2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil Thread

[luiz]

So, does the fact that he won't be punished change your interpretation of events at all?

From today's update from the disciplinary committee:

"It is important to note that the conditions by which the FIFA Disciplinary Committee can intervene in any incident have to be considered independently of the consequences of that incident, such as an unfortunate injury suffered by a player."

No, because unfortunately there is indeed an article in the rules of revision (77 A), of which I was unaware, that states that as long as the referee noticed and punished the foul, FIFA can't hand out additional punishment. In the case of Zuniga, the ref gave the foul but subsequently gave law of advantage to an ongoing Brazilian attack. This article is so stupid it borders on the unbelievable.

FIFA is not saying that Zuniga's foul was not a vicious and deliberate assault, they are saying that technically they can't punish him, and unfortunately it appears that's indeed the case. You should note that FIFA is not analyzing the incident in any way, shape or form, they are merely saying they can't by their own rules interfere. So how's that supposed to change my judgement, if they didn't pronounce any judgement whatsoever?

For the record, this is what Zico said of Zuniga's criminal attack (and I'm only mentioning Zico because I saw praise for his article here, but this is by and large the international consensus):

That all changed with Juan Camilo Zúñiga’s cowardly challenge. I am not accusing the Colombian player of deliberately taking Neymar out of the tournament or causing such a serious injury. But he went knee-high with that tackle. His intention was to whack Neymar. It happened right in front of the referee and I was livid that there was no reaction. I believe Fifa should act strongly and punish Zúñiga in the same heavy way that it treated Luis Suárez. This kind of tackle has no place in the game.

http://www.theguardian.com/football...-neymar-stronger-germany-semi-final-world-cup

For the record they also summarily rejected Brazil's totally unfounded request that Silva's yellow card for interfering with the goalkeeper be overturned. I would dearly love to know what they presented as grounds on that one, since I think kids playing in the U-8 division would have known better than to do what Silva did on that play.

Nobody thought it would work, and nobody believes it should have worked. This is just a case of automatically appealing a decision that is harmful to you, and it happens all the time in football, in the criminal justice system, in the civil justice system, and so on and so forth. People make appeals without any basis, it's how it is. You certainly won't find a single Brazilian commentator saying the yellow card should be overturned.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nobody thought it would work, and nobody believes it should have worked. This is just a case of automatically appealing a decision that is harmful to you, and it happens all the time in football, in the criminal justice system, in the civil justice system, and so on and so forth. People make appeals without any basis, it's how it is. You certainly won't find a single Brazilian commentator saying the yellow card should be overturned.

I know. I'm always curious about how these automatic appeals are worded though. I mean, what can you say at a time like that? Suarez came up with 'I didn't bite him, I just fell into him teeth first', which was hilarious. I'd really like to know what was said in this case, because it had to be equally funny.

No hard feelings by the way...I recognized it was basically a technicality that kept FIFA from blasting out punishment commensurate with the consequences rather than the actual incident, which is a mistake they may well have been stupid enough to make. I think the end result is just, and I know you do not, but now that it's done I'm in favor of following the rest of the world and moving on.

 

[luiz]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymc...inst-colombia-at-world-cup-an-alternate-view/

Adding to the drama ... allthough this seems pretty level headed assesment of Brasil vs Colombia.

I found that a great article. It pretty much demolishes the BS assessment that "Brazil set out to brutalize Colombia", that "Brazil started it" (first 3 fouls were by Colombia! Teams reached half time with same number of fouls! How does that add up to Vicker's fantasy?), or that the game was a "bloodbath". It wasn't, and I say this both in relation to Brazil and Colombia. Both teams fouled often, both teams abused of tactical fouling, which personally I consider dirty and anti-football but as this guy noticed were hardly used with exclusivity by Brazil or Colombia. He's also quite correct that the fouling on this game wasn't harder than in other games of this WC involving different teams.

What remains is that Zuniga, in at least two occasions, went way beyond the "normal tactical fouling" that was prevalent in that game and way into injury-causing tackles. It's impossible to deny that the fouls below were aimed at injuring:

Of course he didn't want to break Neymar's back. But he wanted to injure him (as he wanted to injure Hulk, but failed). But the method he chose to foul Neymar was so brutally irresponsible that it's on a league of it's own. Neymar could realistically be bound to a wheelchair. Nothing done to James Rodriguez could turn him into a vegetable. So any attempts at equalizing everything fail.

So I'm not saying, and never said, that Colombia played dirtier, that Brazil is a victim, etc. I said that Zuniga made a criminal foul.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree with Tim about moving on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So I'm not saying, and never said, that Colombia played dirtier, that Brazil is a victim, etc. I said that Zuniga made a criminal foul.

Okay. And I never said that it wasn't a foul, or even that it wasn't a reckless and dangerous play. I said the the game was full of reckless and dangerous plays, and as always happens in games like that they got more and more reckless and dangerous as the game went along. To focus on the one incident where somebody finally got hurt is to lose sight of the fact that the game should never have been allowed to go that way.

If FIFA had gone with some sort of 'we banned the player so the problem is solved' approach to this it would have done nothing to make anything better. From the Zico article that Luiz linked:

"I had the chance to meet the Fifa referee commission’s director, Massimo Busacca, and he told me the aim was to avoid being too harsh in punishments in order to not spoil the spectacle. Players, however, have seized the opportunity and they are getting away with it."

Referees have been too soft on 'tactical fouling' for...years?...decades?... okay, forever. The grinding game we are now seeing is the result of that, and no 'spectacle' can make a game that stops for sixty free kicks anything but a grind. Ultimately reaching the point where players get hurt was inevitable.

A tactical foul is in fact an intentional foul, and is therefore a bookable offense, first time and every time. A couple good old nine on nine games and the problem goes away.

 

[luiz]

Okay. And I never said that it wasn't a foul, or even that it wasn't a reckless and dangerous play. I said the the game was full of reckless and dangerous plays, and as always happens in games like that they got more and more reckless and dangerous as the game went along. To focus on the one incident where somebody finally got hurt is to lose sight of the fact that the game should never have been allowed to go that way.

I agree with what you said later, tactical fouling is intentional fouling and thus a bookable offense. I wish cards were distributed early in that game, to Brazilians and Colombians alike - and probably more Brazilians deserved cards, though as Ziggy's article noticed it was Colombia who started the tactical fouling (who started it is entirely irrelevant though. Tactical fouling is a strategy, not a "retribution").

My point was that as bad and bookable as tactical fouling is, they're still not the same as what Zuniga did, twice (and I coul still let the first one, against Hulk, fly under the dirty-but-normal play, but not his assault on Neymar).

I agree with Tim about moving on.

Sure, let's move on.

Unfortunately for Brazilian football there will be no moving on, though. Whatever happens, Zuniga's criminal foul has already defeated Brazilian football. Why?

-If we manage to win the WC, Scolari will be hailed as a genius and national hero who managed to win a WC even without his only star player (and also his best defender in the semi-final). He will become a living legend, and his style will dominate Brazilian coaches for generations to come.

-If we lose, which already sucks on it's own right, he will have the easy excuse that he was robbed of his single star by the brute Zuniga, and since the nation is sad and angry over the incident there won't be the extremely necessary harsh critique of the way he selected and coached the team.

The thread can move on: I promise I'm done with this subject unless someone addresses one of my posts on the subject, in which case politeness urges me to reply. But Brazilian football, unfortunately, won't move on. Thanks Zuniga, hope you rot in hell.

 

[Quackers]

i enjoy your posts luiz, you have an endearing rage.

I am curious to see whether FIFA take note of the Brazil-Colombia match and instruct the referees to enact a stricter regime. I reckon home advantage and the "runner up" mentality of the German players will see Brazil into the final.

 

[Darkness]

Interesting article about Brazilian hatchetmen in the Brazil-Colombia game on ESPN

I reckon it's bye bye to the beautiful game, and hello to the Brazilian power style....

There is no outrage in Brazil. There are no allegations of a legacy being betrayed, no wailing complaints that victory should not come at any cost. Lance!, the sports daily, sums it up best. The cartoon in their Sunday edition depicted Colombia's Camilo Zuniga cowering beneath the looming form of Hulk, the striker about to mete out vigilante justice to the man who fractured Neymar's spine.

There is no mention of the robust physical approach Luiz Felipe Scolari's side adopted in their quarterfinal with the Colombians. There is no gnashing of teeth or rending of garments at the sight of Brazil abandoning their tradition of jogo bonito, casting off their reputation as the world's great entertainers in order to indulge in a policy of deliberate aggression designed to negate James Rodriguez.

All there is -- apart from some criticism of Carlos Velasco Carballo for not sending the Napoli full-back off -- is that one cartoon. Think about the iconography. Zuniga has apologised for what was certainly a foul, probably should have been a booking, but most likely was not deliberate. And yet here he is, contrite, being threatened once more.

It is not simply that Brazil did not object to what Scolari had his side do. It is that the nation saw so little wrong with the approach that two days on, it is advocating deploying physical force again. Remorse is painted as weakness. Violence is seen as strength.

Neymar's injury was devastating but the majority of Brazilians understand that it comes with the territory.

A little perspective, perhaps, is required. Fortaleza 2014 was not the Battle of Santiago. Rodriguez was fouled just six times; none of them caused serious injury, though in a sense that is down to blind luck.

If it is deeply unfortunate that Neymar should have been ruled out of the tournament -- he has enjoyed a wonderful two weeks, coping admirably with the deadening weight of expectation placed on his shoulders -- then it is only thanks to the kindness of fate that not one of the challenges on Colombia's No. 10 did any substantial damage. It is hardly rocket science to point out that the more you foul someone, the more likely they are to get hurt.

But that should not be used as a defence of what Brazil did. There was, firstly, a cold calculation in the way they played it. Fernandinho was initially the nominated hatchet man; when he seemed to be skirting too close to the wind, his teammates took his place. The fouls rotated, reducing the risk of the one booking that would have stopped them.

Secondly, and possibly more importantly, by the standards of the modern game, Scolari's tactics bordered on the hardcore. Football in the 21st century is essentially a different sport to the one that Italy and Chile were playing in 1962 or that Hungary and Brazil indulged in back in 1954 -- the so-called "Battle of Berne."

Fouling one player six times -- or, more accurately, being caught fouling one player six times -- is about as nasty as it is possible to get given the extent to which all forms of tackling, legal and illegal, have been removed from the game.

In an age in which everything has to be the best or worst of something ever or it seems somehow mediocre and meaningless, there is always a risk of exaggeration. In this case, though, much of the distaste felt by what Luis Suarez would refer to as "the football family" seems legitimate. Brazil did go too far. They did not, if there is such a nebulous notion, win in quite the right way.



...

To me, this reads like a levelheaded and objective view of the Brazil-Colombia game, but that's just me, I gues...





But by all means, let's just move on from this particular game...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Moving on doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Obviously for Neymar and Brazil there are negative consequences. I'm wondering if there will be some positive consequences though.

Think what you will about referees, but they know that when 23 men step onto the pitch there are 22 who are there to play as hard as they can get away with and one who is responsible for keeping the whole thing safely within the rules...and when a player leaves the field with a broken back that one clearly failed. He knows it, and no amount of telling himself that he was 'just following FIFA's instructions' is going to change that for him.

So, maybe FIFA recognizes that 'the spectacle' of having Neymar hospitalized isn't what they were looking for but is the outcome they should have been expecting and tells their referees to call games properly. Or maybe referees just say "I will not have something like that on my conscience" and call the games properly anyway. If either of those events comes out of this the game will be better for it...but if it starts out of the blue in the semi-finals it is going to be a train wreck. These teams and these players are built for the era of 'tactical fouling and maybe anything goes' and actual enforcement of the rules would leave them totally stunned.

 

[luiz]

The betting markets are considerably favoring Argentina over the Netherlands. I wonder if people are fully appreciating the consequences for Argentina losing di María for that game or if the whole Neymar disaster has overshadowed this very significant loss. IMO di María has been Argentina's second most important man, and his absence is a game-changer. I guess we'll see.

 

[uppi]

No, because unfortunately there is indeed an article in the rules of revision (77 A), of which I was unaware, that states that as long as the referee noticed and punished the foul, FIFA can't hand out additional punishment. In the case of Zuniga, the ref gave the foul but subsequently gave law of advantage to an ongoing Brazilian attack. This article is so stupid it borders on the unbelievable.

The rule is not that stupid and from FIFA's point of view it is a very necessary rule. Once you start reversing the decisions of referees you will soon arrive at blatant mistakes that directly alter the result of a game (like a ball that entered the goal from behind through a hole in the net and the referee deciding goal). You cannot easily reverse such a decision and tight schedules don't allow for a rematch. If you somehow exclude these situations, you still have those mistakes that indirectly influenced the result (a mistaken red card early in the game, etc.). If you go down that road then games might be decided at a hearing panel days or weeks later, which is a situation FIFA wants desperately to avoid.

 

[luiz]

I reckon it's bye bye to the beautiful game, and hello to the Brazilian power style....

Actually, many, many Brazilian commentators lament the fact the predominant football style in Brazil has switched to a more physical (should we say "European") approach as opposed to that of 4 decades ago. This is repeated so often it is cliché and annoying.

I do wonder though how many articles are written in the Dutch press about the abandonment of the Netherlands' "total football" style that enchanted the world and the full-hearted adoption of tactical fouling and brutish defenders so well represented by the 2010 Team, with "nice guys" such as van Bommel and de Jong?

 

[luiz]

The rule is not that stupid and from FIFA's point of view it is a very necessary rule. Once you start reversing the decisions of referees you will soon arrive at blatant mistakes that directly alter the result of a game (like a ball that entered the goal from behind through a hole in the net and the referee deciding goal). You cannot easily reverse such a decision and tight schedules don't allow for a rematch. If you somehow exclude these situations, you still have those mistakes that indirectly influenced the result (a mistaken red card early in the game, etc.). If you go down that road then games might be decided at a hearing panel days or weeks later, which is a situation FIFA wants desperately to avoid.

Nevertheless by that rule if some player committed an unspeakably brutal foul with the intent of murdering another player (for the sake of the argument) and the referee gave a simple foul (or just advantage), such player cannot be punished by FIFA in anyway.

I say that's a bad rule, a really really bad rule actually, though I'm not at all interested in debating this. The fact is the brute Zuniga escaped punishment but no judgment was passed on his ugly foul.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The question is, if one side opts for 'tactical fouling' and the referee distorts the rules to allow it, can the opposition win without adopting it themselves? I think once you open that door by allowing the tactical fouling strategy to work the next unavoidable step is that not only do teams have to adopt it but the obvious next 'improvement' is to 'make the fouls count' for more than just stopping the flow with a pause for free kick. If causing a pause for a free kick is a 'success' the longer stoppage to get a roughed up player back on his pins is 'even better'. That leads to chaos like the 2010 final and eventually to someone getting seriously hurt.

 

[luiz]

The question is, if one side opts for 'tactical fouling' and the referee distorts the rules to allow it, can the opposition win without adopting it themselves? I think once you open that door by allowing the tactical fouling strategy to work the next unavoidable step is that not only do teams have to adopt it but the obvious next 'improvement' is to 'make the fouls count' for more than just stopping the flow with a pause for free kick. If causing a pause for a free kick is a 'success' the longer stoppage to get a roughed up player back on his pins is 'even better'. That leads to chaos like the 2010 final and eventually to someone getting seriously hurt.

I think effective tactical fouling is always a strategy, not a reaction or retribution. The teams who commit it often have always a consistency about it; you don't see a team that hardly fouls commuting many tactical fouls just because the opponent "started it". That's to ignore the whole "tactical" part of the equation, the huge responsibility of the coaches in selecting the players most apt to do this effectively as well as instructing them to do it.

Can the other team win against a tactical fouling opponent and an excessively lenient referee? Yes, but of course it's much harder than it should be under fair conditions. The 2010 final is perhaps an example - the referee was too lenient, the Dutch used tactical fouling to a great extent, committing 50% more fouls than Spain (as they had done throughout the 2010 WC) and yet Spain won.

 

[dutchfire]

I do wonder though how many articles are written in the Dutch press about the abandonment of the Netherlands' "total football" style that enchanted the world and the full-hearted adoption of tactical fouling and brutish defenders so well represented by the 2010 Team, with "nice guys" such as van Bommel and de Jong?

