Open Holland v Portugal Thread

Maybe 2 yellow cards should only result in a 45-minute ban

16!

Rats, game’s over. So 16 yellow cards (tying the record), with 4 reds (breaking the record).

FIFA say there were only 25 fouls in the match, apparently.

The FIFA match report says that the Portugese committed 10 fouls, and collected 9 yellow cards. Now some of the yellows didn’t correspond to a foul (Figo’s headbutt!, Deco’s alleged time-wasting) so it’s not that they only committed one foul that didn’t result in a card, but still that ratio is quite amazing.

If Holland had equalised, extra time could have been enough to see the match decided by forfeit, with one or other teams having too few players to continue. That would have been something to see!

Actually I think the referee did a pretty good job spotting the dives. If anything he was too quick to conclude someone was diving. I think that’s what he thought happened when Arjen Robben got a boot to the chest. It happened outside the ref’s field of vision, and he probably just concluded it was another flop. He wasn’t being quite as quick with booking players for dives as he might have been, or this might have ended up 8 vs 8.

I think Alejo is mostly right about the cards. Figo could certainly have been red carded for the head butt, even if it was relatively light … as head butts go. But the second yellow for Deco was a joke. He probably shouldn’t have picked up the ball, but the referee seemed to book him for not handing over the ball while trying to protect himself from Cocu’s challenge. So perhaps Portugal should have had two players sent off, but not the two that actually did.

I’m assuming in all this that Boulharouz did actually hit Figo when he got his second yellow. Some of the camera angles suggested he didn’t, but Figo did look to have a cut under his eye immediately after the incident, so I’d tentatively go with saying that he did hit him. And there didn’t seem to be much to complain about the Costinha or van Bronckhorst dismissals.

I missed the early bits, but the German commentary after the game argued that one of the first yellows (a fairly spectacular foul in like the 8th minute or so) should have been a red, and the ref would have been much more in control of the game. Tough, fair and prompt.

Coming out, since Dan Kervick probably is sick of getting my comments attributed to him. Yes, the ref should probably have been more in control, but it was a price fight in the second half. One of the dirtiest games I’ve seen. And can you believe van Bronckhorst, who gets a red with 1 goal down, 1 man up, and 5 minutes left. It brought us the priceless picture of him and Deco chatting from the stairs, I’ll give him that.

After the USA-Italy match I thought the ref had done a lousy job but upon reflection, that was a harder case to make. Both matches perhaps shared the ref reaching for yellow very early on, and then getting boxed in by worse challenges later. But surely the big story from this match is Figo’s disgraceful performance — he should have already been off the field for the head butt when he playacted to get the Dutch player sent off. The Dutch challenges seemed to get more edge after that transparent (to everyone except the ref) cynicism. One other thing — with Ruud in, the Dutch probably win. They had enough chances.

I think this has been coming all competition – we have had games with few fouls played in good spirit with 7-10 yellow cards. As soon as you get a game with some diving, playacting and a bit of niggle in it, you end with a fiasco like this.

Timewasting shouldnt generally be yellow card material, they can add the time on at the end if needed – certainly the few extra seconds they are often carding over (which then stops the game for ten times as long while the card is issued) is pointless. Playing after the whistle, kicking balls away, while not something we want to see if you start carding every time it happens rather than giving out warnings to the players to stop it, then you just back yourself into a corner to end up sending off players for really minor offenses.

The players obviously fed off the referees and starting diving, simulating, running minicampaigns to try and get opponents booked and ejected, they feel aggrieved about cards and sending offs they believe they have gained too easily and try and even things up, and it just degenerates.

FIFA needs to get the referees back to having the players earn yellow cards, rather use them as the only solution to every thing they dont want to see in games.

Can someone answer the question of a complete ignoramus? Why is it that only one referee is expected to cover the whole field of play? (I realize there are also the guys calling offsides. Do they do other stuff besides?) Isn’t it possible the officiating would be more consistent if there were more eyes, and legs, staying on top of things? Aren’t all those guys well over 30? Never mind having to see everything. They must be friggin exhausted.

Hockey finally adopted a 2 referee system, and it works pretty well–each ref gets 1/2 of the rink. They consult on occasion, but it’s nothing like in the NFL. And the sheers distances required would stop football refs from runing over to discuss every call.
Of course, some people hate the new system, but they’re mostly hide-bound traditionalists who can safely be ignored.

