce handball goal line clearance in an England game at Wembley. I believe he rubbed his chest (ala Geoffrey Boycott arm rub) to suggest he had not handled.

Ungentlemanly, strictly speaking yes

That wasn't ungentlemanly, it was cheating.

haha. they're the same thing man. and there's no provision for them in the laws of the game, outside of the ridiculously arbitrary 'ungentlemanly conduct' thing. because it's an emotional call and not a legal one. long may it remain so.

[cardholder]

Instinctive actions - I seem to recall a Stuart Pearce handball goal line clearance in an England game at Wembley. I believe he rubbed his chest (ala Geoffrey Boycott arm rub) to suggest he had not handled.

Ungentlemanly, strictly speaking yes

That wasn't ungentlemanly, it was cheating.

.. and there to be dealt with by the officials under the laws of the game.

Referee didn't see it, didn't give it move on.

(Much the same as Lampard's 'goal' - until technology can compensate for the fallibility of officials, such human errors will be made)

[rixalex]

That wasn't ungentlemanly, it was cheating.

haha. they're the same thing man.

Nope they are not. Ungentlemanly would be not returning the ball to the opposing team after they kicked it out because one of your players was down. That's not cheating. That's not breaking any rules of the game.

An outfield player intentionally using his hand is cheating. Spare me the reflex &lt;deleted&gt;. They know exactly what they are doing and they know that they are cheating when they do it.

[rixalex]

.. and there to be dealt with by the officials under the laws of the game.

Referee didn't see it, didn't give it move on.

(Much the same as Lampard's 'goal' - until technology can compensate for the fallibility of officials, such human errors will be made)

That's the point. That technology now exists. If it didn't i wouldn't be having this discussion.

[koheesti]

well then why not stop with the people who appointed Capella? the ones who seem serially incapable of appointing a manager who can get more out of English players and also the ones who are responsible for the development of young players in the country?

That might be what football is all about to you, it's NOT to me. Cheating angers me more than anything else in the game. If you are on the receiving end it most likely will anger you too.

Making excuses for it and refusing to condemn it or the player who commits it, just because it's your team, is double standards. If one of my teams is guilty - and they have been in the past, (as sadly most teams have) - you won't find me hiding behind weak justifications. I'll come straight out and say it and condemn it.

English people do seem to get upset about 'cheating' much more than other nations' fans. it's a part of the game, whether you're talking about deliberate fouling, handballs, diving or time wasting. some countries and players are just better at it than others.

Well, it must be our common history because Americans hate the diving/cheating part probably more than the English. That whole "part of the game" excuse is a lame. It's part of the game all right - just like getting being the victim of a crime is part of life. When you win by cheating, you didn't prove you are better at football even if you do advance or win a trophy. Competition is supposed to be about who is better at something playing within the rules established before-hand. Cheating defeats the entire purpose and severe penalties should be handed out to violators. I'd let the Wahibi Saudis come up with the penalties then stick to it.

ok, same question to you then - do you also want to remove fouling, handballs, offsides and every other infraction of the games laws which carries a penalty, from the game? because they're all 'cheating' by your definition but are all also intrinsic parts of the game.

football isn't perfect, the reason it's so loved is actually that it is imperfect.

I'm pretty certain it is just your opinion that people love football because it is imperfect. If that's true for most fans, then they should seek help. I would think people loved the sport for the tactics, or the thrill of that long sought after goal, or that great free kick, etc. I can't believe anyone really likes football because grown men roll on the ground crying like babies without being touched or that some refs are either blind or being paid off to make bad calls.

I don't know where you got the idea that any foul is in my definition of cheating but you are wrong. Every sport has it's fouls. However, in football the penalties are too harsh and often depend on the refs interpretation of what happened.

"Did he kick the other player on purpose or was he going for the ball? "

"Was it an intentional hand-ball? Ah, who knows, give him a red card just to be on the safe side."

In ice hockey, you go to the penalty box for 2:00 and your team plays short-handed for that time. In basketball a player might get to take 1 or 2 free throws. In American Football your team loses field position most of the time. In most sports that I can think of to get sent off you have to do something that isn't even part of the sport, like punching another player or spitting in his face. No one gets sent off forcing his team to play short-handed for playing too rough except in football (any others?). BECAUSE the penaties are so harsh, some players try to set up someone on the other team to gain an unfair advantage. Faking like you have been fouled IS CHEATING and FIFA agrees. Maybe FIFA doesn't understand the sport either? (That's a rhetorical question)

Edited July 5, 2010 by koheesti

[koheesti]

well you should. without mistakes and errors to talk about, football fans would have little to discuss. its imperfection is one of the game's most attractive traits.

