Two matches played at the World Cup, two atrocious refereeing teams officiating them already.
What a disappointing world cup this could be for the teams who are going to get the short end of their sticks!...
Three goals were cancelled in this match, Mexico - Cameroon (1-0), and only one has been cancelled correctly. (The one rightly called off was, of course, the Cameroonian goal in minute 16.)
But the Mexicans scored twice in the first half, once in minute 13 and then again in minute 30, both of which should have stood.
I guess, however, that we could not have a win by more goals than the brazil win, in the first match... That would have meant that Brazil would not have topped the group at that point, and what a blow that would have been to the Brazilian expectations!...
(Yeah, the whole world should bow to Brazilian needs and expectations! Particularly when they have spent more than 11 billion dollars on this World Cup!...)
And the thanks go to: Colombian referee Wilmar Roldan, Colombian assistants Humberto Clavijo and Eduardo Diaz, and fourth official Norbert Hauata, from Tahiti.
Getting back to the actual played match, Mexico was the superior team, and they did end up winning in the end, thanks to a 61st-minute Oribe Peralta goal.
So, it didn't end in a tie, which would have been best for Brazil, but at least the Mexican win was only by one goal.
Oh, right!... -- ...And is nobody wondering why at this damn World Cup all the matches are scheduled to start between 13:00 and 19:00 Brasilia official time (with one 22:00 exception), with most matches starting between 13:00 and 17:00, including and up to the final?
They did install light fixtures at these stadia, did they not?
Or maybe they just have nocturnal illumination at the Arena Pernambuco, in Recife??!?...
Why such start times? Well, if I had to guess:
It ain't to help Europeans watch the matches, which would, if scheduled later, take place in the middle of the night, by European times!...
It's probably, the way I see it, because most high-level matches in Europe are being played in way cooler conditions, and generally at night, and the Brazilian organizing committee, with FIFA's approval, must be dying to make conditions as hard as possible for European teams at this World Cup.
(Good thing, for them, that Sweden, Norway, and play-off hopefuls Iceland, did not make it to play in these barbaric conditions! - Just making light of the situation, here, but, really, the whole thing is not too funny at all for the good of football, in general, and for European teams in particular, at this WC.)
Yup, it's looking to be a very good World Cup... if you're a Brazilian supporter.
Highlights from Mexico - Cameroon:
Showing posts with label FIFA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FIFA. Show all posts
Friday, 13 June 2014
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Not the Start You Would Want
It's just the first day of the World Cup, only one match has been played, and Brazil has already been helped by outside forces to win a match.
And I'm not talking about supporters.
It's exactly what I, and probably quite a few other people, are afraid of, concerning this World Cup: The Brazilians want to win so bad that they would probably stop at nothing to get this trophy, too.
...And we all know how honest FIFA members can be.
Anyway, Japanese referee Yuichi Nishimura, assistants Toru Sagara and Toshiyuki Nagi, and fourth official Alireza Faghani, have all contributed in various degrees to a disgraceful 3 points for Brazil here, and a reasonably disappointing start for unlucky Croatia. A Croatian side which, after being lucky enough to just squeeze through the European qualifiers, as the second-placed team to reach the playoffs with the least points, and following a best possible subsequent draw, which had them face Iceland, saw their luck run out in December, when they were drawn to play the overly-ambitious hosts first at World Cup 2014.
But Croatia started well enough, and surprised the Brazilian defense after only 10 minutes, when a quick attack of theirs fooled Marcelo into a late reaction that did no better than promptly deflecting the ball into his own net.
Brazil tied the match relatively quickly, 19 minutes later, after physical gameplay during which the referees, of course, would always try their best to generally only penalize the European outsiders for most rough challenges, letting the hosts impose their dominance more easily.
However, half-time came and passed, and then 20-something more minutes of the second half passed too, and the teams were still tied at 1-1. That could not be, right? The Brazilians were getting anxiously worried.
Enter fred the actor, who got the referee to award a penalty that would have never been given for any other team at this World Cup. Or anywhere else, as a matter of fact, where there is no cheating. Consider, if you will, if the same interaction between the Croatian player and the Brazilian player had happened anywhere else on the pitch, or if it the situation was reversed and a Croatian forward had been touched so lightly in the Brazilian penalty area. Would it have been a penalty against Brazil? (No need for me to answer this explicitly.)
The penalty was converted, so no divine luck there for Croatia, either.
