Matchday Thread | GROUP A

It's not a over-the-air versus cable issue. These chanels are by law in every cable company hence they have the best coverage. Their role is to make sure that the rights go to chanels are seen by the largest percentage of people.
Basically they make sure that the rights don't go the exclusive chanels that are only available on certain cable companies. The TV channel that has the rights must be seen on every tv in the country irregardless of the cable company they are clients of.

 

Yes, you are right, and I did amend my post with two additional paragraphs that you probably did not see when you replied.

There seems to be another difference in our markets. ESPN does not broadcast exclusively to one cable provider, which would be more justification for this EBU kind of action, if it were the case. It figures in the grid of virtually all cable and satellite providers in the United States. So, you can get it from Time Warner, Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, etc., etc. Basically almost everybody has it, so whether or not some games are on ABC (owned by the same company) it's less important for our market.

 

Of course all these things are available in Europe. Irish TV stream all the matches online, on tablets, phones and even game consoles. Same as TV in Britain and Germany. That wasn't my point, what is on the main channel is what most people end up watching so most people didn't watch Mexico yesterday

 

Not true. The percentage of cable households in the US is only just over half
Cable in major European countries is actually dying as digital satellite is used instead.

 

You seem to understand what I meant and I read your amended post but I just want to say this. ESPN is basically on every cable and satellite providers but there can still be a failed negociation so Time Warner and Comcast drop it.

That is why EBU deals mostly with public stations. They make sure that the most important games can be seen by the entire population as by law they cannot dissapear from cable and satellite companies. Also enough games can be seen on other tv channels around Europe it's just that EBU ensures Spain can be seen by all Spaniards with a TV.
Let me give you another example: CL can be seen on a cable chanel (2 actualy) but due to EBU Steaua (if we make it) will also be seen by TVR HD the same company that transmits the WC

 

No, the only call open to interpretation is Olic's goal as challenging the goalkeeper for aerial ball happens often, especially in German leagues and they do not count as fouls.

All the other calls I listed are straight-forward and there is no room for interpretation. Those were clear mistakes by which Croatia got severly damaged.

Your defending of the refereeing and throwing the ball on the other side is ridiculous.
I think I mentioned the goalkeeper being poor, and luckly this was probably his last game. Offense is not ineffective, I'd understand if you said that about the defense, but this way you completely missed the point.

But seriously, stop going off the rails and focus on what I said in the first post that you latched on. And it's that Brazil would seriously struggle to pass the group without the much needed help from the referee in the opener.

For some part we got eliminated because of the goalie, but the refereeing is what ruined this group. Like I said in my first post, Brazil was lucky with 12th player in the opener.

 

England lost to Uruguay playing with drizzle and temperature of 14ºC.

that´s quite colder than most of Europe in June/July.

 

but they are. It was a CLEAR, CLEAR foul on Julio Cesar. And Netherlands 2nd goal over Spain was also clearly a foul over Casillas.

these kind of fouls, where a player has his eyes on the ball, and has his ground (or is moving very little) and another player comes running and jumps AGAINST that player, knocking him out even before he himself touches the ball, is considered a FOUL EVERYWHERE, including when it happens in midfield.

As a matter of fact, I saw SEVERAL SUCH CASES of fouls on the midfield on this World Cup.

And NOONE said the referee was wrong for calling such fouls on the midfield. Why should referees be wrong when calling such fouls against a goalkeeper?

 

do you know the rules pal? The goal was ONSIDE because when the ball was passed, it was AHEAD of Fred (it was passed backwards).

 

But that goal wasn't disallowed for Netherlands? That's why I mentioned uneven standards in my previous posts, just like I mentioned it is arguable.

 

he responds to a CLEARLY trollish comment saying the match was fixed and the goalkeeper having not getting the ball was letting it pass on purpose... and you are saying HE is close to a ban????

no, it was allowed for Netherlands. Which clearly it shouldn´t. Like people said, two wrongs don´t make a right.

one ref was right to call a foul on Julio Cesar. The other ref was wrong to not call a foul over Casillas.

there is no such thing as "keeper preference". What I have noticed here is that people are inversing things... they are so keen in not giving keeper preference, that they are giving preference to the players over the keeper, when in fact there should not be "preference". Or it´s a foul as anywhere else on the field, or it´s not.

And those would be fouls in the midfield. As PLENTY I have seen in this World Cup. But since they are in the midfield (and thus far away from the goal) they do not generate any argument.

 

It's not about two wrongs making a right, but even refereeing standards for the cup.
Nonetheless, I listed other mistakes and clearly marked Olic as arguable so you can latch onto it all you want, but that won't make the other mistakes go away, just like refereeing mistakes from other games won't do it as well.

