South Africa vs Uruguay

[littlebabyjesus]

Just coming back to this - do you not see the hypocrisy of Graeme Smith having to walk out to open the batting for SA with a player who shouldn't be anywhere near the first XI but is, due to his skintone? And then having to face the media time after time, and through gritted teeth, saying the player was 'picked on merit' after he fails, yet again.

Who are you describing here? I don't recognise any recent SA player from your description.

Quotas are a necessary evil in SA. Black people were denied the chance to play. The won't 'catch up' on their own. It hasn't suddenly become a level playing field since apartheid ended. It isn't ideal, but then neither is the legacy of apartheid.

 

[ericjarvis]

I think that Gordon Strachan might beg to differ. They have for the most part always been the cloggers of South American football.

Over most of the last 50 years they've had the worst disciplinary record of any international team. Though these days Serbia are closing the gap rapidly. Uruguay play some great football, but they are usually the dirtiest team in international football.

 

[gabi]

Who are you describing here? I don't recognise any recent SA player from your description.

I was thinking of Loots Bosman who every time I've watched has failed. Altho looking at his page on wiki, he has played a few good innings. During the T20 in the windies he was a liability but seemed undroppable.

They also had a new black fast bowler, well, medium pace, who was being carted all over the field by even the minnows yet still held down his place.

It can't be nice for the players in question themselves to know they're in the side based on their skin colour.

I realise this is a very sensitive issue tho, im not trolling just to be clear. Just seems like double-standards.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well that's where Ntini was so crucial – a black player who held his place on merit. They really didn't want to lose him, but the question has to be asked : Ntini made his debut over a decade ago – where are the new black players?

 

[g force]

Going away from the goal and with defenders coming back? I don't think so, particularly as Suarez (I think) really went down as if he was shot and I'm not convinced that the contact caused his fall.

It's called denying a goalscoring opportunity - he was the last man. Perfectly legit red card

 

[Idaho]

Well that's where Ntini was so crucial – a black player who held his place on merit. They really didn't want to lose him, but the question has to be asked : Ntini made his debut over a decade ago – where are the new black players?

With all sport - the question is whether it is televised widely and whether poor people can visibly become rich people by playing it. When those two things happen, you get talent emerging.

 

[ericjarvis]

It's called denying a goalscoring opportunity - he was the last man. Perfectly legit red card

Wrong. The rule is about denying an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity. Being the last man is only relevant if there is a goalscoring opportunity. If the player has lost control of the ball then bringing him down isn't denying a goalscoring opportunity whether you are the last man or not.

Just because commentators frequently say "he was the last man so he had to be sent off" doesn't mean it has anything at all to do with the rules of football.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Wrong. The rule is about denying an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity. Being the last man is only relevant if there is a goalscoring opportunity. If the player has lost control of the ball then bringing him down isn't denying a goalscoring opportunity whether you are the last man or not.

Just because commentators frequently say "he was the last man so he had to be sent off" doesn't mean it has anything at all to do with the rules of football.

Yes. I thought it was a penalty but not a sending off offence, fwiw. He'd lost control of the ball, which was rolling towards the defenders. South Africa would still have lost, though.

 

[g force]

Wrong. The rule is about denying an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity. Being the last man is only relevant if there is a goalscoring opportunity. If the player has lost control of the ball then bringing him down isn't denying a goalscoring opportunity whether you are the last man or not.

Just because commentators frequently say "he was the last man so he had to be sent off" doesn't mean it has anything at all to do with the rules of football.

I know - rule states:

"denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick"

So how was it not an "obvious opportunity" when he'd taken the ball away from the keeper and was on his own? H?e didn't have control because he was bought down

 

[Lord Camomile]

So how was it not an "obvious opportunity" when he'd taken the ball away from the keeper and was on his own? H?e didn't have control because he was bought down

There's definitely the argument to be made that he'd overran it and a defender would have picked it up before he could get to it.

Just sayin'.