# Liam Brady exonerates Uruguayan cheat



## Chocks away (3 Jul 2010)

I'm puzzled as to why Liam Brady (whom I'm led to believe heads up Arsenal's Youth Academy) omitted to include the word "cheating" in this interview ........ 
*[How much emphasis is placed on guiding a young player on how to live their lives properly?*
We do our utmost to give them guidance and advice on all manner of things, like warning them of what to steer clear of. We advise on all things from key areas like diet to teaching them to be punctual. I am always telling the kids it’s better to be half an hour early than one minute late. This is all done in order to help them advance their careers.] 
Read more: http://soccerlens.com/interview-with-liam-brady/6307/#ixzz0sbj4gxIh
By stopping the ball with his hand from crossing the line, the Uruguay player stopped Ghana from going through to the semis. Giving a penalty (where failing to score is about 12%) was not good enough. And the platitudes of their coach Tabarez saying that Suarez did not cheat but did something "instinctive" is defending the indefensible. Surely a crooks charter. Get rid of Sep Blatter and bring on camera technology. To say I'm sick as a parrot is an understatement.


----------



## MrMan (3 Jul 2010)

He did what he had to do and suffered the consequences. He got red carded and will miss the semi-finals of the world cup. Offer any team the chance to take one penalty kick to win in the world cup 1/4 final (and even if you miss your still not out) and they will all snap your hand off. 
The Ghanian missed and he had his chance as is clearly stated in the rules. What would camera technology have changed in this instance? The ref got it right. Ghana got their reward and Ururguay got their punishment. 
He actions spared his team but the team still had to go on and win and ghana again got their chance and again they didn't take it.


----------



## sunrock (3 Jul 2010)

It was basically a professional foul. It wasn`t  done to deceive the referree. It was a last ditch attempt to stop the ball crossing the line and I am sure all Uruguay  would approve that action. If it occurred in the middle of the first half the player might have left the ball enter the net.
I am very disappointed for GHana ,but I would have done the exact same thing if i was in Suarez position. He basically gave Uruguay  from no chance to a very slim chance of progressing. The fact that Uruguay survived the penalty and triumphed in the penalty shoot out made rivetting viewing. We have often seen this in GAA mathes where one team looks to have it won with time almost up and the other team manages to equalise and then win. A certain match between dubiln and meath in the 90s comes to mind.The emotional rollercoaster of the fans leaves the losing supporters gutted.


----------



## DerKaiser (3 Jul 2010)

Yeah, it's basically a professional foul and is no different from any foul really in that you can choose to foul and take the consequences. 

It's obviously quite similiar to say an illegal tackle by the last man back on a striker through on goal.

All these cheating allegations have got out of hand (if you'll pardon the pun!).

It's harder to take if the ref doesn't spot it.

In general the punishment is appropriate, red card plus penalty, but in this situation, where there was only a few seconds left on the clock, it's clear that the red card would make no difference to the outcome so conceding a penalty was infintely better than conceding a goal for Uruguay.

Defenders on the line have always done this at all levels of the game.  It might not always result in a fair outcome but that's life.


----------



## Chocks away (3 Jul 2010)

But what do ye think of Brady ............ as a man who encourages that sort of thing ......... and coaches kids to be sportsmanlike? In the chat afterwards he said something like .......... Suarez did what he had to do ie. stop the certain goal with his hand ........ and got his team to the next round. That's what it's all about. This dichotomy should be explained. He (Suarez) and by complicity the whole team cheated another team out of it's rightful place in the next round. Surely it teaches those kids to be hypocritical in their ways.


----------



## MrMan (3 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> But what do ye think of Brady ............ as a man who encourages that sort of thing ......... and coaches kids to be sportsmanlike? In the chat afterwards he said something like .......... Suarez did what he had to do ie. stop the certain goal with his hand ........ and got his team to the next round. That's what it's all about. This dichotomy should be explained. He (Suarez) and by complicity the whole team cheated another team out of it's rightful place in the next round. Surely it teaches those kids to be hypocritical in their ways.


