[P]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Naw, that red card was harsh, but you cannot call it a terrible call IMO. He came in spikes to the knee directly in front of the ref. That was at minimum a yellow card, and when you get to that point, a red is always a possibility.

He didn't come in to steal the ball - he had the ball under control, and he only raised the leg as part of taking a step. A yellow would have been harsh and, given that the refs have been instructed to be careful about handing out yellows and reds this time, directly counter to that instruction. A red shows a lack of understanding of the game.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I find it hilarious and entertaining, but that might be because I'm Canadian and therefore a hockey fan.

Honestly, the slo-motion shots of players giving agonized screams and clutching their shin...followed by getting up and walking gingerly for 10 seconds, then continuing on as if nothing happened...it's a tired point, but in North America we attempt to punish flopping in all our major sports and ostensibly treat it as dirty and embarrassing; in soccer, it's a verified art form. Those sections of the game are extremely painful to watch.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by P 

He didn't come in to steal the ball - he had the ball under control, and he only raised the leg as part of taking a step. A yellow would have been harsh and, given that the refs have been instructed to be careful about handing out yellows and reds this time, directly counter to that instruction. A red shows a lack of understanding of the game.

I do not see how you can honestly justify raised cleats at knee height during a challenge. All commentary that I read or watched last night agreed that it was a certain yellow card, with the red a harsh but definite possibility.

This was right in front of the ref. I mean, in theory cards are not handed out based on ref proximity but the reality is that every soccer player is aware of when they can get away with a little extra dig - and it isn't within clear spitting distance.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Ω 

I thought the Ivory Coast got robbed by Greece with that penalty at the end. The guy fell over his own feet and gets the winner via penalty spot kick. Sadly indicative of the sport.

In fairness, his raised lower leg was clearly clipped/blocked by the onrushing defender just as he made his forward kicking motion. That's why he essentially kicked himself in the back of the ankle.

You hate to see that sort of end, but it is a legitimate foul, and it is in the restricted area. The other alternative is not to call legitimate fouls when they might decide the game...and that does not seem right, either.

https://vine.co/v/Mtnxa6HXg7p

[P]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I do not see how you can honestly justify raised cleats at knee height during a challenge. All commentary that I read or watched last night agreed that it was a certain yellow card, with the red a harsh but definite possibility.

This was right in front of the ref. I mean, in theory cards are not handed out based on ref proximity but the reality is that every soccer player is aware of when they can get away with a little extra dig - and it isn't within clear spitting distance.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r1vBWnON9UI

It's not an unnatural step - I don't think he's even over the shin guard. I think the fact that the ref is just there is further evidence that he wasn't taking a chance with something that was borderline. He was on the offensive side of the field with lots of players behind him, there was no reason to take a chance. No, this is the call of someone who doesn't understand the game.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That replay confirms to me that it was clearly a deliberate foul. He knew the defender was coming, the ball had gotten ahead of him, and he knew there was going to be a collision - and he came in with his cleat raised.

[Jawbone54]

Cleats up are always a potential red. I thought it was an okay call.

As for Suarez: what is wrong with the man? One bite is cause to raise your eyebrows and hope that he's not mental. Two bites confirms a serious problem. Three bites is almost beyond imagination. I don't even know how to respond anymore.

This is a 27-year-old man who feels compelled to bite opponents, without any legitimate provocation at all.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yeah but how the hell do you replace him?

I still wouldn't sell him. He's too good.

I find it odd that the fuss made is as much as it is. Yes its unacceptable but is it as dangerous as punching, elbowing or head butting another player? Clearly not yet for some reason those are all far more acceptable and less punished. Even launching yourself two footed at a fan attracted less venom from the press.

Yes, it is more dangerous, biting infections can be severe, if not deadly.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I find it hilarious and entertaining, but that might be because I'm Canadian and therefore a hockey fan.

Honestly, the slo-motion shots of players giving agonized screams and clutching their shin...followed by getting up and walking gingerly for 10 seconds, then continuing on as if nothing happened...it's a tired point, but in North America we attempt to punish flopping in all our major sports and ostensibly treat it as dirty and embarrassing; in soccer, it's a verified art form. Those sections of the game are extremely painful to watch.

