1/ in 62 the referee favored brazil against spain in group stage and in the final, garrincha was allowed to play and the referee favored brazil as well as he turned a blind eye on santos when he bunch the ball with his arm to prevent czechoslovakina from scoring 2/3/ havelange was bribing the referees during the late fifties and sixties and he failed to bribe brazil and portugal 1966 referee because he was english 4/ brazil played all its matches till the final in guadalahara and it was the only team who had such a significant advantage and this favoritism appeared again in 1986 when brazil played all its matches again in guadalahara!!!! can u explain why only brazil in 1970 the semifinal match between brazil and uruguay was moved to guadalahara to favor brazil and during that match pele elbowed a uruguayan player but the referee did not take an action Brazil had made it through to the semifinal to face a Uruguayan team which even threatened to leave the tournament when they were told they would have to play Brazil in Guadalajara. This being where Brazil had played all of its world cup matches up and till that point. Uruguay eventually accepted to play the game in Guadalajara's Jalisco Stadium yet not without protests. http://ezinearticles.com/?Pele,-The...ated-Player-Of-All-Time?-(Part-IV)&id=6221931 can u explain all these events
i agree with u brazil always plays with underdogs in wc to ensure its existence in the taurnament and they always escape germany and italy in the knock out stages since 1970 brazil never and wouldnt play germany except in the final and if u had a look and the draw and groups u wd find that one of the two pathes to the final is full of strong teams and the other one is full off underdogs and mediocres and brazil is with them if the teams that fifa fears like france topped their grroups they wont face brazil at all there is one more thing, fifa schedules brazil matches in stadiums that have high capacity of seats It had been predetermined that, as the host, Germany would be placed in Group A, thus being assured of the venues of their group matches in advance of the draw. FIFA had also announced in advance that Brazil (the defending champion) would be allocated to Group F. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup Brasil e Alemanha ficarão longe um do outro para que se cruzem apenas na final - se ambos, é claro, terminarem a primeira fase na liderança de suas chaves. Os alemães ocuparão o Grupo A e os brasileiros, o F. Os organizadores tratam o Brasil como atração especial e, por isso, escolheram colocá-lo num grupo do qual o cabeça-de-chave só jogará em cidades importantes, com estádios grandes: Berlim, Munique e Dortmund. A Alemanha se exibirá nos mesmos lugares na primeira fase. http://www.jornalpequeno.com.br/2005/12/7/Pagina24743.htm
could u kindly provide me a source for fifa apology to ballack coz need it to convince a bunch of people i debate with
Why would FIFA need to apologize to Ballack ? It was well within the rules. Ballack was carrying a card into the SFs. He got a fair YC against S. Korea. Plain and simple. The rules were changed after that WC to try and prevent such thing from happening in a Final although a player now could easily miss the SF.
thats correct which is why i need a resource to convince some debaters who wdnt believe me. i believe what our dutch friend told us about fifa apology because fifa removed the suspention from ronaldinho which did not happen with other teams
How did the ref favor Brazil ? Because he made mistakes ? Refs made blatant mistakes up until the 90s it's not even funny. Refs became a lot more efficient in the 90s IMO. As for the Garrincha incident ... I agree there was influence to get him to play. Not sure how often those types of rules were "bent" back then since I wasn't alive. Sounds like rumors. In 1966 England also had it's SF match changed from Goodison Park to Wembley. So it doesn't sound that uncommon to happen back then. And Rattin (Argentina) got red carded for no reason in the SF game. Plus ... Germany and Italy played in the Azteca stadium on the same day. There may have been other reasons why they changed the venues. Eventually Brazil had to go to the altitude of Mexico City to play the Final anyways against a team that was already acclimated with the altitude.
Stop repeating lies. The rule about straight red cards are clear. It's an automatic 1 game suspension. Additional suspension may be handed out by FIFA depending on the severity of the infraction. I just proved to PuckVanHeel that the Croatian player he brought up in 2002 was only suspended for one game after a straight red card. If you have other examples bring them up. Zidane in 98 for example was suspended for 2 games because it was deemed unnecessary violent behavior (stomping on the player on the ground).