But there is more, sadly. With only a few minutes left to play, that is in minute 84, the Croatians were also disallowed a seemingly-good equalizer. Their players were furious, but what are you gonna do? Playing in a World Cup, in Brazil? You just can't spoil the party!...
(Read more about the play-by-play on the UK Telegraph website.)
With such winds in their sails, no wonder Brazil went on to get a third, too, in injury time.
The saddest thing, in the long run, may be that people are going to forget, and they are going to forgive. They might say brazil was entitled to win anyway, which in my opinion - using that as an argument in favour of letting their outside help slide - is a terrible thing to do.
If Brazil keeps doing this at this World Cup, they surely will push aside anyone trying to challenge them for the title. But that's not what the sport is about. Big teams should not get favouritism from officials, in order to win even when they screw up.
Highlights:
And I'm not talking about supporters.
It's exactly what I, and probably quite a few other people, are afraid of, concerning this World Cup: The Brazilians want to win so bad that they would probably stop at nothing to get this trophy, too.
...And we all know how honest FIFA members can be.
Anyway, Japanese referee Yuichi Nishimura, assistants Toru Sagara and Toshiyuki Nagi, and fourth official Alireza Faghani, have all contributed in various degrees to a disgraceful 3 points for Brazil here, and a reasonably disappointing start for unlucky Croatia. A Croatian side which, after being lucky enough to just squeeze through the European qualifiers, as the second-placed team to reach the playoffs with the least points, and following a best possible subsequent draw, which had them face Iceland, saw their luck run out in December, when they were drawn to play the overly-ambitious hosts first at World Cup 2014.
But Croatia started well enough, and surprised the Brazilian defense after only 10 minutes, when a quick attack of theirs fooled Marcelo into a late reaction that did no better than promptly deflecting the ball into his own net.
Brazil tied the match relatively quickly, 19 minutes later, after physical gameplay during which the referees, of course, would always try their best to generally only penalize the European outsiders for most rough challenges, letting the hosts impose their dominance more easily.
However, half-time came and passed, and then 20-something more minutes of the second half passed too, and the teams were still tied at 1-1. That could not be, right? The Brazilians were getting anxiously worried.
Enter fred the actor, who got the referee to award a penalty that would have never been given for any other team at this World Cup. Or anywhere else, as a matter of fact, where there is no cheating. Consider, if you will, if the same interaction between the Croatian player and the Brazilian player had happened anywhere else on the pitch, or if it the situation was reversed and a Croatian forward had been touched so lightly in the Brazilian penalty area. Would it have been a penalty against Brazil? (No need for me to answer this explicitly.)
The penalty was converted, so no divine luck there for Croatia, either.
But there is more, sadly. With only a few minutes left to play, that is in minute 84, the Croatians were also disallowed a seemingly-good equalizer. Their players were furious, but what are you gonna do? Playing in a World Cup, in Brazil? You just can't spoil the party!...
(Read more about the play-by-play on the UK Telegraph website.)
With such winds in their sails, no wonder Brazil went on to get a third, too, in injury time.
The saddest thing, in the long run, may be that people are going to forget, and they are going to forgive. They might say brazil was entitled to win anyway, which in my opinion - using that as an argument in favour of letting their outside help slide - is a terrible thing to do.
If Brazil keeps doing this at this World Cup, they surely will push aside anyone trying to challenge them for the title. But that's not what the sport is about. Big teams should not get favouritism from officials, in order to win even when they screw up.
Highlights:
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
How the Mighty Have Fallen
France looked very good, after beating the hosts, Ukraine, in a very decisive manner on the second matchday. And, knowing that they looked better than the English, on the first matchday, too, most people would have probably bet on Blanc's team to win the group.
But Ibrahimovic and his Swedes begged to differ.
In the other match, England was assured of going through with a draw or better. Ukraine needed a win.
All France had to do to advance was not lose by more than one goal. So, they were assured of progressing even with a loss by just one goal, no matter what happened anywhere else!
Sweden, of course, could not finish higher than fourth!
But Sweden really did show up to play for pride, and I guess that's their best incentive.
The best chance of the first half belonged to the Swedes, and came after roughly ten minutes. Toivonen rounded Lloris, after escaping on goal, and sent the ball towards the empty net from an acute angle, but his shot hit the post.
In the other match, Ukraine was pressing England. In the first 15 minutes, or so, Ukraine had 7 goal-scoring opportunities, England had zero.
