I'd suggest you to look at the stats, yourself : http://www.espn.co.uk/football/matchstats?gameId=468628 shots on goal, which are those which potentially can finish as goals; is 3 for Cameroon vs. 2 for Australia. Almost the same for both teams. shots not on goal, where Cameroon has lots more, are those shots that go wherever else diferent to the goal, in which case, will never be goals.
I agree. Its also a shame that we'll lose his contribution to this thread as soon as Cameroon gets eliminated on Sunday (just like he disappeared from the U-20 WC thread after the last CAF team got eliminated despite 'dominating')
Yeah the bias was too much fore to take this guy seriously. Said that Cameroon should have won the Chile game 1-0... C'mon!
Zambia didn't dominate (please quote me, else don't misrepresent me). Italy took the game to them after going a man down. And I dissapeared because I was away on holiday. Probably would have had more interest in watching all the same if Zambia had progressed, but well...
LIAR! Again. Didn't say that. Said Cameroon should have 1:0 up, as they scored a perfectly good goal. Whether or not they would have protected that lead is another story. Dear moderators, please tell people like ezta and LastBoyScout to refrain from a) making the discussion based on ad hominem attacks b) blatantly misrepresenting opinions of forum members regarding unrelated matters to undermine someone credibility. I will nonetheless henceforth add all liars to my ignore list.
True. Was probably the Zambia x Germany match where you said Zambia dominated (the one that ended 4-3 after extra-time).
At this point I expect a MEX-CHI semi and think MEX will have their revenge. In the other semi, I can see POR sending GER-B/C home.
Bias, disables you to see fouls made by african players, . To grab an opponent on the shoulder, no matter if it is hard or if it is soft, is still a foul. And once it happens, disallows everything that can happen after. Referee was right behind a few meters back to where the action took place, and called it right away, even before the Cameroon player headed the ball. No VAR required by referee. You even went to the referee forum (oh yes, I did too), where you even recognize the existence of the foul and also strangely, you also said that you may be biased over it, and they told you the same thing, but since you're biased, you can't accept their explanation as well, and continue believing what you wanted to believe. It was a perfectly called foul, and of course, no goal after.
MassachusettsRed actually said something different. He could understand the call, said it could have gone either way ('judgement call'), but called it 'soft' foul. He didn't say he would have made the same call, but that technically he understood the call and his opposition was more against using VAR for such calls. You guys all need serious lessons in understanding what you read. And I quote: "Sorry, but there was enough there to justify a foul call. It's a judgment decision. It sucks for fans of Cameroon that this particular foul came right before a goal would have been scored, but that's what happened. If we're reviewing this, then we have to review every single "soft" foul at midfield." And Vidal was grappling more than the Cameroonian was. Normally you don't call those and if it was on the other side of the field I'm pretty sure the referee wouldn't have called the foul. Its those nuances that screw African teams over and over.
for the semi, do you see Mex winning their group and Chile coming in second or vice versa? Personally I see Mexico finding a way to lose to Russia and getting eliminated and Germany winning the whole thing. Portugal has not looked good. I would not favor them against either Germany or Chile.
First, it is not MassachusettsRed, but MassachusettsRef (with an "f" at the end, not a "d"). I guess that you really need to have comprehension lessons He didn't say anything of what you wrote before (which I bolded in red from your post), what you quoted from him. Those in red came direct from your mind. Besides a judgement call, doesn't mean it could go either way. It means that the judge is making the call on what he saw from the play, in which case only goes one way : his way. He said it clearly to you, preciselly as what you quoted from him (bolded in blue by me here), but you still can't get it : "......there was enough there to justify a foul call", afterwards talks to you about "this particular foul" (he doesn't refer to it as if it were something else, but very simple, as a foul), and told you that it did happen before the action where the ball was headed by another player (in which case, the call, disallows everything that comes after). Here is the whole play, as how you posted it there : http://www.benchwarmers.ie/bench/watch-cameroon-had-a-goal-disallowed-with-no-use-of-the-var/122506/ If you understood spanish, as I do, the comentators at first thought he had fallen alone (and made lots of jokes related to it), but after watching it again at the replay, specially that front view, they even congratulated how great was the referee's call and how he explained to players what he called What Vidal could have been doing (because francly, I don't know what you are talking about, as he didn't touch anyone), really doesn't matter, as the foul that the referee called, wasn't anything of his, but the one the Cameroon player did against him. About if it is normal to not call those type of fouls, that's only your view about the issue. Maybe in Africa no one calls them, but in South America and Europe, they do get called more often than not, and specially if that action becomes clearly obvious (or in other words, "there was enough to justify a foul call"). At last no, these aren't the nuances that screw african teams over and over. Most of the times what screws them over and over, is their own incapacity to get results by themselves, always expecting others to get them, for them, or blaming others on their own fails.
Really? A typo? And yet he did. He said only that there is enough to justify a call, not that he agreed with the call (he took no stance on the issue). But he worded it such that he could see another judge make a different decision ('soft' call, 'judgement call'). The rest of his response was regarding VAR and my suggestion to wait a moment before whistling. This is pointless, so I'm off.
Technically Cameroon is Central African Have no idea how this one will pan out. Germany usually struggles against West and North African teams with strong tactical setups like Ghana, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt. They rarely play teams as gungho as Cameroon. And their best match (or at least most clinical) against African opposition I can remember was against Cameroon in 2002. Interestingly enough four out of the five last German games against African opposition ended in draws in regulation time (three of them 2:2). This includes a 2:2 friendly draw vs Cameroon just before the World Cup, which Germany ended winning, while Cameroon ended up sucking hard.
Good point about them truly being Central African. Right now Chile is ahead on GD by one goal. Let's say I don't see Germany catching up: they may win by a goal versus Cameroon, but Chile can do the Aussies some real damage.
Australia are forced to attack in search of the goal... so I do not expect a defensive setup like Cameroon and Germany used. If they go punch-for-punch we will outscore them. The only thing that could endanger our chances is a red card. Frantic games like that lend themselves to such situations. We will have to remain focused.
In the World Cup Chile - Australia was a lot more entertaining than I thought it would be. I am hoping for the same on Sunday.
Not any type of call. He specifically said, a "foul call". C'mon man. You quoted him, try for once to stick 100 % to what you wrote right there my friend, you are asuming something based on your own opinion, over something that he said. In no way, his words. btw, he also never said "soft call" anywhere in his post, and least of all associating it with a judgement call. He talked clearly about "soft Fouls", as how it figures in your own quote of what he said, in your past post in fact, he took a very strong position (I'll quote him : "a million times no"), against what you thought about how the VAR should be used in a play as the one, we are talking about here. He also said (I'll quote him again, as I don't want any word to be left out, because it is quite revealing) : "And if the protocols were changed to allow the VAR to make his own judgment in cases like this, we'd be absolutely killing the game and there would barely be a point to having a referee on the field to begin with". (in case you are not aware, "cases like this" is refered preciselly to the Vidal incident we are talking about here) mmm, yeah, I believe the best for you would be to do so....
Both Cameroon and us need to win by two goals to qualify for the semi finals. My own opinion is that the task will be beyond both of us, but we live in hope that sometimes funny things happen in football.
Australia can advance if they win by a single goal, as long as they score at least two and Germany loses 1-0 or 2-0 to Cameroon.
Rotfl. What other call is there in that situation? If course it was a foul call. No point in stating the obvious. But you went on to make a moot point for two paragraphs. The rest of your post is the same level of overstatements and misrepresentation. So what's the point? On your earliers point about European and South American referees. You mean like Carballo, Ovrebo or Stark (specifically talking about the judo throw from 2012 Croatia - Spain Euro game). Thats Europe's standard of foul calling?
Cameroon will likely go all out in the first 20-30 minutes. If they score an unanswered goal then anything can happen. But they need to drop Maboukou... He's a card risk.