Round 16 and Beyond

[FaaipDeOiad]

As far as im aware lucas neills motion stopped before the italian player made contact, does this count for anything?

Certainly does. That's the whole problem with the decision, in fact. Neill wasn't moving - therefore he wasn't making a challenge on the player. The player ran into him when Neill was stationary, which means if anything it was a foul on Neill rather than the other way around. You can't foul someone if you don't move, simply.

It's so harsh on Neill who has been the defender of the tournament and the backbone of a team that could well have made the final 8 to give up a penalty like that. Utterly undeserved, both in terms of the foul itself and his reputation. Have to feel for the guy.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Neill went down and would have got the ball had Grosso kept going in the same direction. He changed a bit, leaving Neill there as a springboard for that ****er to leap off.

 

[Blaze]

It wasn't a penalty. Simple as.

The trouble is that he was sprawled on the floor, leaving Grosso with the relatively simple task of leaving a trailing foot there & going to ground. The ref was a sucker for buying it, but more blatant dives get pens every weekend.

And it just encourages more diving now that people have seen that it has earnt Italy a place in the quarter finals of the World Cup.

 

[Neil Pickup]

As far as im aware lucas neills motion stopped before the italian player made contact, does this count for anything?

Not in my eyes. Doesn't really matter if he's stopped, he's still an obstacle and the Italian could still therefore be fouled by him. Ultimately, it was a stupid, stupid decision by Neill to go to ground and it made it child's play for Grosso to turn it into a penalty.

 

[TT Boy]

As far as im aware lucas neills motion stopped before the italian player made contact, does this count for anything?

No he lunged into a challenge and got everything he deserved. It is unfortunate that people will now bemoan the ref and create a big façade that the ref cost Australia the game, no Lucas Neill, Gus Hiddink cost Australia the game. Your playing against ten men yet your coach waits until the 80th minute to show any sign of ambition and as for Neill well I have already said it, he was an idiot.

Fact of the matter, no lunge from Neill, no pen, easy as that.

 

[steds]

Grosso didn't have to run over the top of him.

 

[Blaze]

Not in my eyes. Doesn't really matter if he's stopped, he's still an obstacle and the Italian could still therefore be fouled by him. Ultimately, it was a stupid, stupid decision by Neill to go to ground and it made it child's play for Grosso to turn it into a penalty.

And if it had have been England?

 

[Swervy]

Not in my eyes. Doesn't really matter if he's stopped, he's still an obstacle and the Italian could still therefore be fouled by him. .

pardon?

 

[TT Boy]

Grosso didn't have to run over the top of him.

Neill didn’t have to lunge in.

 

[steds]

And if it had have been England?

The media would have castigated him forever, and everyone would say he's ***** for as long as his career lasted (a la Neville the younger)

 

[Goughy]

but more blatant dives get pens every weekend.

One of the primary reasons I can hardly watch a game of football anymore, that along with the silly number of unnecessary cards that unfairly impact games.

Pro Football is not a product I am that interested in anymore.

 

[Swervy]

No he lunged into a challenge and got everything he deserved. It is unfortunate that people will now bemoan the ref and create a big façade that the ref cost Australia the game, no Lucas Neill, Gus Hiddink cost Australia the game. Your playing against ten men yet your coach waits until the 80th minute to show any sign of ambition and as for Neill well I have already said it, he was an idiot.

Fact of the matter, no lunge from Neill, no pen, easy as that.

ok... thats ok, but another fact of the matter is that if the ref had have made the correct decision , no pen, easy as that

 

[Neil Pickup]

And if it had have been England?

Phil Neville did exactly the same in Charleroi against Romaina in Euro 2000.

Result = we still abuse the hell out of him.

 

[Matteh]

What i noticed about Australia going forward, was that they seemed very reluctant to cross balls into the box and just seemed to play it back into the middle of the pitch all the time....

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Neill didn’t have to lunge in.

He didn't lunge in, he was stationary. Being on the ground isn't the same as lunging into a challenge, and running over the top of him was simply a blatant attempt to win a penalty that wasn't there.

 

[TT Boy]

He didn't lunge in, he was stationary. Being on the ground isn't the same as lunging into a challenge, and running over the top of him was simply a blatant attempt to win a penalty that wasn't there.

Why was Neill on the ground again?

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Because he was attempting to get rid of the ball from his opponent. His opponent hesitated for a bit, leaving Neill on the ground.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

FIFA World Football Rule #213: You cannot commit a foul while in defence if you are on the ground and do not defensively attack the player and/or ball!

I don't actually understand that, can anyone tell me whether that supports the referee's decision or not?

 

[TT Boy]

I love Lucas Neill but the fact of the matter is he was ridiculously stupid (not breaking Jamie Carragher’s leg than taunting him stupid) but his actions were pretty brainless. It was like he was playing for Millwall again though saying that the parallels with Australia are pretty obvious.

 

[steds]

not breaking Jamie Carragher’s leg then taunting him heroic

Corrected.