Marcus2011
10 years ago
@tuanjin
It ruined the first game and it is destroying our fate in Fifa.
You still have fate in FIFA ? I must applause mate :)
{{ searchResult.errors[0] }}
Marcus2011
10 years ago
@tuanjin
It ruined the first game and it is destroying our fate in Fifa.
You still have fate in FIFA ? I must applause mate :)
tiki_taka
10 years ago
Edited
Claiming inexperience for a world cup oppener game ref is a poor explanation, if he is bad then why giving him a world cup oppener ?
I think the main reason why Blatter doesnt want The camera, its because of those things...
I hope conspiracy disappear in this World Cup, this is making me wanting Brazil to be eleminated as soon as possible, i dont think its an English conspiracy to win something, everything is about the future elections, people wants Blatter and Platini golden jobs, 2 asshole will leave and let another 2 assholes helped by media....
Neymar equaliser was World class.
Claiming inexperience for a world cup oppener game ref is a poor explanation, if he is bad then why giving him a world cup oppener ?
I think the main reason why Blatter doesnt want The camera, its because of those things...
I hope conspiracy disappear in this World Cup, this is making me wanting Brazil to be eleminated as soon as possible, i dont think its an English conspiracy to win something, everything is about the future elections, people wants Blatter and Platini golden jobs, 2 asshole will leave and let another 2 assholes helped by media....
tuan_jinn
10 years ago
@Marcus: figure of speech, mate... nobody has NO fate in Fifa not no more
KingHenry
10 years ago
@tiki don't worry kicking brazil out of the world cup is something we're very good at, as long as we're in the tournament brazil don't stand a chance.
about the ref, he's supposedly the best ref from the asia federation. Shit happens, he's just human, he failed this game. If he had video to help him, things wouldn't turn out this way. The culprit here is the FIFA who don't want to evolve. The referee here is a victim as much as the croatian team. Now he won't be given important games, for him it's like losing a game at the world cup.
expertfootball11
10 years ago
Just a joke: (no offense to japanese)
Why the referee does bad décisions? Cause he's japanese! xD
quikzyyy
10 years ago
In Mexico vs Cameroon it wasn't much better.
Lodatz
10 years ago
Edited
@shpalman:
"but in all this, did you notice who launched the frontal attack to Blatter? the english press, or more simply: England. perhaps they're tired of not winning at international level and they'd gladly see a shift in the power balances?"
It might have more to do with the fact that England seem to constantly get screwed by referee decisions, not that England just lose. Let's take a look at recent World Cup history, shall we? ;)
1998 - David Beckham is sent off for flicking his foot at Diego Simeone, something that no official saw, and which Simeone exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. It was only 'video replay' from the sides that revealed what had taken place. Now, while I do agree that Beckham was stupid, and the red card was a fair decision for his stupidity, the eagerness which FIFA hopped in to say: "Oh, let's use THIS footage in a decision", when they had steadfastedly refused it to consider doing it for any other problem from the past (like, say, 1986, with the Hand of God. But, perhaps that's going back too far, to be fair) was a little suspect, and pretty mean-spirited against the English. Oh, and then England got a goal disallowed in Extra Time, even though replays showed that it should have stood. And yet these same video replays which had been invoked to prove Beckham's guilt could apparently not be called upon to prove that England's goal should have stood, and won the game for them. Have a guess how well we took THAT. :p
2006 - Wayne Rooney is sent off for shoving Cristiano Ronaldo gently in disbelief, after Ronaldo charged up to the referee and waved an imaginary card in front of his face (and Rooney's) for a standard foul which the ref had no previous intention of giving a card for. Again, one can appreciate Rooney just not being smart enough to keep his cool, but it's easy to understand why he did, considering Ronaldo was supposedly one of his best friends, and team-mate, at Manchester United. Do you recall, Ronaldo even winked at the bench, as if to say: "told you we'd get him"? Again, mean-spiritedness against the English, all too gleefully, by another FIFA referee.
Meanwhile, Diego Costa gets not so much as a yellow for deliberately headbutting Bruno Martins, in 2014.
It's worth noting by this point that England has ALSO been knocked out by Portugal in the Euro 2004 two years earlier, with a disallowed goal in stoppage time (and having already lost Rooney since the 22nd minute for an injury after a Portugeuse challenge) which would have won them the game. As it ended, the game went to penalties. Those darned 'unlucky' English, eh? But wait, speaking of disallowed goals...
2010 - England had a crucial and legitimate goal disallowed against Germany; a shot from Lampard which had crossed a CLEAR yard over the line. Every single camera angle shows that the ball clearly crossed the line, and everyone from the coaches to the fans in Row Z could tell that it crossed the line. Everyone except the ref, however, it seems. Or the linesman. Or the 4th Official. But wait: what about using video replay, like in other cases where the ref has gotten something atrociously wrong, or needed to be informed of an incident? What about, even, goal-line technology? Well. That didn't happen. And Germany went on to score a couple more past an England who had been unfairly denied their goal to put them back on level terms and change the entire nature of the match.
But wait! In 2012, in the UEFA European Championships, after England were awarded a goal that replays show did not fully cross the goal-line, against Ukraine, suddenly Sepp Blatter himself comes out and declares that NOW we need to have video replays and goal-line technology as part of the decision-making process Apparently when ENGLAND squeaks in a dodgy goal, it's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. At once.
You know, the same way that people still harp on about 1966, with the ball not crossing the line. Back when it was in BLACK & WHITE, let alone capable of pulling out a video replay of ANY sort, during the match, as if that one single goal was evidence of a conspiracy, or a reason why England deserve bad karma, or whatever. It was a mistake by a ref, back in the days where even putting the match on television at all was a novelty. ;)
Alongside all the various times that English clubs have been knocked out of competitions after losing players or conceding goals thanks to some obvious dive, or simply awful refereeing decisions, with no hint from UEFA of using video replay or goal-line technology to help prevent these types of game-changing mistakes, I think the English can be forgiven for feeling a little targeted.
I don't believe there is any mass conspiracy against the English, but if one wishes to talk about why the English press might be the ones leading the charge about corruption and dodgy officials, it's because few nations have been screwed more, by dodgy officials than England... ;)
@shpalman:
"but in all this, did you notice who launched the frontal attack to Blatter? the english press, or more simply: England. perhaps they're tired of not winning at international level and they'd gladly see a shift in the power balances?"
It might have more to do with the fact that England seem to constantly get screwed by referee decisions, not that England just lose. Let's take a look at recent World Cup history, shall we? ;)
1998 - David Beckham is sent off for flicking his foot at Diego Simeone, something that no official saw, and which Simeone exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. It was only 'video replay' from the sides that revealed what had taken place. Now, while I do agree that Beckham was stupid, and the red card was a fair decision for his stupidity, the eagerness which FIFA hopped in to say: "Oh, let's use THIS footage in a decision", when they had steadfastedly refused it to consider doing it for any other problem from the past (like, say, 1986, with the Hand of God. But, perhaps that's going back too far, to be fair) was a little suspect, and pretty mean-spirited against the English.
2006 - Wayne Rooney is sent off for shoving Cristiano Ronaldo gently in disbelief, after Ronaldo charged up to the referee and waved an imaginary card in front of his face (and Rooney's) for a standard foul which the ref had no previous intention of giving a card for. Again, one can appreciate Rooney just not being smart enough to keep his cool, but it's easy to understand why he did, considering Ronaldo was supposedly one of his best friends, and team-mate, at Manchester United. Do you recall, Ronaldo even winked at the bench, as if to say: "told you we'd get him"? Again, mean-spiritedness against the English, all too gleefully, by another FIFA referee.
It's worth noting by this point that England has ALSO been knocked out by Portugal in the Euro 2004 two years earlier, with a disallowed goal in stoppage time (and having already lost Rooney since the 22nd minute for an injury after a Portugeuse challenge) which would have won them the game. As it ended, the game went to penalties. Those darned 'unlucky' English, eh? But wait, speaking of disallowed goals...
2010 - England had a crucial and legitimate goal disallowed against Germany; a shot from Lampard which had crossed a CLEAR yard over the line. Every single camera angle shows that the ball clearly crossed the line, and everyone from the coaches to the fans in Row Z could tell that it crossed the line. Everyone except the ref, however, it seems. Or the linesman. Or the 4th Official. But wait: what about using video replay, like in other cases where the ref has gotten something atrociously wrong, or needed to be informed of an incident? What about, even, goal-line technology? Well. That didn't happen. And Germany went on to score a couple more past an England who had been unfairly denied their goal to put them back on level terms and change the entire nature of the match.
But wait! In 2012, in the UEFA European Championships, after England were awarded a goal that replays show did not fully cross the goal-line, against Ukraine, suddenly Sepp Blatter himself comes out and declares that NOW we need to have video replays and goal-line technology as part of the decision-making process Apparently when ENGLAND squeaks in a dodgy goal, it's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. At once.
