-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Italians will pay the prize for "acting" in coming rounds
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
We thought the same 4 years ago when they cheated to get a penalty against australia.
But they went on to win the tournament. :(
But they went on to win the tournament. :(
Come to think of it, you are right. Its really bad this time. I can see the referee realised that something was amiss. In the 2nd half the acting switched to another fullback.
They didn't cheat. They acted. It was invented by Diego Maradona in World Cup 1990. Opponent touch you, you just fallover. Let the referee decide. That was because he cheated successfully in World Cup 1986, handball to goal and the referee decided a valid goal in favour of him.
You see, acting is exaggerating the effect a physical contact. Physical contact by itself of course cannot be a foul in a contact sport like football. It's excessive or violent force that constitutes a foul.
The actor commits no foul but tries to maximise the chance of getting a free-kick or penalty by dramatisation. This Italy penalty against NZ just now was such a case, acting not amounting to cheating, so was that against Australia four years ago. What would amount to cheating is no contact but pretending there's contact and fallover. That's known as diving, an yellow-cardable offence if spotted and read as so by the referee.
why did Fifa and/or the referring federation still refuse to use video aided solution in the game?
they can use a similar system in the states whereby the coaches would have 2 chances to use in a ref-contest decision. otherwise, most of the time, that human ref will be able to carry on as he is. with minimum disruption to the game.
they can use a similar system in the states whereby the coaches would have 2 chances to use in a ref-contest decision. otherwise, most of the time, that human ref will be able to carry on as he is. with minimum disruption to the game.
Agree with you. Now the Ivory Coast is also in it.
Indeed, and at least Ghana would have a red card , or Harry won't be red carded.
