Euro 2004

[alien-)!(-sam]

Vote your predictions

Holland made it to the semi-finals, Greece miraculously won against France, and Portugal helped by the referee.

Sorry all you UK fans

 

[thop]

Portugal was not helped by the ref. Sorry but i'm fed up with all the "We got robbed" talk. Just accept that you lost because of a poor performance!

Anyway, my bet is on the Czechs. They will win against Denmark today, trample over Greece, and then meet Portugal in the final.

 

[London Geezer]

I voted for the czechs, cause they're hot and my boss is czech, he just got in, with his motorcycle kind of outfit and he raised the room temperature of about 55 degrees. God that man is H O T.

 

[nutball]

Aye, Portugal v. Czech Republic in the final, lord only knows who's going to win that (Portugal are a pretty poor side from the games I've seen them play, but will have the crowd behind them I suspect ). Gut feeling is Czech Republic.

Still, there's a 3-in-4 chance that it'll be someone new and interesting, which can only be good for European football.

Sorry all you UK fans

For info., there's no such thing as a "UK fan".

Only one of the four teams from the two countries within the United Kingdom made it to the Euro finals this time round (that being England).

 

[rotten]

trample over Greece

isnt that wot was supposed 2 happen with portugal, spain and france?
greece may still have some cards up their sleeves....


i agree that portugal was not helped by the ref...
any contact with the opposing goalie inside the 6-yard box is a foul...
besides england played poorly... after they scored they should have kept
the pressure on and not just stay back and wait 4 the game 2 finish...

 

[thop]

I think Portugal greatly underestimated Greece. Versus Spain it was a good game by Greece no doubt. France played so poorly, it was shocking. However i think the Czech are really out of their league. Excellent motivation, good team spirit and good teamplay will only get you so far against a way superior team. And i think the Czechs won't make the mistake to underestimate them. Personally i'd like to see Greece win the EURO though, biggest sensation ever

 

[Mariner]

i agree that portugal was not helped by the ref...
any contact with the opposing goalie inside the 6-yard box is a foul...
besides england played poorly... after they scored they should have kept
the pressure on and not just stay back and wait 4 the game 2 finish...

It certainly wasn't a foul on the goalkeeper - Terry jumped directly upwards for the ball and the keeper jumped into him - no motion towards the keeper whatsoever and as Terry was trying for the ball it wasn't obstruction, either. I can see why the referee disallowed the goal but it was an incorrect decision - goalkeepers are protected far too much due to some bizarre misinterpretation of the rules that most referees seem to think is normal. If it had been a defender jumping into Terry the goal would have stood and according to the rules the goalkeeper is just a player like any other.

That said, we (England) were crap all game and didn't deserve to win the match. I can't understand why Eriksson decided to play so defensively after the goal - just look what happened against France! Throughout the tournament, most of our midfielders underperformed with Scholes and Beckham particularly being extremely poor. The fact that we still nearly got through on penalties despite playing rubbish all game leads me to believe that Portugal don't have what it takes to win the tournament.

My money is on the Czechs (as it has been since before the tournament) or possibly the Dutch who have been improving since the tournament began. It wouldn't surprise me if either Denmark or Greece sneaked through to the final, however, as both teams are very solid defensively. Defences have certainly been on top throughout this tournament. I just returned from Portugal the other day after spending two weeks there. During this time I went to 6 matches - the first 5 of which were drawn!

 

[hey69]

I'm voting for Portugal ... i would vote for Greece but then again i don't trust them

 

[jose.moura]

Well, i voted Portugal of course ! But the Czechs are very strong.

As for the complaints about the dissallowed goal ... get over it. The refs decision was correct.

Portugal won fair and square so stop whining about it.

 

[Mariner]

Portugal won fair and square so stop whining about it.

Eh?!? :?

I said England didn't play well enough to win - it's just my opinion that the disallowed goal ought to have stood according to the rules. Believe me, England were very poor in that game - Portugal were much the better team for most of the game.

Half-time in the Czech vs Denmark game and the Danes are well on top at the moment. Still a pretty drab game at the moment. I feel extra time looming once again...

 

[Guden Oden]

Only one of the four teams from the two countries within the United Kingdom made it to the Euro finals this time round (that being England).

You don't say???

 

[oi]

I kinda started doubting Czech after their first half against Denmark, then they score 3 goals in 20 mins hehe. Czech vs Netherlands in the final and Czech will win.

 

[dreamin']

i agree that portugal was not helped by the ref...
any contact with the opposing goalie inside the 6-yard box is a foul...
besides england played poorly... after they scored they should have kept
the pressure on and not just stay back and wait 4 the game 2 finish...

It certainly wasn't a foul on the goalkeeper - Terry jumped directly upwards for the ball and the keeper jumped into him - no motion towards the keeper whatsoever and as Terry was trying for the ball it wasn't obstruction, either. I can see why the referee disallowed the goal but it was an incorrect decision - goalkeepers are protected far too much due to some bizarre misinterpretation of the rules that most referees seem to think is normal. If it had been a defender jumping into Terry the goal would have stood and according to the rules the goalkeeper is just a player like any other.

bold is mine... these are the rules.... any contact is considered a foul, and there was contact. And no motion towards the goalkeeper my a**, you can clearly see that he uses his left arm to keep the goalie at distance, but that's beside the point, as physical contact alone is enough for it to be a foul. Maybe they don't call this a foul in the premier league, but they do in the bundesliga, and I guess they do all over europe

 

[thop]

Easy pie for the Czech.

 

[Mariner]

bold is mine... these are the rules.... any contact is considered a foul, and there was contact. And no motion towards the goalkeeper my a**, you can clearly see that he uses his left arm to keep the goalie at distance, but that's beside the point, as physical contact alone is enough for it to be a foul. Maybe they don't call this a foul in the premier league, but they do in the bundesliga, and I guess they do all over europe

Not the case - if you check the rules (which you can download from the FIFA website) you'll find that there is no mention that "any contact with the goalkeeper is considered a foul". If an attacker and a defender challenge for the ball and there is physical contact between them yet one of the players wins the challenge, is this automatically a foul? No - this is left to the referee to decide. Why should it be any different with the goalkeeper? The goalkeeper is merely a player who is able to handle the ball in the penalty area - there is nothing special about him other than that.

If you watch the incident again, you'll see that Terry was jumping directly upwards with his eyes on the ball - when you jump, you tend to lift your arms to gain leverage for the jump. The goalkeeper, on the other hand, was jumping diagonally towards the ball, also with his eyes on it. The goalkeeper jumped into Terry (who jumped first) and not vice versa so by your reckoning, it should have been a foul against Terry and a penalty!

Please note that I'm not one that has complained too much about the decision as I feel England didn't deserve to win the game - we played crap and ultimately got the result we deserved. However, goalkeepers are overprotected to a ridiculous degree, even in the UK - a fair challenge is a fair challenge and a foul is a foul. Why should special allowances always be given to goalkeepers?

My money is still on the Czechs after tonights result.

 

[dreamin']

It is different with the goalkeeper...

The action took place inside the "goal area". You can find the goal area in the official FIFA rules as well as the "Laws of the game" of the International Football Associations Board, which the UEFA references.
Inside this area, the goalkeeper is not to be impaired in trying to reach the ball, and that means that even touching the goalkeeper is considered a foul.
The situation in the portugal-england game was analyzed by around 10 different experts here on german tv, including two UEFA approved referee's, and they all said exactly this, and fouls have been called in situations like this for years...

 

[TheMightyPuck]

I'm going with the Czechs because I have money on em ;-) At this point it's really anyone's to win. I might give Portugal the edge because of home field.

 

[Mariner]

It is different with the goalkeeper...