You know, the same way that people still harp on about 1966, with the disallowed goal. Back when it was in BLACK & WHITE, let alone capable of pulling out a video replay of ANY sort, during the match, as if that one single goal was evidence of a conspiracy, or a reason why England deserve bad karma, or whatever. ;)
Alongside all the various times that English clubs have been knocked out of competitions after losing players or conceding goals thanks to some obvious dive, or simply awful refereeing decisions, with no hint from UEFA of using video replay or goal-line technology to help prevent these types of game-changing mistakes, I think the English can be forgiven for feeling a little targeted.
I don't believe there is any mass conspiracy against the English, but if one wishes to talk about why the English press might be the ones leading the charge about corruption and dodgy officials, it's because few nations have been screwed more, by dodgy officials than England... ;)
@shpalman:
"but in all this, did you notice who launched the frontal attack to Blatter? the english press, or more simply: England. perhaps they're tired of not winning at international level and they'd gladly see a shift in the power balances?"
It might have more to do with the fact that England seem to constantly get screwed by referee decisions, not that England just lose. Let's take a look at recent World Cup history, shall we? ;)
1998 - David Beckham is sent off for flicking his foot at Diego Simeone, something that no official saw, and which Simeone exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. It was only 'video replay' from the sides that revealed what had taken place. Now, while I do agree that Beckham was stupid, and the red card was a fair decision for his stupidity, the eagerness which FIFA hopped in to say: "Oh, let's use THIS footage in a decision", when they had steadfastedly refused it to consider doing it for any other problem from the past (like, say, 1986, with the Hand of God. But, perhaps that's going back too far, to be fair) was a little suspect, and pretty mean-spirited against the English.
2006 - Wayne Rooney is sent off for shoving Cristiano Ronaldo gently in disbelief, after Ronaldo charged up to the referee and waved an imaginary card in front of his face (and Rooney's) for a standard foul which the ref had no previous intention of giving a card for. Again, one can appreciate Rooney just not being smart enough to keep his cool, but it's easy to understand why he did, considering Ronaldo was supposedly one of his best friends, and team-mate, at Manchester United. Do you recall, Ronaldo even winked at the bench, as if to say: "told you we'd get him"? Again, mean-spiritedness against the English, all too gleefully, by another FIFA referee.
It's worth noting by this point that England has ALSO been knocked out by Portugal in the Euro 2004 two years earlier, with a disallowed goal in stoppage time (and having already lost Rooney since the 22nd minute for an injury after a Portugeuse challenge) which would have won them the game. As it ended, the game went to penalties. Those darned 'unlucky' English, eh? But wait, speaking of disallowed goals...
2010 - England had a crucial and legitimate goal disallowed against Germany; a shot from Lampard which had crossed a CLEAR yard over the line. Every single camera angle shows that the ball clearly crossed the line, and everyone from the coaches to the fans in Row Z could tell that it crossed the line. Everyone except the ref, however, it seems. Or the linesman. Or the 4th Official. But wait: what about using video replay, like in other cases where the ref has gotten something atrociously wrong, or needed to be informed of an incident? What about, even, goal-line technology? Well. That didn't happen. And Germany went on to score a couple more past an England who had been unfairly denied their goal to put them back on level terms and change the entire nature of the match.
But wait! In 2012, in the UEFA European Championships, after England were awarded a goal that replays show did not fully cross the goal-line, against Ukraine, suddenly Sepp Blatter himself comes out and declares that NOW we need to have video replays and goal-line technology as part of the decision-making process Apparently when ENGLAND squeaks in a dodgy goal, it's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. At once.
You know, the same way that people still harp on about 1966, with the disallowed goal. Back when it was in BLACK & WHITE, let alone capable of pulling out a video replay of ANY sort, during the match, as if that one single goal was evidence of a conspiracy, or a reason why England deserve bad karma, or whatever. ;)
Alongside all the various times that English clubs have been knocked out of competitions after losing players or conceding goals thanks to some obvious dive, or simply awful refereeing decisions, with no hint from UEFA of using video replay or goal-line technology to help prevent these types of game-changing mistakes, I think the English can be forgiven for feeling a little targeted.
I don't believe there is any mass conspiracy against the English, but if one wishes to talk about why the English press might be the ones leading the charge about corruption and dodgy officials, it's because few nations have been screwed more, by dodgy officials than England... ;)
@shpalman:
"but in all this, did you notice who launched the frontal attack to Blatter? the english press, or more simply: England. perhaps they're tired of not winning at international level and they'd gladly see a shift in the power balances?"