 

No.1 he was being employed as a pundit to give his honest opinion on the match, Suarez did what anyone would have done, to start preaching about sportsmanship and what kids think would have been galling.
No.2 Ghana did not have a rightful place in the next round, they had their chance and blew it.


----------



## RonanC (3 Jul 2010)

Uruguay didnt cheat anybody, Suarez didnt cheat anybody either. He handled the ball on the line, the referee saw it, he was sent off and a penalty was awarded to Ghana. Asamoah Gyan missed it. Simple.

Any player would have done it and would have risked a red card to give their team a chance. Suarez has been punished already and it looks like Fifa will punish him even more. 

Its football for gods sake, not the United Nations Peace Keeping Sports Day Out for Children. 

No cheating. End of.


----------



## Chocks away (3 Jul 2010)

I'm almost tempted to say that cheating pays .......... even if you're caught. So I guess all you guys were au fait with the peculiarities of Henri's hand ball? And all the people that called him a cheat were wrong?


----------



## rustbucket (3 Jul 2010)

The difference between the Henry situation and Suarez is simple. Henry handled the ball, the refereee missed it, France Scored. Therefore an injustice was done as Ireland lost out.

Suarez handled the ball, denying Ghana a clear goal, was spotted by the ref, sent off and therefore dealt with appropriately. The referee applied the correct rules. Decision was correct.

The fact that Ghana missed is just bad luck for them.


If my memory serves me correctly, Solsjkaer made a similar professional foul for United a few years ago when the keeper was beaten he tracked the opposing forward back and hacked him down. A profesional foul that he knew would result in red. A personal sacrifice for the good of the team.


----------



## enoxy (3 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> I'm almost tempted to say that cheating pays .......... even if you're caught. So I guess all you guys were au fait with the peculiarities of Henri's hand ball? And all the people that called him a cheat were wrong?


 
His surname is spelt 'Henry', not Henri. He cheated and got away with it and the Uruguyan was punished for his handball - that's the difference. You haven't really convinced posters of your argument.


----------



## micmclo (3 Jul 2010)

rustbucket said:


> If my memory serves me correctly, Solsjkaer made a similar professional foul for United a few years ago when the keeper was beaten he tracked the opposing forward back and hacked him down. A profesional foul that he knew would result in red. A personal sacrifice for the good of the team.



Dead right.
Solsjkaer saved a certain goal from being scored and sacrificed himself for the team.
Suarez did the same and took the red card, suspension and the penalty.

You are the only mentioning cheating here OP. The ref applied the rules, what more do you want FIFA to do here? And how exactly would camera technology have changed this incident, the referee did their job and did it well


----------



## RMCF (3 Jul 2010)

He didn't do anything that any other pro footballer would have done. Even the BBC, Lineker, Hansen etc all said the same today.

Its not like it was pre-planned. It was a sudden, spur of the moment reaction. It wasn't a decision even as far as I am concerned. Its not like Suarez thought "right there's the ball coming at me now, I think I might just handle it". It happens so quickly that its a gut reaction. 

He was punished fully within the laws of the game as they stand, and for that reason I think he has suffered his punishment, as did his team. They had a man sent off, a last minute penalty awarded against them and in 95% of cases, that would have sent them home. 

But the important thing is the laws of the game bit. Until the 'penalty goal' in brought in in soccer, this is the max punishment that a ref can give a player/team for this type of foul. So blame the rules of the game, not the player for making a reaction that is totally natural. Even if the penalty goal rule did exist, he would *still *have done what he done.


----------



## mathepac (3 Jul 2010)

I'm not sure it was a deliberate attempt to cheat.

Looking at the replays it seems to me that he turns his face away from the ball as he raises his arms, so as per RMCF above it looked instinctive to me, a natural reaction to try and protect his face / head.

