'Tragic' WC 2006 Win (1 Viewer)

[Omair]

So what is he goin to do ... pop a star in france's jersey and get one from italia's ...
IF he's really having a go on Italia ... then talk is cheap ...
but if it's only his opinion in PKs ... it's his opinion and he get's heard ... doesn't he ??

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[3pac]

USA style shootout anyone?

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

I'm for PKs. Just think about it, you fatass :groan:

Teams have equal quality in the game, they couldn't beat each other in 120 minutes, so the team with better mental preparation deserves the game then. IMO.

you mean luck.


consider if you may, this.

blatter - yeah its a shame we dont have a better system to solve a game of such high importance.
newspaper - blatter says: italy sucks and they whine too much. i wish fance had won.

 

[gray]

All of you people calling Blatter an idiot (Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him here) should read the article instead of reading one misleading sentence and assuming that he's got a problem with Italy. He didn't say that it was tragic that Italy won the World Cup; he said that a penalty shootout isn't a fitting way to decide a match.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

All of you people calling Blatter an idiot (Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him here) should read the article instead of reading one misleading sentence and assuming that he's got a problem with Italy. He didn't say that it was tragic that Italy won the World Cup; he said that a penalty shootout isn't a fitting way to decide a match.

i appreciate what you did, however this people understand it better the way i phrased

 

[ZhiXin]

All of you people calling Blatter an idiot (Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him here) should read the article instead of reading one misleading sentence and assuming that he's got a problem with Italy. He didn't say that it was tragic that Italy won the World Cup; he said that a penalty shootout isn't a fitting way to decide a match.

Misquotes and poor timing cause great misunderstanding.

And besides the problem is he isn't present in giving the World Cup 2006 to Italy, this lead people to have a bias against him. If not for his actions, people will not have come to such a conclusion.

 

[maxi]

Misquotes and poor timing cause great misunderstanding.

And besides the problem is he isn't present in giving the World Cup 2006 to Italy, this lead people to have a bias against him. If not for his actions, people will not have come to such a conclusion.

EH? What do you mean bias against him - the president of FIFA refused to present the trophy to the winning side because they beat his country. Who's biased did you say?!! What a load of wank. Anyone with half a nut can see this guy's a tosser. The word "tragic" is not a mis-quote - and it cant be interpreted in any other way. And yes, his actions in the final DO speak loudly and not too positively for him either.

This is not a question of the fairness of penalties. At the end of the day, this is the system in place. We had to put up with it when we lost and no one batted an eye-lid. Timing is everything particularly if you are supposed to be a diplomat for this sport, like that fat twat blatter. His comments could not be taken in any other way than an insult and sour grapes given the timing he chose to come out with it. OPEN YOUR EYES people. I maintain my opinion - the guy's a dick

 

[AngelaL]

EH? What do you mean bias against him - the president of FIFA refused to present the trophy to the winning side because they beat his country. Who's biased did you say?!! What a load of wank. Anyone with half a nut can see this guy's a tosser. The word "tragic" is not a mis-quote - and it cant be interpreted in any other way. And yes, his actions in the final DO speak loudly and not too positively for him either.

This is not a question of the fairness of penalties. At the end of the day, this is the system in place. We had to put up with it when we lost and no one batted an eye-lid. Timing is everything particularly if you are supposed to be a diplomat for this sport, like that fat twat blatter. His comments could not be taken in any other way than an insult and sour grapes given the timing he chose to come out with it. OPEN YOUR EYES people. I maintain my opinion - the guy's a dick

Blatter is a prize prat, & if there were such a thing as a golden prat award, he would win it hands down! The guy went on about PKs purely because it was Italy that won on PKs. Hasn't he been upsetting other countries' football associations too? I don't know how old he is, but perhaps he's going senile.

 

[Bjerknes]

so how do games get decided ?

There are other options... but deciding on that isn't the point right now. Blatter just stated he does not like penalty shootouts deciding World Cup Finals. Who does really? Oh, except those who actually won the Cup on penalties and profited from it..

I Wonder how many people here were blasting the shootout after we lost to Milan in 2003... I'm sure there are quite a few hypocrites around these parts.

 

[sateeh]

There are other options... but deciding on that isn't the point right now. Blatter just stated he does not like penalty shootouts deciding World Cup Finals. Who does really? Oh, except those who actually won the Cup on penalties and profited from it..

I Wonder how many people here were blasting the shootout after we lost to Milan in 2003... I'm sure there are quite a few hypocrites around these parts.

well its a harsh way to go, but wats another option that wouldn't change the factors of the game.
I would like to see him suggest a better option.Cause a replay is just ridicolous.

Anyway i remember that Blatter said last that he didnt want any games to end in a draw!

So well Mr.Blatter keep em coming!