It might have more to do with the fact that England seem to constantly get screwed by referee decisions, not that England just lose. Let's take a look at recent World Cup history, shall we? ;)
1998 - David Beckham is sent off for flicking his foot at Diego Simeone, something that no official saw, and which Simeone exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. It was only 'video replay' from the sides that revealed what had taken place. Now, while I do agree that Beckham was stupid, and the red card was a fair decision for his stupidity, the eagerness which FIFA hopped in to say: "Oh, let's use THIS footage in a decision", when they had steadfastedly refused it to consider doing it for any other problem from the past (like, say, 1986, with the Hand of God. But, perhaps that's going back too far, to be fair) was a little suspect, and pretty mean-spirited against the English.
2006 - Wayne Rooney is sent off for shoving Cristiano Ronaldo gently in disbelief, after Ronaldo charged up to the referee and waved an imaginary card in front of his face (and Rooney's) for a standard foul which the ref had no previous intention of giving a card for. Again, one can appreciate Rooney just not being smart enough to keep his cool, but it's easy to understand why he did, considering Ronaldo was supposedly one of his best friends, and team-mate, at Manchester United. Do you recall, Ronaldo even winked at the bench, as if to say: "told you we'd get him"? Again, mean-spiritedness against the English, all too gleefully, by another FIFA referee.
Meanwhile, Diego Costa gets not so much as a yellow for deliberately headbutting Bruno Martins, in 2014.
It's worth noting by this point that England has ALSO been knocked out by Portugal in the Euro 2004 two years earlier, with a disallowed goal in stoppage time (and having already lost Rooney since the 22nd minute for an injury after a Portugeuse challenge) which would have won them the game. As it ended, the game went to penalties. Those darned 'unlucky' English, eh? But wait, speaking of disallowed goals...
2010 - England had a crucial and legitimate goal disallowed against Germany; a shot from Lampard which had crossed a CLEAR yard over the line. Every single camera angle shows that the ball clearly crossed the line, and everyone from the coaches to the fans in Row Z could tell that it crossed the line. Everyone except the ref, however, it seems. Or the linesman. Or the 4th Official. But wait: what about using video replay, like in other cases where the ref has gotten something atrociously wrong, or needed to be informed of an incident? What about, even, goal-line technology? Well. That didn't happen. And Germany went on to score a couple more past an England who had been unfairly denied their goal to put them back on level terms and change the entire nature of the match.
But wait! In 2012, in the UEFA European Championships, after England were awarded a goal that replays show did not fully cross the goal-line, against Ukraine, suddenly Sepp Blatter himself comes out and declares that NOW we need to have video replays and goal-line technology as part of the decision-making process Apparently when ENGLAND squeaks in a dodgy goal, it's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. At once.
You know, the same way that people still harp on about 1966, with the disallowed goal. Back when it was in BLACK & WHITE, let alone capable of pulling out a video replay of ANY sort, during the match, as if that one single goal was evidence of a conspiracy, or a reason why England deserve bad karma, or whatever. ;)
Alongside all the various times that English clubs have been knocked out of competitions after losing players or conceding goals thanks to some obvious dive, or simply awful refereeing decisions, with no hint from UEFA of using video replay or goal-line technology to help prevent these types of game-changing mistakes, I think the English can be forgiven for feeling a little targeted.
I don't believe there is any mass conspiracy against the English, but if one wishes to talk about why the English press might be the ones leading the charge about corruption and dodgy officials, it's because few nations have been screwed more, by dodgy officials than England... ;)
Marcus2011
10 years ago
Edited
Lodatz +1 exactly !!!
Just wanted to add aside from England another conspiracy , I am still not over about Zidane's sending off in 2006 using video replay technologies . And Today Diego Costa gets away with similar headbutt . FIFA just loves to be selective .
P.s. I was not rooting for France but for the players : Zidane , VIera , Henry , Ribbery , Malouda and etc .
Lodatz +1 exactly !!!
Just wanted to add aside from England , I am still not over about Zidane's sending off in 2006 using video replay technologies . And Today Diego Costa gets away with similar headbutt . FIFA just loves to be selective .
Lodatz +1 exactly !!!
Just wanted to add aside from England another conspiracy , I am still not over about Zidane's sending off in 2006 using video replay technologies . And Today Diego Costa gets away with similar headbutt . FIFA just loves to be selective .
Tuanis
10 years ago
Nobody is going to say that the world cup is fixed until their nat. team gets the wrong call by the ref. Seriously, out of the 5 games Ive seen only 1 had decent refereeing. (Chile-Australia). The rest have had stupid mistakes. If the world cup has the best teams we expect to see the best referees as well...
