FIFA World Cup 2006 - Germany

[dodgy368]

Hey Adster, looks like they're making up the rules now, tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more, wonder what rules they're gonna change for the next game?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Hey Adster, looks like they're making up the rules now, tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more.

Silly me, if you don't even understand what obstruction is, how could I possibly expect you to understand what constitutes a penalty.

My favourite bit is how you tried to reinforce your pish argument by addressing it to adster. Another guy who has no concept of the rules of football. Aussie BawA, as it were.

"tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more" - Genious.

[Mr JP Fugley]

He didn't cheat, the Aussie defender made an arse of it and gave away the penalty. If you agree it was a foul, then it was a penalty. There is no way it could be described as "obstruction.

If an attacker is running and the defender throws himself, on the ground, in front of him, the attacker does not have to jump, or break his stride. He is perfectly entitled to keep running. If that results in a penalty it's the defender's fault.

Watch Michael Owen, he's really good at it.

bullshit he took a dive simple he deserves a oscar for it Neil didnt even touch him and thats what all the papers are saying here and in every country we were robbed and dont blame Neil

He didn't take a dive, he simply didn't try to avoid your idiot defender, who gave him the penalty on a plate. If the arse Australian had simply stayed on his feet, then he could have dealt with the situation easily, however he bottled it and lay down.

If you want to argue that, morally it was wrong of him to do it, fine. However it was a penalty.

[dodgy368]

Hey Adster, looks like they're making up the rules now, tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more.

Silly me, if you don't even understand what obstruction is, how could I possibly expect you to understand what constitutes a penalty.

My favourite bit is how you tried to reinforce your pish argument by addressing it to adster. Another guy who has no concept of the rules of football. Aussie BawA, as it were.

"tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more" - Genious.

Ever thought you might be wrong?
Bet BawA agrees with you.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Silly me, if you don't even understand what obstruction is, how could I possibly expect you to understand what constitutes a penalty.

My favourite bit is how you tried to reinforce your pish argument by addressing it to adster. Another guy who has no concept of the rules of football. Aussie BawA, as it were.

"tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more" - Genious.

Ever thought you might be wrong?

Moved from the pish argument, to demonstrating you don't understand the simplest rules of football (tripping over someone used to be obstruction was a particularly brilliant choice), to the non-argument.

An interesting ploy.

The only place you can really go now is "I sed it woz a penty awl along", or busyland as it's known.

[dodgy368]

Ever thought you might be wrong?

Moved from the pish argument, to demonstrating you don't understand the simplest rules of football (tripping over someone used to be obstruction was a particularly brilliant choice), to the non-argument.

An interesting ploy.

The only place you can really go now is "I sed it woz a penty awl along", or busyland as it's known.

Aha, I understand now, because I don't agree with you then I must be wrong, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[manker]

It's a mis-timed tackle, dodgy mate. Therefore it can't be obstruction and so an indirect free-kick will not be the result. It was a penalty.

If Grosso had checked his run, gone around Neill then he wouldn't have got to the ball in time to shoot, because a different Aussie would have got to the ball and cleared it.

It would have taken a Di Canio-esque spot of uber sportsmanship to the detriment of all his countrymen and fellow players for him not to have gone down in that situation.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Moved from the pish argument, to demonstrating you don't understand the simplest rules of football (tripping over someone used to be obstruction was a particularly brilliant choice), to the non-argument.

An interesting ploy.

The only place you can really go now is "I sed it woz a penty awl along", or busyland as it's known.

Aha, I understand now, because I don't agree with you then I must be wrong, thanks for clearing that up for me.

That's kind of how it works. I disagree with you therefore you think I'm wrong. It sort of cuts both ways, don't you think.

Have you decided to avoid busyland and just paste obvious, irrelevant nonsense.

Here's how it really works. You think I'm wrong, because I disagree with you. I know you are wrong because of the facts. Oh and I understand the rules, which you obviously don't. I am now going to laugh at your understanding of obstruction ....

As I said before, you may be morally correct, it may not have been in the spirit of sportsmanship. However it was a penalty according to the rules of the game. The ref had to give it.

[BawA]

Crap Argentina is out so is José Pekerman, i knew it would happen the second he pulled out RIQUELME, fucker wanted to play defence for the rest of the game.
i couldnt sleep last night, i was watching the match at a cafe with entire hall filled with Brazilian fans whom were against Argentina and they were cheering Germans just becuz they wanted to get raid of Argentina so probaply they wont be facing them at upcoming stages in WC.

[Mr JP Fugley]

It would have taken a Di Canio-esque spot of uber sportsmanship to the detriment of all his countrymen and fellow players for him not to have gone down in that situation.

You would never get an Italian doing that, it's just not in their make-up. They have a win at all costs mentality.