Life In 19x19

quantumf wrote:Note how the other player is also reaching out to try and stop it. It was the right thing to do, given the rules of the game. If FIFA are unhappy with this, they could easily change the rules to give the referee the right to award penalty goals, but I don't think FIFA are unhappy. In fact, I think FIFA are generally delighted with this world cup. There's been no shortage of excitement and controversy.

That's exactly the problem I have with soccer in general: Unfair behavior is rewarded. This match is just an extreme example.

flOvermind wrote:That's exactly the problem I have with soccer in general: Unfair behavior is rewarded. This match is just an extreme example.

A red card and a penalty is hardly a reward. Maybe the punishment isn't sufficiently severe, maybe not, but you can't call it being rewarded.

flOvermind wrote:That's exactly the problem I have with soccer in general: Unfair behavior is rewarded. This match is just an extreme example.

The only reason there's even a debate at all is because Gyan missed. I'm not sure what the penalty conversion rate is, but I'm guessing its around 90%, probably even more.

The problem for lawmakers is that they cannot predict the future. If you make changes, for instance, to allow penalty goals, sooner or later other teams are going to be negatively affected by some freak unforeseen circumstance.

Your main point that cheating has a better cost/benefit ratio than other sports is probably correct. But bear in mind that football is by far the most popular sport in the world. You don't want to mess with it too much.

quantumf wrote:The problem for lawmakers is that they cannot predict the future. If you make changes, for instance, to allow penalty goals, sooner or later other teams are going to be negatively affected by some freak unforeseen circumstance.

Read this account of the 1994 Caribbean Cup match between Barbados and Grenada for a perverse example.

topazg wrote:A red card and a penalty is hardly a reward. Maybe the punishment isn't sufficiently severe, maybe not, but you can't call it being rewarded.

Ok, lets look at the consequences of the hands play:
a) Being reduced to 10 players: The game time was over, so no consequence here.
b) One player missing next match: Irrelevant, since otherwise there would have been no next match.
c) Penalty: 75% chance of getting a goal vs. 100% chance of getting a goal. That's not a punishment, that's an improvement.

a) and b) had no negative effect, and c) is a clear advantage, in that particular case enough to win the game.

a) Sure.
b) Straw man. They did progress, so obviously it is a relevant.
c) It's higher than 75%, but anyway, the improvement doesn't make it a reward. The odds were neither rewarded or punished as a result of the player's action.

So, a) had no negative, b) had a negative effect, and c) is an advantage but not one created as a reward.

The goal counts when the ball crosses the line, not when it hypothetically might have crossed the line - this one may have been clear cut, but (and particularly without video replays) what about difficult angle decision handballs? The precedents set by changing the rules to penalty goals will create much more ambiguous decisions, and we have enough of those as it is.

As it happens, Uruguay do get a punishment. Maybe a better punishment is not just that the player in question is not allowed to play in the next game, but that Uruguay are only allowed to play the next game with 10 men ?

Like I said, the punishment may not be severe enough, but it is still a punishment and not a reward. A reward would be to give Uruguay a goal for it instead.

Araban wrote:Wow, was I fortunate enough to watch this game when it went into overtime. Sure it was bad sportsmanship, but I'm stunned by the number of people I've seen already on other sites/forums ragging on Suarez. He did something that I think most of us would have also done, and if you look at this shot:



It's pretty obvious he couldn't have stopped that shot without using his hands. He didn't try to hide the fact or argue with the ref about what he did and accepted the consequences because strategically it was the right thing to do. Morally...well that's another thing, and besides the point. People should be criticizing the rules/procedures for situations such as these, not Suarez.

This is pretty persuasive. He did the only thing he could do. And he did not argue. I could have done without his also understandable celebration in the tunnel, he would have scored higher with me if he had been less emotive at that point.

I do think FIFA could have given him a two match ban, since he missed none of the game he was red carded.

topazg wrote:A red card and a penalty is hardly a reward. Maybe the punishment isn't sufficiently severe, maybe not, but you can't call it being rewarded.

Come on - Uruguay was rewarded by staying in the tournament. If this is not a reward ...

SpongeBob wrote:

topazg wrote:A red card and a penalty is hardly a reward. Maybe the punishment isn't sufficiently severe, maybe not, but you can't call it being rewarded.

Come on - Uruguay was rewarded by staying in the tournament. If this is not a reward ...

But that wasn't the reward for that incident. That was the reward for already being at 1-1 and winning the penalty shootout. Had they been 3-0 ahead it would have made no difference. Had it been 0-3 it would have made no difference. Had they lost the penalty shootout you wouldn't be talking about them being rewarded anything. Had Ghana scored the penalty they got for the handball, there would be no talk of a reward.

If I said that the disallowed second goal for England against Germany destroyed their spirit which is why they played so badly in the second half. Germany only got through because they were "rewarded" by a bad decision. In reality, it was the rest of the game that determined who went through, just as it was the penalty shootout that determined Uruguay's progress.

topazg wrote:But that wasn't the reward for that incident. ...

The use of the hand was rewarded by the chance to stay in the tournament - it is as simple as that.

SpongeBob wrote:

topazg wrote:But that wasn't the reward for that incident. ...

The use of the hand was rewarded by the chance to stay in the tournament - it is as simple as that.

Yes, it's a very clear rule. I hope my team would play that well.

Has anybody seen the magnificent play of the german team? I'm so in love <3

I'm curious what the press outside of germany wrote about the match. I read some turkish and english media and all were combining some WW2-stuff with the german soccer team, f.e. "german tanks advancing", "Argentinia executed" etc.
It really hurts that germany is still seen that way, in particular when the focus is on soccer and not political stuff.
Is it really that way?

oren wrote:Yes, it's a very clear rule. I hope my team would play that well.

I agree, if Uruguay would be my team, that guy would be my hero, seriously.

Jonas wrote:Has anybody seen the magnificent play of the german team? I'm so in love <3

I'm curious what the press outside of germany wrote about the match. I read some turkish and english media and all were combining some WW2-stuff with the german soccer team, f.e. "german tanks advancing", "Argentinia executed" etc.
It really hurts that germany is still seen that way, in particular when the focus is on soccer and not political stuff.
Is it really that way?

I don't pay attention to too many headlines, so I can't say if what you're seeing is widespread or not, but it's too bad if that's the case. The German team's play is definitely beautiful and enjoyable to watch, and as you said the focus should be on the soccer.

Jonas wrote:Has anybody seen the magnificent play of the german team? I'm so in love <3

I'm curious what the press outside of germany wrote about the match. I read some turkish and english media and all were combining some WW2-stuff with the german soccer team, f.e. "german tanks advancing", "Argentinia executed" etc.
It really hurts that germany is still seen that way, in particular when the focus is on soccer and not political stuff.
Is it really that way?

Not here in South Africa.