Australia-Japan

SupA Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's a foul on Schwarzer, period


You are an idiot

H E L L O

It´s not all about intentions, Gav, the fact is that the goalie was touched and that is a foul. And Daniel, did you forget your class at school today? :p

Guimengo Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It´s not all about intentions, Gav, the fact is that the goalie was
> touched and that is a foul. And Daniel, did you forget your class at
> school today? :p
>
>
> | Savio | GP4Sound.com | Shadow of the Colossus


no it isnt.
the goalie through himself into the melee and didnt get the ball how is that a foul?

Everybody is ignoring that push by the australian defender then I see.

H E L L O

The goalie is in his right to jump and catch the ball. Nobody had a set position there, I was a goalie for many years and I played in the lower levels of two major clubs when I was a kid, I´m pretty sure I learned things well.

that 'push' by i think it's Lucas Neill is nothing more than a love tap toughen up!

(maybe the Japanese player could ask Jamie Carragher about copping a real challenge from Neill.....)

back to the goal, if the second Japanese player copped an arm in the back it could be because he ran around in front of the the Aussie, who through reflex or deliberately maybe helps him on his way a little bit. the attacker then clatters into Schwarzer, who had already been bumped by the first Japanese player who did that all by himself

and that is my (semi)intelligent soccer discussion for the day done!

Guimengo Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The goalie is in his right to jump and catch the ball. Nobody had a
> set position there, I was a goalie for many years and I played in the
> lower levels of two major clubs when I was a kid, I´m pretty sure I
> learned things well.

And I was refereeing all yesterday, so be quiet

Mini Maestro Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Guimengo Wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It´s not all about intentions, Gav, the fact is that the goalie
> was
> > touched and that is a foul. And Daniel, did you forget your class
> at
> > school today? :p
> >
> >
> > | Savio | GP4Sound.com | Shadow of the Colossus
>
>
> no it isnt.
> the goalie through himself into the melee and didnt get the ball how
> is that a foul?
>
>
>
>
>
Because a Japanese attacker happened to push into him disrupting his path? We saw the exact thing happen at Euro2004 with England Vs Portugal but the referee noticed it then and disallowed the goal.

The goaley made a mistake and is trying to claim he was fouled, it is pathetic.

H E L L O

it isnt a foul, cos the japanese is watching the ball and doesnt notice the keeper, on the other hand the keeper must see the japanese player, so its a mistake from the keeper..

---

Magic Senna

Daniel Knott Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The goaley made a mistake and is trying to claim he was fouled, it is
> pathetic.
>
>

Not trying to start an argument....

Daniel, when the ref said that he himself ****ed up, what more does he need to substantiate his claim?

If we look at the video that you yourself posted, it shows that Schwarzer was bumped by the first Japanese player, before being hit by the second, who yes may have had a helping hand-a-long by an Aussie defender. First infringement however, is the goalie being hit by the first Japanese attacker. It is quite clear that he gets hit from the side by the Japanese attacker trying to get to the pitch of the ball.

There was a similar incident earlier in the game where an Aussie bumped the Japanese keeper and a free kick to Japan was given. Same sort of thing happened where the keeper was disrupted from playing at the ball by an attacker running into the box, not with malicious intent or anything like that, but run into all the same.

It didn't result in the ball landing in the net obviously though! Can't give specifics but can remember bitching about it with mates at the pub after the Japanese goal was given! Consistency is all I'm sure everyone asks for. Why is it that when one keeper gets bumped it's a foul and the next time it happens it isn't?

Having said all that, yes Schwarzer dealt with the cross-cum-shot pretty poorly, but as I'd already alluded to earlier, the three Aussie goals are clear of dispute so the result of the game itself is clear cut.

End of controversy! Now let's all play nicely

I still think it's a goal, the japanese players were going for the ball. I can't remember about the other incident you are mentioning. All I can say is that unless there's any strong phyiscial contact on the keeper, or a deliberate attempt to obstruct him then it is not a foul. The japanese play was going for the ball and hardly touched the keeper.

Scwarzer had made a mistake. So, you are saying, that if any goalkeep makes a mistake, all he has to do is run into an oppising attacker, and the goal won't be given. That is how most referees would view it too, but I think that's a load of rubbish really, and I would give the goal. Some referees would give that too but sadly most seem to view the goally as infallible.

H E L L O

Guido, Daniel, that case is not about intention. Of course the guy didn't mean to hit the goalie but he did.

The game France vs Switzerland had a handball from the Swiss inside the area. He had no intention but it still happened. Should have been an indirect free kick to say the least.

Guimengo Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Guido, Daniel, that case is not about intention. Of course the guy
> didn't mean to hit the goalie but he did.
>
> The game France vs Switzerland had a handball from the Swiss inside
> the area. He had no intention but it still happened. Should have been
> an indirect free kick to say the least.
>
>
> | Savio | GP4Sound.com | Shadow of the Colossus


your worse than Sepp Blatter. Kindly stop suggesting rules Gui otherwise we will have a non contact form of Football

It's not suggesting rules, Mini. But are you defending a form of football that incites violence and more physical abuse instead of a clean game? I prefer the clean game, it allows for a show to happen as well. It's tiring and annoying to see a guy come flying for a tackle, nail someone in the ankle and even complain that the ref gave a foul, something that happens many times and people go without getting even a yellow card.

whatever dude go on with your deluded vision of football.
its a sport and tackles will happen what do you want? players wrapped in bubble wrap?
Fair enough some tackles are wrong but lucky for you FIFA have introduced a set of bullshite rules meaning even if you win the ball as long as the player can pull off a 8.0 dive then they are infallable.

hey Mini, calm down, I don't want to start an argument with a friend . The main issue here is how people envision football and how it should be played. I grew up in Brazil, we play different than English people, just like you play different than the Spanish. Our interpretation of plays are different so my opinion falls into that and I won't change my mind about it just like you and some other guys won't as well, but as long as we agree the referee has to protect the players in the field and punish those who are there to hurt others and not play the game.

I still think it was a foul and will stand by it, check the FIFA rule book (whatever the place is to find it)

i am calm no need to get angry over football :P
and i think it wasnt a foul so HA!

well the Brazilian ref showed his quality and the general quality of our refs here in the Italy x Ghana match, so I guess he wouldn't give a foul either :p

Guimengo Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The game France vs Switzerland had a handball from the Swiss inside
> the area. He had no intention but it still happened. Should have been
> an indirect free kick to say the least.
>
>
> | Savio | GP4Sound.com | Shadow of the Colossus

No it shouldn't. If it's not intentional it should be nothing. You seem to know nothing of football.

H E L L O