FIFA world cup 2010 South Africa Thread
- Thread starter Yes We Can!
- Start date
MTGjumper
Veteran
Yes, Webb got a quite a few decisions incorrect, but the majority of the decisions he got wrong would have only benefited the eventual winners. Any other referee in the world would have struggled, potentially in part due to the fact that a referee would not want to have to send off players in World Cup final.
Anyway, the goal didn't look offside, unless there was incident before I missed. The best team in the tournament deservedly won. I don't see how the victory was in any way unfair.
Anyway, the goal didn't look offside, unless there was incident before I missed. The best team in the tournament deservedly won. I don't see how the victory was in any way unfair.
Crazycubemom
Veteran
Won with a DIRTY referee? come on even Pokemon not happy
Death_Note
Member
MTGjumper
Veteran
Dirty referee? Van Bommel and De Jong could both quite easily have been sent off in the first half, the former for a series of poor challenges and the latter for studs in the chest.
trying-to-speedcube...
Veteran
I hear a lot of talking outside and the only word I can make out of it is BUITENSPEL. Seriously, everybody (even though it's in Holland) talks about offside. And everybody in this topic is just too blind to see the situation BEFORE the goal, instead of the goal itself.
Crazycubemom
Veteran
ho(nd)ward actually in his hometown with his team.
Crazycubemom
Veteran
Off side Campeoooness, Off side Campeooooness, Tral la la OFF SIDE!
MTGjumper
Veteran
Webb inadvertently helped the Netherlands to not lose by a greater margin.
trying-to-speedcube...
Veteran
Explain.
MTGjumper
Veteran
If the Dutch had had to play the second half with nine men against Spain's eleven, I'm pretty confident there wouldn't have been extra time.
Also, where was the offside then?
Also, where was the offside then?
puzzlemaster
Veteran
De Jong was left on? Van Bommel left on? In any case. Robben's regarded as one of the top strikers in the world. He should have at the very least put in one of those 2 chances if not both. Casillas was standing towards the 18 yard line on the first. A spaniard would have just chipped it over the keeper...not overplay it and lose the ball. He had 2 golden chances to make it 2-0. If Holland had converted on both of those nobody would have cared on Iniesta's goal. Holland supporters only care because they played their hardest, messed up 2 golden opportunities, and lost.
Crazycubemom
Veteran
Crazycubemom
Veteran
I won't be so HOT like now if ho(nd)ward was fair!
trying-to-speedcube...
Veteran
The failed pass to the right which had to be defended was an offside. The pass after that was far from it, I agree, but the situation just before really was offside. Then again, I don't blame the linesman for not seeing that, I am merely pointing out that the goal actually contained an offside situation and shouldn't have been counted.
MTGjumper
Veteran
Hmm, I could swear the BBC's coverage analysed it and it wasn't offside...
puzzlemaster
Veteran
Offside is called when the player affects the play. Iniesta did nothing of the sort. True the ball was supposed to go to him. It never did. He was in an offside position but it was not offside simply because he did nothing to affect the play. The defender stopped it and gave it up...then the goal was scored. Iniesta was on an offside position but never received the ball and therefore did not affect the play in any way. It was the defender giving them a second chance which resulted in a goal. Take it from someone that's played soccer for a good 10 years. He was not offside as he did nothing to affect play. End of story.
trying-to-speedcube...
Veteran
He definitely affected the play; if he hadn't been there, the ball wouldn't have to have been defended.
puzzlemaster
Veteran
Please reread the rules of offside and then argue about affecting play. He was onside. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
EDIT: I didnt mean to say he was onside haha. He was offside. But did not affect the play enough for it to be called offside. There's what I meant.
EDIT: I didnt mean to say he was onside haha. He was offside. But did not affect the play enough for it to be called offside. There's what I meant.
Last edited:
