Johan Cruyff, the legendary Dutch striker, has harshly criticized Netherlands for their approach to the World Cup final and said he had never believed the team could adopt such a "vulgar" style.
"Thursday they asked me from Netherlands 'Can we play like Inter? Can we stop Spain in the same way Mourinho eliminated Barca?" Cruyff wrote in El Periodico. "I said no, no way at all. I said no, not because I hate this style - I said no because I thought that my country wouldn't dare to and would never renounce their style.
"I said no because, without having great players like those of the past, the team has its own style. I was wrong. Of course I'm not hanging all 11 of them by the same rope, but almost....
A ref can't stop a rough style of playing. He can keep it at an acceptable level and not make an ugly game uglier with rash decisions.
If you had watched more football games with people in the sport and the refereeing profession, you'd know that, as I said before, referees have a great deal of discretion, especially in high-profile games. That is because they are under a lot of pressure and a lot of stress and the football authorities allow them some wiggle space in how they call contested situations.
That is why (I assume you know at least this) there are only a handful or so possible situations for which there is a hard and fast rule about a corresponding punishment. Most of those concern the penalty area, like hand-play in the penalty area in an automatic penalty kick and so on... For the rest, there are looser or tighter guidelines.
As with any profession requiring a more advanced skill set and decision-making.
1. I probably have seen more football games than you have, simply by living longer and being part of several clubs while here.
2. The referees do have some "discretion", but the criticism of this referee is that he used it poorly.
3. How could I have been crazy enough to think that Cruyff knows more than you do?
There's no amount of protestation on your part which is going to make everyone else wrong.
If the referee would have sent our player off right after the kick in the chest, 75% of the other fouls wouldn't have been made as he would have made it clear he is 100% in charge and does not accept any bullsh!t. Now, giving only yellow for a very tough foul, he put in the minds of all players (Dutch as well as Spanish) a lot and more was allowed and from that moment it went totally nuts and out of hand.
I truly believe sending one of the Dutch players off eventually could have turned in favor of Holland. It is a mistake to believe a squad of 11 can easily win from a squad with 10 players. Quite often it shows it is quite difficult as organisations/positions of the players of the squad of 10 have to change which forces the opponent to change his playing style as well. One player less also creates more space on the pitch and more space means more possibilities for counter football.
Conclusion: The referee was a too deciding factor and he is largely responsible for the way it turned out. It is way too easy to apoint only one (or eleven for that matter) scapegoat. Spain had a bunch of tough fouls their own and intimidated (succesfully) the referee.
I'm not saying Holland did not play like lumberjacks because they did, but everybody should look at the bigger picture instead of screaming bloody murder like the masses do now as if they are $%^&@$^ sheep!
Well, good you were a court reporter because you lack any form of reading comprehension. At all.
As I said before, allowing for a minimum threshold, it's not how much you've done but how you've done it.
Read over the article and tell me exactly where Cruyff agrees with you on the referee.
Read it for yourself! Cruyff says that there should have been 9 players on the field.
That means that the referee should have thrown two out. There are 11 men on a soccer team, or has that fact escapted you?
Give it up, Witchy-poo. Most, if not all, of the world does not agree with you.
Riiight, it's the ref's fault for not babysitting these grown men who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. "Honest, judge, she provoked me!"
If the ref had sent out one player in the beginning, things might have turned out as you said. OR the dutch players, already high on adrenaline and testosterone and playing at a disadvantage, would have gotten more desperate and hurt someone real bad.
We can all sit and pontificate for hours but chances are, no one here knows what it's like to be at a WC final and what the most appropriate reaction would be to keep the situation.
"That is why (I assume you know at least this) there are only a handful or so possible situations for which there is a hard and fast rule about a corresponding punishment. Most of those concern the penalty area, like hand-play in the penalty area in an automatic penalty kick and so on... For the rest, there are looser or tighter guidelines."
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.....
"That means that the referee should have thrown two out. There are 11 men on a soccer team, or has that fact escapted you?"
Aren't you just so clever and sarcastic. Unfortunately for you, as a great coach and a Dutch person he is talking about his disappointment with the team and what they deserved with their behavior, not about how the ref. handled the game, which are two very, very different things. If they weren't FIFA wouldn't have the ability to punish people about their actions in a game AFTER the game.
"Give it up, Witchy-poo. Most, if not all, of the world does not agree with you."
No, Bill, most of the world is disappointed with the Dutch and in agreement about how over the line they were and how dangerous and unconscionable that cleat to the chest was. Only you (and maybe few others) have your tighty-whities in a twist about the ref and that's only because I commented here.
"Are you actually daring to contradict WW? Shame on you. :-)))"
Well, my nationality is dutch, so it is in my blood, it is my nature to contradict and to challenge everyone else :-) Some also call it arrogance.......so be it, the skin is thick.
I still live by 2 rules my lieutenant in the airforce repeated endlessly:
1. The lieutenant is always right.
2. In the event the lieutenant is not right, rule number one comes into effect.
So, one way or the other, I'm always right :-)
"Conclusion: The referee was a too deciding factor and he is largely responsible for the way it turned out."
You have been living in the Balkans too long, pork chop! You have the typical Bulgarian mentality of never taking responsibility or admitting any wrong-doing. Everything is always someone else's fault. In this case, the referee.
I still think Holland should have been thrown out of this game for bad behavior, with Germany taking second place and Uruguay third. There is no place for Neanderthals on a football pitch. If you can't play, don't waste everyone's time pretending that you can. But what do you expect of a team made up of mostly negroes?
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan