Australia v Peru WC Play Off

[SanguinePar]

16 hours ago, Digs said:

No, I’m saying if you’re going to try to gain an advantage by bringing little notes into the park then it’s tough titties if your opponent removes that advantage by getting rid of the note if you leave it lying about. 

How is something aid your memory gaining an advantage (or at least how is it that, any more than any other kind of preparation)? Gaining advantages is what football is all about - the point is whether a note is an unfair advantage, which IMO it is not.

16 hours ago, Digs said:

A water bottle isn’t equipment either, he doesn’t need one to be a goalkeeper.

He doesn't need a specific pair of boots/gloves either - would you be ok with the opponent throwing those away too?

And I disagree that his bottle and his note are not equipment. Regardless though, the point is that they are his property, and not something an opposition player should ever be touching.

16 hours ago, Digs said:

Finally, nice guys finish last. He didn’t cheat, he just beat the guy at his own game. Personally, I’d want my players to kick their grannie to win a game as important as that and get it right up their opponents. 

Ok then.

[parsforlife]

10 minutes ago, SanguinePar said:

 

Considering it further, I probably would still want to win, I guess - but something like that would spoil it for me.

What about this specific incident do you have a problem with,  which is all perfectly within the rules that would spoil it compared to just about every game we have ever played has our players cheat throughout the match?

[Digs]

3 minutes ago, SanguinePar said:

How is something aid your memory gaining an advantage (or at least how is it that, any more than any other kind of preparation)? Gaining advantages is what football is all about - the point is whether a note is an unfair advantage, which IMO it is not.

He doesn't need a specific pair of boots/gloves either - would you be ok with the opponent throwing those away too?

And I disagree that his bottle and his note are not equipment. Regardless though, the point is that they are his property, and not something an opposition player should ever be touching.

Ok then.

So how is removing his advantage unfair? If you need notes of paper to play the game, then you're trying to gain an unfair advantage. Sure, study your opponents, learn how they will do it, but taking pieces of paper onto the pitch completely takes away from the nature of football, which is reactionary and competitive. It's like going to a play on Broadway and the main character relying entirely on prompts from his understudy. 

Why would I be ok with him throwing away his playing kit? That's not even an accurate comparison. Sure, he could play in bare feet and gloveless I suppose but that would be stupid as he is unliely to be as an effective keeper without them so he literally wouldn't be able to do his job properly without them. He 100% does not need a water bottle for a penalty shoot out. The purpose of the bottle in this case is not to provide him with hydration but to make his goalkeeping decisions for him. 

I'm sorry you seem to be offended by my competitive nature mate, but that's how the majority of players think, as they should. If you play sport at any sort of competitive level, sure, play fair but you play to win, and push the boundaries of what is lawful or not to the very limits. Those small margins are the difference in big occasions. If you want to be Johnny Corinthian in football nowadays, you won't get very far. I'm not saying cheat, I'm saying do what you need to win but that also means you accept the consequences if you go too far. IMO, all he did was level the field for his team. 

Let me ask you, if he had read his bottle, then told his team mates to go the exact opposite way to the way they normally go, thereby rendering his bottle notes useless, is that not the same as chucking it away and still not in the spirit of things, or are you saying he should valiantly ignore the notes and just hope for the best that his team mates are good enough to beat them, lest he be known as a cheat?

[SanguinePar]

3 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

What about this specific incident do you have a problem with,  which is all perfectly within the rules that would spoil it compared to just about every game we have ever played has our players cheat throughout the match?

I have a problem with one goalie trying to mess with another by intentionally looking for, finding, taking and disposing of a piece of the other goalie's equipment.

I have a particular problem with this one given the huge stakes involved.

And I'm pretty disappointed to see this guy being praised like some sort of hero for what is essentially a piece of petty, childish cheating (regardless of whether or not it's in the rules - and IMO it would be covered by Unsporting Conduct, and specifically "showing a lack of respect for the game")

As for any of our players cheating, I don't like that either - I don't like to win with a penalty when it was a dive, for instance. But IMO this is worse, because it's not a heat of the moment thing, it's not even during play - it's a deliberate, conscious action which he had time to consider but decided to go ahead with.

Similarly, much as I enjoyed our high league finishes and cup runs in the 2000s and our trips to Europe, the fact that those successes were bought with money we didn't have taints them for me. Or to give a more egregious example, the fact that Rangers won all those titles using tax dodges, and the fact that they liquidated, formed a new club and yet still claim their history just seems fundamentally wrong to me.