There were no goals before half-time, in either of the two matches.
And then, 3 minutes after kick-off in the second half, one large defensive error by the Ukrainians, especially goalkeeper Pyatov, allowed the ball to bounce perfectly towards the far post where an unmarked Rooney had only to nudge the ball into the empty net, in characteristic Manchester-United fashion. (Let's admit it, we see quite a few Man.-U. goals like that.)
England was winning the group. And the Ukraine players were seeing their dream slip away.
Roughly ten minutes into the second half, Sweden scored, too. Ibrahimovic was the goalscorer, naturally. And this one was, and probably will be, the goal of the tournament. The Milan striker put the ball past Lloris with a wonderful volley, side-scissor-kick-like, from the edge of the French penalty area.
It wasn't as spectacular as some of the goals Marco van Basten used to score, but it certainly reminded older viewers of those amazing efforts by the Dutch forward.
France was still guaranteed a place in the quarter-finals at this score, though.
Going back to the match in Donetsk, Ukraine should have had their equalizer right after the hour-mark. Ukraine substitute Devic managed to kick the ball strongly enough to make it still go in even after Joe Hart's intervention, but Terry ran after it and saved right on the line.
Or did he?
Replays would show that the ball was actually inside the goal by a (small but reasonable) distance.
The goal was not awarded to Ukraine, though, for reasons unknown. (Maybe it was to compensate England for the refereeing error that helped eliminate them from World Cup 2010, because otherwise it's ridiculous that the entire stadium sees the goal but the referees and it's the referees' dumb decision that stands.)
What we do know is that these organizations, FIFA and UEFA, continue to defend their inability to guarantee 100%-correct refereeing, and continue to protect these inept referees too much.
I, for one, believe the referees who make a bad decision that influence a match that much should be punished by not being able to be a referee again (and make money from such a job) for a very long period of time, such as five years. And that should be for the first offense, mind you. Doing it a second time should be automatic lifetime ban from ever being an official referee again. That would teach them for playing God (or devil) with decisions that could hurt millions of people when they go wrong.
Anyway, though, despite the late introduction of injured Shevchenko, and despite playing better than England, Ukraine could not even get one point in Donetsk.
What a bad stadium and a bad city for Ukraine! Maybe they should have continued to play in the Ukrainian-speaking part of their country.
England, on the other hand, said "thank you very much" and won the group.
Yes, they won the group, because France lost.
But Sweden ended up winning 2-0, not just 1-0.
They had many chances of making it 2-0, but only in minute 90' + 1' did they finally succeed. Larsson was the one who thundered the ball into the French net after Holmen made the French defensive line dizzy with an effort that rebounded off the bar to Larsson.
Thus, the French were humbled.
In these conditions, it's interesting to note that, even if Ukraine had managed to turn around the result to 2-1, from 0-1, in injury time, considering the French loss by two goals, England would have still stayed in the competition. If the scores were 2-1 for Ukraine and 2-0 for Sweden, France would have gone home.
But, with the English win, despite the hard defeat, France still advances. They will have to play Spain now, though.
And England is going to play Italy, on Sunday, in Kyiv.
If they had finished second, hmm, the English would have stayed in Donetsk, for their quarter-final match, too. (But yeah, their team base-camp is in Krakow, so I guess it wouldn't have really helped them that much. And, speaking of team base-camps, another interesting fact is that the French will now play their quarter-final match in Donetsk, and their base-camp just happens to be in... Donetsk! Yes, where they won against Ukraine, their best match of the tournament. Hmm, again, one might say. Could that be a good sign for them?)
Highlights from England - Ukraine 1-0:
England Ukraine by anastasio7
Highlights from Sweden - France 2-0:
Sweden France by anastasio7
Oh, and, by the way, by "the Mighty" (that "Have Fallen"), I do mean the French, of course.
The English themselves admitted to having low expectations.
But Ibrahimovic and his Swedes begged to differ.
In the other match, England was assured of going through with a draw or better. Ukraine needed a win.
All France had to do to advance was not lose by more than one goal. So, they were assured of progressing even with a loss by just one goal, no matter what happened anywhere else!
Sweden, of course, could not finish higher than fourth!
But Sweden really did show up to play for pride, and I guess that's their best incentive.
The best chance of the first half belonged to the Swedes, and came after roughly ten minutes. Toivonen rounded Lloris, after escaping on goal, and sent the ball towards the empty net from an acute angle, but his shot hit the post.
In the other match, Ukraine was pressing England. In the first 15 minutes, or so, Ukraine had 7 goal-scoring opportunities, England had zero.
There were no goals before half-time, in either of the two matches.
And then, 3 minutes after kick-off in the second half, one large defensive error by the Ukrainians, especially goalkeeper Pyatov, allowed the ball to bounce perfectly towards the far post where an unmarked Rooney had only to nudge the ball into the empty net, in characteristic Manchester-United fashion. (Let's admit it, we see quite a few Man.-U. goals like that.)
England was winning the group. And the Ukraine players were seeing their dream slip away.
Roughly ten minutes into the second half, Sweden scored, too. Ibrahimovic was the goalscorer, naturally. And this one was, and probably will be, the goal of the tournament. The Milan striker put the ball past Lloris with a wonderful volley, side-scissor-kick-like, from the edge of the French penalty area.
It wasn't as spectacular as some of the goals Marco van Basten used to score, but it certainly reminded older viewers of those amazing efforts by the Dutch forward.
France was still guaranteed a place in the quarter-finals at this score, though.
Going back to the match in Donetsk, Ukraine should have had their equalizer right after the hour-mark. Ukraine substitute Devic managed to kick the ball strongly enough to make it still go in even after Joe Hart's intervention, but Terry ran after it and saved right on the line.
Or did he?
Replays would show that the ball was actually inside the goal by a (small but reasonable) distance.
The goal was not awarded to Ukraine, though, for reasons unknown. (Maybe it was to compensate England for the refereeing error that helped eliminate them from World Cup 2010, because otherwise it's ridiculous that the entire stadium sees the goal but the referees and it's the referees' dumb decision that stands.)
What we do know is that these organizations, FIFA and UEFA, continue to defend their inability to guarantee 100%-correct refereeing, and continue to protect these inept referees too much.
I, for one, believe the referees who make a bad decision that influence a match that much should be punished by not being able to be a referee again (and make money from such a job) for a very long period of time, such as five years. And that should be for the first offense, mind you. Doing it a second time should be automatic lifetime ban from ever being an official referee again. That would teach them for playing God (or devil) with decisions that could hurt millions of people when they go wrong.
Anyway, though, despite the late introduction of injured Shevchenko, and despite playing better than England, Ukraine could not even get one point in Donetsk.
What a bad stadium and a bad city for Ukraine! Maybe they should have continued to play in the Ukrainian-speaking part of their country.
England, on the other hand, said "thank you very much" and won the group.
Yes, they won the group, because France lost.
But Sweden ended up winning 2-0, not just 1-0.
They had many chances of making it 2-0, but only in minute 90' + 1' did they finally succeed. Larsson was the one who thundered the ball into the French net after Holmen made the French defensive line dizzy with an effort that rebounded off the bar to Larsson.
Thus, the French were humbled.
In these conditions, it's interesting to note that, even if Ukraine had managed to turn around the result to 2-1, from 0-1, in injury time, considering the French loss by two goals, England would have still stayed in the competition. If the scores were 2-1 for Ukraine and 2-0 for Sweden, France would have gone home.
But, with the English win, despite the hard defeat, France still advances. They will have to play Spain now, though.
And England is going to play Italy, on Sunday, in Kyiv.
If they had finished second, hmm, the English would have stayed in Donetsk, for their quarter-final match, too. (But yeah, their team base-camp is in Krakow, so I guess it wouldn't have really helped them that much. And, speaking of team base-camps, another interesting fact is that the French will now play their quarter-final match in Donetsk, and their base-camp just happens to be in... Donetsk! Yes, where they won against Ukraine, their best match of the tournament. Hmm, again, one might say. Could that be a good sign for them?)
Highlights from England - Ukraine 1-0:
England Ukraine by anastasio7
Highlights from Sweden - France 2-0:
Sweden France by anastasio7
Oh, and, by the way, by "the Mighty" (that "Have Fallen"), I do mean the French, of course.
The English themselves admitted to having low expectations.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Last Minute, Again!
Inter Milan is out of the Champions League. (Ha, ha!) And they had a lucky draw, in facing Marseille.
They've been eliminated by a team that hasn't won in the French league for six matches (and hasn't gained a point in the French league for four matches).
And, to tell you the truth, I think they would have also been eliminated by Lyon, or Bayer Leverkusen, or Basel, all teams that have also shamefully left the competition.
