I love Ray Hudson. Listen to him describe this goal (a great folha seca from Ronaldo):
Nice dive too at the beginning.
Not a dive, a late tackle that hits the player and not the ball. And considering it was the 3rd time that player did it, then it’s deserving of a card.
But I guess in the eyes of a hockey player, where apparently that kind of hit is not only legal, but encouraged, then it’s a dive.
Tell us why you think it is a dive, and not a foul? In soccer, not hockey.
His mind must have gone blank because he mentions the Big Unit at the end. Randy Johnson was known for a fastball more than a curveball but the announcer still knows his baseball.
His mind is often blank, which is what makes him such a great commentator to listen to.
Mixed metaphors, yelling and screaming in an unintelligible accent, and sometimes talking about a completely different game other than the one being played.
Search for “Ray Hudson” on YouTube for some examples. He spotted Tom Cruise at a Madrid game and made a comment about him feinting if he smelled a jock strap, then insulted some tennis players.
[quote=“MiG”]Not a dive, a late tackle that hitshttp://hackingthemainframe.com/foru … 6&p=168890 the player and not the ball. And considering it was the 3rd time that player did it, then it’s deserving of a card.
But I guess in the eyes of a hockey player, where apparently that kind of hit is not only legal, but encouraged, then it’s a dive.
Tell us why you think it is a dive, and not a foul? In soccer, not hockey.[/quote]
Come on MiG, this was too easy! One little worm on a hook and, wow, what a strike! Ad hominem and everything. This is so funny! Not much bait fish out in Terrace.
It’s so friggin obvious that it is not a dive. There was not even a small attempt to get to the ball. This was a full tackle that I think would be borderline red card. The best thing about the whole thing is that Ronaldo got up, calmly looked at the guy then scored this beautiful goal. No rolling on the ground, no crying, just sweet cold revenge in the form of a goal. Poetic justice at its best. Ronaldo showed maturity and, after such poise, I don’t think I’ll ever call him a diver again.
By the way, in hockey, going for the leg like this will yield suspensions. Check out Ovechkin’s knee on knee which yielded a 2 games suspension last season.
Stick that big thumb up your…
Man, you hooked me.
Considering that he’s spent such a significant part of his career on the injured list (and usually due to some other player’s actions), Ronaldo is right to be pissed off everytime someone hits him and not the ball. Last week’s game in Gijon saw him taken down harshly more than a dozen times.
His reaction to every single one was to jump up and dare the defender to take him on. Great attitude, especially in enemy territory. He really turned the crowd’s energy against them!
Contrast with this awesome tackle, where the kid was obviously hurt, but it was perfectly legal. He’ll hesitate next time he comes up against a Portuguese defender!
It’s a problem the referees need to keep an eye on, and not just for Ronaldo. Take a look at this:
owngoal.ca/2010/09/ujfalusi-injures-messi-again/
Same defender, same game, literally a year apart. Same move, and he definitely intended to injure. Messi was lucky the first time, not so lucky the second time.
When these guys stay down, it’s because they’re in pain. There’s no advantage to be gained from pretending to be hurt – refs (in club football anyway!) make their decisions immediately, not based on how badly someone is hurt.
Meanwhile, I see that France beat England last week! Thanks in part to Karim Benzema. Guess which club he plays for?
And Portugal beat Spain 4-0. Guess Casillas isn’t so hot when his star defenders are playing for the other side!
[quote=“MiG”]Stick that big thumb up your…
Man, you hooked me.
[/quote]
Thank you. Applause please!
[quote=“MiG”]
And Portugal beat Spain 4-0. Guess Casillas isn’t so hot when his star defenders are playing for the other side![/quote]
Did Spain have the same crew as in South Africa? How about Ramos? Was he there?
You win this time…
goal.com/en-us/match/54163/p … ain/report
and
soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=306980&cc=5901
Yes. The big difference was obviously home advantage for Portugal, and refs that were obsessive with calling offside.
You’ll recall that David Villa scored the only goal against Portugal in the entire World Cup tournament – David Villa lives on the offside line. In a recent match, he recorded a 14 offside calls.
Anyway, that kind of refereeing is a two-way street, as Ronaldo’s goal was also ruled offside, even though it crossed the goal line before Nani touched it:
Nani later apologized for taking away what would definitely been a highlight of Ronaldo’s career.
All right MiG. Explain this to me. I’m not arguing but I am just a little confused by a certain aspect of the offside rule. I thought that I understood the rule fairly well up until our discussion this summer when I looked into it a little more closely on this site: fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html
After carefully watching all the animations, I am pretty confident that my understanding before was very good except for one part.
To me, Nani, in the video you posted, is offside and so the official’s decision is correct. However, there is something in the rules about “interfering with play” that is a little confusing. I attached a still of the animation to show what I mean. In the animation, the player who is in an offside position jumps over the ball as it goes towards the net. The animation doesn’t call the play offside because he isn’t interfering with play, so the goal would be good. Now to go back to Nani, he was in an offside position but did he interfere with play? I don’t think so since they would have credited Ronaldo with the goal. So what is the difference between these two situations?
Ok, a couple of things:
- Offside – when it’s too close to call, don’t raise the flag. That’s usually the rule that the assistants go by.
So is Nani offside when the ball is kicked? I don’t think he is, or at worst it’s too close to call:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76069/offside1.jpg
See how Piqué is laying down to the left of Ronaldo? That’s the guy who you should be measuring against. Since he’s on the ground, it makes it harder for an assistant to make the call.
Then…
- Being offside isn’t necessary a foul, unless you are:
a. “Interfering with play” – ie: touching the ball.
b. “Interfering with an opponent” – ie: obstructing or distracting an opponent.
c. “Gaining an advantage” by being offside – ie: getting into a position for a rebound.
So, the ref could make an argument with either the second or third one there. But I don’t think he was offside anyway.
But whatever… Ronaldo’s over it already. Scored a hat-trick on Saturday, and leads the league in goals. Not bad for a player that’s not a striker.
And whatever, the only goal scored on Portugal during the world cup was offside. We’re over it.
You are right. Nani seems to be onside if we look at Piqué’s position. So it was a bad call just for that.
But assume that Piqué is not there, and that Nani is in the same spot. Should the ref call the play offside or should the goal stand? My understanding from the image I posted is that the goal stands (contrary to what I though for many years). But I’m not so sure that referees always make that call. I don’t watch enough soccer to confirm this but you do.
Yeah, if Pique isn’t on the ground, and Nani is offside and doesn’t touch the ball at all, then there shouldn’t be a call.
But if he gets a rebound, then he’s used his position to gain advantage, so there should be an offside called.
I know why the referees were being offside zealots during the game, though. That video and the photos of David Villa being offside during the world cup are burned in the minds of everyone in Portugal. Portuguese people tend to spit after they say “David Villa.”
He meant breaking ball!