Jump to content
North Side Baseball

soccer soccer soccer

wolf stansson

By wolf stansson,
in Other Sports

 Share
  • Replies 8.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

bukie All-Star

bukie

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

Here's how I'd rate the remaining 16 teams:

Favorites:
1. France - Dominated in every game so far, hard to see how anyone will slow them down.
2. Spain - Bores teams to death, but improving every match.
3. Argentina - Dominated a weak group and beat a lively Cabo Verde team in knockouts.
4. England - Alternating very good and middling efforts, need to be on it to win the next one.

Contenders:
5. Brazil - Only had brief moments of looking really good so far, but  when they're on they're on.
6. Colombia - Quietly efficient, look better than most others.
7. Morocco - Had the better of Brazil and Netherlands in their matches, haven't been able to really put an opponent away, though.
8. Mexico - Haven't really been challenged yet with a weak group and a weak knockout opponent, but have steamrolled everyone.
9. USA - Have dominated play in all 4 matches against overmatched opponents, even in one game with their B team and one game down a man.
10. Norway - Fun team, Haaland can do it all, a little concerned about their ability to stop a good opponent, which they'll get a chance at next round.

Should be better than they've been:
11. Portugal - Didn't look good at all until they subbed out Ronaldo, let's see if they bench him against Spain.
12. Belgium - The golden generation should probably already be out, but Senegal fell asleep for 10 minutes. Continue to look slow and only really looked like the better squad against New Zealand.

Still here, but would be surprised if they're still here next week:
13. Switzerland - Somehow tied a terrible Qatar team, but won their group and beat a weak Algeria team. Fortunate to not be playing a favorite next round either, so they could sneak into the quarters.
14. Egypt - Couldn't put away Australia or Iran in situations where they'd have improved their standing if they did. Still playing, though.
15. Canada - Drew with Bosnia, couldn't hang with Switzerland, struggled to put away a weak South Africa team, and now get the best African team. I'd be really surprised if they win.
16. Paraguay - As long as they score first, they have a chance. If they don't score first, they'll probably lose 5-0.
 

bukie All-Star

bukie

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, javy knows my name said:

Morocco looks completely inept on offense

What is even happening

Looked like their strategy was to counter and score quickly, but they just could never get possession in a dangerous place.

  • Like 1
UMFan83 GOAT

UMFan83

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

Damn, gonna be 100 degrees in Philly for the France-Paraguay game.  I'm sure France's talent and depth will win out but maybe gives Paraguay a slightly higher chance? Like 1%

scarey Draft Eligible

scarey

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

As a way of highlighting the absurdity of the Balogun red card, I intend to highlight any similar plays that go without a red card in this World Cup.

Early in the first half yesterday, Jhon Arias accidentally stepped on Inaki Williams on a convergent challenge. Arias was given a yellow and shortly after scored the sole goal of the game.

 

Spoiler

image.thumb.jpeg.f856cd848325a2b2a154520ce1237367.jpeg

 

 

soccer10k Cooperstown

soccer10k

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

Just to get this out of the way, I know we're just looking at a still frame here and by no means am I justifying the Balogun red. But the above challenge appears to be nothing more than an ankle scraper while the Balogun challenge, the ankle gets rolled over. That one could have been bad.

soccer10k Cooperstown

soccer10k

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted (edited)

I mean, I get what he's saying and that he's talking about how his team played today and not the actual result. But boy it sounds bad because all people are going to hear is that you'd rather be the eliminated team.

Edited by soccer10k
scarey Draft Eligible

scarey

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, soccer10k said:

Just to get this out of the way, I know we're just looking at a still frame here and by no means am I justifying the Balogun red. But the above challenge appears to be nothing more than an ankle scraper while the Balogun challenge, the ankle gets rolled over. That one could have been bad.

I honestly thought pretty much everybody was on the same page on this one, but it seems that's not quite the situation so I'll make my point.

For pretty much any red card, there needs to be one of two components involved.

1. Malcontent

2. Reckless play

Even though there are people that support the red card for Balogun, those people generally agree that there was no malcontent. However, one of the arguments in favor of the card is that the play was reckless. To that, I say a reckless play requires a conscious choice to make a reckless play. You cannot accidentally be reckless. The example I'll give is the Messi non-card we all know about.. He was chasing the player he challenged and made a stab at the ball from behind where the player had clear position and the outcome had a higher probability of contact with the player than winning the ball.

