• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Euro 2016

Go to CruxDreams.com
But cleverly cheated ...

I am not sure that Portugal cheated, there was definite gamemanship such as the play acting to try and get Mutuidi sent off but I am not sure that Eder's handling of the ball was a conscious decision though it was clear and blatant.

However Mark Clattenberg really shamed himself tonight, it was not just one atrociously bad decision (triple decision) but also the way in which his poor choice of positioning meant he was effectively Portugal's fifth defender for fifteen minutes of the first half. Seriously a ref gets out of the way of the action that is what all the fitness training is for and if Clattenberg claims it was a lack of fitness then he should not be on any more high level pitches.
 
Yes, windar ! I totally agree ! France has no excuse : they couldn't put this ball into the portugal'net , so, they couldn't win !
And I think that Portugal is a great team : they're solid (even without Ronaldo !), and if France could continue to play like during the first 1/4 of hour, they would certainly win ...

But it's only a game, for me at least ... so, no problem, the best was winner ...;)
 
I am not sure that Portugal cheated, there was definite gamemanship such as the play acting to try and get Mutuidi sent off but I am not sure that Eder's handling of the ball was a conscious decision though it was clear and blatant.
Actually I think the handball was a deliberate tactic, because having been booked, Koscielny found himself unable to hard-tackle Eder moments later which might have prevented him from scoring. A risky tactic, but it paid off for him - but it's still cheating - a 21st Century Maradonna moment :(
However Mark Clattenberg really shamed himself tonight, it was not just one atrociously bad decision (triple decision) but also the way in which his poor choice of positioning meant he was effectively Portugal's fifth defender for fifteen minutes of the first half. Seriously a ref get's out of the way of the action that is what all the fitness training is for and if Clattenberg claims it was a lack of fitness then he should not be on any more high level pitches.
Agreed 100% - the man is obviously not fit to referee games at this level :(

Not really sure who would have won a penalty shootout, but it would have been a far more satisfactory (and much less controversial) way to decide this game. Portugal once again proving their difficulty in winning a game in 90 minutes, find themselves having to foul their way to victory with the help of an incompetent (and I'll word it no more strongly than that) referee...
 
I am not sure that Portugal cheated, there was definite gamemanship such as the play acting to try and get Mutuidi sent off but I am not sure that Eder's handling of the ball was a conscious decision though it was clear and blatant.

However Mark Clattenberg really shamed himself tonight, it was not just one atrociously bad decision (triple decision) but also the way in which his poor choice of positioning meant he was effectively Portugal's fifth defender for fifteen minutes of the first half. Seriously a ref gets out of the way of the action that is what all the fitness training is for and if Clattenberg claims it was a lack of fitness then he should not be on any more high level pitches.
Google Translat find maybe not the right word, what i mean.
Hmm, get through clever by snake?
And, I'm not a football/Soccer expert!
 
you didn't really deserve to be there
Perhaps Portugal didn't 'deserve' to win, but uuh they qualified for Euro 2016 so they certainly deserved to be there...
1976 : Czechoslowakia
1992 : Denmark
2004 : Greece
2016 : Portugal
All unexpected winners of the European Championship

isn' that the... whole point and attraction of any gladiatorial contest -- the occasional unexpected winner?
 
Dark Princess:

Well, I'm no expert, but I don't think the bad call (and it was a bad call) was the determining factor. France couldn't put the ball in the net. End of story.

As for the BBC, I can't comment, but the ESPN coverage was uniformly excellent. I would love it if they got the US rights for the Olympics, rather than NBC, which sucks.
 
Dark Princess:

Well, I'm no expert, but I don't think the bad call (and it was a bad call) was the determining factor. France couldn't put the ball in the net. End of story.

As for the BBC, I can't comment, but the ESPN coverage was uniformly excellent. I would love it if they got the US rights for the Olympics, rather than NBC, which sucks.

