Round 16 and Beyond

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why was Neill on the ground again?

Because he went in for a challenge, obviously. The point is that Neill pulled out of the challenge well before the contact was made, and left plenty of opportunity for Grosso to get out of the way, turn with the ball or do anything else. A challenge is where you attempt to win the ball by attacking the player in possession - Neill didn't do that, and wasn't attempting to win the ball or bring down the player. The player ran into him on purpose, and thus commited the foul, if there was one at all.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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?

There is no such thing as the FIFA World Football Rules.

 

[Jono]

Shattered.

Absolutely shattered.

 

[TT Boy]

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....

Because Cannavaro was immense once again also the fact that Australia can not pass the ball, evident in the countless aimless balls played into the channels for fat man Viduka to hopelessly chase.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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?

Well, it doesn't. Simply means that if you are down and don't move toward the player in possession you can't commit a foul. That's exactly what Neill did.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

I'm not defending Grosso or the ref, but Neill was naive to put himself in that position. He's an experienced enough pro to know the outcome there. One way or another the attacker's going to ground; unfortunately the sad fact of things is that sometimes refs are suckered.

In 20 years you'll still feel cheated, which will give you some insight into the simmering injustice we feel about that stumpy drugs cheat punching the ball into our net.....

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

There is no such thing as the FIFA World Football Rules.

Eh, I only saw it on some other place which is filtered out, and I know very little about football, hence me asking.

 

[TT Boy]

Corrected.

Yeah breaking someone's leg with a reckless and awful challenge than calling him a diving **** is a tad tasteless and pretty **** poor IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not defending Grosso or the ref, but Neill was naive to put himself in that position. He's an experienced enough pro to know the outcome there. One way or another the attacker's going to ground; unfortunately the sad fact of things is that sometimes refs are suckered.

In 20 years you'll still feel cheated, which will give you some insight into the simmering injustice we feel about that stumpy drugs cheat punching the ball into our net.....

He was naive, certainly, but it wasn't a penalty.

I think I'll get over it to be honest. Everyone in Australia will be tremendously proud that we made it through a tough group and matched Italy on the day. I think we deserved to make it into extra time, and with the man advantage and two subs to come may well have won the game, but either way I don't think it's a failing on Australia's part at all.

I feel terribly sorry for the players though, as they certainly didn't deserve to go out like that.

 

[Matteh]

Because Cannavaro was immense once again also the fact that Australia can not pass the ball, evident in the countless aimless balls played into the channels for fat man Viduka to hopelessly chase.

Erm. Right. Cannavaro was hardly stand-out, everytime Australia went central there was a wall of Italian players, when they went wide and crossed it they usually got a chance on goal. The reluctance to get to the byline and cross it was the key factor in Australia not getting a goal.

As for Australia not being able to pass....the 59% possession statistic tells a different story.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He was naive, certainly, but it wasn't a penalty.

I think I'll get over it to be honest. Everyone in Australia will be tremendously proud that we made it through a tough group and matched Italy on the day. I think we deserved to make it into extra time, and with the man advantage and two subs to come may well have won the game, but either way I don't think it's a failing on Australia's part at all.

I feel terribly sorry for the players though, as they certainly didn't deserve to go out like that.

& that is exactly why you'll feel cheated.

 

[TT Boy]

Erm. Right. Cannavaro was hardly stand-out, everytime Australia went central there was a wall of Italian players, when they went wide and crossed it they usually got a chance on goal. The reluctance to get to the byline and cross it was the key factor in Australia not getting a goal.

As for Australia not being able to pass....the 59% possession statistic tells a different story.

Sorry but is this coming from someone who said Sol Campbell had a decent game against Sweden. Also in regard to the possession, 59% very good what did they do with it though, sweet FA. What happened when the Italians got into the Australian half, they had more shots, more on target et cetera et cetera.

 

[Jono]

Totti sucking his thumb is not a cool avatar

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Matterazzi possibly didn't deserve a straight red, but (I think) he'd been booked already & a def yellow IMHO. The same end result.

Nup, Grosso (and later Gattuso, naturally, and Zambrotta for running away with the ball) were booked.

 

[TT Boy]

Totti sucking his thumb is not a cool avatar

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Sorry but is this coming from someone who said Sol Campbell had a decent game against Sweden. Also in regard to the possession, 59% very good what did they do with it though, sweet FA. What happened when the Italians got into the Australian half, they had more shots, more on target et cetera et cetera.

Italy's passing was shambolic, though - they kept giving the ball away in midfield after 6-8 passes (the result was their low possession rating). What Perrotta, del Piero and Iaquinta were doing on the pitch is anyone's guess.

 

[TT Boy]

What Perrotta, del Piero and Iaquinta were doing on the pitch is anyone's guess.

Totti was not 100% fit, De Rossi is banned, Pippo Inzaghi was carrying a strain....

 

[Tom Halsey]

matched Italy on the day.

I agree the penalty was not a penalty... but Italy had the better of the first half and the only reason you had the better of the second half was a wrongful sending off.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Totti was not 100% fit, De Rossi is banned, Pippo Inzaghi was carrying a strain....

Well, even so, you'd think there were replacements in the Serie A who could pass the ball 10 yards without it hitting an Aussie!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree the penalty was not a penalty... but Italy had the better of the first half and the only reason you had the better of the second half was a wrongful sending off.

Italy had the better of the first half, yes, but only marginally. Australia had 57% of the possession at half time, and while Italy had the better chances Australia had a couple as well. Obviously Australia dominated the second half with the man advantage, as you'd expect. The point is really that Australia could easily have won the game, and if it had gone to extra time probably would have been favourites. Hence, they matched Italy on the day.