WORLD CUP 2006 / GERMANY

[couw]

Italy hasn't seen much opposition in the tournament yet. The Aussies have and may have the edge on the Italians in this game. BUT a lot depends on the ref (again): Australia is known to play a more physical game, which I think is okay as long as you can put up with some yourself -- and they certainly can. The Italians are the Diving Kings, specialised in provoking free kicks just outside the penalty area (like Totti managed against the USA) and specialised in looking innocent (the Argentinians are better at the latter -- which reminds me: can someone invent a scrambler that keeps Maradonna off my tv screen?). A childish ref will be a disadvantage to Australia as we already saw in their match against Brasil where their midfield efforts were blown off time and again by a finicky ref.

[king ubu]

... The Italians are the Diving Kings...

There was that test game they played against the Swiss, just before the world cup started - there was that one marvellous scene, where an itallin dived, his face performing at least a whole Verdi-opera, but in the middle of it he stopped to check if the ref was watching him, and then on it went...

They should get cards for doing that, too!

[Alexander Hawkins]

Just been announced that Totti is not starting for Italy this afternoon - Del Piero instead. I wonder how this will go down in Italy?

[Alexander Hawkins]

Italy hasn't seen much opposition in the tournament yet. The Aussies have and may have the edge on the Italians in this game. BUT a lot depends on the ref (again): Australia is known to play a more physical game, which I think is okay as long as you can put up with some yourself -- and they certainly can. The Italians are the Diving Kings, specialised in provoking free kicks just outside the penalty area (like Totti managed against the USA) and specialised in looking innocent (the Argentinians are better at the latter -- which reminds me: can someone invent a scrambler that keeps Maradonna off my tv screen?). A childish ref will be a disadvantage to Australia as we already saw in their match against Brasil where their midfield efforts were blown off time and again by a finicky ref.

Agree with your assessment. Potentially a great game, although I suspect the Italians will simply have too much for the Aussies (it looks like Kewell's out as well - we just saw him on TV arriving at the ground on crutches).

[Alexander Hawkins]

Ah...first sending off of the afternoon . Materazzi, far too harshly, IMHO.

[couw]

of course this game HAD to end in a theatre.

sheesh.

[J.A.W.]

of course this game HAD to end in a theatre.

sheesh.

A dramatic end to another very disappointing game. That penalty kick that won Italy the game was very harsh in my opinion.

[porcy62]

Yeah! A great Shakespeare's tragedy... for the soccerros.

And Totti is a great number 10.

[Brad]

Just when you think the refereeing can't get any worse, you find that it can. On the Spanish station, they were referring to the award of the penalty as a complete theft.

As I was watching this match, I was thinking how many quality teams have we seen in this Cup? Very few: Germany, Argentina, Brasil (in the last match) and probably Spain (not based on the Saudi match, however, although in fairness they were resting some players). Overall, a disappointing Cup so far.

Edited June 26, 2006 by Brad

[J.A.W.]

Just when you think the refereeing can't get any worse, you find that it can. On the Spanish station, they were referring to the award of the penalty as a complete theft.

Having watched a few repeats: a totally incorrect decision by the referee. Theft indeed.

[J.A.W.]

As I was watching this match, I was thinking how many quality teams have we seen in this Cup? Very few: Germany, Argentina, Brasil (in the last match) and probably Spain (not based on the Saudi match, however, although in fairness they were resting some players). Overall, a disappointing Cup so far.

The quality of football in several World Cup tournaments in the last two decades was disappointing in my opinion. Maybe our expectations are too high...

Edited June 26, 2006 by J.A.W.

[couw]

Just when you think the refereeing can't get any worse, you find that it can. On the Spanish station, they were referring to the award of the penalty as a complete theft.

Having watched a few repeats: a totally incorrect decision by the referee. Theft indeed.

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

Surely the ref could have NOT given this PK and I doubt even the Italians would have been very surprised.

NOW, IF FIFA would finally try and seriously get a grip on all the diving and flight lessons, they should introduce a rule that FORBIDS a player to seek a foul. It's one thing to foul your opponent, but in my opinion it's much less fair to run into your opponent and then claim a foul. FIFA is all brouhah about the health of players coming first, but often enough players put their own health at stake in order to gain a little or -- more often -- to put their opponent to disadvantage.

As it is now, the old adagio: The best ref is the ref that you don't notice, does not apply in the least to this tournament.

[Alexander Hawkins]

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

This nails it for my money. Soft, soft penalty, but possibly not incorrectly given. In any case, 'I've seen them given', as they say.

[Jim R]

Just when you think the refereeing can't get any worse, you find that it can. On the Spanish station, they were referring to the award of the penalty as a complete theft.

Having watched a few repeats: a totally incorrect decision by the referee. Theft indeed.

Compounded by the fact that it occured with the clock expiring. A gift to the Italians, and what a GIFT it was. Let the players decide the outcome of the game. Our commentators were observing that Australia should have pushed the pace after Italy had gone down to 10 (btw... I agree with Red- the organissimo member, not the card!). I tend to agree. Italy were already creating the better chances on goal, even with 10 players. Why not go at them hard, the way they had against Japan?

I'm thankful that most of this game was relatively clean and controversy-free. I was expecting twice as many cards. Even Materazzi didn't complain about the bad decision against him... just walked off, and Italy didn't seem to get chippy about it. That was somewhat of a relief, after the Portugal/Holland debacle.