 

[Bjerknes]

well its a harsh way to go, but wats another option that wouldn't change the factors of the game.
I would like to see him suggest a better option.Cause a replay is just ridicolous.

Anyway i remember that Blatter said last that he didnt want any games to end in a draw!

So well Mr.Blatter keep em coming!

If it was me I would experiment with this system for resolving a draw after 90 minutes:

During the Extra-time periods, allow a certain number of substitutions per period. So in other words, once extra-time is needed to resolve the match, allow free but regulated substitutions to occur. Once extra-time starts, any player still on the pitch would be allowed to be subbed out and re-enter upon the closure of the first overtime period (plus second or third etc). So basically we have a system in which teams can have free substitutions during each break between overtime periods. However, a substitution can only take place DURING an Extra-time period (say, like 98 minutes on the clock) because of an apparent injury.

What does this do to the game? Well, it eliminates the barbaric penalty shootout and allows the players who reside on the bench a potential opportunity to play due to the starters becoming too tired. This not only eliminates the shootout, but also TESTS the benches of each team, which consequently TESTS the team as a whole (because the more subs you make the more unity and experiance it takes to win a match, obviously, in theory).

Now I know this system sort of breaches the way the game has been played for years, however it's surely better than penalty shootouts. It would of course prolong the actual deadlocked matches itself, but it's certainly more fair of a method for resolving them. It's certainly more "team" oriented, which, afterall, is what this sport lives upon..

 

[gray]

Andy, what if neither team manages to score for an indefinite period of time?

As much as I don't like the penalty shootout, it seems to be the only practical solution, because it forces a winner in a relatively short period of time (spare the extremely rare case where both teams continuously score or miss their penalties in tandem).

These "extra time" solutions with varying substitution/removing a player from the pitch sound ok in theory, but in practice it would likely lead to some ridiculous situations where matches just become plain boring because the audience is waiting for a goal to be scored.

Andy, your idea sounds okay, but then again who wants to see a World Cup Final degenerate into a France B's vs. Italy B's contest? Not I...

 

[swag]

USA style shootout anyone?

Meaning: with semi-automatic weapons?!

 

[swag]

Andy, what if neither team manages to score for an indefinite period of time?

As much as I don't like the penalty shootout, it seems to be the only practical solution, because it forces a winner in a relatively short period of time (spare the extremely rare case where both teams continuously score or miss their penalties in tandem).

These "extra time" solutions with varying substitution/removing a player from the pitch sound ok in theory, but in practice it would likely lead to some ridiculous situations where matches just become plain boring because the audience is waiting for a goal to be scored.

Andy, your idea sounds okay, but then again who wants to see a World Cup Final degenerate into a France B's vs. Italy B's contest? Not I...

I think that's a red herring, Graham. If you're in the final of the WC, it's not like you're worried about the players over-extending themselves for the next match -- for one. There are other sports like baseball and hockey that, while they may have more scoring, can still have extensively long matches and yet seem far more fair than the coin toss of a PK shootout.

I like where Andy is headed in letting the bench decide the match more if the starters cannot. Seems much more fair and far more relevant to the strength of each side. One possible addition I might add is the idea of reducing the number of players too. Granted, fewer players not only means fewer behind the ball defensively but fewer in attack. But it could open the game up in cases where two sides are deadlocked in overtly defensive play in Graham's nightmare scenario.

 

[sateeh]

in this modern age, where tv has a big impact on the game then u cant just leave a program running for a long time.There is supposed to be a specific time frame.

penalty kicks provide a practical and exciting option, and if teams dont like then they should push forward in the game and either lose or win.
Germany in the world cup showed that penalty kicks is easier than most ppl think, by scouting the other teams and they had the upper hand.

 

[swag]

in this modern age, where tv has a big impact on the game then u cant just leave a program running for a long time.There is supposed to be a specific time frame.

If there's supposed to be a specific timeframe, why bother with another 30 minutes of extra time then?

This is about deciding a championship -- not determining when the turkey is done in the oven.

 

[Falafel]

Meaning: with semi-automatic weapons?!

 

[AngelaL]

USA style shootout anyone?

Meaning: with semi-automatic weapons?!

I don't hate international teams that much. Now if it were against inter........

 

[Anverch]

u know what i hate about this, when i read it, that that a-hole didnt say anything in 94 when italy lost, cuz brazil is more popular, F blatter or what ever his name is, late Platini be the president of FIFA

 

[Oggy]

Let's all face the fact that penalties is only logical way to finish the game. It's the way of how football is played for century, and now we have one person who find's that as a barbaric way of winning the penalties...

It is the same Blatter who said he woluld never allow using video replays in the game (like in Hockey), now I think it's more unfair when you score a clear goal and refferee disalows it, than loosing a match on penalties...

If he want to make changes in football, then let's make a revolution, you can't only change rules you don't like it...