"We're tougher so it doesn't bother me"? Absurd. Punching, kicking, scratching, slapping, groin-checking, butting, none of those things can spread incurable diseases like biting can. So hilarious.

He needs a muzzle/mask, like the one they used on Lecter in SotL, barring that, he should sit until he gets it into his head that such dangerous behavior won't fly.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I never really thought about the biting-infection issue....makes it only slightly less hilarious (mostly because I don`t think there`s any evidence that he bit hard enough to break skin), but that is also balanced out by us actually having to think of biting infections in the first place.

On the one hand you know it's only fair that some punishment be handed down, but on the other it would really be tragic for Uruguay to lose its best player and one of the best players in the world during elimination rounds of the World Cup.

(Of course I`m not a fan of players having to miss games because of red/yellow cards, either...so it's likely I'm just not in tune with FIFA's punishment system in general.)

[P]

Suarez should be banned from international play for several months at least. I don't think that that will happen, because of the way FIFA is run. FIFA is an association of the continental football associations, which in effect means each continent defends it's own. Now that Uruguay acts to defend Suarez, they will call in favors to get their own organization behind them, which is usually enough to water down any penalty. The sad truth is that there are people for sale in FIFA.

FIFA really needs to change the way suspensions are handed down. Suspending people after two yellow cards is moronic - it helps a third team, not the team that was fouled. If you want to keep down the number of yellow cards (the stated reason, to avoid injuries over the long seasons) it would be better to do something like what basketball does. Say that any team that has 4 yellows in one game gets one player sent off, for instance.

In addition, there must be the possibility to suspend players based on video evidence. In particular something must be done to combat the excessive diving, but I would also like something done to suspend players who are constantly on the edge of the allowed.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Strongly agreed on all counts except for the Suarez banning, my views on which (as I have stated before) perhaps being out of touch with the rest of the community.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by P 

Suarez should be banned from international play for several months at least. I don't think that that will happen, because of the way FIFA is run. FIFA is an association of the continental football associations, which in effect means each continent defends it's own. Now that Uruguay acts to defend Suarez, they will call in favors to get their own organization behind them, which is usually enough to water down any penalty. The sad truth is that there are people for sale in FIFA.

FIFA really needs to change the way suspensions are handed down. Suspending people after two yellow cards is moronic - it helps a third team, not the team that was fouled. If you want to keep down the number of yellow cards (the stated reason, to avoid injuries over the long seasons) it would be better to do something like what basketball does. Say that any team that has 4 yellows in one game gets one player sent off, for instance.

In addition, there must be the possibility to suspend players based on video evidence. In particular something must be done to combat the excessive diving, but I would also like something done to suspend players who are constantly on the edge of the allowed.

I like the yellow card system in rugby, 10mins on the bench. A red and you're excluded.

Reckon Suarez should be fined as well as banned, and I'm talking £250,000 minimum.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, it is more dangerous, biting infections can be severe, if not deadly.

He hasn't bitten anyone hard enough to break skin yet though.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

He hasn't bitten anyone hard enough to break skin yet though.

So does FIFA wait until he does break skin to discipline him?

If someone is convicted of assault and battery three times, do we not punish them until they actually get around to killing someone?

[P]

Uruguay FA apparently claims that the bite marks were from an earlier incident. Since Suarez is responsible for 100% of the known biting incidents in professional football, doesn't this imply that Suarez bit the Italian at some earlier time?

Anyway. The paragraph Suarez is being tried under mandates at least a two match suspension. I'm sure they'll make it three matches to show that they're being serious. Corrupt and cowardly, that's FIFA under Blatter/Havelange.

[P]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I like the yellow card system in rugby, 10mins on the bench. A red and you're excluded.

