Round 16 and Beyond

[TT Boy]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

He didn't lunge in, he was stationary. Being on the ground isn't the same as lunging into a challenge, and running over the top of him was simply a blatant attempt to win a penalty that wasn't there.

Why was Neill on the ground again?

[SirBloody Idiot]

Because he was attempting to get rid of the ball from his opponent. His opponent hesitated for a bit, leaving Neill on the ground.

[SirBloody Idiot]

FIFA World Football Rule #213: You cannot commit a foul while in defence if you are on the ground and do not defensively attack the player and/or ball!

I don't actually understand that, can anyone tell me whether that supports the referee's decision or not?

[TT Boy]

I love Lucas Neill but the fact of the matter is he was ridiculously stupid (not breaking Jamie Carragher’s leg than taunting him stupid) but his actions were pretty brainless. It was like he was playing for Millwall again though saying that the parallels with Australia are pretty obvious.

[steds]

not breaking Jamie Carragher’s leg then taunting him heroic

Corrected.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Why was Neill on the ground again?

Because he went in for a challenge, obviously. The point is that Neill pulled out of the challenge well before the contact was made, and left plenty of opportunity for Grosso to get out of the way, turn with the ball or do anything else. A challenge is where you attempt to win the ball by attacking the player in possession - Neill didn't do that, and wasn't attempting to win the ball or bring down the player. The player ran into him on purpose, and thus commited the foul, if there was one at all.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by SirBloody Idiot

FIFA World Football Rule #213: You cannot commit a foul while in defence if you are on the ground and do not defensively attack the player and/or ball!

I don't actually understand that, can anyone tell me whether that supports the referee's decision or not?

There is no such thing as the FIFA World Football Rules.

[Jono]

Shattered.

Absolutely shattered.

[TT Boy]

Originally Posted by Matteh

What i noticed about Australia going forward, was that they seemed very reluctant to cross balls into the box and just seemed to play it back into the middle of the pitch all the time....

Because Cannavaro was immense once again also the fact that Australia can not pass the ball, evident in the countless aimless balls played into the channels for fat man Viduka to hopelessly chase.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by SirBloody Idiot

FIFA World Football Rule #213: You cannot commit a foul while in defence if you are on the ground and do not defensively attack the player and/or ball!

I don't actually understand that, can anyone tell me whether that supports the referee's decision or not?

Well, it doesn't. Simply means that if you are down and don't move toward the player in possession you can't commit a foul. That's exactly what Neill did.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

He didn't lunge in, he was stationary. Being on the ground isn't the same as lunging into a challenge, and running over the top of him was simply a blatant attempt to win a penalty that wasn't there.

I'm not defending Grosso or the ref, but Neill was naive to put himself in that position. He's an experienced enough pro to know the outcome there. One way or another the attacker's going to ground; unfortunately the sad fact of things is that sometimes refs are suckered.

In 20 years you'll still feel cheated, which will give you some insight into the simmering injustice we feel about that stumpy drugs cheat punching the ball into our net.....

[SirBloody Idiot]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

There is no such thing as the FIFA World Football Rules.

Eh, I only saw it on some other place which is filtered out, and I know very little about football, hence me asking.

[TT Boy]

Originally Posted by steds

Corrected.

Yeah breaking someone's leg with a reckless and awful challenge than calling him a diving **** is a tad tasteless and pretty **** poor IMO.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I'm not defending Grosso or the ref, but Neill was naive to put himself in that position. He's an experienced enough pro to know the outcome there. One way or another the attacker's going to ground; unfortunately the sad fact of things is that sometimes refs are suckered.

In 20 years you'll still feel cheated, which will give you some insight into the simmering injustice we feel about that stumpy drugs cheat punching the ball into our net.....

He was naive, certainly, but it wasn't a penalty.

I think I'll get over it to be honest. Everyone in Australia will be tremendously proud that we made it through a tough group and matched Italy on the day. I think we deserved to make it into extra time, and with the man advantage and two subs to come may well have won the game, but either way I don't think it's a failing on Australia's part at all.

I feel terribly sorry for the players though, as they certainly didn't deserve to go out like that.

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Because Cannavaro was immense once again also the fact that Australia can not pass the ball, evident in the countless aimless balls played into the channels for fat man Viduka to hopelessly chase.

Erm. Right. Cannavaro was hardly stand-out, everytime Australia went central there was a wall of Italian players, when they went wide and crossed it they usually got a chance on goal. The reluctance to get to the byline and cross it was the key factor in Australia not getting a goal.

As for Australia not being able to pass....the 59% possession statistic tells a different story.