He broke the rules, hand to ball, last defender, denial of a goal-scoring opportunity, etc, he was sent off and the opposition had a penalty shot awarded, so the punishments fit the crime. The Ghanains failure to capitalise on the opportunity is a different issue.


----------



## shanegl (3 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> I'm almost tempted to say that cheating pays .......... even if you're caught. So I guess all you guys were au fait with the peculiarities of Henri's hand ball? And all the people that called him a cheat were wrong?



You've never played a game of football in your life have you?


----------



## tiger (3 Jul 2010)

I believe the BBC panel (Shearer) said during the Germany Argentina interval, that there wasn't a player out there who wouldn't have done the same.


----------



## RMCF (3 Jul 2010)

I think this section from an article on Soccernet.com sums it all up well:

_This was not Diego Maradona in 1986, Rivaldo in 2002 or Thierry Henry  last year in Paris. Suarez cheated in the true sense of the word, but  his transgression was punished immediately by a red card that will rule  him out of the semi-final and a penalty that Asamoah Gyan should have  scored to ensure Ghana would be the first African team to contest a  World Cup semi-final._

_That Gyan failed to do so was a  heartbreaking moment for the player, Ghana, the continent of Africa and  all those neutrals who had adopted the unfancied Black Stars as a second  team. But that does not change the fact that Gyan failed to uphold his  side of the bargain from 12 yards. In the end the punishment may not  have fitted the crime, but justice, in the strictest sense, was done.  Suarez should not be pilloried for that._
_After all, in essence  what distinguishes Suarez's intervention from a goalkeeper bringing down  a striker, just as he is about to roll the ball into an empty net? Both  deny a certain goal, but only one invites stern criticism and the  sullying of a reputation._

_This was not a deliberate attempt to con  the referee by nefarious means. Maradona, Henry and Rivaldo all did  precisely that, and criminally escaped censure. Suarez knew the  implications of palming the ball away so blatantly. This was an act of  desperation: with the World Cup slipping from Uruguay's grasp, it was a  last throw of the dice and an act he performed on behalf of his team,  sacrificing himself in the process. He knew the red card would follow._

_Gustavo  Poyet put it perfectly when he said Suarez was "taking one for the  team". Knowing full well the consequences of his desperate actions,  Suarez gave Uruguay a glimmer of hope of reaching their first World Cup  semi-final for 40 years, but only that. It was a decision he had to  take. He didn't have time to weigh up the morality of the act, ponder  the impact he would have on a continent and how his actions would appear  in the context of a wider debate about cheating in football. He had to  fling up his arms to save his country, and that is what he did._


----------



## sunrock (4 Jul 2010)

I think Suarez knew exactly what he was doing.The fact that it happened in a split second and was an instinctive reaction is fair enough but players make decisions in split seconds all the time and they know exactly what they are doing.Would he have blocked it with his hand if it was the first minute of the game. I don`t think so.
The fact is players have been through these scenarios in hundreds of matches and training sessions and also from witnessing matches and can size up the percentages instantly. Suarez calculation was pretty simple. Don`t handle the ball....Uruguay out.
Handle the ball....red card off the field for the remaining 10 seconds and miss the semi finals if Uruguay advance.More importantly Uruguay have a lifeline thru`a missed penalty and then suceeding in the penalty shoot out.
His foul was clearcut in front of the referree. If there is a deliberate attemt to deceive the referree like Maradona or Henry and is succeessful and is a matchchanger then that is harder to take.
In the first Cork kerry match ,with cork up a point with time almost up the gooch got possession. Being surrounded by 3 cork players he basically threw himself to the ground and the ref gave him a free. Gooch who is good at the percentages played on the fact that the ref likes to even things up.
No such ref assistance for cork when cadogan went to ground under much more pressure from the kerry backs as time was almost up in the replay and cork a point down.
We shouldn`t be so hard on the likes of Henri. The fact is players in every code will cheat or do anything to gain an advantage,legal or illegal. One good thing about Fifa, is that the referres are given strict guidelines about the punishments for various fouls, leaving less room for the referres discretion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Jul 2010)

Are not most "fouls" cheating? hence the name.  This foul was spotted and punished in accordance with the rules, end of.