FIFA rules are teh suck. Yellow cards for delay of game when the ref adds stoppage time anyway? Crap. Yellow cards for kicking the ball after the whistle because it affects the game in no way but FIFA is made up of effete losers? Total crap.

The World Cup is still awesome, but screw FIFA’s rules. They should only card for violent tackles where the tackler is going after the player instead of the ball. Period.

AND they should allow unlimited subsitutions like they do in hockey and basketball — you should always want each side to be able to field the best team possible for the situation. Anyone who thinks it’s better to watch skinny marathoners run until they puke is crap.

Show us the goals, bitch. FIFA is dumb — I can’t wait for real football to start in September.

I loved it. If you’re going out of the competition a red or a yellow means nothing. So it’s just not a disincentive. It’s unsurprising that you get really cynical fouls. At the end Holland were one goal down and up against a clock, Portugal were one man (vs. Hol) down seeing shot after shot at their goal and had to hang on. Things just degenerated in the second half. When things are close and you think the other team is cheating to get you knocked out it’ll get heated.

Sean – the assistants and a fourth official (off the pitch) are all wired up to the ref and tell him what they see. But when you’ve a bunch of players standing close together it’s going to be difficult to see exactly what happened from any distance.

I don’t think we’ve seen the last of this either. Italy vs. the US was ugly, Australia started fouling like mad when they went down against Japan – Italy vs. Oz could be brutal.

What you need is a second ref like a third umpire in cricket. The second ref sits and watches it all on TV and so as not to slow down play, the game can go on while he reviews dodgy fouls and dives etc. If he sees something worth a card, he can tell the ref through the earpiece and he can give out the appropriate card at the next breakdown of play.

This would mean Figo would have been off and the diving would have been punished (since the ref can rarely be sure about that but it’s obvious on replays). Also, players wouldn’t get so upset about cards being handed out because they would know it wasn’t the ref and that the decisions were made based on the best evidence.

“Yellow cards for delay of game when the ref adds stoppage time anyway?”

Sure, because the delay of game was to allow his team time to get back in position…

And the linesmen are empowered to call fouls, or at least they were back in the stone ages when that was my part-time job. Hoist the flag and give an arm signal, just like the ref.

Of course it’s their secondary duty, but they play a role in keeping the game under control as well.

Oh, and I don’t think the ref did anything wrong – other than letting Boulahrouz off with a yellow card for his brutal assault on Ronaldo. By far the worst offence committed at this World Cup so far.

Some of the early yellow cards, like the one for Van Bommel, were absolutely unneccesary. The Portuguese were certainly more skilled in the play-acting department than the Dutch: just compare Van Bommel’s delayed drop to the ground after Figo’s headbutt and Figo’s dying swan interpretation when he may or may not have been touched by Bouhlarouz’s hand. The Dutch players got completely out of control in the second half and were no longer playing. They only have themselves to blame for this.

Oh puhlease, that was in 96 and has long been sorted out. Kluivert has barely played the last three years and Davids shows weekly that he is well past his best (Seedorf is another matter). Yesterday’s team featured a player of Moroccan descent (Bouhlarouz) and Indonesian descent (Van Bronckhorst) and the team also features black players Jaliens, Babel, Landzaat, and Maduro. Moreover, perhaps the most noticeable omissions were Makaay, Huntelaar, and Opdam, all white.

Can we have some more American Football and hockey fans tell us how to improve soccer? Haven’t read any recommendations to abolish offside or increase the goal size yet, but hey, the unlimited substitutions was a good one.

Really, if you don’t care for the game, don’t watch it. The rest of the world is pretty happy with the game as it is. That said, yeah, FIFA has been a mite silly lately.

Can we have some more American Football and hockey fans tell us how to improve soccer?

More steroids and ice skates, please.

Good news – Deco and Costinha will be out (Deco’s appeal is unlikely to succeed) but Figo isn’t banned, and Ronaldo looks likely to recover in time for the match.
England are about to meet a decent team…

Ivanov is a lousy referee.

I have no problems with lots of cards and lots of sent-offs.

But Ivanov tried to regain control of the game with a zero-tolerance policy that wasted more time than all the stalling by the Portugese put together, and that did nothing to stop the serious fouls. If he had allowed more of the little stuff, the game could have progressed. A goal by Portugal would have locked it up for them. A goal by Holland would have meant extra-time. Both situations would lead to players being more careful about getting carded.

“Italy had a cushy draw? They had Ghana and the Czechs in the group stage…”

Not to speak of the US, WHICH WAS THE ONLY TEAM TO TIE THEM. ;-)

OK, I take that back (Italy’s cushy road), though only in small part. I think Italy’s group was VERY, VERY cushy, and the slated matches against Australia (a soccer powerhouse?) and either Ukraine or Switzerland should be easy [theoretically anyway, just now watching the Australia match and they may lose] – but yes semifinal will obviously be tougher.

One the whole though, should they make the final, Italy certainly would have had comparatively easier opponents.

Wow – Italy barely squeaks through – way to sell the foul (which it was clearly not) in the box. A cheap win.

You can always count the Azzurri for cheap, cynical soccer.

Moral victory to the Aussies! They outplayed the Italians all the way.

That was no penalty – no way in hell! The defender went for the ball the attacker tumbled over his body. It wasn’t a malicious tackle at all.

Shoddy win.

He didn’t tumble. He dove. He could have gotten to the ball, but instead dove over the man.

Grosso dove. Neil was guiltless. I wish someone would cripple these refs to keep them from f’ing up these games.

By cripple I mean with a bat…cricket, baseball, I don’t care. I know that’s wrong, it’s only a game, but I ache for some kind of retribution, some punishment for ruining this soulful sport. FIFA won’t do it. What can we do? How can we salvage this tournament from these officiating atrocities? How?

Were the Italians talking on cell-phones while playing?

I’d call it dangerous play; it’s an indirect free kick, but not (iirc) a penalty. There’s no intent, and plenty of drama (surprise!) from the diving flying Italian striker.

Finally, the Australians aren’t allowed to be good at any more sports.

I don’t know – the last few matches have been VERY frustrating (portugal v. holland was a complete joke) – I hope we have better soccer in store.

didn’t caravaggio murder someone? plus michelangelo never washed

74, 78: Not to get all technical, but I was just reviewing FIFA’s Laws of the Game. (Unlike other games, that get away with mere rules, soccer has Laws.) Here’s the first bit of Law 12:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:

* tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
* holds an opponent
* spits at an opponent
* handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).

And more of Law 12:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee:
* plays in a dangerous manner
* impedes the progress of an opponent

I’ll put the URLs in another post, so this one doesn’t get held for editing.

The classic whistle for dangerous play comes from a player trying to stay in the play while on the ground. That’s not far from what happened here. The Australian put himself down on the field (admittedly, a silly way to play defense) and tried to get back up again.

I didn’t see tripping or attempting to trip; and what contact there was came from the Italian running over the Australian who way lying on the ground. It’s dangerous play and an indirect free kick.

Hear! hear! I second Doug’s call.

“Didn’t caravaggio murder someone?”

He did. But not over a football game: “on May 29, 1606, again in Rome, during a furious brawl over a disputed score in a game of tennis, Caravaggio killed one Ranuccio Tomassoni.”

I have seen more agro in the box in English Premier games that failed to result in penalties.

It was because this was ITALY – the gods! And the penalized mere froshmen in yellow who talk funny. Not as though the ref will have to deal with angry Aussies chucking boomerangs as he does the rounds in the euro leagues.

of course that was a penalty –
he clearly went for the man and not the ball

“Europeans are fatalists – they accept a sport where the outcome is not determined by how well one plays but by an outside authority. Americans believe in self-determination, that a man creates his own destiny.”
Rubbish. Americans believe that God controls everything. “Praise the Lord! Everyone else in the trailer park was killed by the tornado but He spared me!” American athletes are always crossing themselves, pointing to the sky, thanking the Lord for helping them. The U.S. is the most god-ridden, flag/state-worshipping anthill country in the world.

“Unfortunately, it is not clear whether a touchdown or field goal is required to win the game.”

No. I’d be happy with either. What is unfortunate is that so many players are just going for the safety.

Clearly a penalty. It looks like the Aussie was just lying there only in the slow-motion replay; if you watch it at full speed, the defender clearly slides in front of the Italian and gets nowhere close to the ball. Now, the attacker perhaps could have avoided contact and gone over or around the slide, but avoiding the contact isn’t his responsibility, it’s the defender’s. And sliding in–even if you’re trying to get the ball–can count as “attempting to trip.”