Well since it clearly hit Eder's forearm then any decision against anyone but Eder would by definition be a bad call but worse he then carded Koscielny.

If ESPN did not replay the incident for you then clearly their coverage sucked
 
Well since it clearly hit Eder's forearm then any decision against anyone but Eder would by definition be a bad call but worse he then carded Koscielny.

If ESPN did not replay the incident for you then clearly their coverage sucked

But it was not the reason of the France'defeat !!! The Potugal'goal, later, was entirely valuable !!!

I avoid that I see football to admire the good play , but when it's not the case, I become bored :

And this evening , excuse me but France'team was boring me !!!:(:(:(
 
But it was not the reason of the France'defeat !!! The Potugal'goal, later, was entirely valuable !!!

I avoid that I see football to admire the good play , but when it's not the case, I become bored :

And this evening , excuse me but France'team was boring me !!!:(:(:(

I disagree.

Portugal might have won honestly it was that kind of night but that particular goal would not have been possible for the simple fact it came when France should have been attacking at the other end exploiting the momentum from their free kick quite apart from all the other factors it brought into the game.
 
If ESPN did not replay the incident for you then clearly their coverage sucked
They replayed it and said it was a bad call. And it was. So what? Referees make mistakes. You want to avoid that, put in video reviews like the NFL does (and baseball to some extent). Tennis too.

My point is France should have put the game away in regular time. It was France's game to lose and they achieved that brilliantly.
 
They replayed it and said it was a bad call. And it was. So what? Referees make mistakes. You want to avoid that, put in video reviews like the NFL does (and baseball to some extent). Tennis too.

My point is France should have put the game away in regular time. It was France's game to lose and they achieved that brilliantly.

Clattenberg also impeded French play for a not insignificant portion of the match.

Though quite frankly your argument sucks. Mark Clattenberg is paid by English FA somewhere north of £70,000 a year....that is the same kind of pay scale as a British Army Lieutenant-Colonel and yes they can be busted out of the Service for any error of judgement that brings the Service into disrepute.

Mark Clattenburg on the other will expect to get away scot free. That is wrong

I am not angry at Portugal but I am angry at the consistently poor state of refereeing which will never improve until referees are held to the same standards that apply to other walks of life and find that consistent lack of effort results in no more jolly (and highly remunerated) jaunts to officiate international matches.
 
Mmmmmmmm ! Messa does not want to polemic : she prefers to play into the sweet arms of her Judith ...:rolleyes:

Good night all .... I will be soon "aux anges" ( in ecstasy ? ...):p
 

Attachments

  • 1361471608341e2.gif
    1361471608341e2.gif
    447.1 KB · Views: 16
Mark Clattenberg is paid by English FA somewhere north of £70,000 a year.

NFL referees make $173,000, but the league wants to get calls right 100% of the time, so they can be challenged and reviewed on video. Tennis does that too, if you watched Wimbledon. Even baseball does it to a limited extent. Why? Because the human eye is demonstrably imperfect. Proven scientific fact.

Your "football" is too hidebound to do that. They also refuse to stop the clock for injuries, etc. and have this bullshit "stoppage time" and blow the whistle when the referee feels like it. Time to put the game in the 21st century.
 
Your "football" is too hidebound to do that. they also refuse to stop the clock for injuries, etc. and have this bullshit "stoppage time" and blow the whistle when the referee feels like it. Time to put the game in the 21st century.

I would agree with you that some, not all of that is the problem of hidebound....more it suits special interests such as referees who do not want to challenged. However if they truly do not want to have their call double checked then surely they should be held to account for the egregiously bad ones?

Though I note even Greg Dyke who is a bit of bastard at getting his way is stepping down from the FA because he has been unable to achieve much in the way of reform and both FIFA and UEFA find more than one of their officials under investigation by police agencies of one or more countries.

Though on the question of when to blow the whistle that is a style thing so I am not too fussed about that. I would agree with you that more technology adoption be implemented though.
 
Back
Top Bottom