The action took place inside the "goal area". You can find the goal area in the official FIFA rules as well as the "Laws of the game" of the International Football Associations Board, which the UEFA references.
Inside this area, the goalkeeper is not to be impaired in trying to reach the ball, and that means that even touching the goalkeeper is considered a foul.

I don't actually believe that there is any such rule - I've just had a quick scan through the Laws of the game on the FA web site (which also lists the various decisions of the IFAB) and there is no such stated rule. It appears as though this must be a case of an 'unstated rule' on the continent.

No special rule is required as regards touching the goalkeeper in the 6 yard box. The referee is able to use his discretion as to whether a goalkeeper or other player has been obstructed or not - I assume that continental referees feel any contact between outfield players and goalkeepers should be classed as obstruction.

Similarly, I notice that a free-kick is always given when a player raises their studs to try and block a ball/win a tackle on the continent whether there is any dangerous play or not. I can only assume continental referees feel this is always dangerous play whatever the circumstances (I don't believe it is).

In my opinion, the game is becoming too soft - we see players diving (i.e. cheating) at the slightest contact with an opponent and fair shoulder charges are penalised. We also see feigned injury and attempts to have opponents booked and sent off. This is worse on the continent but is creeping into the UK, unfortunately. Every time there is a change in the rules or the interpretation of a rule, it is an attempt to give advantage to the attackers, yet we still don't get more goals.

We should go back to the early days of the game in the late 19th Century when you were entitled to tackle an opposition player whether they had the ball or not! You were also entitled to charge into the opposition goalkeeper at any time until 1900 when the rule changed and you were only allowed to charge him when he was in possession of the ball! Nat Lofthouse, eat your heart out...

 

[jose.moura]

... it's just my opinion that the disallowed goal ought to have stood according to the rules...

It's been said here and throught Europe that the ref was correct in his decision. That's why i said "fair and square".

The only people that seem to think othewise are the british. It pissed me off watching Sky News and hear them complaining and whining about that play suggesting the ref "robbed" you.

I can certainly understand what it feels like going into the final moments of a game and having a chance go to waste due to a foul, or even to lose a game.

 

[amk]

OT: Laws of the Game

It is different with the goalkeeper...

The action took place inside the "goal area". You can find the goal area in the official FIFA rules as well as the "Laws of the game" of the International Football Associations Board, which the UEFA references.
Inside this area, the goalkeeper is not to be impaired in trying to reach the ball, and that means that even touching the goalkeeper is considered a foul.

I don't actually believe that there is any such rule - I've just had a quick scan through the Laws of the game on the FA web site (which also lists the various decisions of the IFAB) and there is no such stated rule. It appears as though this must be a case of an 'unstated rule' on the continent.

Agreed.

I've just searched through the Laws of the Game and the Q&A for "goal area" and "keeper". Absolutely no mention of not touching the keeper in the 6 yard box.

If anyone disagrees, I challenge you to prove me wrong.

It would appear that England were denied by an unwritten continental law which is not an official FIFA rule, and to which England did not agree (such a goal would have stood in the Premiership). I have a problem with this.

FWIW, England played very poorly on the day, although I think this was mostly due to exhaustion (too soon after the previous game, and after the gruelling English domestic season) and the loss of connection between midfield and the strikers when Rooney went off.

The only problem I have with Eriksson's tactics was replacing Rooney with Vassell, an out-and-out striker too similar to Owen. Heskey, Dyer and Joe Cole would all have done a better job of connecting attack and midfield.

Eriksson was right IMHO to sit back, let Portugal throw men forward, and then try to score on the counter attack - it's just that few England players had the legs to break.

It's been said before that England will never win a major trophy until it's domestic season is reduced - there are twenty Premiership clubs, two domestic knockout cups, and no winter break, in addition to European competitions.

On topic: Czechs are now clear favourites, although a Dutch or Portugese win wouldn't be much of an upset. A Greek win would.