That said, I’d rather have seen the Italian keep his feet and go to goal; I think he would have scored anyway. The ref made the right call, but the attacker *made* him make it–and that’s a bit of cynical play.

In reply to a above…

I’m not sure whether the NBA finals are an ‘american’ sport but it seemed pretty clear to me watching that the series in general, and at least two games in particular, turned on changing the conception of what it meant to foul someone when it came to Dwayne Wade.

In at least one game Wade shot more free throws than the entire Dallas team. To me this seems at least on par with any officiating mishaps seen in the World Cup so far.

Somebody wrote above: “Clearly a penalty. It looks like the Aussie was just lying there only in the slow-motion replay; if you watch it at full speed, the defender clearly slides in front of the Italian and gets nowhere close to the ball. Now, the attacker perhaps could have avoided contact and gone over or around the slide, but avoiding the contact isn’t his responsibility, it’s the defender’s. And sliding in—even if you’re trying to get the ball—can count as “attempting to trip.”

By this logic, it’s impossible to dive if a defender makes any contact at all on an attacker. If the attacker declines to make any attempt to arrest his fall if a defender brushes against him, then the onus is on the defender? That’s bullshit. If this position is supported by the rules, could someone point it out to me?

Judging from Ukraine-Switzerland, an instruction to curtail the issuance of yellow cards has already been received.

Australia was outfoxed. The Italians were attacking like madmen the last five minutes, creating an opening for this kind of event. Very naive move from Neil. Of course it was a penalty (Totti scored from it). Social psychology also says it was a penalty (attacking player down in penalty area + clumsy defensive move + a soft red card for attacking team = penalty in most ref’s minds). The indirect free-kick argument does not understand the social psychology of the situation. Moralists probably disagree whether it was a penalty or not (australophiles denies intent from defender, latinophiles wonders what the defender was doing on the ground in the first place). Sophists thinks that Grosso made a beautiful argument that certainly looked convincing. Football is pugilism, as we saw yesterday, but it is also art. And social psychology. Italy knows that football is social psychology and art (Hiddink knows, too, remember 2002) and Grosso fell convincingly. Grosso performed. Totti performed. Case closed.

Let me get this straight. The Italans are allowed to throw the first defender to the ground and thats ok. If they fall over the second defender its a foul. In the US v Italy game it took blood for the Italians to get a red card and all the Americans had to do is make incidental contact. It is tough to respect a sport that credits taking a dive.

Shut out on pk’s. And it wasn’t the goaltender that did it. Don’t see that a lot.

From a novice fan, for those claiming incompetence by the refs: Are the refs normally better at discerning the fake dives from real fouls? And are there an inordinate number of fake flops in these games?

I’ve been disappointed by the flopping in the WC, but watching the recent NBA (Nothing But Actors) season, I’m not surprised. The refs there seem unable to tell the difference between foul and flop, but as a spectator, in real time, it seems fairly easy to call a higher percentage than the refs get (which you can test by the subsequent replay). Dunno what’s up.

American athletes are always crossing themselves,….

Every Catholic player in this event is crossing himself. That’s most of the Brazilians (some are evangelical), almost all of the Argentines (all except Juanpi Sorin), all of the Spanish, all of the Portuguese, &c.

No way it was a penalty. BUT we didn’t deserve to win; first the red card was harsh (and without the man advantage we wouldn’t have given them such a hard time); second, we didn’t look all that threatening even with the extra man. If you can’t get a goal in 40 minutes of sustained pressure, you don’t deserve one.

The low scoring is what makes the results in soccer so capricious (depending on referee’s whims, etc). And of course people tend to confuse caprice and destiny, so its not surprising that they look to their gods.

On the Aus vs Italy match I’m another Australian who thinks we didn’t deserve to win this match (yes, the penalty was marginal but so was the send-off. And we failed to exploit it). Not that that’s a criticism of our team – they’ve played with the traditional Aussie mental toughness, but in truth they were mostly playing more skilled teams in this tournament.

