The Official FIFA World Cup Thread 2014

[ManetsBR]

Yes, you're right on this point.

[Axl_morris]

They introduced goal line technology so we are heading in the right direction.

I vote for refs with mics like in rugby. Hear all the drama.

[Chewbacca]

You know players should form a pact: everytime this kind of shit happens, they would refuse to continue playing until the ref gives a proper judgement based on an accurate replay or someone exchanges the current ref for someone else.

why not just stop the clock and give the refs a couple of minutes to go look at the replay while the teams get hydrated? soccer is one of the quickest sports i have seen since their is no commercial breaks or any real stoppage of time. going over to take 1 or 2 minutes at a replay to get things right would not hamper the game really.

Because fifa, that's why. It took England get a goal denied in 2010 for them to start using goal detection stuff.

[sturginho]

Guys, there was no fix, come on. Italy didn't play to win. Uruguay put a lot of pressure and eventually scored, end of story.

The referee didn't see the bite, even if the player showed him the marks later, he couldn't do nothing about it because he didn't see the act itself. Deal with it.

only 4 european teams in the next round is a FIFA wet dream, and don't pretend otherwise

[The Sandman]

[Ace Nova]

:lol:

Alright, I calmed down a little guys...I tend to wear my emotions on my sleeves at times.

Although I really don't think this was an outright "FIFA" fix, I wouldn't blink an eye if someone told me that the head (I think Mexican) referee was somehow paid off or possibly even worse, being blackmailed (possibly by some sort of cartel that has money on the game?).....it's either that or he's the worst referee in the history of soccer.

[ADPT]

You know players should form a pact: everytime this kind of shit happens, they would refuse to continue playing until the ref gives a proper judgement based on an accurate replay or someone exchanges the current ref for someone else.

Yes, that would improve the sport immensely, players refusing to play on until they get an decision they like via a replay or demanding a new referee.

Trust me, I'm a firm believer in having an official with the ablity to access a video replay (I can remember raging 4 years ago over Lampard's disallowed goal in South Africa) but if they (replays) are introduced it will be and should be solely to back up the man on the pitch.

Do you really think a replay would make any difference to the red card? I don't, it may even have made decision easier to make. In real time, I thought it looked pretty innocuous, on seeing the replay I actually thought 'yeah, I can see how he's given that'. In that kind of situation the referee on the pitch is not going to be overruled, advised maybe, but not overruled. The only time I could see that happening would be for penalties or, indeed, incidents like Suarez's bite and even then it wouldn't be a case of being overruled as the referee would just be conferring before making a decision.

Edited June 24, 2014 by ADPT

[Ace Nova]

...and come to think of it, it's a lot more common than people tend to believe....and very easily could have happened today.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/sports/soccer/fixed-matches-cast-shadow-over-world-cup.html

Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup

A New York Times investigation of match fixing ahead of the last World Cup gives an unusually detailed look at the ease with which professional gamblers can fix matches.

JOHANNESBURG — A soccer referee named Ibrahim Chaibou walked into a bank in a small South African city carrying a bag filled with as much as $100,000 in $100 bills, according to another referee traveling with him. The deposit was so large that a bank employee gave Mr. Chaibou a gift of commemorative coins bearing the likeness of Nelson Mandela.

Later that night in May 2010, Mr. Chaibou refereed an exhibition match between South Africa and Guatemala in preparation for the World Cup, the world’s most popular sporting event. Even to the casual fan, his calls were suspicious — he called two penalties for hand balls even though the ball went nowhere near the players’ hands.

Mr. Chaibou, a native of Niger, had been chosen to work the match by a company based in Singapore that was a front for a notorious match-rigging syndicate, according to an internal, confidential report by FIFA, soccer’s world governing body.

FIFA’s investigative report and related documents, which were obtained by The New York Times and have not been publicly released, raise serious questions about the vulnerability of the World Cup to match fixing. The tournament opens June 12 in Brazil.

The report found that the match-rigging syndicate and its referees infiltrated the upper reaches of global soccer in order to fix exhibition matches and exploit them for betting purposes. It provides extensive details of the clever and brazen ways that fixers apparently manipulated “at least five matches and possibly more” in South Africa ahead of the last World Cup. As many as 15 matches were targets, including a game between the United States and Australia, according to interviews and emails printed in the FIFA report.

Although corruption has vexed soccer for years, the South Africa case gives an unusually detailed look at the ease with which professional gamblers can fix matches, as well as the governing body’s severe problems in policing itself and its member federations. The report, at 44 pages, includes an account of Mr. Chaibou’s trip to the bank, as well as many other scenes describing how matches were apparently rigged.

After one match, the syndicate even made a death threat against the official who tried to stop the fix, investigators found.

“Were the listed matches fixed?” the report said. “On the balance of probabilities, yes!”

The Times investigated the South African match-fixing scandal by interviewing dozens of soccer officials, referees, gamblers, investigators and experts in South Africa, Malaysia, England, Finland and Singapore. The Times also reviewed hundreds of pages of interview transcripts, emails, referee rosters and other confidential FIFA documents.

FIFA, which is expected to collect about $4 billion in revenue for this four-year World Cup cycle for broadcast fees, sponsorship deals and ticket sales, has relative autonomy at its headquarters in Zurich. But The Times found problems that could now shadow this month’s World Cup.

■ FIFA’s investigators concluded that the fixers had probably been aided by South African soccer officials, yet FIFA did not officially accuse anyone of match fixing or bar anyone from the sport as a result of those disputed matches.

■ A FIFA spokeswoman said Friday that the investigation into South Africa was continuing, but no one interviewed for this article spoke of being contacted recently by FIFA officials. Critics have questioned FIFA’s determination and capability to curb match fixing.

■ Many national soccer federations with teams competing in Brazil are just as vulnerable to match-fixing as South Africa’s was: They are financially shaky, in administrative disarray and politically divided.

Ralf Mutschke, who has since become FIFA’s head of security, said in a May 21 interview with FIFA.com that “match fixing is an evil to all sports,” and he acknowledged that the World Cup was vulnerable.

“The fixers are trying to look for football matches which are generating a huge betting volume, and obviously, international football tournaments such as the World Cup are generating these kinds of huge volumes,” Mr. Mutschke said. “Therefore, the World Cup in general has a certain risk.”

Edited June 24, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Chewbacca]

You know players should form a pact: everytime this kind of shit happens, they would refuse to continue playing until the ref gives a proper judgement based on an accurate replay or someone exchanges the current ref for someone else.

Yes, that would improve the sport immensely

Indeed, protesting would force fifs to oficialize the replay.

[ADPT]

Corner

You know players should form a pact: everytime this kind of shit happens, they would refuse to continue playing until the ref gives a proper judgement based on an accurate replay or someone exchanges the current ref for someone else.

why not just stop the clock and give the refs a couple of minutes to go look at the replay while the teams get hydrated? soccer is one of the quickest sports i have seen since their is no commercial breaks or any real stoppage of time. going over to take 1 or 2 minutes at a replay to get things right would not hamper the game really.

The flowing nature of the sport is exactly why FIFA is so loathe to introduce replays. Their concern being where the line is drawn exactly. Check the video before awarding a penalty? Yes, that makes sense. Free kick near the edge of the box? Well, if it leads to a goal then they'll be howls of rage if the ref didn't check. Throw ins? I've seen players claim them when they know for a fact they put it out.

The replays would have to be limited to specific circumstances, otherwise we could end up with the game becoming bitty.

[ADPT]

You know players should form a pact: everytime this kind of shit happens, they would refuse to continue playing until the ref gives a proper judgement based on an accurate replay or someone exchanges the current ref for someone else.

Yes, that would improve the sport immensely

Indeed, protesting would force fifs to oficialize the replay.

No it really wouldn't. The players would constantly be challenging everything, they're bad enough now at surrounding the ref even when they know nothing will change. God knows what it'd be like if they could browbeat the officials into changing their minds.

[Chris1989]

FIFA should impose a Stadium Ban on Luis Suarez for the next 15 official games for Club and Country, it's the only way that this little scrote can be dealt with.

You know, the Liverpool fans said 2 months ago how his class embodies the club.

No, his low life scumbag "playing the victim" embodies Liverpool of the last 10-15 years. Shankly and co must be rolling in their graves.

[Chewbacca]

Perhaps, but it would make the game more democratic. Being able to see what actually happened ensures a clean game. Games should be decided by the skill of the players, not by what some dude saw based on a single vantage point.

[Ace Nova]

Perhaps, but it would make the game more democratic. Being able to see what actually happened ensures a clean game. Games should be decided by the skill of the players, not by how much money was wired into some dude's checking account.

Fixed.

[Chewbacca]

You know players should form a pact: everytime this kind of shit happens, they would refuse to continue playing until the ref gives a proper judgement based on an accurate replay or someone exchanges the current ref for someone else.