It all comes to wether or not those referees who had a terrible job get the opportunity to referee next rounds or not...
Lodatz
10 years ago
Edited
^ In fairness, I think that it's tough to expect the highest caliber of refereeing when half of them come from much lower leagues than most of the players in the WC are used to playing in.
And yes, I say that even after the simply terrible job Howard Webb did with the last tournament's final.
It's still true that expecting refs from, say, the Swiss league, or the Colombian league to try and ref a match full of UEFA Champions League stars is not going to produce the best results.
^ In fairness, I think that it's tough to expect the highest caliber of refereeing when half of them come from much lower leagues than most of the players in the WC are used to playing in.
And yes, I say that even after the simply terrible job Howard Webb did with last year's final.
It's still true that expecting refs from, say, the Swiss league, or the Colombian league to try and ref a match full of CL stars is not going to produce the best results.
^ In fairness, I think that it's tough to expect the highest caliber of refereeing when half of them come from much lower leagues than most of the players in the WC are used to playing in.
And yes, I say that even after the simply terrible job Howard Webb did with last year's final.
It's still true that expecting refs from, say, the Swiss league, or the Colombian league to try and ref a match full of UEFA Champions League stars is not going to produce the best results.
Lodatz
10 years ago
@Marcus: I was rooting for France too, heavily. I really do believe Zizou deserved to lift the trophy again, after the tournament he had and to end his career upon, but ultimately he threw it away, and the cameras caught it. :(
I'm not condemning him. I think Materazzi was disgusting, and it's hard to take such provocation. But Zidane himself knows that he should not have done it, and his apology to France and to football in general was a mark of his class.
That's one instance I think it would be hard to say that the ref didn't do the right thing.
It's like Beckham, in 1998. You simply can't do that stuff, even if FIFA are notorious for being 'selective', as you say, in punishing it.
Wolfie
10 years ago
@shpalman- "a fixed WC might be nothing new, it happened already in '66*, '74*, '78 and 2002. "
So your theory is that every team that did well in the WC that hosted it was fixed?
There's only so far you can get in a competition by fixing games without making it completely obvious.
S.Korea though would have never got semi final in 2002. The decisions were hugely in Korea favour.
Also, Ronaldo collapsing before the 98 final was really suspicious. Great for conspiracy theorists.
The only way to make sure match fixing stops is to have Fifa under a magnifying glass. They need to be more transparent. A separate organisation should overlook their WC organisation. This should reduce the amount of corruption. Fifa has turned the World cup into a Monopoly. It's more about money than the game now sadly.
Dynastian98
10 years ago
@Wolfie
""a fixed WC might be nothing new, it happened already in '66*, '74*, '78 and 2002. ""
Just out of curiosity, which event in '74 are you referring to? I know '66 refers to Geoff Hurst's controversial goal in the final, but I can't remember anything for '74.
Wolfie
10 years ago
Aha.. you're back early. ;)
I was quoting shpalman.. I imagine he's talking about Fifa president 74-88 Joao Havelange claims that 66 and 74 were fixed... Was wondering if he was referring to something specific that I was not aware of..
shpalman
10 years ago
Edited
yep, those are not my theories, i posted a couple of links. all to be taken with a grain of salt, we can't deny that many controversial episodes happened tho'.
yep, those are not my theories, i posted a couple of links.
Lodatz
10 years ago
^ Well, to be fair, '78 was an outright fix in that the Argentinian government had threatened violence unless Argentina won the match, and 2002 was so blatantly terrible in Korea's favour, I think there are good reasons for you to bring them up.
But 1966 is a bit of a stretch. ;)
shpalman
10 years ago
quote article:
[...]England went on to win the 1966 World Cup, but not without help. In England's quarterfinal match against Argentina, German referee Rudolf Kreitlein red carded Argentinean captain Antonio Rattin for arguing a call. Rattin was so angered by this that British police were needed to escort him from the field. Shorthanded, Argentina fell 1-0 in what the country labeled "the robbery of the century." Lending more credence to Havelange's claim is the fact that West Germany beat Uruguay in the quarterfinals 4-0, thanks in part to English referee Jim Finney. Here, the English referee not only sent off a pair of Uruguayan players, but he overlooked a handstop by a German that would have given Uruguay a goal.[...]
Lodatz
10 years ago
Where's that article from?
