Internet 1 - England goalkeeper 0 The internet loves nothing more than an excruciating moment of embarrassment caught by the cameras. When that moment happens to be in the middle of a World Cup match between England and the United States, well... Robert Green Robert Green As many online viewers have pointed out, even the hoardings at the side of the pitch …
c.f. the earlier comparatively glorious "moment excruciatingly NOT caught by the cameras, had you just shelled out on HD kit, and got all your mates round to watch..." (thanks to ITV HD's ineptitude, a story which unless I am mistaken, seems to have passed El Reg by)
And of course (apparently) they did it last year with the winning goal in a Liverpool vs. Everton FA Cup tie. Next year it'll be the winning goal in the Champions League final between Chelsea and Man Utd, probably, assuming ITV still haven't been banned for life from keeping a television camera.
Yes, particularly funny given the push to sell said HD kit specifically in time for the World Cup.
Ha ha again!
Still ITV do at least manage to advertise various betting shops. And put on endless shite for alleged adults in the studio to scream at and the ones at home phone premium rate phone lines to vote for while demonstrating their faith that it isn't fixed.
<quote>
And everyone will forget the amazing save Green the very next time his goal was threatened.
<quote>
I won't, and will tell others about it as well. That was no amazing save, that was almost as inept as the goal, and he was fortunate it went onto the post after he'd flapped at it, otherwise he'd have been getting pelters for that as well.
It's a team game. If it ends in a draw then neither team is better than the other - there is no meaningful way of measuring this other than the number of goals scored.
So England are no better than the US and there were ten others on the field who are just as responsible Green for this apalling result. As usual, however English fans and the media find it much easier to pick a single scapegoat.
Lost on penalties? Blame the poor sap who missed the penalty, don't blame the other ten men who were just as responsible for the game ending in a draw in the first place.
I really can't be doing with all this "we were the better team on the field, but we didn't captitalise on our chances" that you hear from football fans week in, week out. No you weren't the better TEAM if you didn't win then you weren't the better TEAM. You might have had some better players, but since the whole point of the game is to score more goals than the other team then you clearly weren't the better team or you would have scored more goals. Oh and while we're on the subject it's only "we" if you were one of the 11 men on the field representing your club. If you weren't out there it's they. You don't hear people talking about "we" when an individual wins something for their club in a sport like athletics do you?
Have they filtered out the background noise from these videos? There seems to be this slight technical hitch with the sound system affecting all the World Cup coverage, resulting in this continuous buzzing noise.
Icon to be taken literally - protective headgear including earmuffs.
FIFA is issuing takedown notices on personal cams that spectators make of football games ?
And no one is disputing this ?
What gives FIFA the right to go medieval on personal films in a public sports arena ?
FIFA has the license to broadcast on TV and real-time on the Internet, I agree, but FIFA has no exclusive rights to all images on all media for any amount of time.
This is blatant violation of individual rights.
Scandalous.
I very much agree with you, it is a blatant violation of individual rights, but sadly its also another warning sign of where we are all going as a society.
@"What gives FIFA the right to go medieval on personal films in a public sports arena"
Unfortunately FIFA give themselves not the right but the power to do this, because they have a lot of money to buy many lawyers to frighten everyone into backing down to them, even if what people are doing would end up being judged by a court as ok. (People don't have the time and money to fight it and are fearful of trying to fight against it). FIFA from a business point of view are like a corporation and sadly its another example of how society is getting increasingly run by our corporate overlords. (The danger of Corporatism is that its an aspect of Fascism).
Using powerful lawyers to frighten everyone into backing down is literally using fear tactics to rule over people, so what you get is people literally ruled by fear, a common theme of authoritarian regimes. Of course the fear isn't continuous, its sporadic, so in the quiet periods some people fail to see what each of the sporadic fear tactics adds up to be, which is being ruled by fear and bullied along by authoritarian attitudes.
We are getting ruled ever more by Corporatism. For example many of the biggest moves towards spying on everyone on the Internet to control and fine what people are doing, is all part of this move towards a corporate backed more authoritarian regime gaining power by gaming the legal system to give them power over people who don't have the money to fight back. Its what the rich and powerful want to make them even more rich and powerful. Its why its so dangerous for a society to go this way. :(
because it's a "private" event that you pay to go to (and by buying a ticket waive your rights) they've got you there
they probably also have copyright on the uniforms, logos and likenesses of the players so they've got you again
and they have more money than you... and an army of lawyers with studded football boots to back them up...
The winning team being the one that makes the least - and capitalises on the other guy's sxcrewups.
Whether it's fumbles, bumbles, tumbles or own goals; most of the scores in a game come directly from someone somewhere getting it wrong. Intercepted passes, convincing acting after a tackle, tripping over your own feet, carefully aiming your shot at goal directly over the crossbar, or whatever it happens to be. Such is the number of errors made by the players that it's almost impossible to get the ball from the halfway line into the opponents goal without messing up and giving away possession. At which time the whole thing starts again, going in the opposite direction.
Repeat for 90 (or 120) minutes and whoever does the least number of idiotic things usually wins. Simple!
You would be right of course assuming that all things are equal. But football is not equal. Some teams ARE better than others.
A team from the Premier League would be expected to easily beat a team from the Blue Square Premier, not because the BSP made any mistakes, but because the Premier League team are just better than they are.