So, does this not make anybody wonder how in the world they did what they did in 2010?
They pretty much have the same players, still...
Is Mourinho that good?
No, he's not. (That was a rhetorical question, yes.)
Clearly, moratti spent a lot of money in those seasons.
But on what? That's the question.
Maybe referee De Bleeckere and his colleagues (who officiated Barcelona - inter 1-0, where a perfectly good goal, that would have seen Barca through to the final, was cancelled, in error) and FIFA/UEFA might know more.
For now, though, all hail Brandao!
Once more, yet another team shows inter Milan isn't worth squat.
Oh, and I liked how Marseille scored again, just as the game was about to end, like in the first leg. Brandao made it 1-1, following a Diego Milito (- Blecch! This guy, again? -) goal (75), just when the second minute of the three indicated by the fourth referee was about to elapse.
Immediately after, Pazzini got a penalty kick, that saw Mandanda, the man of the match in my opinion (not only because he saved 2-3 big opportunities for Inter, but because he also was instrumental with an assist for Brandao's goal), eliminated. But, even though Pazzini scored the PK, the game was over immediately afterwards. Cool!
What happened to moratti's money? Has it all been eaten up by that CL campaign, two years ago?
(If it has, though, that's good... for Italian, and even world, football.)
Highlights:
Inter Milan vs Olympique Marseille (2:1) by larrsson
They've been eliminated by a team that hasn't won in the French league for six matches (and hasn't gained a point in the French league for four matches).
And, to tell you the truth, I think they would have also been eliminated by Lyon, or Bayer Leverkusen, or Basel, all teams that have also shamefully left the competition.
So, does this not make anybody wonder how in the world they did what they did in 2010?
They pretty much have the same players, still...
Is Mourinho that good?
No, he's not. (That was a rhetorical question, yes.)
Clearly, moratti spent a lot of money in those seasons.
But on what? That's the question.
Maybe referee De Bleeckere and his colleagues (who officiated Barcelona - inter 1-0, where a perfectly good goal, that would have seen Barca through to the final, was cancelled, in error) and FIFA/UEFA might know more.
For now, though, all hail Brandao!
Once more, yet another team shows inter Milan isn't worth squat.
Oh, and I liked how Marseille scored again, just as the game was about to end, like in the first leg. Brandao made it 1-1, following a Diego Milito (- Blecch! This guy, again? -) goal (75), just when the second minute of the three indicated by the fourth referee was about to elapse.
Immediately after, Pazzini got a penalty kick, that saw Mandanda, the man of the match in my opinion (not only because he saved 2-3 big opportunities for Inter, but because he also was instrumental with an assist for Brandao's goal), eliminated. But, even though Pazzini scored the PK, the game was over immediately afterwards. Cool!
What happened to moratti's money? Has it all been eaten up by that CL campaign, two years ago?
(If it has, though, that's good... for Italian, and even world, football.)
Highlights:
Inter Milan vs Olympique Marseille (2:1) by larrsson
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
The Hypocrisy of Big Football Businesses
I was just looking on the FIFA website, to check out the CAF rankings. With the African Cup of Nations taking place, I was wondering if Zambia was ranked higher than Libya. (They had ended their game in the second matchday of the competition in a tie, 2-2. And it turns out that Zambia is below Libya in the FIFA standings.)
But here's what of interest here: It's not the FIFA rankings, but the FIFA/Coca-Cola rankings. What the hell does Coca-Cola have to do with football? (Just money, I guess...)
So, I suppose when somebody tries to share a video, for free, on YouTube, their video gets blocked because it's FIFA content and only FIFA can put their name on it.
But when they get a ton of money, FIFA can allow a company that has nothing to do with football to plaster their name all over one of the most important facets of international football today, the world rankings. Amazing! And laughable.
What a bunch of money-sucking hypocrites!
But here's what of interest here: It's not the FIFA rankings, but the FIFA/Coca-Cola rankings. What the hell does Coca-Cola have to do with football? (Just money, I guess...)
So, I suppose when somebody tries to share a video, for free, on YouTube, their video gets blocked because it's FIFA content and only FIFA can put their name on it.
But when they get a ton of money, FIFA can allow a company that has nothing to do with football to plaster their name all over one of the most important facets of international football today, the world rankings. Amazing! And laughable.
What a bunch of money-sucking hypocrites!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)