Oh well, we’ll just have to deal with our loss in the traditional way – taking it out on the poms. Roll on the Ashes!

novakant:

“forget the attacker it’s all about the defender and the ball: if the defender tackles without any chance of getting to the ball (even if it’s an unintentional by misjudgement on his side) and thereby hinders the attacker in his advance (and it doesn’t matter if he could have ‘gone around’ the defender, you just can’t simply block someone without going for the ball either) then his actions are judged as a foul because he wasn’t going after the ball but after the man. if this happens outside the penalty area, you get a free kick, if inside you get a penalty, it’s pretty simple really”

this is exactly the lack of subtlety i was referring to. most dives in the box occur when the attacker either draws the tackle deliberately knowing that the penalty is a likelier goal than the cross, and makes the ball go away as the tackle arrives, while collapsing acrobatically. or they are in the flow of the attacking run, when the ball bobbles out of reach and someone poor fool tackler is incoming. more often than not it’s the second type, because the ball, at speed, is often lost control of. in the latter case, the tackler may well clatter the striker (or merely make contact and induce a swoon) but the striker no longer had a chance of getting to the ball – it spun off the grass, skidded in the wet, or hit a bump. rewarding a sloppy tackle in a *dead* postion with an almost certain goal is a) dumb, and b) generally what strikers are trying to achieve and c) contrary to the idea of refereeing, which is ensure that the game proceeds fairly.

the rules allow for free kicks in the box, too. it’s not an automatic penalty, just because of the location of occurrence.

I don’t see how people can honestly state things like “no way that was a penalty”.

The Aussie defender, having inexplicably thrown himself to the ground prematurely, stretched back to hinder Grosso’s advance. He even put out his elbow! It’s a free kick in the penalty area, ergo it’s a penalty.

Another thing is I personally would have found it more satisfying if Grosso had kept his balance and scored a straight goal.

On the other hand, provoking penalties by skilfully dribbling past your opponent and then deliberately tripping over them is a time-honoured art in football. And not just among Italians either, nor just on the top level. It’s part of the game.

And just to be clear, the fact that attackers deliberately provoke defenders to foul them doesn’t eliminate the foul. When done right, there is nothing to discuss — the tackle comes too late, leaving the attacker the choice between a cumbersome manoeuvre to avoid falling throwing him off balance and likely resulting in losing the ball, or simply demonstrating the foul by letting himself fall.

Doug, you are clearly a moralist. Empirically speaking, “attacking player down in penalty area + clumsy defensive move + a soft red card for attacking team = penalty in most ref’s minds” is very well corrobated – it happened between Italy-Australia, it happened between Germany-Sweden, it happens almost everytime. The reason is of course social-psychological. It is almost as refs look for an opportunity to even out their decisions. You can call it wrong in the moral sense (and in some sense be right) but you can’t call it wrong in the empirical sense.

You can of course change the social psychology by, for example, introduce technology that facilitate refereeing. Personally, I’m moderately for it – a goal camera would probably be a good thing – but I would be against it if used for red-card and penalty situations on the grounds that it breaks the flow of the game (and there will always be contested decisions anyway, like this penalty and red card).

dan said:

‘Empirically speaking, “attacking player down in penalty area + clumsy defensive move + a soft red card for attacking team = penalty in most ref’s minds” is very well corrobated – it happened between Italy-Australia, it happened between Germany-Sweden, it happens almost everytime. The reason is of course social-psychological. It is almost as refs look for an opportunity to even out their decisions. You can call it wrong in the moral sense (and in some sense be right) but you can’t call it wrong in the empirical sense.’

you can’t call it right or wrong in the empirical sense, you can only say it happened or didn’t. the empiricial sense is not an adequate guide, and the argument from empiricism supports anything, on the simple grounds that it occurred, which completely nullifies the idea of having a referee at all. since events occur to players as well as referees, why not just have players and events on the pitch? if they occurr regularly enough, we’ll accept them.

doug might be a moralist, but he’s neccesarily a moralist in analysing football, for the simple reason that the game itself is moral – it abides by a rule structure, penalises deviation from the rules, and attempts to minimise unfair advantage through the medium of rules interpreted by a referee. the moment the concept of fairness is introduced, you have a moral system.

as an example of this, take pierluigi colina, widely regarded as the best referee of the last few decades. he was extremely comfortable taking a ‘moral’ stance, and handled the game that way, identifying attempts to prejudice the game early on, and talking the players out of it. that failing he punished heavily and directly, and brooked no dissent.

Is it just my computer’s eccentricity, or did this comment thread fall of the edge of the preformatted earth at around comment #82?

