2014 World Cup Thread

FIFA sure took a bite out of Uruguay's World Cup prospects …

It wasn't a deliberate foul (contact was almost certainly incidental) but its still a foul. The rules say that physical contact on a challenge is permitted but is ruled an offence "only when an opponent is adversely affected". You can make an attempt to take the ball away from an opponent by however means you want, but you can't physically alter the attempted movement of your opponent while doing so.

Apologies, but having refereed for 10 years, there is no way thats a foul.

I don't see a foul. Is there a different angle that shows contact?

So countries like Spain, Japan, Italy, Ghana, and Portugal are strong teams but among the lowest on the list and they are all out.

Yeah I don't get it.

Looks like the Americas are pussies. And the English spending more time on the ground than the Italians:lol:

I don't see a foul. Is there a different angle that shows contact?

From the slomo below, the defender obstructs Samaras' kicking motion by inserting his leg. Hence a trip I would think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnxO-rtj25E

Good angle. That's a foul.

From the slomo below, the defender obstructs Samaras' kicking motion by inserting his leg. Hence a trip I would think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnxO-rtj25E

Good angle. That's a foul.

Still not a foul. Again, having refereed for a long time, thats still a poor decision.

Samaras was impeaded in taking a clear shot on goal. It was done by the defender clipping him when the defender was not playing the ball and Samaras was about to shoot. This was illegal contact that wasn't intentional nor extraordinary, but it did provide the defender an unfair advantage. As such, it is a foul.

This is like a shot that goes off a defenders arm in the box. The defender may not have attempted to impede the ball with their arm, but they did and it gives them an unfair advantage.

switch , i'd suggest it was intentional or at the very least done with the intention of preventing samaras' good clean strike at the ball .

either way : foul .

i watched it live , and in the game replay it looked like the guy tripped on his own foot .

rain', with all due respect . . . this was soccer you were reffing :lol: and not hockey ?

switch , i'd suggest it was intentional or at the very least done with the intention of preventing samaras' good clean strike at the ball .

Intent doesn't matter. The CI player was not challenging for the ball and his action "adversely and unfairly affected" his opponent. So its a foul. Its in the rulebook.

Chile lost to Brazil today, but played what was surely one of their best games of the World cup. Hats off to Chile.

That was a close one alright. I hate when it goes to penalties. Chile should be proud about coming so close to slaying the hosts. The Uruguayans will be slaying Suarez now. Surely they could have used him vs. Colombia.

That was a squeaker for the Dutch!!