Euro 2008
- RonnieRoots
- Fonseca 1980
- Posts: 1981
- Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: Middle Earth
Euro 2008
Normally, I'm not much of a football fan, but I can't help but liking the European and World Championships. I intend to watch quite a few of the maches. We are too cheap to pay for satellite channels (at least while we're still in a temporary house), so we are dependant of free-to-air broadcasters. That will probably mean watching Al Jazeera sports with Arabic commentary. Not ideal, but it will do. Hopefully the internet connection is reasonable tonight so I can listen to the Dutch radio commentary or watch through (an almost legal) P2P site.
Anyone else watching? Predictions for outcome? I'm rather pessimistic about the Dutch chances, they're possibly in the toughest group.
Anyone else watching? Predictions for outcome? I'm rather pessimistic about the Dutch chances, they're possibly in the toughest group.
I'm not sure who to support. My options are:
Netherlands - because it has the most members in the tournament and because I have wanted them to win something ever since they was robbed in the 1978 World Cup Final by those cheating Argies
Germany - because it has the second highest number of members in the tournament
Portugal - because they make Port
Sweden - because they have very attractive fans and Hendrick Larsson
Italy - because their fans are so passionate and I love visiting the country
Spain - because it is unbelievable that they have such an exciting league and talented players but always fail at the big show
Switzerland - because it would just by quite funny if they won it
Scotland - because we have as much chance of winning this tournament as we would have if we had qualified
I think I will go for The Netherlands as my team to support
Derek
Netherlands - because it has the most members in the tournament and because I have wanted them to win something ever since they was robbed in the 1978 World Cup Final by those cheating Argies
Germany - because it has the second highest number of members in the tournament
Portugal - because they make Port
Sweden - because they have very attractive fans and Hendrick Larsson
Italy - because their fans are so passionate and I love visiting the country
Spain - because it is unbelievable that they have such an exciting league and talented players but always fail at the big show
Switzerland - because it would just by quite funny if they won it
Scotland - because we have as much chance of winning this tournament as we would have if we had qualified
I think I will go for The Netherlands as my team to support
Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
- RonnieRoots
- Fonseca 1980
- Posts: 1981
- Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: Middle Earth
So, apparently, the United Arab Emirates are playing Iraq tonight, Saudi Arabia is playing Australia and Oman is playing Japan. All qualification matches for the 2010 world cup, and according to the Arab networks far more interesting than Euro2008. Al Jazeera shows boxing and Formula 1... Of course, you can watch the football there, but only on the pay channels. I should have known. And my internet connection is so slow that the streaming channels that are available only show bits and pieces.
Grrr.
Just have to settle for the pub then on Monday when the first match of the Dutch team is due.
Grrr.
Just have to settle for the pub then on Monday when the first match of the Dutch team is due.
-
- Cockburn’s Special Reserve
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 14:18 Wed 04 Jul 2007
- Location: Muscat, Oman
- RonnieRoots
- Fonseca 1980
- Posts: 1981
- Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: Middle Earth
- StevieCage
- Fonseca LBV
- Posts: 107
- Joined: 21:52 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- KillerB
- Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: 22:09 Wed 20 Jun 2007
- Location: Sky Blue City, England
Excellent match and couldn't have asked for a better outcome.
As for the offside - there is some debate. I though that it was offside but the player tumbling behind the goal-line was considered to be still active even though he was over the line. As he was not injured he only played van Nistelrooy offside by getting off the field. If non-injured players are allowed to be behind the goal-line then they could come back into play. This would allow a defending team to put a sweeper behind the goal-line for when the offside trap is broken. It seems it wasn't a mistake but an interpretation of the rules. I'm not sure on that one. I've checked the rules and can't find a definitive answer.
As for the offside - there is some debate. I though that it was offside but the player tumbling behind the goal-line was considered to be still active even though he was over the line. As he was not injured he only played van Nistelrooy offside by getting off the field. If non-injured players are allowed to be behind the goal-line then they could come back into play. This would allow a defending team to put a sweeper behind the goal-line for when the offside trap is broken. It seems it wasn't a mistake but an interpretation of the rules. I'm not sure on that one. I've checked the rules and can't find a definitive answer.
Port is basically a red drink
- RonnieRoots
- Fonseca 1980
- Posts: 1981
- Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: Middle Earth
It was questionnable to say the least, but since the Dutch had the better of the play overall, that first goal would have come sooner or later. I must say that I lost interest after 15 minutes in the second half. We were watching in a pub (the Omanis were mainly cheering for the Dutch, which is good), it was getting late (the match started 22.45 local time) and LadyR had to get up again at 6.00 this morning. So we decided to leave. Missed the third goal, but did catch the last bit of the match through internet radio. The first 45 minutes were probably the best football the Dutch have played in a long long time. A joy to watch.
Alex,
this article sums up the dispute. The World thinks it was clearly offside, whereas some geeky official tells the world it's wrong. The rule covers deliberate movement off the pitch to gain an advantage, not being clouted at speed by your team mate in the hope of saving a goal.
We need that Austrian Ref on this Forum...
Alan.
this article sums up the dispute. The World thinks it was clearly offside, whereas some geeky official tells the world it's wrong. The rule covers deliberate movement off the pitch to gain an advantage, not being clouted at speed by your team mate in the hope of saving a goal.
We need that Austrian Ref on this Forum...
Alan.
Uefa general secretary David Taylor said Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his assistant Stefan Wittberg were absolutely correct in their interpretation.
He told a news conference: "There is a lack of understanding as to why this particular goal was awarded. In fact some television commentators have insisted the goal was clearly offside, but that is not the case.
"The player was not offside because in addition to the goalkeeper there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though he had fallen off the pitch his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law.
"Not many people, even in the game, and I include the players, know this interpretation.
"Incidents like this are very unusual - although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893."
Laughable. That pillock should be helping to run Cricket, not football.
There's nothing so risible as the man who waves the obscure rule in the air, when everyone else is getting on with the game.
(P.S. I know I'm on the worst Forum in the world to voice such 'Common Sense' policies. I accept most on here would like to be the one who is technically correct and stops the game, pointing it out, and confuses everyone! )
He told a news conference: "There is a lack of understanding as to why this particular goal was awarded. In fact some television commentators have insisted the goal was clearly offside, but that is not the case.
"The player was not offside because in addition to the goalkeeper there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though he had fallen off the pitch his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law.
"Not many people, even in the game, and I include the players, know this interpretation.
"Incidents like this are very unusual - although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893."
Laughable. That pillock should be helping to run Cricket, not football.
There's nothing so risible as the man who waves the obscure rule in the air, when everyone else is getting on with the game.
(P.S. I know I'm on the worst Forum in the world to voice such 'Common Sense' policies. I accept most on here would like to be the one who is technically correct and stops the game, pointing it out, and confuses everyone! )
Conky wrote:Laughable. That pillock should be helping to run Cricket, not football.
There's nothing so risible as the man who waves the obscure rule in the air, when everyone else is getting on with the game.
I absolutely agree - in a positive way. Cricket is all about the laws. I personally think Darrel Hair was right to take the stance he did at the Oval in 2006 (the first ever forfeited cricket match - and I was there!) Laws are written to be upheld by the officials. If you think the law is an ass, blame the law makers, not the upholders of the law!
Discuss!!
Ben
-------
Vintage 1970 and now proud owner of my first ever 'half-century'!
-------
Vintage 1970 and now proud owner of my first ever 'half-century'!
OK, always willing to oblige.
If the Ref had of blown for Offside, no-one on either side would have argued, a sense of fair play would have abounded.
As it is, we have all learned about a poor obscure rule that was not brought in for that purpose. And surprise, surprise, we are talking about a Ref.
It is clear to me that Uefa wil back the whistle-blower up, before changing that rule, or clarifying the interpretation, in about 6 months.
Cricket is learning its lessons about rules with gusto. The 20/20 format is now the most lucrative in the game, and it is essential that the rules are simple, and easily understood. The difficulty is maintaining the breeding ground for Test Cricket.
Darrel Hair may have been absolutely right, and to some, the bastion of fair play and the correct implementation of that particular rule. But again, who won out of that situation, and what did we learn.
Hair lost a fortune and was squeezed out of Test Cricket. Pakistan kicked up a right fuss, and have managed to make sure he will not Umpire any more of their games.
It's just not Cricket, you know...
If the Ref had of blown for Offside, no-one on either side would have argued, a sense of fair play would have abounded.
As it is, we have all learned about a poor obscure rule that was not brought in for that purpose. And surprise, surprise, we are talking about a Ref.
It is clear to me that Uefa wil back the whistle-blower up, before changing that rule, or clarifying the interpretation, in about 6 months.