----------



## Chocks away (4 Jul 2010)

sunrocks analysis is, to my mind, correct. But the punishment did not fit the crime. What about the advantage rule? Could the referee not use that? As he does if a player is fouled en route to goal and lets the play go on. The ball was stopped on the goal line ........ could the ref not use his noodle and ...... Jeez, I'm kinda sorry that I started this one. There seems to be no just outcome!


----------



## haminka1 (4 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> By stopping the ball with his hand from crossing the line, the Uruguay player stopped Ghana from going through to the semis. Giving a penalty (where failing to score is about 12%) was not good enough. And the platitudes of their coach Tabarez saying that Suarez did not cheat but did something "instinctive" is defending the indefensible. Surely a crooks charter. Get rid of Sep Blatter and bring on camera technology. To say I'm sick as a parrot is an understatement.


while i agree with you, your last sentence really made me think. i've never owned a parrot and don't know how they look like when they are sick. do they vomit?


----------



## Chocks away (4 Jul 2010)

Only if they get Pollynesia and don't look for tweetment - parrotseatemall is the usual cure


----------



## RMCF (4 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> sunrocks analysis is, to my mind, correct. But the punishment did not fit the crime. What about the advantage rule? Could the referee not use that? As he does if a player is fouled en route to goal and lets the play go on. The ball was stopped on the goal line ........ could the ref not use his noodle and ...... Jeez, I'm kinda sorry that I started this one. There seems to be no just outcome!



No the ref could not have awarded the goal because the ball did not cross the line. Why can people not understand this point? Its very simple. There are laws/rules in football, and the ref awarding the goal would have broken FIFAs rules. Doesn't matter if it would be the right thing to do, or it should be the rule - the main thing is its currently *not *the rule. The ref dealt with the situation within the current laws of the game. He did it 100% right.


----------



## RMCF (4 Jul 2010)

sunrock said:


> I think Suarez knew exactly what he was doing.The fact that it happened in a split second and was an instinctive reaction is fair enough but players make decisions in split seconds all the time and they know exactly what they are doing.*Would he have blocked it with his hand if it was the first minute of the game*. I don`t think so.
> The fact is players have been through these scenarios in hundreds of matches and training sessions and also from witnessing matches and can size up the percentages instantly. Suarez calculation was pretty simple. Don`t handle the ball....Uruguay out.
> Handle the ball....red card off the field for the remaining 10 seconds and miss the semi finals if Uruguay advance.More importantly Uruguay have a lifeline thru`a missed penalty and then suceeding in the penalty shoot out.
> His foul was clearcut in front of the referree. If there is a deliberate attemt to deceive the referree like Maradona or Henry and is succeessful and is a matchchanger then that is harder to take.



I think he would have to be honest.

You seem to be under the belief that a ball which takes a fraction of a second to get from the attacking Ghanian to him on the line gave him plenty of time to think "now will I or won't I handle this ball?", and consider all the different scenario's that may result. 

Can I ask have you ever played football? Because I maintain 100% that any footballer would have done the same in that situation. I have done it myself, and believe me the last thing that enters your head is any real thought. Its an instinctive reaction.

And by your logic there has never been a handball on the line in any football match early in the game - its only a thing that happens late on when the offender knows his team might prosper. And we know that this is totally wrong too.


----------



## sunrock (4 Jul 2010)

It may have been an instinctive reaction but it is still a concious one.Suarez had the time to put up his hand to bat out the ball. If the goalie had been just behind him he wouldn`t have handled.
You don`t have to think things out in your head.Anyone who plays the game know that players size up the best options instantly in your head and this one was a no brainer for Suarez who is by now a national hero in Uruguay.The fact that it worked out is what makes his save remarkable.


