Conquer Club

Bones2484 wrote:

Gypsys Kiss wrote:You might want to check for offside before it gets anywhere near the goal

Agreed. I'm already tired of all the "UKRAINE GOT SCREWED" comments I'm seeing on various sites. Shouldn't have been allowed anyways.

1) The Ukraine ' goal ' was a yard offside.
2) Carroll was beaten half to death , blatant penalty but not given.
3) England would still have topped the group if it finished 1-1 and Ukraine would still have gone out.
England are short on flair , but they are hard to beat and only a moron would think they did not deserve to progress.

DiM wrote: i didn't say the goal was valid i just said the refs are making mistakes.
and 2 mistakes don't make a right they just make the ref look even worse.

Ridiculous! Both the offside and the goal were marginal and virtually indsitinguishable by a human eye. It is the time that bloody idiots Blattner and Platini stop thinking only about lining up their pockets with Russian and Qatari oil bribes, get up their fat asses and introduce technology to stop this type of nonsense once and forall...

Pope Joan wrote:Ridiculous! Both the offside and the goal were marginal and virtually indsitinguishable by a human eye.

a blind eye yes.
a normal untrained eye maybe
but a 20/20 vision trained eye, missing both those actions is absurd.

before the replays came i knew it was an offside and that the ball went all the way in. i had some itsy bitsy doubts about the offside but i was dead certain about the goal.

Pope Joan wrote:It is the time that bloody idiots Blattner and Platini stop thinking only about lining up their pockets with Russian and Qatari oil bribes, get up their fat asses and introduce technology to stop this type of nonsense once and forall...

however i do agree with this. video surveillance is a must. we have the technology, it's already introduced with huge success in other sports, so why no football.
last i heard they were planning to introduce it but only to supervise the goal line. bunch of idiots.

comic boy wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:only a moron would think they did not deserve to progress.

they didn't deserve to progress. I had France in that group in my work competition.
I'm a moron but my real name is John.

the real moron is gordon

(I need Iron Maid to hit him)

Pedronicus wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:only a moron would think they did not deserve to progress.

they didn't deserve to progress. I had France in that group in my work competition.
I'm a moron but my real name is John.

the real moron is gordon

(I need Iron Maid to hit him)

France, LOL, it should not be even be there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvewlR3 ... re=related
BTW, they guys referees at the Euro: Bloodini does not forget favours

Timminz wrote:

Pander88uk wrote:

Lootifer wrote:edit: regarding outcome if denmark won 2-1 then Tim is correct, Germany would go thru: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf

And no. He isn't. With Portugal beating Netherlands 2-1, a 2-1 defeat for Germany sends them out. A 3-2 defeat would have put them through behind Denmark. This is because in this competition head-to-head comes before goal difference/goals scored. Here's why:

UEFA regs wrote: 7.04 If two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the
following criteria are applied, in the order given, to determine the rankings:
a) higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the
teams in question; - Teams in question are Germany, Denmark and Portugal. We exclude Holland results as they are 'not in question' having got less points. All teams therefore have 3 points so NOONE wins head to head.
b) superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in
question; - Goal difference for everyone is 0 (Germany 1-2 Denmark (in this scenario), Denmark 2-3 Portugal, Germany 1-0 Portugal) as they have all lost one and won one by ONE GOAL. So this also can't separate them.
c) higher number of goals scored in the group matches played among the teams
in question; - Here's where we can separate them, BECAUSE Holland matches are excluded from the workings. Germany will have scored 2 goals, Portugal 3 goals and Denmark 4 goals. Hence their positions are decided. If Germany had lost 3-2 to Denmark, they would have had 3 goals from the head-to-heads and only then would their result against Portugal decide the placings.

I think the part you're missing is that once Denmark is declared the group winner, there would have been a two-way tie for second place (rather than the three-way tie that was originally the case), and so the tie-break criteria would have to be restarted rather than carrying on with the three-way tie-breaker. Since the first tie-break is head-to-head results and Germany beat Portugal, Germany would have advanced in second place.

But you're making up rules now? Where in the rules does it say it gets restarted. It doesn't. Germany are out with that result. It's very clear in the rules. And even the commentators were saying all through the match, if Germany lose they can go out!!

I believe Pander is correct in this case and that the tie-break does not get restarted. The announcers did keep saying that if Germany lost, they'd be out due to having the fewest amount of goals scored of the three teams in non-Netherlands matches.

Bones2484 wrote:I believe Pander is correct in this case and that the tie-break does not get restarted. The announcers did keep saying that if Germany lost, they'd be out due to having the fewest amount of goals scored of the three teams in non-Netherlands matches.

Damn! 3-2 would have done it then? Either way, I was hoping for a result that didn't happen.


Today's result from the Swedes, on the other hand, was beautiful!

"If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3 to more than two teams, two teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 3 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the two teams in question to determine the final rankings of the two teams. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5 to 10 apply in the order given"

So yes, the tiebreakers reset.

GreecePwns wrote:"If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3 to more than two teams, two teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 3 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the two teams in question to determine the final rankings of the two teams. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5 to 10 apply in the order given"

So yes, the tiebreakers reset.

"If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3 to more than two teams, two teams still have an equal ranking"

They don't. All the teams are separated. Germany have 2 goals, Portugal have 3 and Denmark have 4. So there is no need to reset the tiebreakers in this scenario!

comic boy wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Gypsys Kiss wrote:You might want to check for offside before it gets anywhere near the goal

Agreed. I'm already tired of all the "UKRAINE GOT SCREWED" comments I'm seeing on various sites. Shouldn't have been allowed anyways.

1) The Ukraine ' goal ' was a yard offside.
2) Carroll was beaten half to death , blatant penalty but not given.
3) England would still have topped the group if it finished 1-1 and Ukraine would still have gone out.
England are short on flair , but they are hard to beat and only a moron would think they did not deserve to progress.

We do well when we concentrate on our strengths the 1966 world cup winners were short on flair,the 'wingless wonders',but what a defence,not conceding until the semifinal and a penalty at that.We are what we are,if we try to be Brazil we might as well get on the plane home now.

arno30 wrote:i don't know who's gonna win it.
i didn't think from the start spain would win, and i still don't think they will. germany either even if as usual, they'll reach the semis, at least.
i'd bet on italy... but hope france will do it !

thanks to yesterday's results, i'm getting closer now...

Pope Joan wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:only a moron would think they did not deserve to progress.

they didn't deserve to progress. I had France in that group in my work competition.
I'm a moron but my real name is John.

the real moron is gordon

(I need Iron Maid to hit him)

France, LOL, it should not be even be there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvewlR3 ... re=related
BTW, they guys referees at the Euro: Bloodini does not forget favours

it's called homeground advantage.
to answer this one, if it was needed : if you start on this road, i might find some bosnian games where there are some doubtfull decisions, make a compilation and post it on youtube. title, "why bosnia shouldn't have won against X". easy.
And anyway, losing this one, we would have finished 2nd, play the play offs against ireland and go through.

DiM wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:Ridiculous! Both the offside and the goal were marginal and virtually indsitinguishable by a human eye.

a blind eye yes.
a normal untrained eye maybe
but a 20/20 vision trained eye, missing both those actions is absurd.

before the replays came i knew it was an offside and that the ball went all the way in. i had some itsy bitsy doubts about the offside but i was dead certain about the goal.

Pope Joan wrote:It is the time that bloody idiots Blattner and Platini stop thinking only about lining up their pockets with Russian and Qatari oil bribes, get up their fat asses and introduce technology to stop this type of nonsense once and forall...

however i do agree with this. video surveillance is a must. we have the technology, it's already introduced with huge success in other sports, so why no football.
last i heard they were planning to introduce it but only to supervise the goal line. bunch of idiots.

and finally, video technology.
I would like a pro video to explain me (us), how that would be implemented during a game. Are we talking goal line video ? (already tested btw, and rejected) video all other the pitch ?
i understand the argument "it's already used in other sport". What are we talking about ?
tennis, where each point the game stopped (+ how many points in a tennis game ?)
rugby ? it's just to accept or deny a try, so the game is stopped anyway, so why not checking ? (even if i don't like that too)
How would you do that in football ? stop the game when something doubtfull happens ? a fault ? a handball ? a penalty ? a corner ? an offside ?
that wouldn't be the same sport anymore, that wouldn't be my sport anymore, i'm sorry.

