. June 26, 2006 SouthAmerica: I made a mistake when I said: âBrazil can lose only if something out of the extraordinary happens on this WC.â What I mean to say is: Brazil can lose only if something extraordinary happens on this World Cup â such as bad calls by the referees. The current world cup has the worst group of referees of any international soccer tournament that I ever saw â so far the referees have been a disgrace during this tournament â in almost every game. .
. June 26, 2006 SouthAmerica: In tomorrows Brazilian newspaper there is an article about the Brazilian coach â The article said: Today, Parreira asked the Brazilian team to not give a show of soccer in tomorrows game and instead concentrate; to win the game and to be able to move to the next round. It seems that the Brazilian team is going to go back to playing with Ronaldo and Adriano as the strikers. According to the article: Robinho is hurt and wonât be able to play tomorrow. .
OK, I'm not a fan and barely know the basics of the rules. Can one of you experts explain to me the difference in a legal "tackle" and one that gets a penalty? The referee
A tackle is basically legal when it is for the ball, except a couple of cases when it is considered dangerous, like when the player, to take the ball, raises his foot at the level of the opponent's head. This means, for example, that physical contact is allowed, but without charging. This also means that it's usually okay to touch the opponent's leg and make it fall, if you touch the ball first. The penalty in this match belongs to the second case: the Australian player didn't touch the ball, and he made the Italian player fall. The reason why it's dubious is that the Italian player didn't do anything to avoid it. The impression is that he actually looked for it. He seemed to care more for the penalty than for the ball. One final note, just to be sure: to be a penalty it has of course to happen in the box
Incredible that the game between Italy and Aus came down to what i thought was one hell of a bad call....In game where points are so scarce the penalty kick itself should not be this easy to get...Ive heard cries about The NBA games being won or lost by a bad call, but in a series it doesnt come down to a bad call..your tournament life in soccer can come down to a bad ref call...amazing...talk about bad calls the world cup is full of them it seems...
Yes and no. The Australians had many, many opportunities to score too and they didn't. So to some extend they also deserved what they got. Either way Australians should be very happy with how well the team held up. On another note, FIFA probably knows they will get better ratings if referees show to have been bribed. =) It's interesting to note, that Italy has been saved by a referee twice, when it played against both the US and AUS. Italian mafia at a comeback?jejeje
One other note or two for you guys new to soccer. - When Hollywood runs out of actors, they normally come to the WC and have their pick. It is the funniest thing to see how these guys will go out of their way to hurt an opponent, look at the referee with a puppy face and then turn around look at the sky and thank god for their acting.... fucking priceless... - by default all players will try as hard a possible for the referee to blow the whistle and mark a foul when they are in the box. That's where the best acting takes place fyi....
True and although we was robbed to some extent, many people here recognise that they shouln't have been in that position. It was just a bit unfortunate that Harry Kewell who is possibly Australia's best player ever, was out of the match. He may have added a little more firepower to break down the Italian defense. Apparently he's suffering from gout. I didn't think it was an ailment of the young and very fit.
It's only a second time that I see Brazil beeing so outplay by another team ( first time by great Holland team in 1974). Unreal.