----------



## Chocks away (4 Jul 2010)

Again RMCF, I'll row in beside sunrock. You say that because the ball took a second or so to travel from the opponents boot ........ Suarez didn't have the time to work out the percentages. How often have you seen a player deliberately with his hand stop a certain goal in the opposition's goal line? Presuming that he would also have the same amount of time to weigh up the scenario. Whether sunrock has or has not played soccer is neither here nor there. You may as well ask a judge if he has ever comitted the same crime as the one that he adjudicating on.


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2010)

It's not really a conscious decision though.

It's like driving - braking and clutching and changing gears all just happen automatically after a while.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> It's not really a conscious decision though.
> 
> It's like driving - braking and clutching and changing gears all just happen automatically after a while.


 
Its also no different to what Henry did against us. Only difference was the ref saw it. (And I didn't think Henry cheated).


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Its also no different to what Henry did against us. Only difference was the ref saw it. (And I didn't think Henry cheated).


 
Absolutely. Henry wasn't punished, Suarez was.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

In the Germany Argentina game, the Argentine midfielder handled the ball to stop his marker making a counter attack and got no card, though he has not been called a cheat. When the rules are broken frees/penalties are awarded and things like the last seconds of that Ghana match make football great and exciting even for the neutral.


----------



## Holtend82 (5 Jul 2010)

Its all about the refs interpretation of the hand ball, human error does come into it but thats what makes it exciting, how boring would football be if we could not give out about the ref afterwards !! He is always a scape goat for loosing teams


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Jul 2010)

FIFA made a big "no racism" play on Saturday.  The almost universal support of football neutrals for Ghana shows how far we have to go to achieve that ideal.


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2010)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> FIFA made a big "no racism" play on Saturday. The almost universal support of football neutrals for Ghana shows how far we have to go to achieve that ideal.


 
What has racism got to do with Suarez's handball?


----------



## Luckycharm (5 Jul 2010)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> FIFA made a big "no racism" play on Saturday. The almost universal support of football neutrals for Ghana shows how far we have to go to achieve that ideal.


 
This makes absoluetly no sense? Were most neutrals not supporting for example New zealand when they were playing Italy?


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

I am confused as well!


----------



## Latrade (5 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> I am confused as well!


 
That's because racists are easy to confuse. You all make me sick.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jul 2010)

Luckycharm said:


> This makes absoluetly no sense? Were most neutrals not supporting for example New zealand when they were playing Italy?


 Naah, that's the classic envy in us "support the underdog".  Ghana were the betting equals of Uruguay.  Imagine Ireland v Ghana, it would be the same, the whole world except us would be for Ghana, we wouldn't like it.


----------



## VOR (6 Jul 2010)

I was shouting for Uruguay. Glad to hear I'm not a racist. I knew supporting Diego Forlan would save my soul one day. 
As for you people, who supported the African team just because the tournament was in Africa and you wanted to see the continent do well, you are all heinous racists. So what if Uruguay had won the competition twice before and no African team had ever been to the semi final. You make me sick!!! 
You're probably the same people who wanted to see Japan and Korea do well in 02.


----------



## csirl (6 Jul 2010)

> No the ref could not have awarded the goal because the ball did not cross the line. Why can people not understand this point? Its very simple. There are laws/rules in football, and the ref awarding the goal would have broken FIFAs rules. Doesn't matter if it would be the right thing to do, or it should be the rule - the main thing is its currently *not *the rule. The ref dealt with the situation within the current laws of the game. He did it 100% right.


 
The problem is that the rules are wrong - they encourage cheating. Many other sports would have given a score in similar circumstances e.g. penalty try in rugby, touchdown in American football etc. The soccer rules need to be changed. 



> How often have you seen a player deliberately with his hand stop a certain goal in the opposition's goal line?


 
Players are trained to do this. Its drilled into them from a very early age by coaches - getting a red card is better than giving away a certain game winning goal. Changing the rules would eliminate this type of coaching as it would be better to let the goal in than to get a red card and have the ref award a goal anyway.