Lodatz
10 years ago
Edited
Here's a take on that which seems likely:
Still contentious, still vaguely puzzling and still seen as no more than the silver medal controversy of England's winning run in 1966 (overshadowed by the brouhaha of Geoff Hurst's second goal in the final). The sending off of the Argentina captain Antonio Rattin during his team's quarter-final against England has since been woven into the sporting sub-plot of intercontinental rivalry. More simply, it was a baffling decision; and something of a mini-tragedy in that it robbed that tournament of what might have been one of its outstanding matches.
It was already a feisty game when, 35 minutes in, the German referee Rudolf Kreitlein abruptly ordered Rattin from the field for reasons that remain unclear. Kreitlein later pointed to "violence of the tongue", the implication being that Rattin, with whom he did not share a language, had been swearing at him (the language point is a little disingenuous: abuse is generally quite easy to pick up in any tongue). Kreitlein didn't help himself by later adding that he "did not like the look" on Rattin's face.
Certainly the look on Rattin's face as he leaves the field still makes for a compelling tableau: there he goes, looking back, cursing, clenching his fists, asking coaching staff for an interpreter to make his case, almost coming back on to the pitch at one point, and gently wiping his hands on a union flag pennant, drawing V-signs and straight-arm type gestures from the home crowd.
This was a tragedy for Rattin, but also a great shame for the tournament. The BBC commentary on the game describes him at the toss as "Antonio Rattin, one of the greatest players in the world". George Cohen later claimed Argentina were probably the best team England played at the tournament: "They were a very, very good technical side. If they hadn't resorted to all the physical stuff they might well have beaten us. We saw how good they were when we played them in 1964 [when England were beaten 1-0 in Brazil].
*"*And still nobody really knows what it was all about. Cohen suggested Rattin was sent off for "trying to run the game", specifically for opening up an abrasive player-ref dialogue that was, by all reports, quite alien in western European football culture at the time. Among English observers there is a prevailing truism that Argentina had played dirtily. The statistics suggest otherwise: Argentina committed 19 fouls to England's 33. Cohen, for his part, noted the opposition's mastery of "the snidey things, the spitting and pulling the short hairs on your neck, pulling your ear".
Rattin's view: "Both sides were giving as good as they got. We were not the size of Chinamen, we were big players, but England had some tough characters like Nobby Stiles. The sending-off should never have happened and it wouldn't have done if I could speak a word of German. All I wanted to do was talk to the referee, but the next thing I knew he was pointing off the pitch. 'Quiero a un interprete (I want an interpreter).' I must have said it 20 or 30 times, pointing to my armband."
Kreitlein pointed to the dressing rooms. Rattin lingered, infuriated, the match was decided by Geoff Hurst's second-half header, and a World Cup classic that might have been wasn't.
From: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/jul/02/joy-six-world-cup-refereeing-controversies
Not sure I'm buying the conspiracy part, on that one. ;)
Here's a take on that which seems likely:
Still contentious, still vaguely puzzling and still seen as no more than the silver medal controversy of England's winning run in 1966 (overshadowed by the brouhaha of Geoff Hurst's second goal in the final). The sending off of the Argentina captain Antonio Rattin during his team's quarter-final against England has since been woven into the sporting sub-plot of intercontinental rivalry. More simply, it was a baffling decision; and something of a mini-tragedy in that it robbed that tournament of what might have been one of its outstanding matches.
It was already a feisty game when, 35 minutes in, the German referee Rudolf Kreitlein abruptly ordered Rattin from the field for reasons that remain unclear. Kreitlein later pointed to "violence of the tongue", the implication being that Rattin, with whom he did not share a language, had been swearing at him (the language point is a little disingenuous: abuse is generally quite easy to pick up in any tongue). Kreitlein didn't help himself by later adding that he "did not like the look" on Rattin's face.
Certainly the look on Rattin's face as he leaves the field still makes for a compelling tableau: there he goes, looking back, cursing, clenching his fists, asking coaching staff for an interpreter to make his case, almost coming back on to the pitch at one point, and gently wiping his hands on a union flag pennant, drawing V-signs and straight-arm type gestures from the home crowd.
This was a tragedy for Rattin, but also a great shame for the tournament. The BBC commentary on the game describes him at the toss as "Antonio Rattin, one of the greatest players in the world". George Cohen later claimed Argentina were probably the best team England played at the tournament: "They were a very, very good technical side. If they hadn't resorted to all the physical stuff they might well have beaten us. We saw how good they were when we played them in 1964 [when England were beaten 1-0 in Brazil]."