“On the other hand, provoking penalties by skilfully dribbling past your opponent and then deliberately tripping over them is a time-honoured art in football. And not just among Italians either, nor just on the top level. It’s part of the game.”

Indeed, and it is called diving. If the player has the option to continue the play or to fall to the ground, no penalty should be given if he opts for the latter.

Yes don’t write the French off yet because it looks like the ref is on their side!

Yeah the Italians can’t teach anything to Thierry Henry, who fouled Spain *and* then took a dive, hiding his face (presumably so no one could see that he was laughing). Absolutely replusive. And this is the “beautiful game”?

who fouled Spain and then took a dive

And then France scored on the following kick, iirc. It’s bad, ok.

But overall there were 3 french goals vs 1 spanish penalty kick. The spanish team was more beautiful to see, but just couldn’t score.

“But overall there were 3 french goals vs 1 spanish penalty kick.” Without the dive there wouldn’t have been the 2 french goals. Indeed, at that point, Spain was having the better part of the contest.

Again, I’ll repeat my point that too many soccer matches are determined by bad decisions or non-decisions by the ref. Europeans don’t mind, because it’s their nature not to mind. Europeans think of life as something which often gets f*ed up by someone external; soccer is exactly like their view of life. Americans have this idea that an individual controls his destiny, and this is most definitely not World Cup-soccer.

“the “best players” boringly win…”

Well actually no. Take baseball, ALCS 2003. Boston had the better team and the better players. But the manager, out of respect to his ace pitcher, let Pedro Martinez stay in the game too long. The Yankees win. Now *that’s* drama – defeat earned because of mistakes one commits oneself.

“… and we all feel good about ourselves…”

Yes well you’re a bit of a snot aren’t you? France got through because one of its players cheated. That’s life, you sigh. No, that’s life as it’s taught in France. GO BRAZIL!

#127:

Indeed, and it is called diving. If the player has the option to continue the play or to fall to the ground, no penalty should be given if he opts for the latter.

There is a difference between diving when there is nothing to dive about and diving when your opponent is late with his tackle. Often the attacker will have the option of continue the play in the latter case, but often he will also have been slowed down and/or lost balance. Hence it’s a foul. In that situation the diving, as I said, goes to demonstrate the foul. True diving is when no foul is committed in the first place.

Henry’s play acting was disgraceful. Reminiscent of Rivaldo’s against Turkey in 2002.

Henry played an awful match through and through. About 15 times off-side and nothing to show for it. I don’t know why the French have him playing forward instead of letting him play holding like he does in Arsenal.

Zidane, by contrast, did brilliantly. And Ribery, who outshone them all.

Spain were a disappointment.

France got through because one of its players cheated.

At that point i was about to say it’s a rather silly thing to say, but then you made clear where you come from :

that’s life as it’s taught in France

Whatever, expert.

a i was only teasing you a little: i think your proof of american moral superiority is funny, especially when i’m watching US wrestling

one of the things i like about football is that it allows for the possibility that OVERT AND CYNICAL VILLAINY — such as is being denounced all up and down this thread — gets its righteous defeat on the pitch (rather than warded off in advance by more rigorously robotic reffing); but for this to be reach operatic scale, it has to advance through a sequence of arguably disgraceful minor results, featuring the sacrifice of well-meaning but not up-to-it unlikely rough-diamond champions of idealistic virtue

it is a pretty bizarre paragraph…

“#145, Henry’s usually fairly sporting. Save your contempt for more worthy recipients.”

I wasn’t talking about how Henry usually conducts himself. I was talking about this particular, contemptible, incident. What he “usually” does has little bearing on that. In fact, you might say he took advantage of whatever sporting reputation he might have in order to cheat and deceive so much the more effective. He is worthy of all musterable contempt.

“He is worthy of all musterable contempt.” OK, I’ll try and shift over a bit from Bush to Henry then.

But seriously, I think all available soccer contempt should be focussed in a laser-like beam at the near-crippler of Cristiano Ronaldo (Dutch guy – Boula-something-or-other). And I say that as an England fan who would welcome CR’s absence.

Jake, definitely less, if you mean other-outcome perverted. My guess, maybe 2, which is par for the (perverted) course.

Hey does anyone have a picture of deco, van bronckhorst, and whoever the third guy was sitting on the stairs. Thanks