Euro Cup 2012

[Special K]

Who ya got?

[mgk920]

Well, I have no doubt who Chris *WANTS* to see win, but my guess is that he's also now picking someone else to actually win it.



Me?

Right now, Germany looks to be unstoppable.

Mike

[english si]

I'm annoyed Portugal didn't lose to Denmark last night. Then again, 60-goals-this-season Ronaldo looks annoyed with himself and not on the score sheet, which is really all I wanted as he's a massive cock (with a little penis).

It's still too early to say that much yet, what with Spain, Italy, France and England having nervy first games against each other. Russia looked amazing in their opening game against the Czech Republic, but were made to look fairly ordinary by Poland. Germany are clearly the front runners, dispatching Portugal and the Netherlands, but typically these things are won by teams that start slow.

Spain-Ireland will be telling to see if Spain are here to win it, or are simply trying show off, trying too much to be like Barca: "look we've got 2 banks of 3 in midfield and no one up front!" - without Messi and some of the others at the Catalonian club, that might not work. Then again, Ireland thrive at being underdogs in this sort of game, and will let Spain have lots of possession, but stop them having chances and try and get a couple on the break: 'one chance, one goal' will be Ireland's ideal tonight.

Italy-Croatia will also be telling - Croatia are a pretty decent side, but if Italy can beat them convincingly, they lay a gauntlet down for the other teams.

England-Sweden, the game that really matters to me will also be very telling - Sweden are a bogey team for England and England need to win really. Then again, England the in group stages is nearly always last minute qualification through, if we get it. England are the biggest underperformers at the Euros. A draw against Sweden and a win against Ukraine ought to be enough to see us through as runners-up, though a game against the group C winners will be very tough (though likewise a game against the group C runners up).

France need to roll over Ukraine - watch for refereeing decisions go the co-host's way (loud crowds, a bit of corruption that always happens to help weak co-hosts have a better chance at staying in) - and demoralise them (not least as that helps England, but more the high goal difference helping the French win the group).

I have low expectations for England, and as everyone in the country does, there's high expectations that they might shine with the pressure off coming from the media. It must be weird in the England camp "they don't expect anything as they don't think we are good enough, but now the pressure is off they expect us to surprise them". If we do well, given that it's a new manager, a mostly new team, and building for the future, it promises lots.

I think these will be the route to the final:
(semi 1)
(Winner A) Russia - Denmark (Runner-up B)
(Winner C) Spain - England (Runner-up D) on penalties like Euro 96. England under Hodgson is suited for this kind of game.
(semi2)
(Winner B) Germany - Czech Republic (Runner-up A)
(Winner D) France - Italy (Runner-up C) - too close to call and too boring to watch

[Special K]

I'm looking at Germany.  In fact, we'll be on vacation in Germany for the quarters through the Final.  Trying to find a good public viewing opportunity, which in Munich should not be a problem.

[74/171FAN]

My mom was born in Germany so I basically have to root for them despite my friend trying to get me to go for Poland.

[english si]

My mom was born in Germany so I basically have to root for them despite my friend trying to get me to go for Poland.

You seem to have a better claim than quite a few of the German players (Grandparents, IIRC).

Poland are the Polish B team - the A team beat the Netherlands last night

[Truvelo]

As much as I would like to see England win I would put a 50% chance on them getting beyond the group stage. As for Nederland, their loss against Germany was predicted as would any team facing the Jerries. If England do progress to the point where they play Germany then that will almost certainly be as far as they go. My money is on Germany winning the tournament.

[english si]

^^ I'd go 70% on England getting to the knock out stages. Thankfully, as we're likely to be runners up, that means we don't meet the Germans until the final.

[agentsteel53]

the team whose fans impersonate the Nazis most perfectly.  right now it appears to be a toss-up between ... Russia and Poland.

[Chris]

The Netherlands will likely be out of the tournament. Not that I care a great deal, because I don't watch much soccer.

I hope for a surprise of one of the lesser known countries. I hope Poland (co-host) will be able to get far into the tournament.

[realjd]

the team whose fans impersonate the Nazis most perfectly.  right now it appears to be a toss-up between ... Russia and Poland.

Did you see the creepy knight banner the Russian fans had? It's picture #2 in this gallery:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/06/euro_2012_soccer_championship.html

It's apparently supposed to be this guy and a big FU to the Poles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pozharsky

I'm going for England, since I visit there regularly, and Ireland, because they got so royally screwed out of the last World Cup.

[agentsteel53]

two thoughts:

1) that is a very large banner.  the logistics of getting it into the stadium and unfurled are impressive.

2) man, I thought the "south will rise again" crowd was having trouble letting go of the past, but these Russians are caught up over something that happened in the 1610s.

[Alps]

The Netherlands will likely be out of the tournament. Not that I care a great deal, because I don't watch much soccer.

I hope for a surprise of one of the lesser known countries. I hope Poland (co-host) will be able to get far into the tournament.

How bout Hrvatska? (puts on best Slavic impersonation for Croatia)

[brownpelican]

The Netherlands have been disappointing.

I have, however, been impressed with Greece.

[Special K]

The Netherlands have been disappointing.

I have, however, been impressed with Greece.

As it was pointed out on the ESPN broadcast, Greece needs all the joy it can get right now.

[english si]

I was going to say how good this competition is - I'd forgotten how good the Euros are compared to the World Cup.

Then I watched Spain-Croatia.

Can someone tell me how Navas wasn't offside when the ball was played through the Croatian defence? And how shirt pulls in the box aren't penalties if you are a player from a dark horse team being fouled by a player from one of the favourites for the tournament (c.f. Bentner)?

Still, I'd rather England play Spain or Italy than Croatia, so I'm relieved that they are out.

The head-to-head is ridiculous - at half time Saturday, Greece were below Russia, then Czechia scored and Greece jumped Russia without having to do a thing. Similar, but different between Italy's first and Spain's goal today - 3 teams on the same points, with Italy on top, despite being the weakest of the three sides against Ireland. If Ireland weren't out of their depth and were a Sweden level side that weren't a walkover to attack but were out, Italy would have sat back after scoring and played negative boring football, because there's no incentive for them to do anything other than win.

[Truvelo]

The picture on this page definitely shows offside. The shot after that shows no Croatian players at all between the two Spaniards and the goal. Even the goalkeeper thinks it was offside.

I was watching the other match hoping Ireland would score at least one goal in this tournament.

[realjd]

The picture on this page definitely shows offside. The shot after that shows no Croatian players at all between the two Spaniards and the goal. Even the goalkeeper thinks it was offside.

I can explain it. I'm a soccer referee myself. It's spelled out very cleanly in FIFA Law 11.

For a player to be ruled offsides, he must be in an offside position (which he clearly was in that picture) AND must either 1) be involved with active play (i.e. receive a pass while in an offside position), 2) interfere with the defense, or 3) gain an advantage by being in an offside position (narrowly interpreted as receiving a rebounded ball while in an offside position).

In this case, Neva was in an offside position but Iniesta received the pass. By the time Iniesta passed to Neva, Neva was no longer in an offside position. The AR (linesman) made a good call IMO, even if it is controversial.

That in mind, watch the video again and watch Neva's position when he receives the cross from Iniesta.

For more info:
FIFA presentation explaining Law 11 to referees: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf
Official text of Law 11: http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/law/newsid=1290867.html
Instructions to officials on interpreting Law 11: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/27/interpretation_law11_en.pdf

[english si]

For a player to be ruled offsides, he must be in an offside position (which he clearly was in that picture) AND must either 1) be involved with active play (i.e. receive a pass while in an offside position), 2) interfere with the defense, or 3) gain an advantage by being in an offside position (narrowly interpreted as receiving a rebounded ball while in an offside position).

But surely Navas was active, running forward to provide Iniesta with a pass to enable them to beat the keeper? and surely Navas gained an advantage by being goal-side of the defence when the ball was put forward?*

Also, surely any sensible person would consider the pass to Iniesta, the pass to Navas and the shot would be one phase of play.

Clearly 2 doesn't count, other than arguably confusing the keeper before the ball had passed to him by making it difficult to predict whether Iniesta would pass or shoot - you can't really interfere if you were goal side of them when the phase started.

*Of course, if like Rugby Football and American Football, Association Football miked up their referees so that they can explain their decisions, then people would understand why they did/didn't give controversial decisions and we'd see much more respect for them.

[realjd]

For a player to be ruled offsides, he must be in an offside position (which he clearly was in that picture) AND must either 1) be involved with active play (i.e. receive a pass while in an offside position), 2) interfere with the defense, or 3) gain an advantage by being in an offside position (narrowly interpreted as receiving a rebounded ball while in an offside position).

But surely Navas was active, running forward to provide Iniesta with a pass to enable them to beat the keeper? and surely Navas gained an advantage by being goal-side of the defence when the ball was put forward?*

Also, surely any sensible person would consider the pass to Iniesta, the pass to Navas and the shot would be one phase of play.

Clearly 2 doesn't count, other than arguably confusing the keeper before the ball had passed to him by making it difficult to predict whether Iniesta would pass or shoot - you can't really interfere if you were goal side of them when the phase started.

*Of course, if like Rugby Football and American Football, Association Football miked up their referees so that they can explain their decisions, then people would understand why they did/didn't give controversial decisions and we'd see much more respect for them.