Maybe it's just me, but I actually care about the integrity of the sport. And this ain't it IMO.

 

[Digs]

1 minute ago, SanguinePar said:

I have a problem with one goalie trying to mess with another by intentionally looking for, finding, taking and disposing of a piece of the other goalie's equipment.

 

It's not his equipment though is it? Is he left incapacitated as a goalkeeper by not having a water bottle? Are you saying he can't possibly do his job, ie save any of the penalties without it? If that's the case, then he was cheating by that logic because it helps him do something he wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

[SanguinePar]

3 minutes ago, Digs said:

So how is removing his advantage unfair? If you need notes of paper to play the game, then you're trying to gain an unfair advantage. Sure, study your opponents, learn how they will do it, but taking pieces of paper onto the pitch completely takes away from the nature of football, which is reactionary and competitive. It's like going to a play on Broadway and the main character relying entirely on prompts from his understudy. 

No it isn't. It's like your actor having a spare copy of the script offstage to glance at when he's not in a scene, and then someone else hiding his script in order to deliberately try and make him flub his lines. It's the action of a pr**k.

Having a note is not an unfair advantage, are you serious? There's nothing in the rules to preclude it (and note that there IS a rule against players having all sorts of other equipment, including electronic communications, jewellery and more - but not this)

And we're back now to the idea that it's ok to study opponents and remember what you learn, but it's not ok to study them and have a note with you. So, again, are you saying that people with a bad memory should just accept a disadvantage in situastions where a wee bit of paper can help them be on a par with other players?

 

3 minutes ago, Digs said:

Why would I be ok with him throwing away his playing kit? That's not even an accurate comparison. Sure, he could play in bare feet and gloveless I suppose but that would be stupid as he is unliely to be as an effective keeper without them so he literally wouldn't be able to do his job properly without them. He 100% does not need a water bottle for a penalty shoot out. The purpose of the bottle in this case is not to provide him with hydration but to make his goalkeeping decisions for him. 

He couldn't play in bare feet (not allowed), but he could play without gloves. However that's moot, because what I said was that he doesn't need a SPECIFIC pair of boots or gloves. So he could wear a different pair if some opponent hid or threw away the ones he usually has. He 100% doesn't need those exact boots/gloves, so would that be ok as well?

And the purpose of the note is not to "make his decisions for him", it's to remind him of planned strategy - ultimately though he still has to decide what to do (and do it).

 

3 minutes ago, Digs said:

I'm sorry you seem to be offended by my competitive nature mate, but that's how the majority of players think, as they should. If you play sport at any sort of competitive level, sure, play fair but you play to win, and push the boundaries of what is lawful or not to the very limits. Those small margins are the difference in big occasions. If you want to be Johnny Corinthian in football nowadays, you won't get very far. I'm not saying cheat, I'm saying do what you need to win but that also means you accept the consequences if you go too far. IMO, all he did was level the field for his team. 

I'm not "offended" by your competitive nature, why would I be? I do think that winning at all costs is not something that is justifiable though. There are standard of behaviour that I believe trump sporting success. If that makes me "Johnny Corinthian", so be it. I'd rather be that than act like a c**t to gain an advantage.

 

3 minutes ago, Digs said:

Let me ask you, if he had read his bottle, then told his team mates to go the exact opposite way to the way they normally go, thereby rendering his bottle notes useless, is that not the same as chucking it away and still not in the spirit of things, or are you saying he should valiantly ignore the notes and just hope for the best that his team mates are good enough to beat them, lest he be known as a cheat?

My problem comes the moment he touches or looks at the other player's equipment - so yes, in your example, him telling his teammates what the note said would be unethical IMO. Not the telling part, particularly, but the fact that he'd looked in the first place.

Also, as noted above, it's up to the goalie to decide what to do with the info in his notes. If the other team shoots differently than expected that's bad luck. Having the notes themselves taken away is worse - not least because the idea of someone else messing with your stuff is a pretty uncomfortable one, regardless of any other consequences.

[SanguinePar]

15 minutes ago, Digs said:

It's not his equipment though is it? Is he left incapacitated as a goalkeeper by not having a water bottle? Are you saying he can't possibly do his job, ie save any of the penalties without it? If that's the case, then he was cheating by that logic because it helps him do something he wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

It is his equipment - it's something he legally brought with him to do his job as well as possible. It's undignified and unprofessional for the Aussie goalie to mess with it. And arguably against the rules too ( unsporting conduct).

No, he's not incapacitated by not having it, but then I didn't say he was, you said that.

