• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Group A - South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Haha wow, just looking at Khune's red card now. Definitely looks to me like he was expecting the Uruguay player to have a shot instead of taking another touch as he did. Could see it being a penalty because of how bad it looked, but not a red, surely.
 

Matteh

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Shouldn't have been a red purely for the way Suarez reacted once he'd been clipped, looked like he'd been shot ffs.

Definitely was a penalty, definitely wasn't offside.
 

shivfan

Banned
Two matches, three goals scored, none conceded....

Uruguay are off to a good start. I'm sure their manager is pleased with that!
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Definitely a red because Suarez had an open net if the keeper didn't foul him. Fair enough if you disagree with the rules, but given the letter of the law, the keeper has to walk.
 

L Trumper

State Regular
Denying a clear goal scoring opportunity by foul play is a red card. Considring he is the last SA player and tripped suarez 3 yards in front of goal, it'll be a red card[At least according to rules], more often than not it depends on referee though.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He took the ball miles away from goal, there was no way he was getting it whether he was unimpeded or decided to dive over a leg like he was shot.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Definitely a red because Suarez had an open net if the keeper didn't foul him. Fair enough if you disagree with the rules, but given the letter of the law, the keeper has to walk.
There was no way on Earth Suarez was getting to the ball, his last touch had all but kicked it out for a throw in ffs.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
There was the group in Italia 90 or USA 94 involving Ireland where both the top team and the bottom team finished on 4 points.
Yeah, Italy, Norway, Mexico & Ireland. Back then, 3 teams would go through from 4 of the 6 groups so only Norway went out, for some reason they played for a draw in the final game against Ireland even though they went into the game 4th :wacko:

I reckon that's why Vimes hates ugly football so much, reminds him of the World Cup place they wasted after stealing it from England :ph34r:

Can someone perhaps explain the reason for the goalie's red card to me, keeping in mind that the first full football match I've watched in my life was the SA-Mexico game? Is the goalie not allowed to touch the players at all or something? And wasn't the Uruguay chap offside for that last pass?

I'm not suggesting we should have won or anything, I'd just like to know if the tirade of ref-blasting is justified or not.
It's a professional foul if a player prevents a goalscoring opportunity. Generally if the keeper takes someone down in the box then that's what has happened. Now some are debating it in this case but if a player hits the ball past the keeper and then the keeper takes him down it's always going to be a red.

Haha wow, just looking at Khune's red card now. Definitely looks to me like he was expecting the Uruguay player to have a shot instead of taking another touch as he did. Could see it being a penalty because of how bad it looked, but not a red, surely.
Bit worrying that someone who plays in goal doesn't know that that was a read, or maybe it's the old goalkeepers' union out in force
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Carn Mexico. Given France's tactical ineptitude I would not rule out them getting at least a draw from this match.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Really? Now how I remembered it, but if that's the case then bad decision.
Was somewhat of an exaggeration :ph34r: Had been having the same argument at school all day so when I saw your post I was somewhat annoyed.

His touch is heavy and takes the ball away from goal. Defenders would've got there first IMO.
 

L Trumper

State Regular
Its called playing for the foul... So many players do that in penalty area, it doesn't matter how heavier the touch is, bottom line is he was denied a goal scoring opportunity.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No the touch was that heavy that if there hadn't been contact we'd all be mocking Suarez for being an oaf and costing his team an opportunity.
He lost control of the ball ergo had no opportunity to score.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I thought the red was harsh but I understand it. Surely in a circumstance like that then the pen is enough?
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
He took the ball miles away from goal, there was no way he was getting it whether he was unimpeded or decided to dive over a leg like he was shot.
You'll have to point me to the rule which states that it's the player in possession's responsibility to avoid contact when a defender tries to half you.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Been all Mexico. Combination of shyte finishing (Vela once more showing his inability to hit a cow's arse with a banjo, already amply demonstrated at The Arse) and Lloris have kept in goalless at the break.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
France are turd but I'm sure I remember them being this awful at this point four years ago
 

Top