I now have respect for AFL umpires and y afl is the best sport in the world!

[MadMac]

Haha, way to go overboard dude. So, people are trailer trash if they don't like soccer? I see the correlation....

One thing is not liking the sport, but hoping your own country to lose is completely different. I traveled a lot and lived in 4 countries and I must say I have never seen that attitude anywhere in the world.

But then again, you're a WCE fan so I didn't expect you to understand the difference anyway.

 

[Barkly St End]

One thing is not liking the sport, but hoping your own country to lose is completely different. I traveled a lot and lived in 4 countries and I must say I have never seen that attitude anywhere in the world.

But then again, you're a WCE fan so I didn't expect you to understand the difference anyway.

But there is one undeniable fact: it's just soccer.

 

[PIES 4 LIFE]

the kewel thing was fair enough even if it wasnt intentional is was illegal and stopped a goal. but in general they were pathetic, that studs up challenge was a red every day of the week. i to have a new found appreciation for how well our umpires do and how little effect on a game they really have.

Little effect on our game you got to be joking don't you.
All it takes is one stupid decision, to change the momentum in our game.
Plus the obvious bias to particular players in our game, whether it be free kicks not paid to them, or tribunal decisions.
So don't get on your high horseand somehow think our game is perfect, we are far from it. You only have to look as far as last years Grand Final, the ball that hit the post being called a goal.

 

[PIES 4 LIFE]

Agree with the OP. Refs in soccer can have a much bigger impact on the game than in AFL.

Kaka's red card - absolutely laughable. The Ivory Coast player runs into him then pretends he has been hit in the face. Kaka gets sent off (second yellow) and misses the next game. Imagine the uproar on here if that happened in the AFL. See vid below.

[YOUTUBE]IMdCxML0MA0[/YOUTUBE]

USA's disallowed goal - absolute howler. Ref awards a yellow for something he imagined, cancelling the goal, and at the same time misses two fouls against US players which would of led to penalties anyway.

Italy's penalty goal against NZ - diving of the highest order.

Can't believe how often the Refs in soccer get sucked in by all the diving. No wonder its so prevalent. If you're going to get rewarded players will keep doing it.

About as often as our umpires get sucked in by the dives of an injured St.kilda Full Forward

 

[MadMac]

But there is one undeniable fact: it's just soccer.

You just don't get it, do ya? It doesn't matter what sport it is. I don't really like golf and personally don't know what the fuss is all about, however I'm happy when Aussie golfer wins a tournament. As big a d*ckhead as Lleyton Hewitt is, I'd still rather see him win a match than any other foreign player.

But hey, each to their own.

 

[phantom13]

Little effect on our game you got to be joking don't you.
All it takes is one stupid decision, to change the momentum in our game.
Plus the obvious bias to particular players in our game, whether it be free kicks not paid to them, or tribunal decisions.
So don't get on your high horseand somehow think our game is perfect, we are far from it. You only have to look as far as last years Grand Final, the ball that hit the post being called a goal.

No mate, the Kewell decision affected the Ghana game alot more than the Hawkins decision... I have already stated i dont know if the Kewell red card was a wrong decision, i dont know enough about soccer, but it had far more influence, in a game where two goals were scored and only 10 players on the pitch (instead of 11) with hardly any substitions for 90 minutes, one decision makes far more of an impact than one in a game with 21 goals with 18 players with probably 100+ interchanges for 120 minutes.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

You just don't get it, do ya? It doesn't matter what sport it is. I don't really like golf and personally don't know what the fuss is all about, however I'm happy when Aussie golfer wins a tournament. As big a d*ckhead as Lleyton Hewitt is, I'd still rather see him win a match than any other foreign player.

But hey, each to their own.

As much as I agree with most of what you posted there - i have to disagree on Hewitt or others of that ilk.

If he's playing for Australia in Davis Cup - i'll support him - otherwise i don't.

 

[Roby]

are you quite sure 26 billion watched?

26'288'753,000.

i disagree.

If there's doubt, the linesman must give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.

He could only have called offside if it was clear that the ball had touched an nz head, and no way would that have been clear to him.

As i said, smeltz was actually in an onside position as the free kick was taken.

You disagree with the official rules, noted.

 

[Barkly St End]

26'288'753,000.



You disagree with the official rules, noted.

For your own education, no need to thank me.

Check this site out:
http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm

Scroll down to 2003, and you will read this pronouncement from UEFA, and I quote:

At the UEFA’s Referees' Committee held on Saturday 20 December 2003, the following general conclusions and recommendations were made.

Attention is drawn to the following decisions made at the third UEFA seminar for international Assistant Referees for the benefit of international football in Europe by adopting a standard approach in the performances of Assistant Referees.

Offside

1. It was noted again that there had been no changes in the offside law for the season 2003/04, nor any extra IFAB or FIFA directives.
2. If an assistant referee is not totally sure about an offside offence the flag should not be raised (i.e. in case of doubt benefit must be given to the attacking team).
​

I thought that somewhere along the line this interpretation has also been accepted by FIFA - but I might be wrong there - although it seems odd that a major confederation like UEFA would have a different interpretation to the rest of the world - that doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Great 2008]

This must be one of the best threads I have read since joining BF. Full of passion and strong opinion. For every WC controversy detailed, people excerise their opinion.

It means one thing; you have watched the game in some capacity whether it be live, on radio, news reports or internet updates. The next televison broadcasting rights bid for AFL matches is rumoured to reach $1 billion dollars. Now imagine this taking into account advertising revenue for the World Cup world wide.....the revenue must be staggering.


We only need to look at the influence of the media in fixturing AFL matches to realise how much influence the media hold over the AFL.

Translate this to the WC. It would make sense that clubs with a high television audience would regularly feature in the final 16 and they usually do.

The potential for corruption is enormous.

 

[Moose5000]

Association Football is only the world game becasue of the prevanence of poor nothern englanders in the british merchant navy. In countries where it was the elite of english society that had the most influence (British Colonies) the oval ball game ruled and the games that evolved from it. It's sad the worst of the games was the one that was passed around the world by uncouth nothern english seamen.

I watched the Carlton North game a few Friday ago and then switched over to CIV v POR. I saw Christiano "the gelled tumbler" Ronaldo fall over and get a free kick and two minutes later an coté d'ivory player get brushed on the shoulder and go down holding his head. I turned off and went to bed.

The reward for feigning is so great that the rules encourage it. Ban a dive and a fake for six months after a video review. And they can donate there pay for that period to charity.

 

[Barkly St End]

The reward for feigning is so great that the rules encourage it. Ban a dive and a fake for six months after a video review. And they can donate there pay for that period to charity.

It is worthwhile reviewing the philosophical foundations of the great Australian game:

1. Always keep your eye on the footy, come what may;
2. Get your head over that footy, regardless of the consequences;
3. Run straight at the footy, regardless of what's in the way;
4. if you get hit, no matter how much pain you feel, get straight up and look for the footy; and most importantly
5. always, I repeat always, put your team well ahead of your own personal safety.

These central tenets are in stark contrast to those of soccer:

1. It always pays to go to ground first oportunity (and most certainly before your opponent does);
2. stay there till you know what the ref is going to do;
3. stay down anyway;
4. you are far more important than the team; and
5. if in doubt, repeat steps 1 to 3.

 

[rooboy]

26'288'753,000.



You disagree with the official rules, noted.

That 's a remarkable figure Roby, considering the World's population is approx 6.6 billion. And you have 26 billion watching soccer. Remarkable.

 

[Redb#]

It appears the great James Hird agrees with the general thrust of the OP's sentiment.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/who-dares-wins/story-e6frf9jf-1225883985521

" It got me thinking two things - firstly, that if a soccer referee had umpired last year's Grand Final, he would have finished the game on his own such was the brutal nature of the physical contest.

And, secondly, that in football we don't punish one mistake with the loss of a game, as they do in soccer."

 

[Barkly St End]

I like this line from Sir James:

The reason I love AFL above soccer is that he who dares normally wins.

 

[Roby]

For your own education, no need to thank me.

Check this site out:
http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm

Scroll down to 2003, and you will read this pronouncement from UEFA, and I quote:

At the UEFA’s Referees' Committee held on Saturday 20 December 2003, the following general conclusions and recommendations were made.

Attention is drawn to the following decisions made at the third UEFA seminar for international Assistant Referees for the benefit of international football in Europe by adopting a standard approach in the performances of Assistant Referees.

Offside

1. It was noted again that there had been no changes in the offside law for the season 2003/04, nor any extra IFAB or FIFA directives.
2. If an assistant referee is not totally sure about an offside offence the flag should not be raised (i.e. in case of doubt benefit must be given to the attacking team).
​

I thought that somewhere along the line this interpretation has also been accepted by FIFA - but I might be wrong there - although it seems odd that a major confederation like UEFA would have a different interpretation to the rest of the world - that doesn't sound right to me.

These are the official FIFA rules. By the way the UEFA proposition was a recommendation for rule changes. Regardless it's inferring to when the player is in line with another player in relation to this:

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s
head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the
ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this
definition

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s
head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the
ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this
definition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent
from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing
the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or
movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an
opponent
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an
offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent
having been in an offside position

Maybe you should just give up and not worry about soccer.

 

[Roby]

That 's a remarkable figure Roby, considering the World's population is approx 6.6 billion. And you have 26 billion watching soccer. Remarkable.

I guess you stopped learning mathematics at what, grade 1?

For anybody else:

http://www.svendavid.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TV-Stats-FIFA-world-cup-1998-2006.pdf

 

[Roby]

It is worthwhile reviewing the philosophical foundations of the great Australian game:

1. Always keep your eye on the footy, come what may;
2. Get your head over that footy, regardless of the consequences;
3. Run straight at the footy, regardless of what's in the way;
4. if you get hit, no matter how much pain you feel, get straight up and look for the footy; and most importantly
5. always, I repeat always, put your team well ahead of your own personal safety.

These central tenets are in stark contrast to those of soccer:

1. It always pays to go to ground first oportunity (and most certainly before your opponent does);
2. stay there till you know what the ref is going to do;
3. stay down anyway;
4. you are far more important than the team; and
5. if in doubt, repeat steps 1 to 3.

You don't think diving cost your team a premiership last year? Oh well, I'm sure you won't care when you have to face a slow and hampered Riewoldt and Co, needing all the concessions he can get.

 

[Barkly St End]

Maybe you should just give up and not worry about soccer.

Not the least bit worried mate.

For those interested in refereeing bias in international soccer, check out this very intelligent article written by a FIFA certified ref, pretty much confirming everything we have ever suspected about reffing bias in soccer.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/the_reality_of_international_s.html

 

[Barkly St End]

You don't think diving cost your team a premiership last year? Oh well, I'm sure you won't care when you have to face a slow and hampered Riewoldt and Co, needing all the concessions he can get.

What I do think is that only a fool would compare the laughable antics seen at the very top level of soccer on a daily basis, and what happens in an AFL game.

A bloke was stretchered off with a blood nose the other day, I mean honestly!!

 

[Roby]

Not the least bit worried mate.

For those interested in refereeing bias in international soccer, check out this very intelligent article written by a FIFA certified ref, pretty much confirming everything we have ever suspected about reffing bias in soccer.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/the_reality_of_international_s.html

Ok don't reply and admit you were wrong, just try and steer from your obvious inadequacies.

 

[Roby]

What I do think is that only a fool would compare the laughable antics seen at the very top level of soccer on a daily basis, and what happens in an AFL game.

A bloke was stretchered off with a blood nose the other day, I mean honestly!!

Does diving happen in AFL? Does it influence umpiring decisions? Do those umpiring decisions influence game results?

 

[Barkly St End]

Does diving happen in AFL? Does it influence umpiring decisions? Do those umpiring decisions influence game results?

Do AFL players go easily to ground? No.

Do AFL players go to ground with zero contact? No.

Do umpires influence game results? You'd struggle to find one in one thousand games where that might be arguable.

 

[Barkly St End]

Roby

you might be a young dude who doesn't know too much about soccer.

Let me show you how the 1990 world cup was won. Watch this classic dive by Klinsmann. Now this is a dive, the Argentine didn't touch him, Klinsmann literally dived over him, then rolled across the ground three or four times, and then lay there motionless. The Argentine was given a straight red.

[youtube]tB7Y33VteME[/youtube]

Don't forget - this was a world cup final! Soon after this, Voeller did an almost identical dive to gain a penalty that ultimately won the WC for West Germany 1-0.

Are you trying to make the case that an ump can determine a game in this manner via being conned by dives and feigning injury? It's an impossible case to make - on so many levels, it's impossible to make.

ps actually, with the pen, it wasn't an identical dive, the Argentine defender won the ball fair and square!! fancy determining the most important trophy in the world on the strength of two incorrect reffing decisions where the ref was clearly conned by diving and feigning injury! it's pathetic

 

[Prestigerrycomo]

Roby

you might be a young dude who doesn't know too much about soccer.

Let me show you how the 1990 world cup was won. Watch this classic dive by Klinsmann. Now this is a dive, the Argentine didn't touch him, Klinsmann literally dived over him, then rolled across the ground three or four times, and then lay there motionless. The Argentine was given a straight red.

[youtube]tB7Y33VteME[/youtube]

Don't forget - this was a world cup final! Soon after this, Voeller did an almost identical dive to gain a penalty that ultimately won the WC for West Germany 1-0.

Are you trying to make the case that an ump can determine a game in this manner via being conned by dives and feigning injury? It's an impossible case to make - on so many levels, it's impossible to make.

ps actually, with the pen, it wasn't an identical dive, the Argentine defender won the ball fair and square!! fancy determining the most important trophy in the world on the strength of two incorrect reffing decisions where the ref was clearly conned by diving and feigning injury! it's pathetic

[YOUTUBE]Ioyt2zzm530[/YOUTUBE]