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

[Jono]

I know what the punishment is thanks.

My point is, there is a situation in the sport where you can cheat, and reduce your chances of conceding a goal from 100% to whatever the percentage of a successful penalty is, which is obviously far from 100%.

Explain to me how what occurred was good for the sport.

When the punishment is worth breaking the rules, then there is a problem.

I am not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing. I'm saying the fact I would have is a problem.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He didn't cheat. He broke the rules and was punished for it. It's not good or bad for the sport, it's just something that can happen during the game.

 

[Jono]

This is the frustrating thing about debating whether a rule is good or not on these boards. People continuously tell you it's the rule, which we already know!

I know it can happen during the game. I know the punishment as per the current rules was given. That's not the point, and repeating it doesn't allow for any debate.

How is the current situation not a bad thing though? How is a situation where you can deny a certain goal (not just taking down a player as the last defender, this is clearly preventing a goal on the line with your hand) by breaking the rules, and give your team the possibility of not conceding that goal after all, a reasonable punishment?

It makes the 'fair play' bull**** Fifa promotes a laughing stock.

 

[Jarquis]

But where do you draw the line? How do you define certainty?
The line of certainty we do have in football is that it's not a goal until it crosses the line, for the referee to start making assumptions and awarding penalty goals based on such assumptions is risky business.

 

[Jono]

Already happens with deliberate handballs

Referees are making subjective judgments all the time.

Goaltending seems to work in basketball too. If you're not 100% sure the ball was going in, obviously don't give it. But in situations when you are, the goal should be given.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Already happens with deliberate handballs

Referees are making subjective judgments all the time.

Goaltending seems to work in basketball too. If you're not 100% sure the ball was going in, obviously don't give it. But in situations when you are, the goal should be given.

Question: Do you award a goal in Aussie football if there's a blatant illegal spoil within two yards of the posts?

 

[Jono]

'Illegal spoil' as in preventing a player to mark the ball right in front of goal? If not, no because the ball wasn't going into the goals anyway. It was going to be marked, so by awarding a free kick, the exact situation arises as if the player marked the ball.

If by 'illegal spoil' you mean prevent the ball from going into the goals when it was about to, I am trying to think of a situation where you could stop the ball going through the goals by breaching an AFL rule. I cannot think of one.

 

[Jono]

Thinking about it more, perhaps if there is a one-on-one contest in the goal square, and the ball is about to go through for a goal, but the defender illegally takes the forward to the ground, allowing the defender to mark the ball or spoil the ball, rather than the ball originally going into the goal. Had he not taken the forward to the ground, the forward may have been able to shepherd the defender from touching the ball.

That is the only similar situation I can think of. In that case, the free kick will be given to the forward on the goal line, which is a far higher percentage of goal than a penalty kick. That being said, no it will not be awarded as an automatic goal.

Difference is, the defender would never have done the "right" thing because in the circumstances, the percentage play is not to give away the free kick, but to try and contest the ball fairly. You have a better chance of preventing a goal by trying to mark/spoil the ball before it goes through the goal posts, rather than give away a free kick.

As we've seen from Uruguay, every fan believes it was not only the right move, but the smart move tactically.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is the frustrating thing about debating whether a rule is good or not on these boards. People continuously tell you it's the rule, which we already know!

I know it can happen during the game. I know the punishment as per the current rules was given. That's not the point, and repeating it doesn't allow for any debate.

How is the current situation not a bad thing though? How is a situation where you can deny a certain goal (not just taking down a player as the last defender, this is clearly preventing a goal on the line with your hand) by breaking the rules, and give your team the possibility of not conceding that goal after all, a reasonable punishment?

It makes the 'fair play' bull**** Fifa promotes a laughing stock.

I'm not just saying "it's the rule". I'm saying it's the correct rule and the correct punishment.
There is only one other option which is to award a goal that hasn't been scored - and that is completely ludicrous.

 

[Jono]

But there is goaltending in basketball, lbw in cricket. Plenty of situations where a but-for test occurs. But-for an event occurring, a goal/wicket/score would have occurred.

Why is it only so ludicruous in soccer?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Thinking about it more, perhaps if there is a one-on-one contest in the goal square, and the ball is about to go through for a goal, but the defender illegally takes the forward to the ground, allowing the defender to mark the ball or spoil the ball, rather than the ball originally going into the goal. Had he not taken the forward to the ground, the forward may have been able to shepherd the defender from touching the ball.