I thought Gattuso was terrible in terms of ruining several promising Italian attacks. Very good defender... very poor attacker (at least in this match).

Once again, I benefit from the U.S. tv coverage... we get to hear Giorgio Chinaglia lecture us after the match ("definitely a penalty kick").

[J.A.W.]

Just when you think the refereeing can't get any worse, you find that it can. On the Spanish station, they were referring to the award of the penalty as a complete theft.

Having watched a few repeats: a totally incorrect decision by the referee. Theft indeed.

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

Surely the ref could have NOT given this PK and I doubt even the Italians would have been very surprised.

What should the defender have done then? Try not to drop to the ground, or what? In my view it wasn't the defender's fault, and the ref shouldn't have given the penalty kick.

[Jim R]

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

This nails it for my money. Soft, soft penalty, but possibly not incorrectly given. In any case, 'I've seen them given', as they say.

I was going to mention the foolishness of O'Neill (?) going into a slide in that situation. And I agree, the door was left open for the ref to award the PK. I just think a better ref would have swallowed his whistle.

[Jim R]

Just when you think the refereeing can't get any worse, you find that it can. On the Spanish station, they were referring to the award of the penalty as a complete theft.

Having watched a few repeats: a totally incorrect decision by the referee. Theft indeed.

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

Surely the ref could have NOT given this PK and I doubt even the Italians would have been very surprised.

What should the defender have done then? Try not to drop to the ground, or what? In my view it wasn't the defender's fault, and the ref shouldn't have given the penalty kick.

It's just that O'Neill was asking for trouble, imo. If he doesn't do that, Italy may still score, but not as easily as they did with a PK.

[J.A.W.]

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

This nails it for my money. Soft, soft penalty, but possibly not incorrectly given. In any case, 'I've seen them given', as they say.

I was going to mention the foolishness of O'Neill (?) going into a slide in that situation. And I agree, the door was left open for the ref to award the PK. I just think a better ref would have swallowed his whistle.

Sorry, I disagree. Going into a slide was probably the only thing he could do. Otherwise, he'd have let the Italian go, surely with equally disastrous results. Taking the risk of getting a penalty kick against you in the situation he was in always leaves the door ajar.

Edited June 26, 2006 by J.A.W.

[Jim R]

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

This nails it for my money. Soft, soft penalty, but possibly not incorrectly given. In any case, 'I've seen them given', as they say.

I was going to mention the foolishness of O'Neill (?) going into a slide in that situation. And I agree, the door was left open for the ref to award the PK. I just think a better ref would have swallowed his whistle.

Sorry, I disagree. Going into a slide was probably the only thing he could do. Otherwise, he'd have let the Italian go, surely with equally disastrous results.

"Surely"? I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion. I'm not sure it would even have been a 1 v 1 with the keeper, and from that angle I'm not even sure he'd have had a shot.

[J.A.W.]

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

This nails it for my money. Soft, soft penalty, but possibly not incorrectly given. In any case, 'I've seen them given', as they say.

I was going to mention the foolishness of O'Neill (?) going into a slide in that situation. And I agree, the door was left open for the ref to award the PK. I just think a better ref would have swallowed his whistle.

Sorry, I disagree. Going into a slide was probably the only thing he could do. Otherwise, he'd have let the Italian go, surely with equally disastrous results.

"Surely"? I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion. I'm not sure it would even have been a 1 v 1 with the keeper, and from that angle I'm not even sure he'd have had a shot.

I said "surely" because Italians usually make the most of situations like that. I guess I should have said "most likely' or something like it.

Edited June 26, 2006 by J.A.W.

[Jim R]

Well, "most likely" would have been better for Australia than Totti at the spot.

[couw]

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

This nails it for my money. Soft, soft penalty, but possibly not incorrectly given. In any case, 'I've seen them given', as they say.

I was going to mention the foolishness of O'Neill (?) going into a slide in that situation. And I agree, the door was left open for the ref to award the PK. I just think a better ref would have swallowed his whistle.

Sorry, I disagree. Going into a slide was probably the only thing he could do.

not so. He could have remained standing. Really, he went down too early.

[J.A.W.]

Well, "most likely" would have been better for Australia than Totti at the spot.

Just watched another repeat. It was not a penalty, just a "beautiful" dive by the Italian.

Edited June 26, 2006 by J.A.W.

[Jim R]

Still, for me the ref is the one who we should be shaking our heads at. In a game of that magnitude, to give a gift like that with no time left...

[J.A.W.]

I am not so sure. That was very stupid of the Australian defender to drop to the ground in front of the Italian, who then continued to trip over him. OF COURSE he could have jumped, but there is no rule that says he MUST. So when he doesn't he trips and when he trips, it's a foul. Foul = PK.

This nails it for my money. Soft, soft penalty, but possibly not incorrectly given. In any case, 'I've seen them given', as they say.

I was going to mention the foolishness of O'Neill (?) going into a slide in that situation. And I agree, the door was left open for the ref to award the PK. I just think a better ref would have swallowed his whistle.

Sorry, I disagree. Going into a slide was probably the only thing he could do.

not so. He could have remained standing. Really, he went down too early.

Hmm, I probably got my wrong glasses on. Seriously, I don't agree

Edited June 26, 2006 by J.A.W.