The Live In Running World Cup Thread for After Hours.

tolosenc wrote: »

The only difference between Henry and Suárez is that the Uruguayan was caught and punished to the extent allowed by the laws of the game. In a situation like that, there should be the facility to award a goal. By cheating, he added an element of chance to the proceedings, whereas otherwise it was a 100% goal. This sort of cheating has really turned me off soccer in the last few years, and the more it continues to be glorified, the more the non-hardcore fans will (should) begin to disappear. This needs to be addressed. 6 months to a year of a ban for trying to mislead the referee. 2nd offence is a lifetime ban. Players wouldn't go down so easy anymore, they wouldn't handball on the goal line.

Even if you compare Suarez to Kewell. Kewell knew **** all about it, but still prevented a goal with his hand. Red card and a penalty. Suarez willing cheated, red card and a goal. It's simple, and it works in other sports.

WTF?!?!?! 6 month & lifetime bans?

I'm stunned.

super-rush wrote: »

Is it cheating if you know you're going to be caught?

No. Cheating is a term of moral indignation used by people to express their feelings about what they believe is something more than it is.

If you play football, you play by the rules of the game. If you break the rules, you either commit a foul or an act of unsporting behaviour. Both are forms of rule breaking, so regardless of whether it is a kick to an opposing player's ankle, a shirt pull, a high tackle, a dive, or a handball - they are all forms of rule breaking, regardless of whether they are pre-meditated or not.

Football is a simple game with simple rules - to bring morals or semantics into it, simply demeans the sport, even more so than the alleged "cheating" accusations.

The one thing that would greatly improve the sport however, would be video technology, as human error by the officials, is quite often a very big issue & can decide the outcome of games, often to the detriment of many teams.