Wednesday, June 28, 2024
World Cup Fever, Part 52
Like many of you, I was appalled that Italy beat Australia the other day, 1-0, with about five seconds to go in stoppage time. The "win" came on a penalty kick that shouldn't have been a penalty kick; trying to stop a run by Italian Fabio Grosso, Australian defender Lucas Neill attempted a sliding tackle inside the box. A dangerous play if you don't make contact with the ball...but Neill didn't make contact with either the ball or Grosso. The Italian began to maneuver around Neill's prone form, then came up with a better idea; he fell over his opponent. The ref called a penalty kick, and that was it.
There are two schools of thought about diving in soccer. One is that it's boring and irritating and reflects a certain lack of toughness that is very un-American; we are, in theory, tough. The other is that it's an art form, as Austin Kelly argues in Slate today.
Perhaps both are true, but I'm inclined to dislike the ease with which players fall to the ground and grab their calves in apparent agony, only to jump to their feet and trot around seconds later. It disrupts the flow of the contest, like all those fouls in the last minute of a basketball game. And, as Harvey Mansfield would put it, it is not manly.
(Professor Mansfield, an op-ed on this subject would be timely: soccer diving, manliness, and the American aesthetic. Feel free to run with that.)
Besides, the Australians—the Soccceroos—played a tough game against a far more experienced opponent. Wouldn't it have been great if they'd beaten the Italians? The team from Italy has not particularly impressed me so far...but they're great actors. Get anywhere near them and they crumble like France's Maginot Line.
Come to think of it, the French are pretty good at diving too.
Let's see now, who's left: England, France, Germany, Brasil, Argentina, Italy, Ukraine, and Portugal.
How can you not root for Brasil?
The Italian takes a dive—thereby robbing Australia, a great nation,
of a chance to advance at the World Cup.
There are two schools of thought about diving in soccer. One is that it's boring and irritating and reflects a certain lack of toughness that is very un-American; we are, in theory, tough. The other is that it's an art form, as Austin Kelly argues in Slate today.
Perhaps both are true, but I'm inclined to dislike the ease with which players fall to the ground and grab their calves in apparent agony, only to jump to their feet and trot around seconds later. It disrupts the flow of the contest, like all those fouls in the last minute of a basketball game. And, as Harvey Mansfield would put it, it is not manly.
(Professor Mansfield, an op-ed on this subject would be timely: soccer diving, manliness, and the American aesthetic. Feel free to run with that.)
Besides, the Australians—the Soccceroos—played a tough game against a far more experienced opponent. Wouldn't it have been great if they'd beaten the Italians? The team from Italy has not particularly impressed me so far...but they're great actors. Get anywhere near them and they crumble like France's Maginot Line.
Come to think of it, the French are pretty good at diving too.
Let's see now, who's left: England, France, Germany, Brasil, Argentina, Italy, Ukraine, and Portugal.
How can you not root for Brasil?
The Italian takes a dive—thereby robbing Australia, a great nation,
of a chance to advance at the World Cup.
Comments:
<< Home
There is a reason every coach tells their defenders to never -- never, ever -- go down inside the penalty box.
On the manliness point, "socceroos"?
On the manliness point, "socceroos"?
The Slate article links to an Australian newspaper story on the issue, which includes this choice little gratuity: "'Fabio Grosso showed a typical Latin balance to stay on his feet to make inroads into the penalty area,' The Times said." Since you're so pro-Brazilian, may I assume you too admire their "Latin balance"? (Whatever that is.)
Your emphasis on the manliness point, also, is kind of interesting. One English player suggested giving pink cards to "divers". Well, now. Why not just come out with it and say that those Latins sure are fags!
Your emphasis on the manliness point, also, is kind of interesting. One English player suggested giving pink cards to "divers". Well, now. Why not just come out with it and say that those Latins sure are fags!
Actually, Richard Bradley, you need to learn a little about soccer before you make judgements ilke that. Any time you obstruct someone in the box ( as the australian player did ), it's going to be a penalty. A tackle is - in fact - considered 'going down for the ball'. Except when you don't get any ball, and instead obstruct the other person, it's a foul. If the Austrailan guy hadn't fallen down and blocked the way, the Italian could have scored. And when the foul is in the box, we all know what happens next.
This is true, but he refuses to believe it. The rules would allow a foul of this sort not to be called (even in the penalty box, they require a judgment call as to "carelessness" or "recklessness"), but in fact an obstruction foul of this sort is routinely called, when in the penalty box, and the Aussie player created it. Blaming the ref, when you think about it, is actually kind of unmanly.
I found a wonderfully balanced, and detailed, discussion of this entire issue by an experienced commentator (of, yes, Italian extraction) based in Canada. He rather convincingly argues that it was a foul:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/worldcup2006/features/italy.html
Fact is, the easy story for both mainstream media and armchair journos is that the Aussies "wuz robbed" and the Italians are genetically predisposed "divers". The truth, as always, is not that simple.
Post a Comment
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/worldcup2006/features/italy.html
Fact is, the easy story for both mainstream media and armchair journos is that the Aussies "wuz robbed" and the Italians are genetically predisposed "divers". The truth, as always, is not that simple.
<< Home