 

Olic vs JC. Olic jumped onto JC, which is a foul any place in a football pitch

 

Croatia was in charge of their own destiny, they had to beat Mexico and they failed to do that

There was contact on the Fred penalty, bad call for the contact wasn't enough to make Fred foul but there was contact so Fred did not dove he embellished the call (no yellow)

Ramires tackle (that lead to third goal) could go either way, I saw Argentina defender doing the same tackle (but with less contact with the ball) and the ref in that game didn't see a bad tackle also. the ref thread are 50/50 on these one so I don't think it was an obvious foul like some are trying to make it

Even with 2 more goals Mexico would be second because of GS.

Bad penalty given for Brazil in the first game, no one can dispute that.

I rather play Nederland than Chile to be honest, Mexico is not out yet

 

don't understand your post...Croatia-Serbia; 2-0 1-1
Serbia didn't play an international tournament since 2010...missed the 3 last euros and the last world cup...get a clue.

 

I should have said we haven't seen how Mexico reacts on the pitch when down a goal, that was my point.
To me Mexico got chances against Holland but the game is unpredictable.
The only thing is that we've seen holland come back and win after 0-1 against Spain and 1-2 against Australia
We haven't seen Mexico in such situations yet.

 

I stand corrected. He was indeed even with the ball. Apologies.

 

Mexico vs Holland seems like an even match for me.

Holland has a great team , but so does Mexico (and the ghost of the WC qualifiers has dissapeared).

If Holland underestimates Mexico (which i doubt they will) it will be their undoing, you got to remember that this Mexico team is full of 2005 U-17 World Champions and 2012 olympic gold medalists.

The tie against Brazil was no miracle.

 

I said cable *or* satellite. I have satellite (DISH is my provider).

 

Our posts must have crossed; 12 minutes before this one of yours I had already amended mine to say that I wasn't right about this issue given that I compared apples and oranges, kind of forgetting that ESPN is also cable - it is so ubiquitous here that we kind of start thinking of it as an over-the-air channel.

 

I'm not defending the refereeing. It was atrocious. I just said that human errors happen and it wasn't a conspiracy.

I still think you would still have been eliminated even with good refereeing. The offense failed to produce against Brazil and Mexico, and only did against weak Cameroon. That's not good enough for the offense either. So, the bottom line is that I don't think you guys deserved to advance. Sure, you got screwed by bad refereeing but also helped by bad refereeing (that penalty against Mexico was arguably the clearest one in the Cup so far - your defender acted like a goalie inside of the box and it wasn't called). Regardless of refereeing you had failings in both defense and offense so I don't see how you would have advanced even without the refereeing mistakes.

Anyway, I regret it, because I do have sympathy for Croatia. Better luck next time, I guess. I'll be rooting for you, at least in all games when you are not crossing the path of my favorite teams.

 

replied that first time:

disagree...nothing cancels such calls especially after your 0-0 against Mexico.
it doesn't work like that. the conditions at the start of the game have already been established by what happened before. The best team won tonight and i wish them to do well in this world cup, i think they got chances to have a deep run even facing Holland.
but as far as we're concerned, we paid this first match till the end!
at 1-1 and 20 minutes to play noone know what would have happened between Brazil and Croatia as you hadn't any opportunity anymore in this period of the match and Neymar had not tank left... Mexico took advantage of this situation to be qualified at the start of our game. So, we paid it till the end...We don't have enough margin to cope with these kinds of decisions, our team is limited.


now i'll add:


if Croatia is ahead of Mexico at the start of the match, do you think it's the same conditions?

football is not maths....it's not 1-1= 0 balanced.

Croatia yesterday had to go for the win when Mexico needed at least only a tie which changes everything in the approach of the game from both sides and even much more as the time advances.
Your conception of croatian offense is totally irrelevant there.
Croatia had more opportunities against Brazil than Mexico and still Mexico scored 3 times against Croatia.

 

You make some good points. I wish that penalty on Fred had not been called (it didn't exist, obviously). I think this decision did damage Croatia, and as a matter of fact it damaged Brazil as well. Yesterday you saw a clearly sending-off offense and clear penalty not being called against Cameroon because now the refs are afraid of any decision in favor of Brazil that could be seen as some sort of bribery or favoritism. I think Brazil will pay a hard price for that, and may very well be bumped out of one of the knock-out games by a bad refereeing decision against us. It was regrettable, I'd much prefer a clean win or a clean draw. I didn't like it when the ref called the penalty, I swear - there is proof, since I posted immediately on BigSoccer saying so, therefore anybody browsing back my posting history or consulting the play-by-play thread will see that I was against that decision from the beginning, in spite of rooting for Brazil.