2014 FIFA World Cup™ Round of 16: Netherlands vs Mexico | Sun, Jun 29, 12:00 PM

this is why the Dutch need glasses

 

Robben was hacked repeatedly in the Costa Rica match, there is no doubt about that. People, it really is time to move on. When the Mexico match ended I actually felt pity for the Mexicans. It was such a hard way to lose. But it has been a week now and people are still complaining about a call that realistically could have gone either way so my attitude has changed and I now hope the Mexicans feel the sting for a berry, berry long time.

 

To be fair, we've complained about Hölzenbein's dive in the 74 final for years. I can understand it's frustrating for the Mexicans.

That said, this thread is so full of trolls it qualifies as high fantasy. It's hard to take serious.

 

Holzenbein wasn't touched though whereas Robben was (at his foot & leg). But both had a similar reputation, true. Referee of 1974 has always defended the decision with the argument that it was a careless tackle by Jansen and could have touched him.

 

Forgive my schadenfreude, but as a Dutch-American I get to see Mexico play all the time and trust me, there is always an excuse. Fact is they backed into the tournament thanks to the U.S. of A.

And ironically most of the people your hear bellyaching about Robben aren't even Mexican fans. They are Yanks that think CONCACAF was robbed of a spot in the QF. Such is the bizarre state of North America's great football rivalry.

 

While I am quite happy that Holland beat Mexico, the truth is that I hate penalty calls on rather dubious fouls in the box. And I hate them with a vengeance when such calls are in the last minutes of a game. These calls basically allow a referee to decide the outcome of a match. The problem is not going to get fixed, but may even get worse, unless we have a simple rule change. Under the rule I favor, a penalty should be called for a foul in the box only when the foul has prevented a clear scoring chance or when the foul is otherwise clearly reckless or intentional. Other fouls in the box, in my opinion, should get an indirect free kick. This would allow referee the tool to whistle many of the contacts which are now allowed to pass in the box because a penalty would be harsh (such as during corners and set pieces) and also more comfortably whistle fouls which are marginal but which to ignore would also give the defending team an unfair advantage.

 

oddly enough, that's EXACTLY how I feel. lol.

And I just hate cheaters in this beautiful game. Robben and Suarez can both cozy up together in the deepest of hells.

To be fair, I won't say that Mexico deserved the win. Who knows? But they certainly deserved to take the match to extra time and have it decided by actual play rather than dubious officiating and masterful theater.

 

a) officials cannot avoid influencing the outcome of a match. whether they decide the outcome will be subject to debate. if an official makes a particularly bad call, that's unfortunate, but it's not preventable.
b) any time a defender holds an attacker in the box, it's intentional. but very few of these infractions get called on corners or free kicks. do you want more penalties for holding in the penalty area?
c) how is it to be determined whether there was a clear scoring chance? do the 3 match officials vote with the far side official breaking ties?
d) how does it make a difference when a penalty was called? defending teams protecting a lead are less likely to foul in the final minutes? nope.

 

It's probably the way he overstretches a billion of his facial muscles and the unnatural way in how his limbs go to the ground. That paired with his somewhat bald comical Louis de Funes-esque appearance makes him a fairly bad actor and casuals who barely watch soccer besides important tourneys, who often suffer from skewed cherrypick justice, rapidly reach for their virtual pitchforks in the form of social media and youtube comments etc...

 

The way I look at it, whether you think it was a dive (I think it was a foul that Robben embellished) nobody can argue that Mexico deserved to win that game. Holland had completely flipped the match on them and dominated the last 30 minutes severely.

There was only one team that was pushing to win the game at the end and that was Holland. With the amount they were running around Mexico's penalty box with the ball some sort of freak penalty was bound to happen.

That's what happens to better teams. Mexico wasn't going to win a penalty towards the end of the game because they had been completely overrun by that point. Robben was shredding them badly at the end and a penalty foul against him was not entirely surprising.

 

but also Robben was fouled at the begining and that was a penalty that the ref didnt call...

 

Annnd, as I've repeated many times, there was another penalty against Mexico not called earlier in the match. All things considered, the match deserved to be tied at the end of regulation, whether 1-1 or 2-2, no matter.

 

All things considered there should have been two penalties against Robben (first half broken leg, second half at the end), maybe even a third iirc (right side of box). The Mexican penalty was rather weak, as the forward went down with his head (I assume that's what you are talking about?) So your summary is not really an "all things considered".

 

I don't know, and I'm not going to re-watch the match just to argue over it, but I remember thinking there were two clear penalties not called earlier in the match, one on each team, before Rafa Marquez's magical big toe caused Robben to lurch over in the box and steal any chance of fans watching a remotely fair match. To be fair though, the ref is just as much to blame for calling a speculative penalty at the end after letting two much more clear fouls go earlier. Regardless, it would never have happened without the disgraceful act of deception that Robben used to take advantage of the ref, the game, and people everywhere who link their sports to be as fair a contest as possible.

 

It was a foul. That Robben embelishes, doesn't negate the foul. So quit the bullshit about deception.

 

were it bullshit, I would cease. Simulation is against the laws as well as the original foul. Also in the laws is that two offsetting fouls result in a dropball, or no call. So which outcome would you have preferred?

 

I don't think you can have a foul followed by simulation on the same play. Once the foul occurs, the play is over, right?

 

Sure, in a perfect, imaginary world that should be the case.
In reality, no foul is ever called immediately, and nearly always the reaction of the fouled player is taken into account. Unfortunately, it's become the overriding factor in whether a foul occurred at all. I challenge you to show me a single example where a foul has been whistled *before* any simulation, real or alleged, has taken place.

 

I challenge you to reference an incident where the referee shows a yellow for diving but also calls a foul on the defender, resulting in a drop ball inside the box.
Is it in the laws of the game? Maybe, I don't know. But the 92nd minute of a World Cup knockout game isn't the time to start implementing new interpretations.

 

Sure, you're absolutely right. But just because things usually go a certain way doesn't mean it's how they should.

My biggest issue with the refereeing in that match was that two clear penalties were waved off earlier in the match, then he suddenly decides to call a very iffy one in the 92nd minute. It's almost like the guy was lazy and just wanted the match over with because he was too tired to ref the extra time.

 

I think he pretty much knew he missed that first-half foul on Robben and couldn't ignore the next time someone made contact with Robben in the box.