Remember that officials have to use FIFA's official interpretation of the laws. FIFA uses the following definitions:

1) "'interfering with play' means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate"
2) "'interfering with an opponent' means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's
line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in
the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent"
3) "'gaining an advantage by being in that position' means playing a ball that
rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside
position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having
been in an offside position"

When Navas was in an offside position and Iniesta received the forward pass, he didn't qualify under any of those definitions from FIFA. He wasn't an active player because he didn't play or touch a ball passed by a team-mate while in an offside position. He didn't interfere with an opponent by deceiving or distracting a defender (they're ignoring him). He didn't gain an advantage because he didn't receive a rebounded ball.

Now personally, I feel that FIFA's interpretation of case three is much too narrow. I could see how a broader, more common sense interpretation of "gaining an advantage" could be applied in this case. The official is required to call the game as instructed by FIFA however, even in odd cases such as this.

I had never heard the "phase of play" concept until this happened. That's not how the offside rule is instructed here. Here's how I interpret this case:

- Navas is in an offside position. Fabergas passes forward to Iniesta
- Iniesta runs past Navas and receives the pass. Navas is now onside since the ball is between him and the goal line.
- Navas, now onside, receives the ball and scores

At no point is he in an offside position and meeting any of the three criteria above, as defined by FIFA.

[mgk920]

Checking a replay, Iniesta was farther down the field than Navas when Iniesta passed the ball to Navas (Navas was thus *NOT* offside) and Navas then ran forward to receive the ball and score the goal.  The call was indeed correct.

That was just one of the worst defensive FUBARs on the part of Croatia that I have seen in a loooooong time!

Mike

[realjd]

So it looks like that missed Ukrainian goal yesterday - which the new extra official on the goal line somehow missed - has  again lead to calls for goal line technology. I say go for it. Or skip the fancy tech and just go with video replays in cases like this.

Not that it would have mattered if the referees had their eyes open. The Ukranian player was blatantly offsides when he received the pass just passed half field that lead to the missed goal.

[english si]

^^ Indeed. It's saying something that until they remembered that there was an offside that would rule it out, the British TV commentators were all saying that it was clearly a goal and while not fuming, were disappointed that it wasn't given. Then again, I think part of it was to take part in the traditional English hobby of slamming Blatter for not allowing goal line technology - something we English have felt was silly even before Lampard against Germany two years ago. We've recently had some FA sponsored tests of a Hawk Eye based system and snuck it in our friendly with Belgium just before the tournament, though it wasn't needed.

Video replays 'take too long', so you need some sort of tech (surely just have what Ice Hockey has, rather than Hawk Eye or some other complex multi-camera system that is designed to see where the ball would have gone if not stopped?) to simply say "the ball crossed the line".

The 5th officials have been totally useless - has any of them said or done anything at any point (inc Champions League)?

It's funny that France lost to Sweden, but I'd have preferred a Spain-Portugal route to the final than an Italy-Germany one. Italy will probably be harder for this England set up than Spain (there's totally different tactics needed), and Germany are looking very strong.

[realjd]

I think soccer culture in general holds sportsmanship in higher regard than other sporting cultures. Tim Howard's response to his amazing goal is another good example. He was clearly embarrassed and unhappy for the other keeper. Soccer players want a fair game called, even if it doesn't go their way. Even at the youth levels where I referee, the players are generally very professional, and on many occasaions where I've blown a call (which unfortunately happens to the best of us), players from both teams will correct me. At least in American youth soccer though, the coaches tend to model themselves on American football coaches and definitely are out to win at all costs and can be very argumentative. I've had to eject far more coaches than I've had to red card players over my officiating career.

Of course there are cases like Messi's "hand of god" goal where sportsmanship goes out the window...

Us Americans who follow soccer also have a fairly poor opinion of Blatter. We're mainly bitter that he awarded the World Cup to Qatar over us, even though we had a far better proposal, simply because in his mind he's using sport to bring peace to the middle east. Or something like that. I fail to see how playing a World Cup in 100+ degree heat in a nation which bans entry to anyone with an Israeli passport (or even Israeli entry stamps), which criminalizes homosexuality, and bans alcohol would lead to a more profitable games than a country like the USA. Or even Australia, who also bid.

I can see how video replays would be slow. In cases where a goal were accidentally awarded, the speed is moot since play is stopped. For cases like this one where the goal was missed, a designated video official would have seen the missed goal as quickly as the announcers did. They can treat it like an injury. Let play continue until the next stoppage while the booth official does the review, then pause for the verdict. If he rules a goal while play is continuing, stop play and award the goal. If it's taking too long, the referee can blow the play dead when the ball is in half field and restart with a dropped ball.

I'm predicting an upset with the Greece-Germany match, meaning England's path would be through Italy and Greece.

[agentsteel53]

I think soccer culture in general holds sportsmanship in higher regard than other sporting cultures.

the fans make up for it with their utter idiocy.