And still nobody really knows what it was all about. Cohen suggested Rattin was sent off for "trying to run the game", specifically for opening up an abrasive player-ref dialogue that was, by all reports, quite alien in western European football culture at the time. Among English observers there is a prevailing truism that Argentina had played dirtily. The statistics suggest otherwise: Argentina committed 19 fouls to England's 33. Cohen, for his part, noted the opposition's mastery of "the snidey things, the spitting and pulling the short hairs on your neck, pulling your ear".
Rattin's view: "Both sides were giving as good as they got. We were not the size of Chinamen, we were big players, but England had some tough characters like Nobby Stiles. The sending-off should never have happened and it wouldn't have done if I could speak a word of German. All I wanted to do was talk to the referee, but the next thing I knew he was pointing off the pitch. 'Quiero a un interprete (I want an interpreter).' I must have said it 20 or 30 times, pointing to my armband."
Kreitlein pointed to the dressing rooms. Rattin lingered, infuriated, the match was decided by Geoff Hurst's second-half header, and a World Cup classic that might have been wasn't.
From: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/jul/02/joy-six-world-cup-refereeing-controversies
Here's a take on that which seems likely:
Still contentious, still vaguely puzzling and still seen as no more than the silver medal controversy of England's winning run in 1966 (overshadowed by the brouhaha of Geoff Hurst's second goal in the final). The sending off of the Argentina captain Antonio Rattin during his team's quarter-final against England has since been woven into the sporting sub-plot of intercontinental rivalry. More simply, it was a baffling decision; and something of a mini-tragedy in that it robbed that tournament of what might have been one of its outstanding matches.
It was already a feisty game when, 35 minutes in, the German referee Rudolf Kreitlein abruptly ordered Rattin from the field for reasons that remain unclear. Kreitlein later pointed to "violence of the tongue", the implication being that Rattin, with whom he did not share a language, had been swearing at him (the language point is a little disingenuous: abuse is generally quite easy to pick up in any tongue). Kreitlein didn't help himself by later adding that he "did not like the look" on Rattin's face.
Certainly the look on Rattin's face as he leaves the field still makes for a compelling tableau: there he goes, looking back, cursing, clenching his fists, asking coaching staff for an interpreter to make his case, almost coming back on to the pitch at one point, and gently wiping his hands on a union flag pennant, drawing V-signs and straight-arm type gestures from the home crowd.
This was a tragedy for Rattin, but also a great shame for the tournament. The BBC commentary on the game describes him at the toss as "Antonio Rattin, one of the greatest players in the world". George Cohen later claimed Argentina were probably the best team England played at the tournament: "They were a very, very good technical side. If they hadn't resorted to all the physical stuff they might well have beaten us. We saw how good they were when we played them in 1964 [when England were beaten 1-0 in Brazil].
*"*And still nobody really knows what it was all about. Cohen suggested Rattin was sent off for "trying to run the game", specifically for opening up an abrasive player-ref dialogue that was, by all reports, quite alien in western European football culture at the time. Among English observers there is a prevailing truism that Argentina had played dirtily. The statistics suggest otherwise: Argentina committed 19 fouls to England's 33. Cohen, for his part, noted the opposition's mastery of "the snidey things, the spitting and pulling the short hairs on your neck, pulling your ear".
Rattin's view: "Both sides were giving as good as they got. We were not the size of Chinamen, we were big players, but England had some tough characters like Nobby Stiles. The sending-off should never have happened and it wouldn't have done if I could speak a word of German. All I wanted to do was talk to the referee, but the next thing I knew he was pointing off the pitch. 'Quiero a un interprete (I want an interpreter).' I must have said it 20 or 30 times, pointing to my armband."
Kreitlein pointed to the dressing rooms. Rattin lingered, infuriated, the match was decided by Geoff Hurst's second-half header, and a World Cup classic that might have been wasn't.
From: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/jul/02/joy-six-world-cup-refereeing-controversies
Not sure I'm buying the conspiracy part, on that one. ;)
The Japanese refree has been good in first half, but suddently made mistakes only against one side until the 3rd goal. Well, fixing an oppener game can look impossible in our innocent eyes but here is the facts :
Fifa are in big troubles lately, the pressure of media on them made their reputation fall, and World Cup in Brazil is the best moment for them to make the world forget a little what hapened lately.
Brazilians lower classes protestations against World cup were divided between Football fanatics happy to host the competition despite the misery, and those who think they should get a proper education and health before hosting anything, with a Brazilian elemination from the group stage, even midle classes could go out in the streets and this could ruin the World cup.
Football in Brazil is a religion and being eleminated from group stages would kill the joy of the hosts and let them concentrating in protesting in a time all the World is watching them.