england and germany conspired against the south americans including brazil as they appointed german and english refs to referee the matches uruguay had a goal pushed out of the net by a german player whi went unpunished and they suffered two expultions also changing the venue against portugal is scandalous also btw, three of germany team failed doping test but fifa concealed the results and this may have to do with the friedship between stanley and horst dassler http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,789852,00.html http://www.goal.com/en/news/15/germ...ng-surface-against-three-west-germany-players-
Big load of crap. You're saying now that the drawings are rigged ??? If anything Germans would want to avoid Brazil. We have a very good record against them. We had beaten them in 2005 in the Confed. Cup in Germany. We were the favorites coming in and they had an inexperienced team. In 06 they set it up that way probably to maybe have a Brazil x Germany final...but not to make one avoid the other. There are plenty of tough teams in a WC and we will face them one time or another. As for big stadiums ... we draw a lot of fans like all the big teams. So it's obvious from a financial perspective to put the big teams in big stadiums. It makes financial sense but what kind of edge does that provide ? Plus ... how about the way we got screwed in 78 ? Argentina changed the time of their game so they would play after us so they would know how much they had to beat Peru to advance to the Final. And in the same WC against Sweden the ref called the end of the game right after we took a corner with the ball in the air a second before we scored the winning goal. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RVsHoS12Vs&feature=related"]BRASIL SUECIA 1978 ARBITRO TERMINA PARTIDO EN CORNER - YouTube[/ame]
they arnt lies ronaldinho was suspended for two matches and yet he was allowed to plat the final he helped brazil win the title and therefore ronaldo become fifa player of the year 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldcup2002/hi/matches_ wallchart/england_v_brazil/newsid_2058000/2058110.stm Brazilian match-winner Ronaldinho will learn on Sunday whether he has a chance of playing in the World Cup final should his country get there. He now stands to serve an automatic two-game suspension for the red card shown to him by Mexican referee Filipe Ramos Rizo.
That is a badly written article. He was never given a 2 game suspension. As I've stated 3 times now, a straight red card is an automatic 1 game suspension. Additional games may be added depending on the nature of the infraction. What part of that rule is confusing ? The Croatian player in 2002 for example, received a 1 game suspension. Feel free to bring up any other examples if you wish.
as far as i know argentina did not change the time it was set like that for tv purposes anyway u can have a look and enjoy this interveiw with havelange regarding some world cups including 78 http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/espo...-armacao-nas-Copas-de-1966-e-74-mas-nao-em-78 http://blogdopaulinho.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/entrevista-com-joao-havelange/
I will bring up another example about the straight red card. Tim Cahill in 2010 received a straight red card in the game against Germany. He served a one match suspension and then played in the final group game against Serbia.
i beg to differ the turkish player who was redcarded agaist brazil 2002 served a 2 match suspention even though he pulled the shirt of luisiao outside the box but the referee gave brazil a dobious penalty ronaldinho stamped the player with his studs which one is worse ??
I wasn't able to find the excuse but here it is stated that Ballack was the reason to amend the regulations: http://www.kickoff.com/news/16254/fifa-changes-card-rules-for-world-cup-final.php
As far as HE KNOWS there wasn't anything. As for the time change ... it was changed after the 1st round. Excuse is for TV purposes. But they should have played at the same time don't you think ? Specially knowing GD was the first tie breaker and most likely would come into play. The other group played their final games at the same time. Only Argentina had the advantage.
In terms of dangerous, Ronaldinho's is worse. Although I've said it before, it's debatable his challenge was intentional which is what I would give a 2 match suspension for. In terms of preventing a goal scoring opportunity, the Turkish player. However, I do not see why the Turkish player got 2 matches for that. But it doesn't mean Ronaldinho's decision was wrong, it means the Turkish player's decision was unfair. As I've pointed out, the Croatian player in the same WC received only 1 match for a worst challenge and goal scoring opportunity and so did Tim Cahill in 2010. So I can't really explain why the Turkish player would get banned for 2 matches.
I just have one simple question? Celito why are you wasting your time with this thead? IF Own goal wants to believe in this international conspiracy to help Brazil so be it. There are ppl in the US that really think that 9/11 was an inside job, the nutter from Sweden really belives there is a islamic invation of Europe... My point is you really can't reason with these people it isn't a dialog but a monolog they won't accept any other point of view besides their "it's the truth and I know it" Own Goal, did Brazil ever get calls its way in all the WC history? yes you bet. Did those call were match altering calls? no, not really. On the history of WCs only Brazil got benefited by these calls? no Botton line Brazil has 5 WCs and it is so by our own merit. on a list of the best 20 players of all times Brazil easily can make a case for 10 player which other NT can boast the same? we weren't handed out any WC we play and won.
Yeah i do think it should have been simultanous but this schedule had been like that for the first round too It continued for the next world cuo too till germany and austria match fixing incident
BTW ... the following site says the Turkish player was suspended for only 1 game. Although he didn't play the final group game. So I am not really 100% sure what happened. http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500016&tx_dfbnews_pi1[showUid]=389&tx_dfbnews_pi4[cat]=62
if u believe brazil deserves them its ur matter not mine but for me i strongly believe that brazil doesnt deserve all its 5 titles even the u20 team is suspecious too as they won wc 2003 after they faked one their players named carlos alberto age and he was 25 back then