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> The problem is that the rules are wrong - they encourage cheating. Many other sports would have given a score in similar circumstances e.g. penalty try in rugby, touchdown in American football etc. The soccer rules need to be changed.


 
A touchdown would NOT have been given in American Football.

In fact I can't think of ANY other sport except rugby (league & union) which would have awarded a score

Incidentally the same thing happened last night when Shamrock Rovers played St Pats. A Rovers player handled the ball on the line in the last minute and St Pats missed the penalty and Rovers won 2-1.


----------



## MrMan (6 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> The problem is that the rules are wrong - they encourage cheating. Many other sports would have given a score in similar circumstances e.g. penalty try in rugby, touchdown in American football etc. The soccer rules need to be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Players are trained to do this. Its drilled into them from a very early age by coaches - getting a red card is better than giving away a certain game winning goal. Changing the rules would eliminate this type of coaching as it would be better to let the goal in than to get a red card and have the ref award a goal anyway.



Youngsters are not coached to cheat they do tend to emulate what they see though. We don't need rule changes we need to enjoy the drama of it all and stop trying to make everything 'fair'. Sport needs drama and heroes and villans, I like it just the way it is.


----------



## sunrock (6 Jul 2010)

Agree with the above. Sometimes the better team doesn`t win because the other team had more luck or the bounce of the ball or whatever.That is the drama of sport.


----------



## csirl (6 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> A touchdown would NOT have been given in American Football.
> 
> In fact I can't think of ANY other sport except rugby (league & union) which would have awarded a score
> 
> .


 
At the risk of being anal - below is from the American football rulebook. There is a catch all rule that allows the referee to take any action he considers equitable including awarding a score. Used infrequently, but is used - I've seen it used in the odd game myself. 

Rule 9.2
Unfair Acts​ARTICLE 3. The following are unfair acts:
a. A team refuses to play within two minutes after ordered to do so by the
referee.
b. A team repeatedly commits fouls for which penalties can be enforced
only by halving the distance to its goal line.
c. An obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs
during the game (A.R. 4-2-1-II).​*PENALTY—The referee may take any action he considers equitable,
including assessing a penalty, awarding a score, or
suspending or forfeiting the game.​*​​​​​


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2010)

You have to be a little bit anal to like NFL (I love it!)

But anyway I've never ever seen that rule used (I can't even find an example of the rule being used anywhere on the internet and examples given from college games are for things like coaches stopping a player etc etc) and in fact last year there was one game where a foul as committed in the end-zone in the last play as time elapsed and the penalty awarded was a down on the 1yd line with no time restriction on the play.

A handball in the area is already covererd in FIFA's Laws of the Game


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

How many games are actually decided like this one in the last minute by a deliberate handball? I suspect not many, we shouldn't ask for more rule changes based on one high profile isolated occurrence. As was mentioned earlier what if it had have been in the first rather than last minute? The timing of the offence shouldn't dictate the punishment, but I doubt we'd be having this debate. 

In order to bring in the rule you'd have to rely on video replays to ascertain exactly was it deliberate, was it obviously a goal? But then how do we judge that, the player could have stopped it legitimately by heading or some other means rather than using their hands, so on that basis it wasn't a black and white goal, just "goal scoring opportunity".  

And then what other "cheating" do we place under this law? Goalkeeper bringing a player down and other professional fouls? How about at the other end someone diving to get a penalty? Isn't that just as bad (and more common)? 

Ghana were unlucky that it happened to them and it happened when it did. But then there was a whole game before that incident for them to win it. 

With a penalty the odds are in the favour of the taker, it's their advantage. Otherwise why cheer a penalty awarded in your favour nearly as much as a goal? It should have been a goal, but then as a professional, international player he should have scored the penalty. He had the advantage, he had a whole net to chose from, he had a guessing keeper, he missed, they lost.