So yes, i believe nobody in Brazil government or Fifa would love to see a defeat or a draw in the first game, what is more strange imo is the way the ref handled the first half, absolutely wise and accurate.
So what happened at half time, to let him become the joke we watched in the second half ?
Here are the controversial actions only against one side :
The scandalous dive : I saw i was a dive from the first action without any replay.
Even after the dive and the disallowed goal, Croatia kept fighting at 2-1 and got 2 more odd decisions against them.
2 fouls whistled for Brasil who were originally Brasils fault, one of them is Lovren foul while it was an obstruction for Croatia and a foul near Brazils corner.
And this is my favourite controversial moment, after the disallowed goal the ref was whistling in only one side until this, no comment.
Oscar took the ball and you know the end.
At 3-1 the ref became the ref of first half whistling some useless FK ( 3-1 already ) at the end of the game and gave Gustavo a yellow.
A perfect remake of Spain-South Korea 2002, i feel sorry for Croatian players and fans, credit to them to keep fighting after the PK.
Nobody has the truth, and conspiracies look odd in innocent minds, but WE Football fans are getting fooled by politics even in our World cup games, the ref of the first half isnt the same ref of the second half, its impossible to have such a different refreing level before and after half time, its about 5 or 6 decisions but it was enough to decide the game and to give Brazil big chances to pass the group stages.
I dont think they will get other controversial actions on their side, but this, just this ruined competition in this group, i feel sad for Croatia and i hope they could have a second chance.
Brazil must finish first to avoid the first of group B probably Spain, so this game was a must win...
Really mixed feelings, bad taste at the end : Entertaining first half, fixed second half.
I also saw a comment of wolfie in the Highlights about this and got my +1, he just had the same feeling wich increased mine, im not the only fool having some doubts and its completely possible in this sad world, where few people thinks they are gods and influence everything in our life even sports results.
At least, it happened at an early stage, i believe Brazil used their Joker, another help could be risky buisness for them, a second help could be suspicious as hell so i dont think an intervention like this at half time would happen another time.
What is your thoughts ? Match fixing or Paranoia ?
The Japanese refree has been good in first half, but suddently made mistakes only against one side until the 3rd goal. Well, fixing an oppener game can look impossible in our innocent eyes but here is the facts :
Fifa are in big troubles lately, the pressure of media on them made their reputation fall, and World Cup in Brazil is the best moment for them to make the world forget a little what hapened lately.
Brazilians lower classes protestations against World cup were divided between Football fanatics happy to host the competition despite the misery, and those who think they should get a proper education and health before hosting anything, with a Brazilian elemination from the group stage, even midle classes could go out in the streets and this could ruin the World cup.
Football in Brazil is a religion and being eleminated from group stages would kill the joy of the hosts and let them concentrating in protesting in a time all the World is watching them.
So yes, i believe nobody in Brazil government or Fifa would love to see a defeat or a draw in the first game, what is more strange imo is the way the ref handled the first half, absolutely wise and accurate.
So what happened at half time, to let him become the joke we watched in the second time ?
Here are the controversial actions only against one side :
The scandalous dive : I saw i was a dive from the first action without any replay.
And this is my favourite, after the disallowed goal the ref was whistling in only one side until this, no comment.
Oscar took the ball and you know the end.
And i remember 2 fouls whistled for Brasil who were originally Brasils fault, one of them is Lovren foul while it was an obstruction for Croatia and a foul near Brazils corner.
A perfect remake of Spain-South Korea 2002, i feel sorry for Croatian players and fans, credit to them to keep fighting after the PK.
Nobody has the truth, and conspiracies look odd in innocent minds, but WE Football fans are getting fooled by politics even in our World cup games, the ref of the first half isnt the same ref of the second half, its impossible to have such a different refreing level before and after half time, its about 5 or 6 decisions but it was enough to decide the game and to give Brazil big chances to pass the group stages.
I dont think they will get other controversial actions on their side, but this, just this ruined competition in this group, i feel sad for Croatia and i hope they could have a second chance.
Brazil must finish first to avoid the first of group B probably Spain, so ths game was a must win...
Really mixed feelings, bad taste at the end : Entertaining first half, fixed second half.
I also saw a comment of wolfie in the Highlights about this and got my +1, he just had the same feeling wich increased mine, im not the only fool thinking this and its completely possible in this sad world, where few people thinks they are gods and influence everything in our life even sports results.
At least, it happened at an early stage, i believe Brazil used their Joker, another help could be risky buisness for them, just this one and im sure many got the same odd feelings...
What is your thoughts ? Match fixing or Paranoia ?