|
Portugal - England (Quarterfinals, 24 june) (pg. 31)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| evil_bastard |
England have a difficult relationship with continental referees because there is a clear difference in attitude between referees in Europe and referees in Britain.
Given that everyone's judgement is fallible, and that during the game there will be some difficult decisions to be made, British referees are more inclined to let certain challenges go, unless they feel sure that a foul has been commited. Continental referees have a tendency not to allow the possible offender the benefit of the doubt. In other words, they're more inclined to blow up in case a foul has been commited.
In Britain we firmly believe in the 'innocent until proven guilty' approach, meaning if the referee has not seen enough or any of the incident, he must let it go. The continental attitude of referees is not very popular in Britain because it tends to produce far more 'simulation' (aka diving and cheating). |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by isoterra
SINCE the early 50s. That's not going back 54 years to find an argument, that's finding multiple arguments spread from back then right up to this present day. |
ok if you want to be picky lets go for it. :rolleyes:
i just made an observation to 'defend' The Darklord cause he wasn't the one that brought the past into it. it's not about how old it is, it's about who bring it first :rolleyes:
i'm not much interested about whether england has been prejudiced the last 50 years or not, however bringing back past arguments then bashing someone that counter-argued with past is lame :rolleyes: (and yes, i know it was two different guys).
of course, a situation where england was beneficiated doesn't valid out another couple of situations where they were prejudiced, but it shows that england isn't prejudiced all the time, and in fact the biggest trophy you guys won was slightly based on germany being "robbed" like your tabloids like to say.
now to bring up more past, here's a little story england certainly forgot but we didn't. in 1966 there was a semi-final between england and portugal that we lost. before the game, it was schedulled to some city (liverpool?) but it was suddenly moved to london where the english team was already based. due to that the portuguese players were forced to do a long trip (300km i think?) which considering the conditions of the transports at the time influenced the physical condition and confidence of the players.
of course this doesn't matter anymore, but here's another 'proof' that england isn't always prejudiced.
now about the disallowed goal of the last game. i haven't seen more replays, more videos or pics other than those that were posted on TA or those that were shown on TV the day of the game, and the day after that. i don't have a definite opinion, but am going to assume that in fact it was a valid goal. i also have to respect the extreme frustration that is to be taken off a goal that would make you win in the last minute. but one play doesn't make you robbed and doesn't make the referee the biggest wanker in the world, like the tabloids and some people even here on TA suggested, by bashing him with spam to his site and stuff like that. also, given that a few days have already passed, i find it weird that some people are still fueling up this story. i find it weird that everyone forgot about that possibly disallowed goal to portugal, even assuming that it wasn't a goal and it was fairly disallowed. to sum it up, get over it. you are out of the european cup. we did beat you, on penalties. you should be thinking about world cup 2006 now. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
If you read my post above people are still talking about it because it is part of a wider issue of international refereeing and every growing frustration.
There is a clear difference between refereeing attitudes in England and those in southern Europe in particular. I'm not sure you understand that a lot of English people are basically sick and tired of the gamesmanship they see when they travel to Europe. Collina is one of the European refs we respect because he shares that tendency to let play go unless he feels sure a foul has occurred.
The newspapers you're talking about are generally regarded as trash in Britain. Nevertheless, you may not like the terminology but the fact of the matter is that decision robbed us of a certain 2-1 victory so they are entitled to publish it. |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
ok, that's fair.
i personally prefer "english refereeing" as well, stopping the game less times, therefore making the game flow better.
it all comes down to different interpretations of the rules. |
|
|
| Blik |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
The newspapers you're talking about are generally regarded as trash in Britain. Nevertheless, you may not like the terminology but the fact of the matter is that decision robbed us of a certain 2-1 victory so they are entitled to publish it. |
the ******s published his address and his telephone number, are the tabloids allowed to do that?? I think that that is low, dirty and I think that the tabloids should be punished for stuff like that
and I think that it was a good decision, you can obviously see that Terry has his arm on the shoulder from Ricardo, which denies him from jumping to the ball
here are the pics to prove it
you can clearly see that Ricardo wants to save the ball but he can't reach it because Terry has his arm on his shoulder. |
|
|
| TiestoFanMatt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blik
the ******s published his address and his telephone number, are the tabloids allowed to do that?? I think that that is low, dirty and I think that the tabloids should be punished for stuff like that
and I think that it was a good decision, you can obviously see that Terry has his arm on the shoulder from Ricardo, which denies him from jumping to the ball
here are the pics to prove it
you can clearly see that Ricardo wants to save the ball but he can't reach it because Terry has his arm on his shoulder. |
If you had to look at those pictures on a pure basis of a decision, i think most people would agree that it was a foul. BUT pictures are not rolling motion. Ricardo jumped into Terry. With the ball coming back of the bar, Sol campbell was in motion with a header and used Terry to climb up. Ricardo jumped into Terry and in true Portugese style fell on the floor afterwards claiming a foul.