Yes, that would improve the sport immensely

Indeed, protesting would force fifs to oficialize the replay.

No it really wouldn't. The players would constantly be challenging everything, they're bad enough now at surrounding the ref even when they know nothing will change. God knows what it'd be like if they could browbeat the officials into changing their minds.

Yes, it would, cuz it's my right to challenge a decision or, at least, ask for a better judgement, then again, what would be the point in trying to change the refs mind if the replay itself shows that you're lying? Edited June 24, 2014 by Chewbacca

[Lithium]

Won 250$ on Colombia winning 4-1 over Japan. I regret not betting more money now.

[ADPT]

You know players should form a pact: everytime this kind of shit happens, they would refuse to continue playing until the ref gives a proper judgement based on an accurate replay or someone exchanges the current ref for someone else.

Yes, that would improve the sport immensely

Indeed, protesting would force fifs to oficialize the replay.

No it really wouldn't. The players would constantly be challenging everything, they're bad enough now at surrounding the ref even when they know nothing will change. God knows what it'd be like if they could browbeat the officials into changing their minds.

Yes, it would, cuz what's the point in trying to change the refs mind if the replay itself shows that you're lying?

Let's take a player appearing to handle the ball. Out comes a second yellow card. The players call for a replay. The ball clearly makes contact with the arm. The players then complain that it was ball-to-hand not hand-to-ball. The referee changes his mind. Later the same player scores the winner or makes a crucial block.

My point is even when something appears obvious there's still an argument to be had and we'll have arguments. Like I said, I'm not against replays at all I'm just not in favour of players simply demanding replays everytime they don't agree with a decision. They'll just have to accept it. Rugby players manage it.

[Chewbacca]

Then they would make something out of it, but you're at least giving 'em the chance to see what happened, which is a big improv from having a guy decide what's going to happen based on what he managed to see. That would make the game more fair.

Btw there's a big difference in handling the ball and just having it hit your arm. A replay would get it right more often than not.

[Ace Nova]

Won 250$ on Colombia winning 4-1 over Japan. I regret not betting more money now.

I'd stay away from the Uruguay - Colombia match. Has fix written all over it.

[Lithium]

Colombia ftw

[Ace Nova]

Colombia ftw

I hope you're right. I would sleep well at night if Uruguay fails to win another game in the tournament.

[bran]

Then they would make something out of it, but you're at least giving 'em the chance to see what happened, which is a big improv from having a guy decide what's going to happen based on what he managed to see. That would make the game more fair.

Btw there's a big difference in handling the ball and just having it hit your arm. A replay would get it right more often than not.

also IMO there needs to be more refs on the field. a soccer field is longer and wider than an american football field yet they have only 4 officials working the game. the NFL in the US uses 7.

[Amir]

Swedish man won 1750 SEK after betting that Suarez would bite someone in the World Cup:

Norwegian won 5600 krone: http://www.espnfc.com/blog/the-toe-poke/65/post/1909414/football-fan-wins-%C2%A3540-after-betting-on-suarez-bite

Edited June 24, 2014 by Amir

[Nosaj Thing]

Kasanova,

Although I despise Uruguayans as much as you probably do, I wouldn't say the game was fixed. Italia was weak, they started off weak and I would think it was because they only needed a tie to get through.

Marchisio deserved the red card but for being an idiot. Who does that? I mean, if you're going to kick someone like that, you do it right, and you get a deserved red card. Marchisio didn't kick him in full, it was more like he wanted to kick him but decided not to at the last second, it didn't matter because the moment the referee saw that, he was gone. Then, of course, things started to go wrong for Italy. You can't play against Uruguay with only 10 players when all they need is one goal to get you eliminated. They're not a bad team, they're just a professional team filled with shit arrogant people - which is different.

Suarez deserved a red card and a beating. Not only he did bite Chiellini, but in the moment he realized his damn stupidity he covered his face to "fake" a foul on his side. That's something he always do, always. I don't understand how referees never see through his bullshit. That Mexican guy was a terrible stupid person with no personality at all.

I don't see how any Uruguayan can celebrate this 'victory' with a straight face. I would be embarrassed to see my team win with those practices. That's just not football.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Nosaj Thing

[AtariLegend]

So Italy's manager resigned after they finished 3rd in the group.

Who was the last England manager to resign or get sacked right after a disastrous tournament? Keegan stuck with it after Euro 2000 until he started losing qualifiers for the next world cup. Not counting choosing not to renew contracts or McClaren/Talor not qualifying for tournaments.

Unless I'm forgetting someone.