"But what do you expect of a team made up of mostly negroes?"
Please, do some research before putting something as ridiculous like this. Did you actually watch the Germans?
May I bring to your attention the following names:
Dennis Aogo, Cacau, J?r?me Boateng
All three dark skinned football players in the German squad which and all three playing against Uruguay and you want them to take 2nd spot? Please, stuff the racist remarks where the sun never shines....it's filth for which one can get sued!
On a side note: If you can read, I have admitted the rough play of the Dutch and I disagree with it. I called them even lumberjacks and that was not out of appreciation. So, the pork chop was unnecessary and hereby it's been returned....hope you won't choke on it.
"100% right, which is proof the referee was an idiot! At one point Iniesta (the matchwinner) made a hitting movement towards our midfielder van Bommel. He touched him lightly and it happened right under the eyes of Webb. Lightly, heavily or no contact at all does not matter. The rules say that any movement with the arms or legs with clear intend to hit the opponent is a direct red card. Yet, Iniesta got away without a card for that foul, to receive a yellow in the end for taking his shirt off. So idiot Webb did remember that ridiculous rule....."
If the referee had been even more compliant, there would not have been a game at all. As it was, there was hardly a game, with a yellow card awarded every 10 seconds or so! it is the most boring and annoying thing, having to stop the game every few minutes to award yellow or red cards! This game had no rhythm at all. Spain did what it could, but there was no way to get a game going.
"It is a lot more manly than the roll around on the ground while garbing your ankle from imaginary contact that you often get in "soccer"
And there was a lot of this going on, as well.
Gee, all the three-letter initials are present today! JKS, MJC, CJB.
Fresh and original thinkers we have on this forum. (end of sarcasm)
"Did you actually watch the Germans? "
Yes, I did. There was nowhere near the kicking, pushing and shoving that the Dutch were sporting. Germany plays a very good game--nice passing, good shooting, good defense. Germany should have played Holland for second place. It would have been a very entertaining game to see Germany kicking Dutch arse!
"Only you (and maybe few others) have your tighty-whities in a twist about the ref and that's only because I commented here."
Wrong on two counts:
1. The people "commenting on the Dutch play" are in agreement that the referee handled things poorly.
2. Nothing is "only because I commented here". It's only in your egotistical mind that your comment had any bearing on the discussion you interrupted.
When I went to research that bit about the number of books read, I had to go down 40 pages of your opinions on this forum to find it, but what also emerged is that an extremely large percentage of your "opinions'' are nothing but sarcasm, trolling and character assassination aimed at me, and contributing nothing to the discussion at hand--why am I not surprised. If you dislike me so much, how is it that I'm well near, or over 70%, the subject of your "contributions" to this forum. I must be very high on your estimation list to have "earned" so much of your valuable time.
However, you're spending enough time on the forum today to make me think it must be a dull day at your office.
"How could I have been crazy enough to think that Cruyff knows more than you do?"
You are confused again. Cruyff is criticising the way the Dutch played, not the referee. You are slamming the referee, and WW and the rest of the world agrees that it was not the referee's fault that Holland played dirty.
"it was not the referee's fault that Holland played dirty."
I suppose you could read it that way, but what I've been reading is in agreement that the game wouldn't have been so dirty if the referee had been active in stopping it much earlier than when it got out of hand, on the basis that it wouldn't have gotten out of hand if he had stepped on the offenders the first time around.
Bill to WW: "If you dislike me so much, how is it that I'm well near, or over 70%, the subject of your "contributions" to this forum. I must be very high on your estimation list to have "earned" so much of your valuable time."
WW loves to hate you and to "ignore" you. lol
"I suppose you could read it that way, but what I've been reading is in agreement that the game wouldn't have been so dirty if the referee had been active in stopping it much earlier than when it got out of hand, on the basis that it wouldn't have gotten out of hand if he had stepped on the offenders the first time around."
I disagree. That game was stopped so many times, that there was almost no game at all. No rhythm whatsoever. If the ref had stopped it even more times and ejected the "minority" a.k.a. nigger for kicking, then it would have been an even more boring game. There is only so much a ref can do. Think of him as a judge in a court. How is it the fault of the judge that the criminals play dirty?
"1. The lieutenant is always right.
2. In the event the lieutenant is not right, rule number one comes into effect."
On the pitch, it's the same:
1. The referee is always right.
2. In the event the referee is not right, rule number one comes into effect.
"I disagree. That game was stopped so many times..."
That's the point. If he had red-carded the first offender, and the second, as Cruyff pointed out, in all probabilitiy the game wouldn't have stopped so often or needed to be. Athletes are often like little children in this respect; they'll try anything they think they can get away with. That was the point another poster was making when he spoke of the fake falls in soccer. This has become an offense under the present rules.
The referee controls the game. If it gets dirty and he doesn't stop it, it IS his fault if it gets dirtier.
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan