2022 World Cup - Qatar

[Leonormous Boozer]

No more upsets today please! Allez les gars

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Goal the Socceroos.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

What a cross.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Hernandez looks in trouble

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Sacre Bleu

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Hernandez looks in trouble

Replaced by his brother

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Rabiot equalises.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Il reviendra

 

[Bada-Bing!]

They deal with France.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The French might have better wings in soccer than they do in rugby.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I actually do want to see a France v England QF. See where England really stand. Mbappe v Saka , Bellingham v Tchoameni etc so many great potential battles.

What a chance for Mbappe.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Good first half. Expect France to put a few more on the board in the 2nd half.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

France will be a threat purely for how easy they can get behind defences. Ridiculous pace.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

And Mbappe finally makes his mark at this WC.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

What a player Mbappe is.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If things sta

I love the guy, but was he is saying is dead wrong. This is not a YC for wearing the armband trade. It is not. That is not how it works.
The ref would ask the captain to change it, and if he didnt he would get a YC. Then the ref would ask again (you cant just continue the game with items that are forbidden by the laws of the game), and here is where it becomes interesting. He either gets another YC (=red) or changes it (to anything acceptable as per the rules). If he changes it, the entire point he was trying to make is not only null and void, but he ends up looking like a buffoon, too.
Now lets assume he stands his ground. He gets a second YC, red, gets sent off. He made his point, but things arent over yet. Now his team is 10 vs 11 AND, and this is the relevant part now the armband goes to another player. What is that player going to do? If he changes it, he not only looks like a fool, but he also converts his captain's sacrifice, a big one, into a worthles endeavour.
If he sticks to the armband then he will be rec carded (2 ycs) and the armband passes to another player, who faces pretty much the same choice (bit easier thou, as a) they're already 9 vs 11 and b) it's easier to follow than to lead).
This iteration will continue untill the team has 5 reds. At that point the match is suspended/forfeited.

If you are going to try and do this you need to make team decision before the game starts and stick to it no matter what. You want to make a point? Consider the consequences and make sure everyone is onboard. Otherwise it fails, maybe even spectacularly. In a nutshell when you consider this, you need to consider the very real possibility of losing hte game 2-0 (that's the rule as i recall) and have 4 players suspended, god knows for how long. I'd asume they're out of the tournament.
That is the cost you need to be willing to pay in order to make a point.
It is worth it imo, but i do see how steep of a price it is.

Again, viewing this as an armband for a yc exchange is wrong.

thats not true, walking out there, getting a yellow and maybe then taking if off still send a message, make FIFA actually do it, actually card someone for wearing a rainbow after encouraging things like rainbow laces before, call out the hypocrisy...doing it this way kind of tells the LGBTQI+ community it was only important when it didn't cost anything

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Why is there so much added time at the World Cup?

The five matches at the World Cup so far have had much more stoppage time added on at the end of games than usual, but why?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

thats not true, walking out there, getting a yellow and maybe then taking if off still send a message, make FIFA actually do it, actually card someone for wearing a rainbow after encouraging things like rainbow laces before, call out the hypocrisy...doing it this way kind of tells the LGBTQI+ community it was only important when it didn't cost anything

Sure it does. It says, out loud, for the entire world to hear: 'i got some principles, but not a whole lot of em'
Personally, i'd consider that a pathetic attempt at virtue signalling rather than a statement of principle. It'd be more about showing that you paid a (rather small) price and get a headline or two than about standing to what you consider to be wrong.

When you stand up against these sort of things your objetive is change, not to expose the problem. THIS IS KEY! Fvck exposure. Who the hell thinks this needs exposure at this point. Everyone knows about it. It's the largest stage the world's ever seen, it needs no extra exposure, from anyone. What it needs, to achieve that change, is enforcement. It needs someone to step up and fight fire with fire. S/he doesnt even need to win. S/he just needs to fight and not be afraid of losing. When you face someone who cares little about the consequences of his/her actions, you need to be willing to pay a high price to enforce change. I'm afraid a yc doesn't make the cut.

NB: Before someone misquotes me: when i talked about exposure before was not about exposing the problem, but about raising the price the other party had to pay for this. Not quite the same. Not even close.



They are willing to yellow/red card an entire team in order to prevent them from wearing that armband? Then you need to be willing to stand up and leave. This is a show of force and you dont beat force with 'exposure' at that level.

Again, all in. Do it properly or dont do it. If you packed your mouth with phrases about how you stand for X and Y values, for years, and then when you get the chance to actually do soemthing about it you dont because you dont wanna be left out of a bloody sport competition? well, that's on you (not you you, kiwi, you know what i mean).

Change doesnt come cheap and it's not that a yc wont get you a seat at the negotiations table. It wont even be enough to pay the public transport fare that takes you to the airport that takes you to the place where the negotiations take place. We are talking about a difference of several orders of magnitute. Your suggestion would be like trying to fight cancer with paracetamol. It doesnt work. Now matter how many of those pills you take.

This is a matter of principles. You do not fight principles with confy measures, exposure or witty comebacks. If you do you will lose.
You fight principles with (other) principles.

And listen, if this is too much for them, that's ok. Not everyone needs to be a hero/martyr. If they care more about playing footie than human rights, who am i to tell them what to do?
But expect a gargantuan laugh from my end the next time any of those players bends a knee on anything political. I personally despise mixing sports and politics, but then i dont go to stadiums or bars to watch sports while trying to make political statements while uploading pics of it to bump up the number of followers in my soc med accounts.
The issue in this respect is one about congruence. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to speak up on human rights and how much they cared about em, and how imprtant they were. Well, now we get to see how empty (or full) those statments were. From the players, staff and FAs. Doesnt look promising.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

And listen, if this is too much for them, that's ok. Not everyone needs to be a hero/martyr. If they care more about playing footie than human rights, who am i to tell them what to do?

This is what I think as well - everyone saying "They're footballers, not politicians!" but they're more than happy to pretend to care about these causes at home, and pretend they care about them up until the day of the game when they poo their pants

Kane, Bale etc. have shown their true colours and I hope they're dropped by the anti-discrimination charities in the UK that they claim to support