-
Read the latest Dallas Cowboys News!Dallas Cowboys Newswire
The World Cup Thread
- Thread starter CATCH17
- Start date
Coy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- 2,514
CATCH17;3432119 said:
I agree that the US could be dangerous if they make it to the final 16, That being said, Brazil, Spain, Germany, Italy, Holland, Argentina and others would be thrilled to get the US in the round of 16, although they could possibly make it tough for any one of them.
Dallaslullaby
Active Member
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 0
Amazing how Germany can play rubbish for year after year but always excel when the world cup comes around
3rd Last time, 2nd time before, qf. qf, winners - Simply incredible
Oh well at least the aussies got thrashed, cheered me up after yesterdays woeful finishing :laugh2:
3rd Last time, 2nd time before, qf. qf, winners - Simply incredible
Oh well at least the aussies got thrashed, cheered me up after yesterdays woeful finishing :laugh2:
CanadianCowboysFan
Lightning Rod
- Messages
- 24,466
- Reaction score
- 7,526
CATCH17;3432129 said:
those teams do not take the Confederations Cup seriously. I don't think they sent their best teams.
The really annoying thing so far this tournament are those vuvuzela horns that buzz all game long.
jimmy40
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 16,866
- Reaction score
- 1,888
Vuvuzelas might yet be banned from World Cupjimmy40;3431463 said:
By Ryan Bailey
Vuvuzela
For those who don't ride on the crest of every Internet-football-hot-topic wave, the unrelenting foghorn-esque noise you have heard at World Cup games is produced by an instrument known as a vuvuzela -- a three-foot-long plastic trumpet traditionally blown throughout games to create an atmosphere. However, by pumping out sound up to 130 decibels -- 10 decibels above the human pain threshold -- they also are associated with causing hearing loss and communication problems on the pitch.
Some 20 years after being introduced to the game in the early 1990s, the instrument came to prominence on the world stage during the 2009 Confederations Cup. TV stations were upset by the "goat being slaughtered" timbre, while players complained that they couldn't hear themselves think over the din. "It doesn't allow you to concentrate and it's unbearable," Spanish player Xabi Alonso said at the time. FIFA head honcho Sepp Blatter, however, pooh-poohed calls to ban the vuvuzela for World Cup 2010, insisting that we should not attempt to "Europeanize" the African tournament.
[Photos: Wild fans celebrating all over South Africa]
As expected, the vuvu has caused quite a kerfuffle at WC 2010 thus far. The drone has been giving TV networks and commentators grief, and FIFA General Secretary Jerome Valcke has reportedly toyed with the idea of handing out free earplugs in stadiums to avoid the barrage of lawsuits from the newly hard of hearing.
World Cup organizing committee head Danny Jordaan addressed the issue Sunday, and refused to rule out a ban. From the AFP:
"We have asked for no vuvuzelas during national anthems or during stadium announcements. I know it's a difficult question," he added, saying that "we're trying to manage the best we can.
"We heard from the broadcasters and individuals and it's something we are evaluating on an on-going base.
Jordaan told the BBC in an interview that he had to consider the option of banning the trumpets.
"If there are grounds to do so, yes," he said, asked if a ban was an option.
France captain Patrice Evra added fuel to the fire, claiming that the vuvuzela is the reason his side were so awful on Friday night:
"We can't sleep at night because of the vuvuzelas. People start playing them from 6 a.m. We can't hear one another out on the pitch because of them."
The vuvuzela is clearly much more than an irritating novelty; it's a divisive issue that is threatening the health of fans, affecting the quality of performances and ultimately putting people off of tuning in (will you honestly feel enthused to watch Slovakia vs. Paraguay knowing you'll have to endure 90 minutes of the sound of an angry beehive going through a blender?).
Yet at the same time, Blatter is right (for once) when he says we should not impose Western values on South Africa. A ban would rob the tournament of part of its cultural identity, leaving thousands of locals perplexed: could you imagine being told by an international body that you could no longer drink beer at American football games, or fall asleep during baseball? The South Africans wouldn't take too kindly to having a national institution removed.
As a compromise, perhaps the vuvuzela could be adapted so it isn't quite so loud? Or maybe it could be adjusted to produce a nice noise like the sound of John Mayer gargling honey?
Fizziksman
BanditHiro
- Messages
- 5,109
- Reaction score
- 3,503
Say if one group's teams had the same number of points as one another and same amount of goals and they have already played each other. so basically everybody is tied. what do they do to break the tie?
CanadianCowboysFan
Lightning Rod
- Messages
- 24,466
- Reaction score
- 7,526
BanditHiro;3432486 said:
goal difference is the first I believe, but in end, might be a coin flip, but also might go to some weird formula from qualifying whereby if you did better did qualifying, you advance.
CanadianCowboysFan
Lightning Rod
- Messages
- 24,466
- Reaction score
- 7,526
FIFA Rules
The FIFA World Cup begins in eight separate groups. Each group includes four teams, and the teams in each group play a round-robin tournament with the top two finishers advancing to the next round. The tiebreaker rules involve points, goal differential, and goals scored, where three points are awarded for each win and one point is awarded for each draw. The official rules in Article 39.5 are as follows:
"The ranking of each team in each group will be determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee."
Notice that the above rules are actually quite simple. The first three rules separate teams based on points, goal difference, and then goals scored. These initial three rules a)-c) are then repeated as rules d)-f) for any teams that remain tied. Finally, the last rule g) resolves ties that cannot be broken by using these three criteria. To test the rules, consider the following scenario for Group C in the 2010 World Cup:
The FIFA World Cup begins in eight separate groups. Each group includes four teams, and the teams in each group play a round-robin tournament with the top two finishers advancing to the next round. The tiebreaker rules involve points, goal differential, and goals scored, where three points are awarded for each win and one point is awarded for each draw. The official rules in Article 39.5 are as follows:
"The ranking of each team in each group will be determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee."
Notice that the above rules are actually quite simple. The first three rules separate teams based on points, goal difference, and then goals scored. These initial three rules a)-c) are then repeated as rules d)-f) for any teams that remain tied. Finally, the last rule g) resolves ties that cannot be broken by using these three criteria. To test the rules, consider the following scenario for Group C in the 2010 World Cup:
CanadianCowboysFan
Lightning Rod
- Messages
- 24,466
- Reaction score
- 7,526
Three-Way Tie Country Pts W D L GF GA GD
Algeria 3 1 0 1 5 3 +2
USA 3 1 0 1 2 3 -1
England 3 1 0 1 3 4 -1
Algeria 3 USA 2 England 3
USA 0 England 0 Algeria 2
Each team obtained three points within these matches, so the teams remain tied after applying rule d). Since Algeria's +2 goal difference (in bold) is better than USA and England's goal difference of -1, then rule d) implies that Algeria finishes first in the group. However, determining the second-place team is more subtle due to the ambiguity of the teams concerned.
On one hand, the complete rankings of Algeria, USA, and England have not been fully determined, so one could argue that the teams concerned still include these three teams. In this interpretation, we continue to rank all three teams, and so the relevant matches include the three matches given above. Using this interpretation, England beats out USA by rule f) since England scored 3 goals (in bold) to USA's 2 goals. That is, if one continues to break the three-way tie then the final standings are
Algeria.
England.
USA.
Slovenia.
On the other hand, the ranking of Algeria has been determined, so one could also argue that the teams concerned include only USA and England. In this interpretation, we continue by ranking the two teams, and so the only relevant match is between USA and England:
Two-Way Tie Country Pts W D L GF GA GD
USA 3 1 0 0 2 0 +2
England 0 0 0 1 0 2 -2
USA 2
England 0
Using this interpretation, USA would finish in second-place by rule f) since it scored 2 goals (in bold) while England scored 0. Alternatively, rule d) has higher-precedence than rule f), and since USA beat England then it finishes in second-place based on its 3 points (in bold) among the two teams concerned. That is, if one breaks the two-way tie then the final standings are
Algeria.
USA.
England.
Slovenia.
Which one of these two interpretations is correct? When reached via email, the FIFA Media Department replied that There's a three-way tie to break. You do it as a one operation and not in different stages. The teams concerned are always all the teams involved in the tie-break. In other words, the FIFA Media Department interpreted the teams concerned to be all three teams. However, when Canadian Soccer Association's Director of Referees Joe Guest was presented with this scenario by the Times-Colonist, he interpreted the teams concerned to be USA and England. Thus, the two parites differed on whether USA or England would advance.
Stepping back, the real problem is that rules d)-g) appear to have been written with only two- or three- or four-way ties in mind, and without consideration for partially-unbroken three-way ties. The resulting ambiguity would allow FIFA to logically justify either of the above interpretations, and this could open the door to protests and questions of impartiality. (The analogous scenario given to FIFA and CSA differed from the above scenario only in the specific countries involved. The specific countries involved were upcated to reflect the actual
Algeria 3 1 0 1 5 3 +2
USA 3 1 0 1 2 3 -1
England 3 1 0 1 3 4 -1
Algeria 3 USA 2 England 3
USA 0 England 0 Algeria 2
Each team obtained three points within these matches, so the teams remain tied after applying rule d). Since Algeria's +2 goal difference (in bold) is better than USA and England's goal difference of -1, then rule d) implies that Algeria finishes first in the group. However, determining the second-place team is more subtle due to the ambiguity of the teams concerned.
On one hand, the complete rankings of Algeria, USA, and England have not been fully determined, so one could argue that the teams concerned still include these three teams. In this interpretation, we continue to rank all three teams, and so the relevant matches include the three matches given above. Using this interpretation, England beats out USA by rule f) since England scored 3 goals (in bold) to USA's 2 goals. That is, if one continues to break the three-way tie then the final standings are
Algeria.
England.
USA.
Slovenia.
On the other hand, the ranking of Algeria has been determined, so one could also argue that the teams concerned include only USA and England. In this interpretation, we continue by ranking the two teams, and so the only relevant match is between USA and England:
Two-Way Tie Country Pts W D L GF GA GD
USA 3 1 0 0 2 0 +2
England 0 0 0 1 0 2 -2
USA 2
England 0
Using this interpretation, USA would finish in second-place by rule f) since it scored 2 goals (in bold) while England scored 0. Alternatively, rule d) has higher-precedence than rule f), and since USA beat England then it finishes in second-place based on its 3 points (in bold) among the two teams concerned. That is, if one breaks the two-way tie then the final standings are
Algeria.
USA.
England.
Slovenia.
Which one of these two interpretations is correct? When reached via email, the FIFA Media Department replied that There's a three-way tie to break. You do it as a one operation and not in different stages. The teams concerned are always all the teams involved in the tie-break. In other words, the FIFA Media Department interpreted the teams concerned to be all three teams. However, when Canadian Soccer Association's Director of Referees Joe Guest was presented with this scenario by the Times-Colonist, he interpreted the teams concerned to be USA and England. Thus, the two parites differed on whether USA or England would advance.
Stepping back, the real problem is that rules d)-g) appear to have been written with only two- or three- or four-way ties in mind, and without consideration for partially-unbroken three-way ties. The resulting ambiguity would allow FIFA to logically justify either of the above interpretations, and this could open the door to protests and questions of impartiality. (The analogous scenario given to FIFA and CSA differed from the above scenario only in the specific countries involved. The specific countries involved were upcated to reflect the actual
