*Official* Uruguay vs Ghana (Quarter-Final Two)

[Uppercut]

But:

a) football would be less fun, because Uruguay-Ghana had one of the most exciting ends to a match of all time

and

b) you'd be awarding Ghana for something they hadn't done, because the sole aim of football is to get the ball between the sticks and they hadn't done so. You might want to change the sole aim of football, but I don't, because I love football. If you don't you can go invent your own sport and watch that.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

But:

a) football would be less fun, because Uruguay-Ghana had one of the most exciting ends to a match of all time

and

b) you'd be awarding Ghana for something they hadn't done, because the sole aim of football is to get the ball between the sticks and they hadn't done so. You might want to change the sole aim of football, but I don't, because I love football. If you don't you can go invent your own sport and watch that.

I think that's one hell of a technicality for Ghana (or anyone else) to lose a goal on.

I just find it funny that the rules are so fondly worshipped whether they give a fair outcome or not. Socially we've moved past 1878 (I just picked that number at random), yet god forbid we change a rule when someone exposes a bit of a loophole. I don't think penalising an incident like Suarez' handball with a goal would irreversibly change the fabric of the game. But then I'm just a very casual watcher.

But you are right too, there are millions of people who love the game and if they like it the way it is then fair enough I suppose.

[pasag]

And with that, Uppercut makes the full transition into Richard.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by pasag

And with that, Uppercut makes the full transition into Richard.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by pasag

And with that, Uppercut makes the full transition into Richard.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't really agree that the sole aim of football is to get the ball between the sticks. The aim is to do so without contravening certain rules, much like the aim of cricket is to score runs, but you can only do so in certain ways. For example, you can't score runs in cricket by picking the ball up and throwing it or by firing it out of a cannon, you have to hit it with the bat.

You can't simplify any sport down to one objective as though there is nothing else to take into account, because the whole idea is to achieve X goal while also following restrictions Y and Z.

Again, what if Suarez dived and caught the ball? Is there no kind of handball that might warrant a more serious penalty than a spot kick and a red card?

[Uppercut]

Hmm, why would it make any difference if he caught the ball rather than punched it off the line?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just for the sheer blatant audacity of it. The point being, there is a difference between contravening the rules and receiving an appropriate penalty, and intentionally exploiting a loophole in the rules to win your team a place in the semi-finals of a world cup.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Just for the sheer blatant audacity of it. The point being, there is a difference between contravening the rules and receiving an appropriate penalty, and intentionally exploiting a loophole in the rules to win your team a place in the semi-finals of a world cup.

.......and what happened here was the former............
The not awarding of a goal that hasn't been scored isn't a loophole, it's a 100% correct ideal.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I don't think you understand- it's quite difficult to explain. It's not only the rule, it's an absolute fundamental. You might describe football as a game where two teams of 11 try to get the ball between the sticks more often than the other, and the team that does so the most often wins. And you're suggesting changing that completely to allow teams to score without managing to do so.

There are a bunch of ways to score points in rugby, one of which is a penalty try. There are a bunch of ways to take a wicket in cricket, one of which is lbw. But there's only one way to score a goal in football. A goal is when someone gets the ball between the sticks, and nothing else, ever. Any game where the winner is anyone other than the team who gets the ball between the sticks more times isn't football.

And another point in reply to this.

If the sole aim of the sport is to get the ball in the goal, because it is so valuable (as you try and distinguish soccer/football from other sports), then surely cheating to prevent this from happening is even worse than 'goaltending' in basketball for example.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

I just find it funny that the rules are so fondly worshipped whether they give a fair outcome or not.

It's quite interesting.

I'm not so passionate as to be incredibly disgusted at this or anything, but the arguments against it are pretty flimsy. Would prefer they just say "we like it this way, even if cheating is allowed" - which Uppercut kind of did when he used 'excitement' as a reason to justify what happened.

[Meridio]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Just for the sheer blatant audacity of it. The point being, there is a difference between contravening the rules and receiving an appropriate penalty, and intentionally exploiting a loophole in the rules to win your team a place in the semi-finals of a world cup.

AWTA.

Surely, the fundamental rule of football is that you are not allowed to use your hands? I'm not even sure I'd call what Suarez did exploiting a loophole - it's just blatant cheating. While I'm aware there would be difficulties in refereeing it, I can see the case for penalty goals. In situations like this, there is 100% certainty that the ball would have gone in the goal, and the fact that a penalty is awarded is irrelevant - yes, they should score, but they definitely would have scored if not for the handball. Put it this way - if by some strange situation a defender deliberately stopped a certain goal with his hands while outside the penalty box, would a free kick be "sufficient punishment"?

Also, it ****s me to see that he got the standard one-match ban. Yes FIFA, your fair-play spiel is oh so sincere.

[Jono]

Haha Fifa's fair play marketing is indeed some of the most laughable stuff I've ever seen come from a sporting body.

[GIMH]

If you give a penalty goal against Uruguay then Australia concede one against Ghana earlier in the tournament, as Hakon said.

Anyway, serious can of worms giving goals that aren't goals, if you give them for handball on the line you should also give them for a goalkeeper who pulls down a player that has an open goal. And maybe for when the attacker is one on one with the keeper and gets hauled down by the last defender from behind?

The amount of time you hear about things such as Geoff Hurst's second in 66 or Luis Garcia's "ghost goal" against Chelsea suggest that it could cause far, far more problems than it would ever solve. The chances of scoring a penalty certainly shouldn't be "far less than 100%" as Jono said, quite frankly your penalty-taker should always score from the spot and it's not as big an issue as it's being made out to be anyway because as LT has said, the goals are nearly always scored from the spot so no-one bothers to bleat about it. Case in point, Ghana scored their penalty against Australia.

And before anyone comes in and says that it wasn't the same - I'm not interested in debating whether you think it was a penalty or not, but the fact is that as the ref gave the penalty, it is in his eyes the exact same situation as the Uruguay one.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

If you give a penalty goal against Uruguay then Australia concede one against Ghana earlier in the tournament, as Hakon said.

Only if you're applying the same absolutism as 'the ball has to cross the line to be a goal'.

And no, I'm not sure that's actually a word.