Yeah, without being too familiar with the sport I struggled to find a similar example. I see you've found one...though again it's also possible to miss in your construed example, so a 100 % chance of a goal has been turned into a 99.9 % one

Also, there's a really thorny issue of where to draw the line imo. There's a line somewhere between Suárez and Kewell, but I'm not sure where that goes...in the opinion of the referee, Kewell's handball is deliberate, and the ball is, again, 100 % going in if not. So that's a goal? Or can you only award a 'penalty goal' if it's 100 % deliberate and 100 % going in?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, without being too familiar with the sport I struggled to find a similar example. I see you've found one...though again it's also possible to miss in your construed example, so a 100 % chance of a goal has been turned into a 99.9 % one

Also, there's a really thorny issue of where to draw the line imo. There's a line somewhere between Suárez and Kewell, but I'm not sure where that goes...in the opinion of the referee, Kewell's handball is deliberate, and the ball is, again, 100 % going in if not. So that's a goal? Or can you only award a 'penalty goal' if it's 100 % deliberate and 100 % going in?

You can't divide whether something is deliberate or not into percentage. It was either deliberate or it wasn't.

 

[wpdavid]

I'm not just saying "it's the rule". I'm saying it's the correct rule and the correct punishment.
There is only one other option which is to award a goal that hasn't been scored - and that is completely ludicrous.

Thinking about that point, they award penalty tries in rugby union don't they? I'm no expert on RU, but I think it's if they keep collapsing the scrum when the opposition are about to take it over the line for a try.

My initial response to Saurez's offence was the same as yours - it's not particularly fair, but the rules are OKish. Thinking about it, especially remembring the RU comparison, maybe the goal should just be given when a player handles it in certain positions to keep out a goal bound shot or header. Maybe in the six yard box?

 

[BoyBrumby]

He didn't cheat. He broke the rules and was punished for it. It's not good or bad for the sport, it's just something that can happen during the game.

Sorry, but that sounds like cheating to me. A deliberate infraction of the agreed rules to gain advantage for one's team is as close a dictionary definition of cheating in sport as makes no odds.

The only difference between Suarez's handling and those of Maradona and Henry is that the former didn't get away with it.

I don't want to muddy the waters with semantics, but to my understanding of the term he did cheat.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Thinking about that point, they award penalty tries in rugby union don't they? I'm no expert on RU, but I think it's if they keep collapsing the scrum when the opposition are about to take it over the line for a try.

My initial response to Saurez's offence was the same as yours - it's not particularly fair, but the rules are OKish. Thinking about it, especially remembring the RU comparison, maybe the goal should just be given when a player handles it in certain positions to keep out a goal bound shot or header. Maybe in the six yard box?

In rugby you could just spoil the play at infinitum and prevent a try and give away a possible three points instead of seven everytime you were in trouble so there has to be a rule preventing it. In football if you go down the route of constantly giving away penalties to prevent a goal, more often that not you'll concede anyway. It would be an unnecessary and nonsensical rule change.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sorry, but that sounds like cheating to me. A deliberate infraction of the agreed rules to gain advantage for one's team is as close a dictionary definition of cheating in sport as makes no odds.

The only difference between Suarez's handling and those of Maradona and Henry is that the former didn't get away with it.

I don't want to muddy the waters with semantics, but to my understanding of the term he did cheat.

If you want to consider every infraction of the rules as cheating then I suppose he did cheat.

There's a vast difference between instinctively blocking the ball on the line to keep it out and wanton conning of the officials.

 

[Jarquis]

Suarez cheated, but I was having a conversation elsewhere with people who were saying Ghana were cheated out of the WC, which is wrong IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Suarez cheated, but I was having a conversation elsewhere with people who were saying Ghana were cheated out of the WC, which is wrong IMO.

Yeah, that's fair enough for me. Suarez cheated, was rightly punished, but Ghana weren't cheated out of it.

 

[Uppercut]

This is the frustrating thing about debating whether a rule is good or not on these boards. People continuously tell you it's the rule, which we already know!

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.

 

[Jono]

In basketball there is goaltending.