Cricket is learning its lessons about rules with gusto. The 20/20 format is now the most lucrative in the game, and it is essential that the rules are simple, and easily understood. The difficulty is maintaining the breeding ground for Test Cricket.
Darrel Hair may have been absolutely right, and to some, the bastion of fair play and the correct implementation of that particular rule. But again, who won out of that situation, and what did we learn.
Hair lost a fortune and was squeezed out of Test Cricket. Pakistan kicked up a right fuss, and have managed to make sure he will not Umpire any more of their games.
It's just not Cricket, you know...
Some pedant would have pointed out error!Conky wrote:OK, always willing to oblige.
If the Ref had of blown for Offside, no-one on either side would have argued, a sense of fair play would have abounded.
What purpose was rule in for?Conky wrote:As it is, we have all learned about a poor obscure rule that was not brought in for that purpose. And surprise, surprise, we are talking about a Ref.
The rules for 20Twenty are basically the same. It is just the playing conditions that change - things such as number of overs each bowler can bowl, fielding restrictions etc. Not the basic rules around what constitutes cheating!Conky wrote:It is clear to me that Uefa wil back the whistle-blower up, before changing that rule, or clarifying the interpretation, in about 6 months.
Cricket is learning its lessons about rules with gusto. The 20/20 format is now the most lucrative in the game, and it is essential that the rules are simple, and easily understood. The difficulty is maintaining the breeding ground for Test Cricket.
Darrel Hair was absolutely right - he did what he was paid to do - I think the rules said something like "if in the opininion of the umpire the ball has been tampered with...".Conky wrote:Darrel Hair may have been absolutely right, and to some, the bastion of fair play and the correct implementation of that particular rule. But again, who won out of that situation, and what did we learn.
Hair lost a fortune and was squeezed out of Test Cricket. Pakistan kicked up a right fuss, and have managed to make sure he will not Umpire any more of their games.
It's just not Cricket, you know...
As an aside, you may have noticed Darrel Hair officiated in last weeks Test match that England won. A couple of comments suggested the players (obviously not the Pakistani players) generally think he is one of the best umpires around. The TV analysts suggested he got most marginal decisions absolutely right.
My view, as you may have guessed (!) is that the laws of the game are there for umpires / referees to uphold and any failure to do so is a failure on their part. The laws around "fair play" are designed to deal with the situations that the laws do not explciitly do so. If the players / fans etc do not like them then lobby the lawmakers to change them. Don't criticise the on field umpire / referee for doing his job.
(This sounds like the debate I had in 2006 about the cricket!)
Ben
-------
Vintage 1970 and now proud owner of my first ever 'half-century'!
-------
Vintage 1970 and now proud owner of my first ever 'half-century'!
- Alex Bridgeman
- Graham’s 1948
- Posts: 14915
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
I saw the last goal in the Spain v Russia game this afternoon.
From it I concluded that the offside rule has been suspended in its entirety for the duration of the tournament. That should make life more fun.
From it I concluded that the offside rule has been suspended in its entirety for the duration of the tournament. That should make life more fun.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
The purpose of the rule was to stop a defender stepping over the dead ball line to 'create' an artificial offside. So then that dope forgets the spirit in which it was created and makes a technical decision. Of course he has to be backed up by the rule makers, who as I say will subtlety change that rule when it has been forgotten about.benread wrote:What purpose was rule in for?Conky wrote:As it is, we have all learned about a poor obscure rule that was not brought in for that purpose. And surprise, surprise, we are talking about a Ref.
I would have to say that 20/20 has a myriad of new rules, all aimed at giving the game excitement and mass appeal.
20 Overs per side is a big change, colours, music, fielding positions during certain overs, being miked up while on the field, floodlights, etc,
you could say many of these rules have been tried in various forms before, but they are clearly being bundled together to create a new product that is completely different.
On the Darrell Hair subject, what grated the Pakistani's was that he had a history of poor decisions against them, and behind the scenes they were labelling him a racist. Bizarrely on the grounds he was such a good umpire with white nations. Yet made horrendous mistakes with the Asian Nations and often called their bowlers 'Chuckers!'.
Muralitharen is a whole different conversation! We could have a debate on the legitimacy of his action as a subject in its own right!Conky wrote:Yet made horrendous mistakes with the Asian Nations and often called their bowlers 'Chuckers!'.
Ben
-------
Vintage 1970 and now proud owner of my first ever 'half-century'!
-------
Vintage 1970 and now proud owner of my first ever 'half-century'!