Mistakes and errors would still be there for people to talk about, as players won't ever stop making them. Not having to sit around depressed with mates at yet another game being decided unfairly isn't something i would ever miss from my life.

game wasn't decided by it though was it? england would probably still have lost.

You don't sound too sure of that yourself.

[mommysboy]

For sure they are knackered: Premier League timetable is insane:

Mancini says:

"In my opinion England have the best national coach possible. He (Capello) is creating the basis for a solid team. The problem is not that, but another one," he said, referring to the busy Barclays Premier League campaign.

"In England you play too much.

"Capello already said that and so did (former England manager Sven-Goran) Eriksson.

"You cannot have them under pressure as is the case here.

"In the years of European Championships and World Cups, you need a winter break to catch your breath."

Mancini believes England were also hampered by the decision not to award a Frank Lampard goal against the Germans even though the ball clearly crossed the line.

"I understand the disappointment but we cannot say England left a poor image," Mancini said in Italian newspaper Il Giornale .

"That in 2010, you don't see that goal given, is not possible.

"Had that game been 2-2, it would have been a different story.

"England were starting to dominate."

Large slice of bad luck again, perhaps- I don't know!

It's not technique, it's not the manager. But it won't change IMHO. I hate club football, it degrades my nation!!

Terrible situation!

[smokie36]

Mancini says:

"England were starting to dominate.'

This is why no matter how much money City throw at the new season they won't win anything until they have a new manager. Or the current one pays a visit to Specsavers!

[mrbojangles]

Mancini says:

"England were starting to dominate.'

This is why no matter how much money City throw at the new season they won't win anything until they have a new manager. Or the current one pays a visit to Specsavers!

I think you must have altzheimers(sp) smokie. England were starting to dominate, that 2nd goal being allowed to stand would have totally changed the game. England were pushing everyone up front to get the equaliser and that was when Germany scored again. At 2-2 it would have been a totally different strategy. I'm not saying that we would have won but you got to admit it would have turned out very differently.

[smokie36]

Mancini says:

"England were starting to dominate.'

This is why no matter how much money City throw at the new season they won't win anything until they have a new manager. Or the current one pays a visit to Specsavers!

I think you must have altzheimers(sp) smokie. England were starting to dominate, that 2nd goal being allowed to stand would have totally changed the game. England were pushing everyone up front to get the equaliser and that was when Germany scored again. At 2-2 it would have been a totally different strategy. I'm not saying that we would have won but you got to admit it would have turned out very differently.

Haha its a bit too early to rewrite history. Let's imagine its 2-2 at half time....OK Germany come out in the second half and rip England's defence to shreds....umm.....England bring on SWP and Heskey....hmm.....what would have changed then??

Come off it Mr B-J I don't rate the city manager but keep some perspective here. I might as well say Scotland would have won the World Cup had Rangers not nicked our manager.

[mrbojangles]

Come off it Mr B-J I don't rate the city manager

Like him or not smokie, I think I'd pitt his footballing witts against yours anyday

[smokie36]

Come off it Mr B-J I don't rate the city manager

Like him or not smokie, I think I'd pitt his footballing witts against yours anyday

I've yet to hang up my boots but its said crap players make the best managers so maybe there's hope for me yet.

[hansum]

<br>

<br>Mancini says:<br><br>"England were starting to dominate.'<br>

<br>This is why no matter how much money City throw at the new season they won't win anything until they have a new manager. Or the current one pays a visit to Specsavers! <img src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""><br>

<br>Mancini has also bought Toure in to replace the holding player (Fatboy Barry) who gave the ball away to allow Germany to score their 3rd goal ..... Pity the England manager didnt have the sense to replace him.<br><br><br>

[oldgit]

Another World Cup bites the dust and yet ANOTHER coach is a native of the winning country.There hasn't been one occasion that a foreigner has coached a victorious team,so why is it that the F.A flew in the face of convention and employed Capello? Is it because foreign coaches are so much more tactically astute than our home grown lot?Is it just the fashionable thing to do now? Why is it easier for a manager from overseas to slip into the club format and produce success yet not in the international arena? Is it the nationalistic element that makes it impossible for them to succeed? Does anyone of our so called elite want the job anyway?Or are we looking in the wrong places for our national coaches? How would some young talent from the Football League fair with better players at his disposal? Would he do any worse than say Keegan,Hoddle,Venables and McClaren achieved?Overated or not,our lot seemed totally disinterested in the whole event.The issue of changing the captain has been mooted for our failure and the fact that England (fans,media and players) places great importance on this position. Why is this so when Germany,for instance,lost theirs before the World Cup yet there was no angst or wringing of hands by them?Before the competition,Ballack,as a player,would have been seen as a big loss but now we know it was probably a blessing in disguise as they played with freedom and pace.Philip Lahm took over but their was no screaming,clenched fists and histrionics from him,he went quietly about his business as did Van Bronkhorst for Holland.So is the captain of England an over rated position?It doesn't help when another manager pokes his nose into the proceedings by claiming that the weight of expectation on Rooney's shoulders was the reason why he hasn't performed.Protecting your asset's value were you,Alex?So who believed that nonsense?It didn't have the desired effect because he was even worse against Germany.What about the 'weight of expectation' on classier players like Ronaldo and Messi? I didn't hear their club coaches crawling out of the woodwork in their defence because none was needed.They weren't at their absolute best but still played their part,unlike our cossetted,pampered 'stars'.

[bkkjames]

Another World Cup bites the dust and yet ANOTHER coach is a native of the winning country.There hasn't been one occasion that a foreigner has coached a victorious team,so why is it that the F.A flew in the face of convention and employed Capello? Is it because foreign coaches are so much more tactically astute than our home grown lot?Is it just the fashionable thing to do now? Why is it easier for a manager from overseas to slip into the club format and produce success yet not in the international arena? Is it the nationalistic element that makes it impossible for them to succeed? Does anyone of our so called elite want the job anyway?Or are we looking in the wrong places for our national coaches? How would some young talent from the Football League fair with better players at his disposal? Would he do any worse than say Keegan,Hoddle,Venables and McClaren achieved?Overated or not,our lot seemed totally disinterested in the whole event.The issue of changing the captain has been mooted for our failure and the fact that England (fans,media and players) places great importance on this position. Why is this so when Germany,for instance,lost theirs before the World Cup yet there was no angst or wringing of hands by them?Before the competition,Ballack,as a player,would  have been seen as a big loss but now we know it was probably a blessing in disguise as they played with freedom and pace.Philip Lahm took over but their was no screaming,clenched fists and histrionics from him,he went quietly about his business as did Van Bronkhorst for Holland.So is the captain of England an over rated position?It doesn't help when another manager pokes his nose into the proceedings by claiming that the weight of expectation on Rooney's shoulders was the reason why he hasn't performed.Protecting your asset's value were you,Alex?So who believed that nonsense?It didn't have the desired effect because he was even worse against Germany.What about the 'weight of expectation' on classier players like Ronaldo and Messi? I didn't hear their club coaches crawling out of the woodwork in their defence because none was needed.They weren't at their absolute best but still played their part,unlike our cossetted,pampered 'stars'.

Nice history lesson Git, not sure why you need to bring SAF into it? But since you brought it up, let's talk about the effect JT had on this team over the last year and including during the WC.

The most divisive figure to wear an England kit in decades. Capello should have booted him out post Wayne Bridge saga and by his performances and behavior during the WC, would have been justified.

[StevieH]

Another World Cup bites the dust and yet ANOTHER coach is a native of the winning country.There hasn't been one occasion that a foreigner has coached a victorious team,so why is it that the F.A flew in the face of convention and employed Capello? Is it because foreign coaches are so much more tactically astute than our home grown lot?

yep.

[mommysboy]

Another World Cup bites the dust and yet ANOTHER coach is a native of the winning country.There hasn't been one occasion that a foreigner has coached a victorious team,so why is it that the F.A flew in the face of convention and employed Capello? Is it because foreign coaches are so much more tactically astute than our home grown lot?

yep.

Come off it! To blame the shortcomings of the England team on foreign coaches is just plain silly!!!!

For a start SGE actually has one of the best track records as England manager, and Capello has a a good winning rate too.!!

The League system is to blame by about 60% IMHO, and after that people like those pairofunts Terry and Cole A.

Don't get me wrong personally I would have like Redknapp in charge, I saw him develop at Bournemouth. But Capello is an excellent coach.