should the rules be changed and instead of a penalty and a red card, just award a goal.
Ghana should have won - denied by a blatant peice of cheating...........a red card in the last minute isn't going to hurt them - letting a goal in would !!
[cite]Posted By: Folev the red[/cite]Didnt ghana cheat to get the free-kick? It hard to say there should be punishments for certain offences and not offers.
[cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]should the rules be changed and instead of a penalty and a red card, just award a goal.
Ghana should have won - denied by a blatant peice of cheating...........a red card in the last minute isn't going to hurt them - letting a goal in would !!
sorry, but how is that cheating ? He was punished for it as it was spotted by the officials. What Maradona done was cheating, ie he got away with it. Suarez didn't. If we want to be fair it came from a free kick that wasn't so in my opinion justice was actually done, or maybe not because Uruaguy suffered a sending off that they shouldn't. What was cheating was when the Ghana player tripped a Uruaguyan in the box and a penalty wasn't awarded. THAT was cheating.
don't forget Uruguay were denied a cast iron penalty earlier, so it is not so simple to say Ghana should've won just because their injustice was at the end of the game.
I guess there is a case for saying award the goal if someone handles the ball in the 6yd box to prevent a certain goal, but I think a penalty and red card is sufficient
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]What Maradona done was cheating, ie he got away with it.
So it's only cheating if you get away with it?
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]What was cheating was when the Ghana player tripped a Uruaguyan in the box and a penalty wasn't awarded. THAT was cheating.
So if it the penalty was awarded, that wouldn't have been cheating?
Just trying to clarify your comment.
Cheating for me comes down to whether an individual has an intent to break the rules to further their cause. IMHO if Suavez had instinctively handballed on the line then that would not have been cheating but if he made a split second decision to handle to ensure that there was no goal then that's what I would call cheating. I'm sure others have a varying opinion.
should get a 2 match ban in my opinion. cheating to keep their team in the game and then go on to win it should really have more of a punishment than missing the semi-final for me!
I'm glad that others on here are saying that Uruguay should have had a penalty. Going by the French commentators reaction I would have thought I was watching a different game.
Re: Suarez - of course it was a foul. Cheating? Isn't that trying to gain an unfair advantage unseen? If you do it blatantly is it really cheating or just a foul?
cheat / chēt/ • v. 1. [intr.] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: she always cheats at cards. ∎ [tr.] deceive or trick: he had cheated her out of everything she had. ∎ use inferior materials or methods unobtrusively in order to save time or money: they cheat by photographing mashed potatoes instead of ice cream. ∎ inf. be sexually unfaithful: his wife was cheating on him. 2. [tr.] avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill: she cheated death in a spectacular crash.
He took one for the team. He tried to cheat, got caught and got sent off. I only one who thought that the No. 10 from Ghana came back from an offside to head the ball just before the first goal line clearance.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]What Maradona done was cheating, ie he got away with it.
So it's only cheating if you get away with it?
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]What was cheating was when the Ghana player tripped a Uruaguyan in the box and a penalty wasn't awarded. THAT was cheating.
So if it the penalty was awarded, that wouldn't have been cheating?
Just trying to clarify your comment.
Cheating for me comes down to whether an individual has an intent to break the rules to further their cause. IMHO if Suavez had instinctively handballed on the line then that would not have been cheating but if he made a split second decision to handle to ensure that there was no goal then that's what I would call cheating. I'm sure others have a varying opinion.
yes, if the penalty had been awarded it wouldn't have been cheating, it would have just been a foul like any other in the game or are we saying that every foul is effectively cheating. Cheating is seeking to gain an advantage and getting away with it.
it was a teffific save,a bit unsporting but you do what you have to do in the last seconds of a huge game like this. if it was someone like chris powell doing it for us,well...
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]it was a teffific save,a bit unsporting but you do what you have to do in the last seconds of a huge game like this. if it was someone like chris powell doing it for us,well...
Bartlet did the same for us against Spurs (if any of us can remember back that far).
Dont remember calls for penalty goals or 2 match bans then.
Good game for the neutral, Uruaguy will not beat the Dutch nor would Ghana.
the rules of penalty shoot outs should be that everyone on the pitch at the final whistle has to take a pen.
that way the team that has a man sent off gets 10 pens against the opponents 11, therefore the punishment carries through the whole tie.
It is still cheating whether it is seen or not. Otherwise if you get caught cheating at cards it would no longer be cheating because you got caught. He gained an unfair advantage by handling the ball, i.e. a penalty instead of a goal and in one sense he did get away with it because Ghana missed.
That said, any player in the World Cup would have done exactly the same.
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]it was a teffific save,a bit unsporting but you do what you have to do in the last seconds of a huge game like this. if it was someone like chris powell doing it for us,well...
Bartlet did the same for us against Spurs (if any of us can remember back that far).
Dont remember calls for penalty goals or 2 match bans then.
Good game for the neutral, Uruaguy will not beat the Dutch nor would Ghana.
And most of us said that the Dutch wouldn't beat Brazil...
Comments
the real question is should you only get a 1 game ban for such blatent cheating
Suares makes Ronaldo look a saint in comparison with his diving
Yep.And Uraguay should have had a pen before that
Ball doesn't go over the line = no goal.
It's pretty simple really.
sorry, but how is that cheating ? He was punished for it as it was spotted by the officials. What Maradona done was cheating, ie he got away with it. Suarez didn't. If we want to be fair it came from a free kick that wasn't so in my opinion justice was actually done, or maybe not because Uruaguy suffered a sending off that they shouldn't. What was cheating was when the Ghana player tripped a Uruaguyan in the box and a penalty wasn't awarded. THAT was cheating.
I guess there is a case for saying award the goal if someone handles the ball in the 6yd box to prevent a certain goal, but I think a penalty and red card is sufficient
So it's only cheating if you get away with it?
So if it the penalty was awarded, that wouldn't have been cheating?
Just trying to clarify your comment.
Cheating for me comes down to whether an individual has an intent to break the rules to further their cause. IMHO if Suavez had instinctively handballed on the line then that would not have been cheating but if he made a split second decision to handle to ensure that there was no goal then that's what I would call cheating. I'm sure others have a varying opinion.
cheating to keep their team in the game and then go on to win it should really have more of a punishment than missing the semi-final for me!
Re: Suarez - of course it was a foul. Cheating? Isn't that trying to gain an unfair advantage unseen? If you do it blatantly is it really cheating or just a foul?
cheat / chēt/ • v. 1. [intr.] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: she always cheats at cards. ∎ [tr.] deceive or trick: he had cheated her out of everything she had. ∎ use inferior materials or methods unobtrusively in order to save time or money: they cheat by photographing mashed potatoes instead of ice cream. ∎ inf. be sexually unfaithful: his wife was cheating on him. 2. [tr.] avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill: she cheated death in a spectacular crash.
yes, if the penalty had been awarded it wouldn't have been cheating, it would have just been a foul like any other in the game or are we saying that every foul is effectively cheating. Cheating is seeking to gain an advantage and getting away with it.
Bartlet did the same for us against Spurs (if any of us can remember back that far).
Dont remember calls for penalty goals or 2 match bans then.
Good game for the neutral, Uruaguy will not beat the Dutch nor would Ghana.
that way the team that has a man sent off gets 10 pens against the opponents 11, therefore the punishment carries through the whole tie.
That said, any player in the World Cup would have done exactly the same.
And most of us said that the Dutch wouldn't beat Brazil...