Might as well also say that it is wankers like Ronaldo and other European players that are actually making me extremely ennoyed about Football in European competitions. Take for example Ronaldo first. He is such a skillfull players, he is pacey, clevor, quick feet. He was made to be a winger. So why the does he have to go down everytime a players tackles him. He even went down when there was a not even a claim of a foul he held his hands up. It disgusts me, and it wasnt just the England game. I saw so many times during the Portugal and spain match players laying and roling around on the floor when someone had tackled them. Why not just go down and not roll around like you have been shot. It is something that really angers me, and it isn't just attributed to Portugal, but also Italy, i think, do it quite a bit.
It is the worst part of football when a player intentionally decieves the referee saying "i am really injured, and he did that". Ref's were told before the tournament that if a player makes a challenge that could injure a player, then they should be carded. Nice cunning and "cheating" addition to the game for this actors!
grrr!!!
Oh and about the 4-2 win against Germany in 66'. No one can still prove whether it was over the line, but i dont think Germany really care now. THey've won a couple of championships since then. They have not had to go through bad luck, after bad refereeing, after penalty shoot outs etc...
Didn't know about Portugal having to move their base or whatnot in 66' as well. What reason did they come up with for the reason of change? Im sure it would have been some legitamate reason? |
|
|
| Blik |
| quote: | Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt
If you had to look at those pictures on a pure basis of a decision, i think most people would agree that it was a foul. BUT pictures are not rolling motion. Ricardo jumped into Terry. With the ball coming back of the bar, Sol campbell was in motion with a header and used Terry to climb up. Ricardo jumped into Terry and in true Portugese style fell on the floor afterwards claiming a foul.
|
no, he reaches for the ball but finds Terry on his way and Terry held him down so he couldn't reach the ball, pictures and rolling motion says so...
(Campbell did nothing wrong) |
|
|
| DJ.MD |
| What you dont see in these pictures is how far outta position Ricardo is in. He clearly jumped into Terry. You guys are unbelievable. It was clearly a bad call. England got screwed again. I'm just waiting to see how we get screwed in 06 cuz it will happen. |
|
|
| Blik |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ.MD
What you dont see in these pictures is how far outta position Ricardo is in. He clearly jumped into Terry. You guys are unbelievable. It was clearly a bad call. England got screwed again. I'm just waiting to see how we get screwed in 06 cuz it will happen. |
his position has got nothing to do with it. The goalkeeper is protected in the area the ball is in on that moment. When someone blocks the goalkeeper with their arms or hands in that area it is a foul. And you can clearly see that Terry blocks him.
ah, who am I kidding, I can not convince you. But who cares anyway...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Rudy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ.MD
What you dont see in these pictures is how far outta position Ricardo is in. He clearly jumped into Terry. You guys are unbelievable. It was clearly a bad call. England got screwed again. I'm just waiting to see how we get screwed in 06 cuz it will happen. |
Dont go on about this "foul", its just pathetic, bad losers mentality! The whole point is that England didn't play great football and they lost, well better luck next time.
And don't start about the Dutch playing football, cause obviously they didn't perform like they should, but fact is that they are in the semis, so they must have performed better than the English... |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rudy
but fact is that they are in the semis, so they must have performed better than the English... |
I would consider that a naive statement since all there was to separate you guys and Sweden going through was a single saved penalty, exactly the same as with us & Portugal. Neither of the results were reflective of the teams' performances (I'm not saying England played well; they didn't, but neither did Portugal. Nor Holland & Sweden for that matter), so it's probably best to think before making assumptions like that. Don't get me wrong, now England are out I'm supporting Holland more than any of the other final 4, but do not believe their performance to be vastly superior to what England's was, regardless of the fact they're through to the final four. It's not all down to skill unfortunately. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| Holy you guys are still discussing it :wtf: |
|
|
|
|