----------



## haminka1 (6 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> Only if they get Pollynesia and don't look for tweetment - parrotseatemall is the usual cure



oh, never getting a parrot in my life - parrotseatemall is so expensive!


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> How many games are actually decided like this one in the last minute by a deliberate handball? I suspect not many, we shouldn't ask for more rule changes based on one high profile isolated occurrence. As was mentioned earlier what if it had have been in the first rather than last minute? The timing of the offence shouldn't dictate the punishment, but I doubt we'd be having this debate.
> 
> In order to bring in the rule you'd have to rely on video replays to ascertain exactly was it deliberate, was it obviously a goal? But then how do we judge that, the player could have stopped it legitimately by heading or some other means rather than using their hands, so on that basis it wasn't a black and white goal, just "goal scoring opportunity".
> 
> ...


 
You are just racist. Makes me sick.


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> You are just racist. Makes me sick.


 
Ah you pinkos, pushing your equality agenda. Fine, just keep it out of sport or start your own new sport for society's disadvantaged.


----------



## csirl (6 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> You have to be a little bit anal to like NFL (I love it!)
> 
> But anyway I've never ever seen that rule used (I can't even find an example of the rule being used anywhere on the internet and examples given from college games are for things like coaches stopping a player etc etc) and in fact last year there was one game where a foul as committed in the end-zone in the last play as time elapsed and the penalty awarded was a down on the 1yd line with no time restriction on the play.
> 
> A handball in the area is already covererd in FIFA's Laws of the Game


 
There's also the holding/tripping or intentional grounding in the endzone rule - whereby a safety score is automatically given. You see this several times a season.


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> There's also the holding/tripping or intentional grounding in the endzone rule - whereby a safety score is automatically given. You see this several times a season.


 
Sorry but we'll have to disagree there

Holding/tripping in the endzone are called as pass interference and result in a 1st down at the 1 yd line, not a TD

I wouldn't consider the rules covering a safety to be the same thing as awarding a goal in football. You would have to find an example of a TD being awarded for that to be the equivalent.


----------



## csirl (6 Jul 2010)

> Sorry but we'll have to disagree there
> 
> Holding/tripping in the endzone are called as pass interference and result in a 1st down at the 1 yd line, not a TD


 
In your own endzone, its a safety i.e. 2pts to the opposition.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> Sorry but we'll have to disagree there
> 
> Holding/tripping in the endzone are called as pass interference and result in a 1st down at the 1 yd line, not a TD
> 
> I wouldn't consider the rules covering a safety to be the same thing as awarding a goal in football. You would have to find an example of a TD being awarded for that to be the equivalent.


 


csirl said:


> In your own endzone, its a safety i.e. 2pts to the opposition.


 



I can watch most sports ever invented but American football is simply beyond me!


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2010)

Fair enough

It's still not the same thing though. Concede a safety or concede a TD? No-brainer, especially at the end of a game.

It actually benefits the defending team more if a safety is awarded in that scenario.


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

Plus it's childish giggling at this:



DB74 said:


> Holding/tripping in the endzone


 
and this:



csirl said:


> In your own endzone, its a safety


 
That gets me moderated or called homophobic.


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2010)

I won't even start about the NFL position called Tight End!


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> Plus it's childish giggling at this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Or it might lead to a date!


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> I can watch most sports ever invented but American football is simply beyond me!


 
Most people I know are the same as you Sunny. I asked all my friends to come over and watch the Superbowl and neither of them would!

Personally I would prefer to watch an NFL game over any other sport(except maybe a Hunky Dorys rugby match!)


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> I won't even start about the NFL position called Tight End!


 
Especially not with my back.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

As least we don't have Liam, John and Eamonn commentating on tight ends and holding in the endzone.


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> As least we don't have Liam, John and Eamonn commentating on tight ends and holding in the endzone.


 
[Eammon Dunphy] He's a good tight end, but not a great tight end[/Eammon Dunphy]


----------