Balogun, by contrast, was challenged from behind. Muharemovic made a great play on the ball and positioned himself to win the challenge, but in doing so knocked Balogun off balance and put him in a position where he unknowingly could injure Muharemovic. Balogun didn't have the autonomy to make a decision to make a reckless play or not. To me, any suggestion that he made a reckless play is ridiculous. You can't be reckless if you don't know you're putting a player's health in jeopardy.

To me, even though the outcome of the Arias play had a lesser likelihood of serious injury, it is more egregious. Mind you, it's not egregious to the point of a red card IMO, but he made a conscious effort to challenge that play. When two players converge like that, there is a degree of accountability for each of them if the result is an injury even if there was no malcontent. If one cleats the other, regardless of if it's Williams or Arias, the "offending" party should be responsible and booked appropriately.

I am going to assume your intention is to point out that this is a false equivalency, and I get that given the potential outcomes involved in each. The force and placement on the leg in each instance is not the same. Same can be said about the Messi tackle. However, I know I've heard professional analysts try to convince others that the outcome matters. I'm not so naive to think it doesn't weigh into the minds of refs as they make calls, but to me it's a ridiculous premise. I think there is something to be said about the aggressiveness or veracity of a tackle weighing into the decision. But, if you have two separate plays with zero malcontent and incidental contact from a reckless play with two different outcomes (one with no injury, one with an injury that takes a player out of a game or games) there should be absolutely no difference in application of booking.

And this is in the actual case of an injury. These so-called analysts also appear to believe the difference should be for the potential outcome... meaning there was no injury in the Balogun-Muharemovic challenge, but it "could have been bad".

Bottom line... I'm frustrated and I'm venting. That is all.

JudasIscariotTheBird Myrtle Beach Pelicans

JudasIscariotTheBird

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, scarey said:

I honestly thought pretty much everybody was on the same page on this one, but it seems that's not quite the situation so I'll make my point.

For pretty much any red card, there needs to be one of two components involved.

1. Malcontent

2. Reckless play

Even though there are people that support the red card for Balogun, those people generally agree that there was no malcontent. However, one of the arguments in favor of the card is that the play was reckless. To that, I say a reckless play requires a conscious choice to make a reckless play. You cannot accidentally be reckless. The example I'll give is the Messi non-card we all know about.. He was chasing the player he challenged and made a stab at the ball from behind where the player had clear position and the outcome had a higher probability of contact with the player than winning the ball.

Balogun, by contrast, was challenged from behind. Muharemovic made a great play on the ball and positioned himself to win the challenge, but in doing so knocked Balogun off balance and put him in a position where he unknowingly could injure Muharemovic. Balogun didn't have the autonomy to make a decision to make a reckless play or not. To me, any suggestion that he made a reckless play is ridiculous. You can't be reckless if you don't know you're putting a player's health in jeopardy.

To me, even though the outcome of the Arias play had a lesser likelihood of serious injury, it is more egregious. Mind you, it's not egregious to the point of a red card IMO, but he made a conscious effort to challenge that play. When two players converge like that, there is a degree of accountability for each of them if the result is an injury even if there was no malcontent. If one cleats the other, regardless of if it's Williams or Arias, the "offending" party should be responsible and booked appropriately.

I am going to assume your intention is to point out that this is a false equivalency, and I get that given the potential outcomes involved in each. The force and placement on the leg in each instance is not the same. Same can be said about the Messi tackle. However, I know I've heard professional analysts try to convince others that the outcome matters. I'm not so naive to think it doesn't weigh into the minds of refs as they make calls, but to me it's a ridiculous premise. I think there is something to be said about the aggressiveness or veracity of a tackle weighing into the decision. But, if you have two separate plays with zero malcontent and incidental contact from a reckless play with two different outcomes (one with no injury, one with an injury that takes a player out of a game or games) there should be absolutely no difference in application of booking.

And this is in the actual case of an injury. These so-called analysts also appear to believe the difference should be for the potential outcome... meaning there was no injury in the Balogun-Muharemovic challenge, but it "could have been bad".

Bottom line... I'm frustrated and I'm venting. That is all.

 

bukie All-Star

bukie

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

The only other time this ever happened is when FIFA lifted 2 games of suspension against Cristiano Ronaldo so he wouldn't be suspended for the first two group stage games in this World Cup.

Difference here is this change actually makes the team better.

  • Haha 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    6,819
    Total Members
    13,056
    Most Online
    mnfireman
    Newest Member
    mnfireman
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...