2010 FIFA World Cup winner?

[InCrYsIs]

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. "

[nathank711]

Its probably the octopus

 

I think the germans should feast on that crazy bugger.

[Krieg1337]

WRONG!!!!

 

I hope the Dutch get crushed in the Final against Spain! Spain pretty much well dominated the whole game and there was a lot of missed opportunities but finally were able to get a cabezon in! Good to see a team in the Final that hasn't won a World Cup yet.

 

 

Uhm what? Public Viewing means Leichenschau in German, or is the closest word to it.

 

And Spain didn't really play that amazing, its just Germany sucked some huge bawlz that game. Seriously they played awful and, even as a German, I don't think they deserved to win. Spain def. was going to win, the amount of passes in the first half and second half were just terrible. Another 4 years? No I'm seriously done with this crap, every time they .ing choke in the semi finals.

[Silverfox]

Uhm what? Public Viewing means Leichenschau in German, or is the closest word to it.

 

And Spain didn't really play that amazing, its just Germany sucked some huge bawlz that game. Seriously they played awful and, even as a German, I don't think they deserved to win. Spain def. was going to win, the amount of passes in the first half and second half were just terrible. Another 4 years? No I'm seriously done with this crap, every time they .ing choke in the semi finals.

 

Be thankful you're not English. We screw up all the big tournaments.

[saywhut]

Uhm what? Public Viewing means Leichenschau in German, or is the closest word to it.

 

And Spain didn't really play that amazing, its just Germany sucked some huge bawlz that game. Seriously they played awful and, even as a German, I don't think they deserved to win. Spain def. was going to win, the amount of passes in the first half and second half were just terrible. Another 4 years? No I'm seriously done with this crap, every time they .ing choke in the semi finals.

I meant by that picture sorry. But Spain played well and Germany was asleep that game.

[ebarone]

Well, when the ball was played, his leg was offside - arguably this is a bit more substantial than a shirt or ponytail!

 

He gained an advantage (which you can see as he was leaning back and stepping on to that leg, but his leg was offside nonetheless) by being in the position he was in and got in the way of the goalkeeper as a result.

 

The deflection was obviously not "deliberately played" and would still deem him offside as a result. If the defender clearly played the ball, you would indeed be correct - on-side situation. But the defender was attempting to stop the shot and it skimmed the inside of his leg while he attempted to block - never deliberately played Was it an own-goal? No - the deflection was not significant enough to class the goal as such - the Dutch player was awarded the goal, so again, it couldn't have been played by the defender.

 

But a leg is the main tool for a footballer Therefore, he was technically offside!

 

Not that it bothers me in the slightest - and no referee would be able to make that decision in seconds within a game, so it's a moot point really.

I'm happy you said "arguably" haha. I'm just trying to play a little Devil's Advocate here.. the wording of Law 11 is: "A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent." It doesnt say "if any part of him," just him. So when someone's foot is sticking into an offside position, can you really say that the player as a whole is beyond the second-last opponent? I wouldnt fault anyone for saying yes, but I say no because in other laws where a line is drawn, namely out-of-bounds laws, the whole ball has to be out. In my view, the spirit of the laws is to let play continue as uninterrupted as possible, with only very clear offenses causing stoppages in play- eg, the entire ball going out, not just some of it. I just cant agree with the claim that when someone's foot is offside, then the player as a whole is offside and has gained an unfair advantage by being there.

 

The second line of Law 11 reads: "A player is not in an offside position if ... he is level with the second-last opponent,..."

 

I would say that someone with every part of his body in line with the second last defender other than the lower half of his leg falls more under the second line, rather than the first. That being said, I would have no beef with anyone who thought the other way around. It was just such a close call!

[Silverfox]

I'm happy you said "arguably" haha. I'm just trying to play a little Devil's Advocate here.. the wording of Law 11 is: "A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent." It doesnt say "if any part of him," just him. So when someone's foot is sticking into an offside position, can you really say that the player as a whole is beyond the second-last opponent? I wouldnt fault anyone for saying yes, but I say no because in other laws where a line is drawn, namely out-of-bounds laws, the whole ball has to be out. In my view, the spirit of the laws is to let play continue as uninterrupted as possible, with only very clear offenses causing stoppages in play- eg, the entire ball going out, not just some of it. I just cant agree with the claim that when someone's foot is offside, then the player as a whole is offside and has gained an unfair advantage by being there.

 

The second line of Law 11 reads: "A player is not in an offside position if ... he is level with the second-last opponent,..."

 

I would say that someone with every part of his body in line with the second last defender other than the lower half of his leg falls more under the second line, rather than the first. That being said, I would have no beef with anyone who thought the other way around. It was just such a close call!

 

I just considered his momentum - he was goalward bound and leaning onto that leg. If he was heading the other way, then it's a no brainer

 

I agree about 100% crossing the line (the ball) and no referee would ever not give a goal/throw/corner etc for a ball that is only 95% over the line. Seeing as we don't have the time or technology to dispute each instance (it would be absolute chaos), then you have to apply some common sense - something that a lot of referees seem to lack!

[Krieg1337]

In the Germany - Spain game, there was 1 foul that could have been the game changer. It was the one right before the box(Not on Oezil), and that was obviously a foul and should have resulted in a penalty. But hurray for crappy refs again. Germany needs to understand what passing to another teammate means.

[Silverfox]

In the Germany - Spain game, there was 1 foul that could have been the game changer. It was the one right before the box(Not on Oezil), and that was obviously a foul and should have resulted in a penalty. But hurray for crappy refs again. Germany needs to understand what passing to another teammate means.

 

It's harsh to blame the referee for everything though - we can sit at home and see a dozen replays and it is obvious; the referee can only see what he sees once and has to make an instant decision. It's a lot harder to keep control of a game than you might think, without stopping every few seconds.

 

You get some right, you get some wrong. The referee doesn't always decide the outcome of the game - Germany just ran out of ideas against a Spanish team that passed the ball better. The Germans had a few great chances to score and the Spanish should have had two more as well (the 2 v 1 attack on the counter; the open goal incident too).

 

Shame - as Germany have played much better over the whole tournament in my eyes - counts for nothing now though.

[Krieg1337]

I didn't mean it was all the refs fault, but that was a very important call . But like I said before and so did you, the passing was just terrible.

 

As for the person who said Spain deserves to win against Netherlands, no they don't. They didn't play any hard teams this World Cup(Germany doesn't count as a good team since they played terrible). Netherlands had it easy too, but they had to play against Brazil.

 

This World Cup was junk anyways. Seems like they got random people to be the refs in most of the games, also the fields were terrible half the time(The one game it was half grass, half dirt).

[Silverfox]

I didn't mean it was all the refs fault, but that was a very important call . But like I said before and so did you, the passing was just terrible.

 

As for the person who said Spain deserves to win against Netherlands, no they don't. They didn't play any hard teams this World Cup(Germany doesn't count as a good team since they played terrible). Netherlands had it easy too, but they had to play against Brazil.

 

This World Cup was junk anyways. Seems like they got random people to be the refs in most of the games, also the fields were terrible half the time(The one game it was half grass, half dirt).

 

 

Think there are good odds on Howard Webb (England) refereeing the final, and he has a decent track record. Let's hope to see England in the final ... !

[krazypoloc]

Think there are good odds on Howard Webb (England) refereeing the final, and he has a decent track record. Let's hope to see England in the final ... !

I would love to see Webb in the final......I watch most of the BCL games every year and he is by far the best.