Several phone books worth of articles, and half a lifetime of panel discussion on TV.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nevertheless by that rule if some player committed an unspeakably brutal foul with the intent of murdering another player (for the sake of the argument) and the referee gave a simple foul (or just advantage), such player cannot be punished by FIFA in anyway.

The trick of your argument (just for the sake of it) is that if some player commits an unspeakably brutal foul with the intent of murdering another player and the referee just calls it a simple foul or allows the advantage then the serious problem that has to be dealt with is the officiating, because the ref is responsible for the safety of the players. You can examine whether his judgement was bad, or his angle was bad, or whether perhaps the foul wasn't as bad as it may appear from a certain camera angle, or whether from what he was hearing out on the pitch perhaps that perceived 'intent' isn't what was really going on, but you can't replay the game.

Review and post game sanctioning of players is there for things the ref doesn't see. If he doesn't see, say for example some player take a bite out of another player, then you need to be able to do something about it because the ref can't see everything that goes on behind the play.

Before the NHL went to two refs and all the video driven discipline of modern times there was a 'play' I clearly remember where a defenseman (who I won't name because he is now a highly respected executive with my favorite team) took down a top scorer with a clean check behind the net. The rush is on going the other way as both players scramble to their feet. The defenseman clearly looks to the referee and sees his back skating away, slows down so the other guy can skate past him, then as they are side by side he catches the guy full on with an elbow that breaks his nose and his cheekbone and stretches him horizontal five feet above the ice to land flat on his back. Different game, but that's the kind of thing that the rule is meant to put a stop to, because every player on the pitch can recognize and take advantage of similar opportunities.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Several phone books worth of articles, and half a lifetime of panel discussion on TV.

And it's been going on for about a decade.

It's great having the whole world compliment you on how attractive football you played when you lost in the quarter finals, but the novelty wears off quickly. For that kind of football you need to be in a different league from the rest of the teams. Barcalona had a time where they could pull that off, Spain as well. In this WC there aren't any easy games anymore. So play will become more tactical, less improvised.

Although you have to remember that in the final in 2010, nothing off this attractive football was being played by Spain. Everyone and their dog was talking about how shameful the Dutch played, and they were right, but the amount of dirty fouls made by the Spanish squad never seemed to register.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think effective tactical fouling is always a strategy, not a reaction or retribution. The teams who commit it often have always a consistency about it; you don't see a team that hardly fouls commuting many tactical fouls just because the opponent "started it". That's to ignore the whole "tactical" part of the equation, the huge responsibility of the coaches in selecting the players most apt to do this effectively as well as instructing them to do it.

I'm not saying it's an 'in game adaptation'. It has taken years. There was always the situation where 'you have to challenge even if you end up with a foul'. Then came the idea that you can play possession football and it's easier if every time you do turn the ball over you foul immediately so you can regroup while the free kick is set up. For whatever reason refs let that happen to the point where it clearly worked, and the only way to combat it was putting your team together so it could do the same thing. Now here we are, with all of the top rated teams playing some variation of 'possession and foul on the turnover', with the distinction that decides many games reduced to who can find the limit and foul as hard as can be gotten away with without drawing a card.

And like I said, if the refs suddenly start enforcing the rules properly all of a sudden the semis will be a train wreck, because all four teams expect to just be allowed to foul when they turn the ball over as if it were the normal course of events...because it is. But there has to be a change of direction eventually or things will only get worse.

 

[luiz]

Several phone books worth of articles, and half a lifetime of panel discussion on TV.

Well good! It should be very clear to a Dutch person then why Brazil switched to a more physical style of play. It's no coincidence this happened when the majority of our top players begun playing for European clubs (in the legendary Brazilian teams all players defended local clubs), and after WC defeats in which we played "pretty" (surely the Dutch can relate).

This physical style is the number one enemy of 11 out of 10 football commentators here. But it is hegemonic within coaches, Scolari is not even the worst one (not by a longshot). And this is not a Brazilian phenomena, and not a new one either, which is why articles like that posted by another Dutchman annoy me so much.