And the worst is that i'm sure you'll find some people (the same as today i'd bet) still arguing on the decisions taken. have you ever be 100% sure of the decision to be taken after watching a replay again and again ? Do you think a replay is reliable to judge a full speed action ? to take the example of the video posted by comic boy (france-bosnia), maybe some are just diving, but have you ever played football ? run full speed with a ball in your feet trying to avoid guys that come your way. sometimes a little push or touch is enough to put you on the ground, without exagerating anything.

arno30 wrote: And anyway, losing this one, we would have finished 2nd, play the play offs against ireland and go through.

Not sure, Henry has retired, he was a good volleyballer

still playing in the MLS. anyway, anyone with some basics volleyball skills can play against ireland

I don't think referees don't see what happens, I don't think they miss the penalties, I think they are afraid to make the call.

They are so afraid that they might change the game outcome with their decision that they choke. They would face way much more critiscism if they awarded a penalty that didn't exist that if they just don't award one that was there.

And let's be honest, against England, against Germany, it's harder. There is so much economic pressure. Imagine all the attention the referee would get from Germany's interest (football interests) if he mistakenly signals the penalty that left Germany out.

It's just the way it is, and to make it better I guess FIFA has to trust technology now. I didn't like it at first either.

In tennis, the line cam technology is very respected. In baseball, home runs reviews don't take that long.

Well, I fly to Kiev tomorrow and stay until Weds. Tickets for England v Italy sorted. I hope it's not as bad as the last major tournament game I saw England in which was the dire 0-0 v Algeria in Cape Town!!

Easy to implement video in Soccer: Let the ref (not the players) refer the decision if required (including linesmen if they feel unsure as well).

Player referrals are retarded in time based sports (they work in tennis and cricket though); but official ones work fine in other similar sports that use them (the two codes in rugby for example).

HOWEVER: If they did put this in; you would have to put heavier restrictions on players all running up to the ref to have a cry/whinge (which I think they should do anyway); since with ref video referrals will incentivise every player on the field to go up to the ref and make a suggesting.

I suggest that the they employ the rule rugby uses and only allow the captian to speak directly to with the ref. Christy runs up and has a good old cry like the baby he is? Yellow card son, now STFU.

Pander88uk wrote:Well, I fly to Kiev tomorrow and stay until Weds. Tickets for England v Italy sorted. I hope it's not as bad as the last major tournament game I saw England in which was the dire 0-0 v Algeria in Cape Town!!

Idiot calls aside dude, hope you have a great trip; im hella jelly!

Lootifer wrote:

Pander88uk wrote:Well, I fly to Kiev tomorrow and stay until Weds. Tickets for England v Italy sorted. I hope it's not as bad as the last major tournament game I saw England in which was the dire 0-0 v Algeria in Cape Town!!

Idiot calls aside dude, hope you have a great trip; im hella jelly!

Thanks mate haha, even if the game is crap I'll try and soak up the atmosphere

Lootifer wrote:Easy to implement video in Soccer: Let the ref (not the players) refer the decision if required (including linesmen if they feel unsure as well).

Player referrals are retarded in time based sports (they work in tennis and cricket though); but official ones work fine in other similar sports that use them (the two codes in rugby for example).

HOWEVER: If they did put this in; you would have to put heavier restrictions on players all running up to the ref to have a cry/whinge (which I think they should do anyway); since with ref video referrals will incentivise every player on the field to go up to the ref and make a suggesting.

I suggest that the they employ the rule rugby uses and only allow the captian to speak directly to with the ref. Christy runs up and has a good old cry like the baby he is? Yellow card son, now STFU.

only the captain is allowed to talk with the ref, already... and of course, talking, not crying/shouting.
for the video, i stand with my opinion, it's not technically feasable.

Well, recovered from the blow our team gave us, I'm in a fresh mood for the rest of the competition.
Semi finals according to me:
Portugal - Spain
Germany - England

As a neutral watcher of the games now, I might enjoy it even more. At least, that's what I'll keep telling myself.

JBlombier wrote:Well, recovered from the blow our team gave us, I'm in a fresh mood for the rest of the competition.
Semi finals according to me:
Portugal - Spain
Germany - England

I'd have to agree, and other than Portugal, those are the teams I'd like to see in the semis. Bunch of flopping crybabies, those Portuguese players. It's a shame too, since there's so much skill on that team.

does anybody know if there's a stat for the number of times a player hit the post at euro?
ronaldo already hit it 4 times. could this be some sort of negative record?