Argentina vs Mexico

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by dyl, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. dyl

    dyl Active Member

    What a match! Had just about everything - two great sides in a real battle of wits, some dodgy refereeing decisions (for both sides) - some superb play - again from both sides - and what a goal to win it. Goal of the tournament so far for me. Excellent game.
  2. Andy Moore

    Andy Moore Member

    I feel sorry for Mexico, Heinze should've been sent off.

    This is the kind of refereeing that I don't like; when it doesn't make sense. Anyone can make a mistake, but he was clearly the last man back and commited a foul that stopped a clear chance on goal.
  3. johnmartin

    johnmartin Active Member

    Quite, but then Argentinas second goal in normal time should not have been disallowed. Player was level with the defender when the ball was struck.
  4. Heather

    Heather Member

    Fantastic game!! I was glued to the tele!
    Its games like this where its cruel there has to be a loser.
  5. Bigenglandfan

    Bigenglandfan Member

    Terrific game. But this reffing lark is so frustrating. Hienze clearly had to go, which would have changed the complextion of the match. However, in the previous game Lucic got a shocker of a red card after the ref crumpled under the pressure of the occasion and German players. Deary, deary me.
  6. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    Saw the hightlights when I got in from Easingwold last night, having listened to extra time in the car on the way home....only thing I can say is WHAT...A....GOAL!!!! :eek:
  7. andywooler

    andywooler Supporting Member

    Agree this was the match of the tournament so far.
    On the Heinze card - it's actually not as straightforward as "last defender" - here's the actual rule:
    "denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick"

    So, it's down to the ref's opinion as to whether or not the nearness of the other defender meant it wasn't an obvious opportunity. Judging by the way he indicated the presence of the other defender, he thought not on this occasion.
    I'm not saying he was right of course, but simply trying to be accurate on what the rule is. (It's commonly mistaken to be all about the last defender which it isn't).

    As often said, it equals out eventually and the disallowed goal should have stood. There were other offsides given which weren't as well.