John Simkin Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 I would be interested to hear everyone's views on the red-carding of Wayne Rooney. Of course there is a FIFA investigation pending, and maybe that will clarify matters (maybe not). American TV showed only the briefest replays, but I got the distinct impression that the groin-kick was entirely accidental. Anyway, it appears the referree did not witness it. Was the pushing of Reynaldo sufficient justification for the expulsion of Rooney? are there any analogous incidents from the 2006 World Cup? I have watched the incident from various angles and at different speeds. It is very difficult to tell if it was meant or an accident. The problem is that Rooney has "form". Consequently, the referee and most neutral observers think it deserved a red card. It is a shame as Lennon has just replaced Beckham and were starting to making chances. By taking off Cole the team played for penalties. Not a wise decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 The problem is that Rooney has "form". Consequently, the referee and most neutral observers think it deserved a red card. There are good logical reasons why, historically, the courts do not allow previous convictions into evidence to prove a defendant's guilt on a particular occasion (last I heard, there was a movement in Britain to abolish that logical rule. I hope that movement has not been successful). Evidence of past "form" can certainly prejudice the minds of jurors, but it does nothing to establish guilt on the occasion in question. The facts of the case in question can only be judged on their own merits. If, as I understand (I may be entirely wrong) the referree was not in a position to see the groin-kick anyway, whether accidental or no, then the red card was issued for pushing Ronaldo. If that is the case, did the push on Ronaldo merit expulsion? would that have been a non-controversial decision if the player doing the pushing had been, say, Ronaldo himself? One good thing I can say about the incident: Thank God there was no Jack Ruby waiting for Rooney in the dressing-room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 The British Press have focussed on three 'conspiracy theorie's to explain England's elimination 1. The evil Swede lead us to failure 2. The wicked Portuguese cheated 3. The stupid Scouser lost his temper All have the essential features of conspiracy - blame, projection and innacuracy I see that Mr. Walker is unfamiliar with the basic principles of Conspiracy Theory. Ah, but they do share an important characteristic with most conspiracy theories given that all three are bollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 The British Press have focussed on three 'conspiracy theorie's to explain England's elimination 1. The evil Swede lead us to failure 2. The wicked Portuguese cheated 3. The stupid Scouser lost his temper All have the essential features of conspiracy - blame, projection and innacuracy I see that Mr. Walker is unfamiliar with the basic principles of Conspiracy Theory. Ah, but they do share an important characteristic with most conspiracy theories given that all three are bollocks Is that true of point 3: "The stupid Scouser lost his temper" One Rooney fan on a radio phone-in claimed that Rooney went for the ball. It might be more correct to say he went for two balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 The British Press have focussed on three 'conspiracy theorie's to explain England's elimination 1. The evil Swede lead us to failure 2. The wicked Portuguese cheated 3. The stupid Scouser lost his temper All have the essential features of conspiracy - blame, projection and innacuracy I see that Mr. Walker is unfamiliar with the basic principles of Conspiracy Theory. Ah, but they do share an important characteristic with most conspiracy theories given that all three are bollocks Is that true of point 3: "The stupid Scouser lost his temper" One Rooney fan on a radio phone-in claimed that Rooney went for the ball. It might be more correct to say he went for two balls. If he did it was the most accurate shot he had all tournament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 If, as I understand (I may be entirely wrong) the referree was not in a position to see the groin-kick anyway, whether accidental or no, then the red card was issued for pushing Ronaldo. If that is the case, did the push on Ronaldo merit expulsion? would that have been a non-controversial decision if the player doing the pushing had been, say, Ronaldo himself? I have asked this question twice, and everyone ignores the hell out of me. I was hoping that someone more knowledgable than me could offer an informed opinion. Comments greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Akhtar Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 If, as I understand (I may be entirely wrong) the referree was not in a position to see the groin-kick anyway, whether accidental or no, then the red card was issued for pushing Ronaldo. If that is the case, did the push on Ronaldo merit expulsion? would that have been a non-controversial decision if the player doing the pushing had been, say, Ronaldo himself? Even if the referee himself had not seen it, I'm sure the other officials were and personally I think he did deserve to be sent off - I think it was the pushing that did it. He has a great talent but I think his temperament on the field does him no favours and he needs to learn to reign in his temper. Mind you a lot depends on the referee - some players get sent off for much less than stamping on someone's groin. Of course I think the decision would not be controversial if it had been Ronaldo because the English press etc wouldn't be so outraged about it! They are completely missing the point that regardless of this incident, England lost on penalties because they weren't as good on the day as Portugal at taking them. Italy have the same problem too when it comes to penalty shoot outs. Anyway England supporters should remember that there will in fact be an Englishman playing in the final so they can have some hope. Simone Perrotta of Italy was born in Ashton Under Lyne and moved to Italy when he was 6, so technically speaking he is English! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Anyway England supporters should remember that there will in fact be an Englishman playing in the final so they can have some hope. Simone Perrotta of Italy was born in Ashton Under Lyne and moved to Italy when he was 6, so technically speaking he is English! Francesca, this is technically known as a VERY, VERY, VERY small crumb of comfort. The truth is that whether Rooney should have gone or not, we were once again simply not good enough. Teams such as Italy, and France make poor starts, but get progressively better as the tournament goes on. We begin as one tempo plodders, and inevitably go home as such. 40 years of hurt, and counting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Francesca, this is technically known as a VERY, VERY, VERY small crumb of comfort. The truth is that whether Rooney should have gone or not, we were once again simply not good enough. Teams such as Italy, and France make poor starts, but get progressively better as the tournament goes on. We begin as one tempo plodders, and inevitably go home as such. 40 years of hurt, and counting. Why are the English so adept at this self flagellation? I remember the 70's and 80's following England as a child when they didn't even qualify for World Cups and Euro Championships yet today we have these ridiculously high expectations and don't we just enjoy wallowing in it when the expectations are not met? Comparatively speaking England has enjoyed 10 years of success. Neither do I buy this hogwash that some "golden generation" has been wasted by the recently departed manager. Those with long memories will remember that Liverpool FC won back to back European Championships in 1977 and 1978 with a predominantly English born team - England did not make the World Cup finals in Argentina in 1978. Sven has done well with the generation of lesser English footballers he has had at his disposal. England in fact were knocked out this time not because of their squad selection, or manager's tactics, or their own lack of ability.....rather it was simply a lack of self belief when it came to the crunch of a penalty shootout. To that point they were getting results and improving with every game. Could it be that this lack of self belief in part stems from the national pastime of bashing the team and the manager? The latter this time being nothing more edifying that thinly disguised nationalistic chauvinism. Perhaps the FA's bizarre decision to sack the manager on the eve of the tournament was a contributory factor? I am sure it couldn't have helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 Francesca, this is technically known as a VERY, VERY, VERY small crumb of comfort. The truth is that whether Rooney should have gone or not, we were once again simply not good enough. Teams such as Italy, and France make poor starts, but get progressively better as the tournament goes on. We begin as one tempo plodders, and inevitably go home as such. 40 years of hurt, and counting. I don't think she was being serious. The Italy v Germany match last night was an excellent advert for European football. Both teams made a real attempt to play attacking football and I thought it was played in a very good spirit. Italy deserved their victory and Germany can take considerable pride in their performance. As you say, several teams, including Italy, Germany and France improved as they went on. So did England, but not in any attacking sense. A lot of good has come out of the World Cup. Most teams have played attractive, attacking football. Only England of the major countries, relied on a defensive formation. Very few players have resorted to dirty tactics. Shirt-pulling and diving was fairly rare. This was no doubt because it was made clear that this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated by the officials. Let us hope the same thing happens in the premiership. Lastly, English football fans behaved themselves. So did most fans. In many ways, that was the best thing about the world cup. One of the things stressed by returning fans was the way they were treated by the people of Germany. Maybe sport can indeed make us more tolerant people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I told you so gentleman! I watched the Portugal game in West Virginia, it was a thing of beauty. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 New World Cup football will unsettle goalkeepers, predicts scientist | Science Bloglogin | register | science blogs | science gifts | search | topics | Science Blog Home » contentNew World Cup football will unsettle goalkeepers, predicts scientist The new football that will be used for the first time in the World Cup’s opening game on Friday (9 June 2006) is likely to bamboozle goalkeepers at some stage of the tournament, a leading scientist has warned. The Adidas ‘Teamgeist’ football has just 14 panels - with fewer seams - making its surface ‘smoother’ than conventional footballs which have a 26 or 32 panel hexagon-based pattern. This makes it aerodynamically closer to a baseball and, when hit with a slow spin, will make the ball less stable, giving it a more unpredictable trajectory in flight. “With a very low spin rate, which occasionally happens in football, the panel pattern can have a big influence on the trajectory of the ball and make it more unpredictable for a goalkeeper,” said Dr Ken Bray, a sports scientist at the University of Bath and author of the new popular science book How to score – science and the beautiful game. “Because the Teamgeist ball has just 14 panels it is aerodynamically more similar to the baseball which only has two panels. “In baseball, pitchers often throw a ’curve ball’ which is similar to a swerving free kick and the rotating seam disrupts the air flow around the ball in much the same way as a football does. “Occasionally though, pitchers will throw a ’knuckleball’ which bobs about randomly in flight and is very disconcerting for batters. “It happens because pitchers throw the ball with very little spin and as the ball rotates lazily in the air, the seam disrupts the air flow around the ball at certain points on the surface, causing an unpredictable deflection. “With the world’s best players in Germany this summer, there are bound to be plenty of spectacular scoring free kicks. “But watch the slow motion replays to spot the rare occasions where the ball produces little or no rotation and where goalkeepers will frantically attempt to keep up with the ball’s chaotic flight path.” The ball, which has been used by teams competing in the World Cup in practice sessions, has already been criticised by England goalkeeper Paul Robinson and Germany goalkeeper Jens Lehmann for its light-weight and unpredictable behaviour. watch the 2 german goals from 'behind' view slo mo. how long did the germans have to practice with the new ball compared to portugal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 ??? german boot'n ball: a unit sculpted for max control and simple choice for spin catching seam, or moulded boot side for no spin (portugal-germany victory by same striker 2x). raised toe area is interesting too. Photo of practice and ball and insets of winning shot boot. negatives and outline to highight shape ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 (edited) I thought the portugese played a gutsy game. Perhaps it's forunate that it was the 3rd place game and not the cup that was decided. Either the germans were quicker on the uptake regarding the potentials of the new ball, or... Is there any reason to consider the ball and boot and tactics a joint development, with the german team privy to things that made this world cup one where the best team could not expect to win? It'll be an interesting final. New ball., german boot.---- old ball, portugese boot Adidas as boot and ball maker, arrgghhh..'tis a conspiracy..... No no no it's a level playing field, it must be...??? Edited July 9, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Francesca, I of course meant to say Italy. NOW THATS WHAT I CALL A PREDICTION!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now