I have to side with Green here, he did everything right, his body was behind the gloves and it hit him full on the gloves, that wasn't a blunder. It didn't go through his legs, it didn't clip his hand and deflect into the goal - it hit his hand full on and bounced off and round him! That is odd behaviour both from the ball and the pitch. Reminds me of that red kids ball you'd get in the 80s that seemed to have a mind of its own.
Other than adhesive gloves, there's not a whole lot you can do about that.
That raises a good point - are there rule regarding what kind of coating you can have on your goal-keeping gloves?
I'm thinking of that rubbery stuff that they make toys out of that stick to windows etc. I have a pair of climbing gloves that have very high friction pads on them (although they are not actually sticky - you simply can't slide them on anything smooth)
and I've seen the footage so much it is now boring.
He was not directly behind the ball, he was slightly (about a ball radius) to the left (wrt. his point of view). As a result, it hit his right hand around the heel of his palm, bounced up and over that hand while acquiring forward spin, which was enough to carry it over the line while he scrabbled after it.
I am not a keeper, and am not really that interested in football, but IMHO, unless you can be certain that you can scoop the ball safely into the body, the best thing to do is to smother it to the ground.
It may be that the speed and bounce of the new ball might have made a difference, leading him to underestimate the height at which the ball reached him. I know that while my wife was watching one of the games, I heard a comment about how many of the long-shots appeared to be going wide, which the commentator said could be a result of the bounce and speed of the new ball.
I don't really know why I commented on this, given that I could take or leave the World Cup. Must just be because it's on. Why isn't there a who cares shrug icon?
I believe he was referring to the game in France 98 (against Brazil, I think) where Jim parried the ball in such a way as to take enough of the power out the shot and enable the ball to dip under the crossbar and into the goal. But that isn't even in the same league as Green's fluff, or James being lobbed from the halfway line, etc:
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/128354-top-ten-england-keeper-howlers
Sottish keepers are some of the best around: Alan Rough, Jim Leighton, Andy Goram and Craig Gordon are all firmly in the "world-class" group. It's the rest of the team that's usually shite. If anything, it's our complete inability to hold onto the ball which puts the defense, and thus the keeper, under more pressure than is necessary.
PS - Given the milk-bottle rims that Leighton wore off-field, I'm surprised he could see anything at all while playing...!
<quote>
I believe he was referring to the game in France 98 (against Brazil, I think) where Jim parried the ball in such a way as to take enough of the power out the shot and enable the ball to dip under the crossbar and into the goal.
<\quote>
Brazil goals in that match were a header from a corner that got between defenders, and a Tommy Boyd own goal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXFwmt_PXk
Speaking for more than 90% of Americans, I am sorry that this happened. We don't really care about professional soccer over here at all and I think we should stop playing it so that countries that do care don't have to waste their time and have the potential for a mistake like this to make them look bad.
*Then the Scots can pay for their unemployment benefits, and the Welsh for their free prescriptions from their own taxation. We could even give Northern Ireland back to the terrorists. See, I can be bigoted too if I try.
Or maybe you could join the rest of us here in the real world, where the United Kingdom still exists due to the benefits each of the countries gives the others?
*Irony alert for the slow of wit.
I agree completely - the complete absence of "normal" crowd noise, chanting, singing, etc. has completely killed the atmosphere for me. Surely this isn't difficult to fix? It seems to me that the vuvuzela produces a sound in a very specific frequency band which means it could easily be eliminated from TV sound feeds with a notch filter whilst having little or no effect on the rest of the sound.. Or am I missing something?
Loud hailer so that you can hear me!
That's similar to what I was thinking; the Jabulani ball is a very different design from a traditional football ball, including being made of a different material, having fewer sections, etc. It might be more slippery or have other characteristics that keepers aren't used to. (Keepers? We call them "soccer goalies" here in the states...) Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that this was a lackluster performance by the English team, and that nobody should underestimate any team they go up against.
... is not called Calamity James for no reason. Just look on YouTube for some classic David James moments. Like this one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqtdew441GQ
@ Anonymous Coward who said there should be no England team... Ha Ha, thats the funniest thing I've read on the reg for a while. Keep up the good work :)
Paris, because you know she only watches to check out Joe Cole.....
...But I listened to Chris Moyles (a perennial reg fave) commentate on the NZ game this morning (US time) and found it very amusing.
As far as the England game goes, if they had played like they did in the second half for the entire game (as in 'oh shit we might actually lose and our WAGS would dump us!') the score could have been 2-0 or even 3-0. Oh well.
Why am I reading this article? Why am I even posting? I hate football!
Luckily, in these days of emerging "selective" (ie I choose what and when) media, I'm not getting it rammed down my throat as in the days of yore. It's trying damned hard, mind - but it will not win; I shall remain "football free".
I no longer need to bristle at the semi-religous monologues, the near-tribal warfare it can induce, the utter trainspotter-ness of statements like "...oooh, do you remember the West Ham v Ranger match in jun 1982, in the 52nd minute when Joe Over-paid-poser chipped a cross from left field, and.....etc etc.", or the evagelical tones of commentators that it is *the* game, or how new British World Champions in sport X are bumped to a 1 column inch paragraph while some ball-kicking tosser from the 4th division makes sport headlines after admitting he prefers tomato sauce with his chips, not HP.... Etc Etc.
There's no "No Football" icon?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