And no, I'm not saying he can't possibly do his job without it - again, you said that.

He wasn't cheating because it's within the rules and the Aussie keeper could have done it too (and perhaps he even did, I don't know). One is the action of a man trying to do his own job well. The other is the action of a man trying to prevent someone else from doing their job.

[Keyser Soze]

37 minutes ago, Digs said:

 It's like going to a play on Broadway and the main character relying entirely on prompts from his understudy. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, SanguinePar said:

No it isn't. It's like your actor having a spare copy of the script offstage to glance at when he's not in a scene, and then someone else hiding his script in order to deliberately try and make him flub his lines. It's the action of a pr**k.

 C’mon now it’s absolutely nothing like either of these scenarios. Creased at this little back and forth tbh.

[Digs]

33 minutes ago, Keyser Soze said:

 

 C’mon now it’s absolutely nothing like either of these scenarios. Creased at this little back and forth tbh.

I'm laughing too tbf as the level of indignation far exceeds what he actually did IMO (as well as my analogy being woeful in hindsight). It's impossible to be this bound by sporting integrity and be a football fan. We are hypocritical, unreasonable and rabidly partisan by our very nature, so it's not unreasonable to expect players to do whatever it takes to win, especially in a game of this magnitude. All he did was remove the advantage his opponent tried to gain. 

Was it ****housery? absolutely. Would he be raging had it been done to him? Most definitely, but this is no less of a crime than delaying PK's, standing in front of the kicker, psyching him out, or any other nonsense a keeper might pull to try and make sure he saves the pen. Arguably, they are worse as the keeper is actively trying to make the taker miss, rather than trying to give himself an advantage to save it. 

You're either fine with all gamesmanship in the game whatsoever, or not at all. Show me a football fan who doesn't love a bit of ****housery, and I'll show you a liar.

[DA-go Par Adonis]

"Show me a football fan who doesn't love a bit of ****housery, and I'll show you a liar."

Whilst we've all got a bit of an ego, proclaiming to speak for all football fans world-wide is a bit excessive.  There will be plenty of people who don't like that side of the game at all, some Pars fans included.

[parsforlife]

3 hours ago, SanguinePar said:

One is the action of a man trying to do his own job well. The other is the action of a man trying to prevent someone else from doing their job.

In a competitive arena these are exactly the same thing.  

 

[Digs]

6 hours ago, DA-go Par Adonis said:

"Show me a football fan who doesn't love a bit of ****housery, and I'll show you a liar."

Whilst we've all got a bit of an ego, proclaiming to speak for all football fans world-wide is a bit excessive.  There will be plenty of people who don't like that side of the game at all, some Pars fans included.

I’m not proclaiming anything. In the context of my whole post, I’m saying it’s impossible to not love it when your own players do it because we all want our teams to be successful, especially against a rival (referring to Keyser’s analogy). We’re not talking about crimes against humanity here, it’s a game. I defy any football fan, ie a fanatic by very definition, not to celebrate a major achievement by their team because one of their own pulled a fast one. You may admit it wasn’t the best thing to do, but you will always happily take the result.
 

Im not proclaiming to speak for anyone, I just don’t believe there are any football fans so noble as to be actively unhappy by how it was achieved should it be their own team that’s gains from it when it is something of that magnitude, you would always absolutely take it. 

If the big chap is adamant he feels otherwise, well all I can say is he’s a far better man than me.

[GG Riva]

7 hours ago, Digs said:

I’m not proclaiming anything. In the context of my whole post, I’m saying it’s impossible to not love it when your own players do it because we all want our teams to be successful, especially against a rival (referring to Keyser’s analogy). We’re not talking about crimes against humanity here, it’s a game. I defy any football fan, ie a fanatic by very definition, not to celebrate a major achievement by their team because one of their own pulled a fast one. You may admit it wasn’t the best thing to do, but you will always happily take the result.
 

Im not proclaiming to speak for anyone, I just don’t believe there are any football fans so noble as to be actively unhappy by how it was achieved should it be their own team that’s gains from it when it is something of that magnitude, you would always absolutely take it. 

If the big chap is adamant he feels otherwise, well all I can say is he’s a far better man than me.

It's undeniably true that the vast majority of football fans have double standards - one yardstick for their own team and another for the opposition. Take something as simple as a debatable penalty award. If it's awarded to our own team, it's soft but we'll take it, if it's awarded to our opponents, hell hath no fury - especially if it effectively decides the result.

Doesn't make it OK though, if the player who won it conned the ref.