That could work. I think the reason they stick with the rules they have is that the rules of the game (the Laws of the Game, yes there is a capital L and a capital G) are set by IFAB, the organization that developed the rules originally, but the details of who is suspended is set by FIFAs internal committees. FIFA has four votes of the six needed to change a rule in LotG, but needs support from English FA and the other UK FAs to change anything. This means that FIFA, itself an unwieldy organization, has to first agree to a change and then send some people to argue for that change. If the others do not agree, the representatives usually have a very limited room to negotiate, so most times no changes are agreed upon. To make things worse, the IFAB only meets once a year.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Reckon Suarez should be fined as well as banned, and I'm talking £250,000 minimum.

Apparently Liverpool are going to sanction him.

[Jawbone54]

One of my favorites:

"Apparently Suarez fancied an Italian sub."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

So does FIFA wait until he does break skin to discipline him?

If someone is convicted of assault and battery three times, do we not punish them until they actually get around to killing someone?

Is that what I said? No. Just that a less than vicious bite is less dangerous than a headbutt or or even one of those nasty leg breaking challenges. Some people may remember that Roy Keane once broke a players leg on purpose and nearly ended his career as well. Far, far worse than everything Suarez has ever done put together in one single incident but no-one ever called Keane an animal.

Sepp Blatter really pisses me off. He needs to go, FIFA is a joke. See John Oliver from a couple of weeks ago if you missed it.

Resounding yes to video replays. If this incident had happened in England, and the ref had noted in his book, the FA would be powerless to take any action at all. How dumb a rule is that?

I have not seen any report of Liverpool's intent to sanction him. I imagine they will do something if they don't sell him and I don't think they will.

Its all very well calling him names and being judgemental about it, but there is clearly something pathological about this behaviour in him. I don't think he would struggle to get some kind of diagnosis that would likely reduce the severity of any sanctions.

[Jawbone54]

I agree wholeheartedly about Sepp Blatter. This Qatar investigation is becoming ridiculous, but who didn't suspect foul play from the beginning?

If they think the Amazon is hot, wait until they play in 120°F / 49°C on the open pitch. Freaking ridiculous.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Welp on the discussion of red cards, Ecuador got one today for an offence that was not as bad as the Italy send-off....

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

One of my favorites:

"Apparently Suarez fancied an Italian sub."

I liked this one better:

"When Suarez is hungry, he goes for Italian."

-t

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I liked this one better:

"When Suarez is hungry, he goes for Italian."

-t

That one's great too.

But Russell Brand's tweet...

Suarez! Your teeth are already prominent, stop biting people! It's like @GaryLineker attacking people with his ears.

Even businesses are getting into the mix. Nando's tweeted this:

Hey @luis16suarez, if you're that hungry, why not get your teeth stuck into something really tasty? http://t.co/TPrPoC6ljt—

[P]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Welp on the discussion of red cards, Ecuador got one today for an offence that was not as bad as the Italy send-off....

Absolutely not. The Ecuadorian had his leg straight, which makes a massive difference in the sort of injury you can cause, came running at full speed before diving towards the ball and tilted his foot to expose the bottom of his sole. This one is a red card 10 times out of 10 - it is exactly the type of attack that can break someone's leg. The Italian had his leg bent, was moving much slower (in fact was stopped completely by the encounter, while the Ecuadorian kept sliding) and the foot is mostly angled down. The only way the Italian situation could have resulted in an injury would be if he had stamped down, but he never put weight on it.

The reasoning in favor of it being even a yellow is that he took a chance in a situation he knew he would lose and got a card, but that doesn't make sense. If you think about it for a second, there is zero gain for the Italian to get a free kick against him - he is on the offensive half of the field, and is better served by just losing the ball. If there was even the potential for a yellow in what he did, he wouldn't do it. Unless you want to argue that he went completely Suarez and acted irrationally, you can't justify his actions. The Ecuadorian on the other hand had clear motive - he wanted to stop the attack, and a free kick against him (which he must have expected) would be a win. The speed is easy to explain, and the straight leg comes from aiming for the ball.

This is what I mean by the red card being from someone who doesn't have a feeling for the game. A ref who understands the situation wouldn't call it like that.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Welp on the discussion of red cards, Ecuador got one today for an offence that was not as bad as the Italy send-off....

Do you actually know any rules in football?

Slide 63 : http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Even though you're both European and I would normally defer in soccer matters, I disagree with both of you. The Ecuador challenge was on the reckless side and certainly a yellow could be expected and a red not unexpected - as you say the right leg was extended - but there was clearly no attempt to injure in this instance - the player's primary point of contact was with the ball as he followed his possession, with the right foot extending and following through onto the sliding challenger, who had put himself in a bad position - one that the Ecuador player tried to avoid, natch. Note that the assistant ref who was about 6 feet away and had the best viewing angle simply called a foul.

The Ecuador player made a reckless play on the ball. The Italian player made zero attempt to play the ball and instead aimed for the knee of his opponent. Both were hard cleats to the knee area. I'm very curious as to why you are suggesting that the first is somehow worse than the second.

This is what I mean by the red card being from someone who doesn't have a feeling for the game. A ref who understands the situation wouldn't call it like that.

I disagree almost on principle who people who make such comments about referees at the highest level of professional sports. There are great refs and not-as-great refs in every sport, but a handful of the best referees in the world are selected to referee these tournaments. Every ref makes bad decisions because they are made with their eyes and on split-second notice - by definition not all of them will be the correct decision.

You're differentiating a "feeling for the game" as between a hard and somewhat reckless tackle on the ball, and a frustrated attempt by a player who was losing a challenge to injure another player without any play on the ball.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Do you actually know any rules in football?

Slide 63 : http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf

I'm interested what you think of the fact that his extended leg clearly played the ball first, then through to the sliding tackler.

Funny you should mention this - I let my provincial referee certification lapse about 5 years ago, but I played amateur soccer all while growing up until some chronic knee problems in my late teens, and subsequently coached and then ref'd in Under-12 provincial soccer leagues for about 5 years afterwards. My interests went elsewhere and I haven't seriously played, coached or ref'd in any capacity for almost 10 years now, but yes, I have gone to seminars, I have passed refereeing tests, I have dealt with coaches and parents losing their minds over my atrocious split-second decisions.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

So does FIFA wait until he does break skin to discipline him?

If someone is convicted of assault and battery three times, do we not punish them until they actually get around to killing someone?

Well put.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Do you actually know any rules in football?

Slide 63 : http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf

I don't think he's even watching the same games, frankly.

[mattyb]

9 games and 4 months - not long enough.

[Jawbone54]

Nine international games and four months of EPL, Champion's League, and Capital One Cup matches (effectively two active months), as well as a stadium ban during that time period.

It doesn't seem like a lot, but he's fined 100,000 Swiss francs as well (roughly $111,000 American). The fine is huge, and you know it will kill him to miss the rest of this World Cup. Uruguay have been proven to be dangerous (heh heh...) in international play, so he'll likely feel he's giving up his next-to-last shot at glory.

[EDIT] Think about this: Liverpool is back in the Champion's League, and I believe this will take him out of the first two matches. It would be a huge blow to Liverpool.

Amazingly, Barcelona are apparently still interested.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm interested what you think of the fact that his extended leg clearly played the ball first, then through to the sliding tackler.

Makes no difference. I see nothing about getting the ball first in the sections regarding Serious Foul Play.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Funny you should mention this - I let my provincial referee certification lapse about 5 years ago, but I played amateur soccer all while growing up until some chronic knee problems in my late teens, and subsequently coached and then ref'd in Under-12 provincial soccer leagues for about 5 years afterwards. My interests went elsewhere and I haven't seriously played, coached or ref'd in any capacity for almost 10 years now, but yes, I have gone to seminars, I have passed refereeing tests, I have dealt with coaches and parents losing their minds over my atrocious split-second decisions.

Bravo

[P]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The Ecuador player made a reckless play on the ball. The Italian player made zero attempt to play the ball and instead aimed for the knee of his opponent. Both were hard cleats to the knee area. I'm very curious as to why you are suggesting that the first is somehow worse than the second.

In the Ecuadoran situation, the worst possible outcome is he breaks a leg. This is not an uncommon situation, and there are many examples of players breaking their legs. In the Italian situation, the worst possible outcome is that he breaks the skin of the defenders leg, causing a scratch that might need a bandaid. That's why one's a red and one isn't.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I disagree almost on principle who people who make such comments about referees at the highest level of professional sports. There are great refs and not-as-great refs in every sport, but a handful of the best referees in the world are selected to referee these tournaments. Every ref makes bad decisions because they are made with their eyes and on split-second notice - by definition not all of them will be the correct decision.

And here we get to the root of the problem. The ref in this case was not in the top 100 in the world - that's not how FIFA picks their refs. Each of the continental organizations has a number of slots, and they all divide them up among the member nations, who then in many cases hand them out on a less than professional basis. There are refs in the World Cup who have never called a professional game before. No, I am not exaggerating - zero professional games before this tournament. You could fill the tournament with only refs from the Premier league and get a significantly higher standard than what is currently there. This is why I have so little respect for the refs in the World Cup, in particular in the group stages.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You're differentiating a "feeling for the game" as between a hard and somewhat reckless tackle on the ball, and a frustrated attempt by a player who was losing a challenge to injure another player without any play on the ball.

I'm interested what you think of the fact that his extended leg clearly played the ball first, then through to the sliding tackler.

Without that, he should be banned for years. He came in like a missile with his leg straight. That last makes a massive difference.

[P]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

9 games and 4 months - not long enough.

I think it's fair. As long as it is longer than the last time, I'm happy - and admittedly somewhat pleasantly surprised.

[sek929]

Only got to see the first half while on my lunch break. Decently even-sided with one distinct difference, pace of play and ball control just outside of the 16yd box. I know it was sloppy out there but on every decent push the US has into opposing territory they inevitably break their stride due to a mis-cue or dribbling/trapping error. Belgium should be a great game but if the US wins and faces Argentina...that's all she wrote folks.

[P]

Most likely semifinals at this point are Brazil-Germany and Argentina-Netherlands. There are always surprises, but those four teams have all looked strong.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by P 

Most likely semifinals at this point are Neymar-Germany and Messi-Netherlands.

Fixed.

[mattyb]

Frog news said that more people watch soccer in the US each weekend than in France. While you do have nearly five times the population, I didn't realise that it had gotten that popular (assumed it was women's soccer that was popular). Guess Beckham made a difference?

[sek929]

Americans like sports, all of them.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Frog news said that more people watch soccer in the US each weekend than in France. While you do have nearly five times the population, I didn't realise that it had gotten that popular (assumed it was women's soccer that was popular). Guess Beckham made a difference?

Honestly, I think Clint Dempsey made twice the difference. Americans like seeing someone with some actual skill wearing a US kit.

Donavon was good, but his persistence was probably his best trait. Dempsey actually looks like a skilled soccer player.

And he's from freaking Nacogdoches, Texas.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Americans like sports, all of them.

Also this.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Americans like sports, all of them.

Cricket?

[andi*pandi]

Um, go USA?

I just discovered I could watch on Univision. I don't get ESPN.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Cricket?

Cricket is named after the noise you hear when you tell someone that one game can last several days.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Cricket is named after the noise you hear when you tell someone that one game can last several days.

Wait until playoff baseball with the new replay system.

[turtle777]

Can't watch the game against Belgium, but the stats are not good for the US. Tied 0:0 right now.

Shots on goal:
US: 4
Belgium: 18

Seems only a matter of time until Belgium scores.



-t

[sek929]

Dat Tim Howard

[andi*pandi]

US goalie, pretty amazing, but yeah, they wore him down. 2 goals by belgium now.

[turtle777]

Yeah, Belgium is a tough nut to crack.

They have only allowed one goal in the entire tournament.

Edit: Oops, make that two now.

-t

[Jawbone54]

Julian Green's debut goal was a pretty volley off a Michael Bradley pass. The U.S. just isn't there yet. I thought their showing was still pretty impressive. Just making it out of the group was a solid result.

Now I can't decide who to support for the rest of the tournament.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Cricket is named after the noise you hear when you tell someone that one game can last several days.

One type, there are others. Test Matches can last five days, there are One-Day matches and there are limited overs matches. While I agree that Test Matches can be boring, I like the fact that you can never say who is winning.