2006-06-12 07:36:30 · 23 answers · asked by meta-morph-in-oz 3 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
the goal was a result of an obvious foul, if the ref had of looked at the replay he would have pulled it up......the offender should have been red carded.
they should have a video ref like they do in rugby league.
2006-06-12 23:48:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no doubt that it was a foul. The keeper was smashed out of the way as he was going for the ball by a striker who did not even attempt to go for the ball. The ref apologised for his mistake of awarding the goal, but I dont think he would have if Australia lost 1-0. But Australia showed their true class and smashed the japs. Go the socceroos.
2006-06-13 21:35:45 · answer #2 · answered by Troy W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Initially no, Schwarzer was cleverly kept out of position by one Japanese attacker but as the ball approached another Japanese attacker joined in to distract and push Schwarzer off the ball. The Japanese players did not have eyes for the ball and the goal should not have been allowed. Thankfully the Aussies did not allow the referee's error to give up hope and they fought to the end and achieved the most deserved result any team in the world could wish for. Well done Socceroos....proud Aussie.
2006-06-13 03:32:21 · answer #3 · answered by zoltancsk 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Abso bloody lutely. Whether it was a shot or pass, two players collided with Mark and took his legs out, giving him no choice but to fall below the ball. In any league that is a foul, so the World Cup even more so. Anyway, the ref apologised to Mark but what use is that?
2006-06-14 03:06:11 · answer #4 · answered by kauldplai 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it was. The keeper was blocked off the ball with a push. It was a fould. The referee actually apologised after the match saying it should never have been a goal. But three goals in 8 minutes. Awesome.
2006-06-12 17:34:33 · answer #5 · answered by The Jester 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
negative...firstly schwarzer coming running off his line and cannot expect players to stop and make way for the keeper.
secondly there was minor contact with one off the Japanese attackers, but alot more with the second attacker. It did not make a difference because the replay shows that the ball had already passed the keeper when the second attacker collided with schwarzer. I believe the ref apologised for it but, I believe that was more for some of the calls and the soft yellow cards he handed to the some of the socceroo players i.e CRAIG MOORE
2006-06-13 07:09:41 · answer #6 · answered by penuvcevski p 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. well i think the referee shouldva indeed called that, but he didnt, so it's not. they all went for the ball. nobody intended to knock the keeper down. and besides, the ball from nakamura was a cross, not a shot. if it was clearly a shot, and somebody knocked the keeper down, then it's be a foul. when somebody of your team shoots, you usually dont reach for the ball. but that was a pass. if the referee had called that, i wouldnt argue, but since he didnt, this is my argument against those who say it was a foul.
2006-06-12 18:00:43 · answer #7 · answered by Maus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not only was it a foul but if you look at the tape you will see it was a double foul
by Atsushi Yanasigawa
and Naohiro Takahara of the Eastern Whalekillers team.
If the referee had done his job the score would have been 3-
-Nil but who's counting. WE Won, We Won.
aussie,aussie,aussie....Oi , Oi , Oi !
2006-06-15 16:06:26 · answer #8 · answered by ge roff 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it was, because even if it was unintentional, it would still be a foul. The referee even apologised to Mark Viduka. All in all I'm still happy that the Socceroos won! hehe..
2006-06-13 05:27:54 · answer #9 · answered by jmrz 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From the outset the ref was tight on fouls obstructing the goalkeeper (one either side) so he was either inconsistent or let down by his linesmen. So going on his previous calls FOUL
2006-06-12 23:37:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