World

Referees

Materazzi Sees Red in Italy’s Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

June 27th, 2006 | By: Aaron | 45 Comments »

Spanish referee Luis Medina-Cantelejo made two game-breaking decisions in yesterday’s 1 - nil victory by Italy over Australia - one that went against the Azurri and one that went their way. Before delving into those two controversial decisions, let’s break down the action from the kickoff to the final whistle.

We knew things wouldn’t be easy for the Aussies as Liverpool midfielder Harry Kewell was on crutches to spectate the match with a groin injury. And early on it was Italy who had the better opportunities. Fouls were quickly called going both directions and in the 9th minute, I thought the referee set the tone for the match when a hard foul by Bresciano on Alessandro Del Piero was whistled, but did not produce a card. Perhaps this was the Spaniard’s way of saying that he was going to call things his own way, keep an eye on the fouls, and issue cards somewhat more conservatively than we’ve seen throughout the tournament.

A few minutes after Chipperfield’s defensive effort in the box, Marcelo Balboa was still griping about the US - Italy match as though it somehow had bearing on the action at hand. Moments later Chipperfield would make another hard, but clean challenge to win the ball.

Two minutes after that Balboa continued with his cheerleading by saying that everyone expected the Czechs, Italians, and Americans to make it out of their group - even though only two actually could - and that Ghana has shocked everyone. In actuality, I would’ve been more shocked had the Americans survived than the Ghanaians since their qualification was so much more difficult than ours. The fact that none of the so-called pundits, including Balboa, gave them any respect proves how little they really understand about the game.

In the 17th Viduka was rightfully called for a push and three minutes after that Balboa was still whining about Larrionda and “all those red cards”. Dude…get over it. He’s a far better referee than you ever were a player…and we won’t even talk about your inane commentary or knowledge of the rules.

In the 21st the referee still hadn’t produced any cards, but decided to have a few words with Gattuso after a hard foul. In all honesty, I do prefer this style of refereeing and employ it myself, but regarding the record number of cards issued at this tournament, I blame the dictates by FIFA. People lose sight of the fact that the referees are beholden to FIFA’s Referees Committee in this regard and that they are under incredible scrutiny to perform as instructed.

In the 22nd, Schwarzer made a great leg save on Toni after a quick turn by the lanky Italian only ten yards from goal. A minute later the first caution was issued to Chipperfield…no, I mean Bresciano…er, actually it was Grella for…what, dissent? The network was showing a replay of Schwarzer’s save so we never did really find out what Grella had done to deserve his booking.

Then it was Viduka’s turn to head a free kick, but it was directly at Buffon from close range. In the next few minutes, with temps in the more moderate mid-70s in Kaiserslautern, I would note that Medina-Cantelejo was doing a good job allowing the game to flow but still also keeping the players honest. However, they seemed to have come to play, unlike the teams who had played the night before.

In the 29th, Italian defender Grosso was cautioned after he grabbed the Aussie attacker who’d beaten him along the touchline. Balboa finally understood why this is a bookable offense. One of his more knowledgable producers must have clued him into this aspect of things.

The Aussies shot one right at Buffon in the 30th…a hard, but fair challenge by a Socceroo in the 32nd…and then a good call not to flag Toni for offside even though it appeared in real time as though he might have been. Two Italian opportunities came of that play but amounted to nothing in the end.

In the 37th the referee made what I thought was his first incorrect call of the game as Grosso seemed to have fairly shouldered Bresciano for the ball as they both applied an equal amount of force, but it was the Aussie who ended up on the turf. Balboa and I agreed for a change on this one.

In the 39th the referee allowed an Aussie player to defend with the sole of his foot - a decision I liked since he came nowhere near his opponent with his studs. Two minutes later Cahill committed a pretty hard foul on Gattuso and wasn’t booked as Medina-Cantelejo seemed pretty content to allow a fair amount of physicality in this one.

Moments later I agreed with Balboa AGAIN! Moore did win the ball but then went right through Toni on the follow-through. I forget if the foul was even called, but it should have also been a caution for the Australian defender for his reckless play. Getting to the ball first doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re allowed to do whatever you want as a player.

So as the first half ended scoreless, it was clear that the referee was allowing the players to play. Only two cards had been issued and it seemed like we’d be in for a real treat in the final forty-five minutes.

In the 49th Cahill was angry about being called for foul on an aerial ball. Maybe he got a slight elbow in there, but was it really worthy of a booking or was the referee just trying to tighten things up as the match was headed for a photo finish?

A minute later, the Socceroos quickly countered on the left side of the field and the defense was a little flat as Bresciano surged towards the penalty box. With two defenders challenging him on either side, Bresciano’s teammate at Parma - Marco Materazzi - made a sliding challenge and got none of the ball about twenty yards from goal. Without hesitation, the referee pulled the red card from his pocket and sent Materazzi off the pitch.

And in all honesty, I thought this was a pretty harsh decision. First off, he wasn’t the last defender as Bresciano still would’ve had to beat Gianluca Zambrotta who was on his left shoulder. Sure he wasn’t on the goal side of the attacker, but the Italian was still right there with him regardless.

And in light of how Medina-Cantelejo had been fairly lenient with cards throughout the game, this challenge could hardly be seen as serious foul play. But a few minutes later that’s what announcer Dave O’Brien said it had been adjudicated to be. Pretty harsh in my estimation as it seemed more reckless than malicious or dangerous.

On another related point, Marcelo Balboa informed us that it wasn’t even in the penalty box (which is true), thus implying that it shouldn’t been a red card for denying a goal-scoring opportunity as the last defender. However, it doesn’t really matter where such a foul happens on the pitch for it to be a sending off offense of this nature. It could even be on the other end of the field if the defense pushes way forward and their opponents get a quick counter-attack.

But that’s irrelevant for the purposes of the discussion. I just bring it up to properly inform people who might believe that Balboa has a comprehensive understanding of the rulebook.

So now with the Aussies up a man with about forty minutes left to play, they began mounting more threatening attacks. Buffon parried away a Chipperfield blast in the 59th. Two minutes later Wilkshire was cautioned for a late, but not terribly reckless challenge.

In the 64th Gattuso stripped Cahill - no call, good call - but the Italian counter-attack failed. Then Del Piero was tripped in the 65th and Pirlo’s free kick forced Schwarzer to tip it over the bar.

A minute later the referee played the Aussie advantage that amounted to nothing. In the 70th, one of their players would be whistled for a foul for taking out Pirlo and a minute after that Bresciano was whistled for a bit of a hipcheck that looked worse in real-time than it really was.

In the 76th, Viduka showed his studs as Buffon barely cleared the ball away after a difficult back pass was played to him. The foul was called. And a minute later Gattuso was called for a push against Culina as the referee now seemed to be tigthenting things up for the final quarter-hour of the match.

In the 79th Totti ended up on the turf when he cracked a shot into the foot of Chipperfield, who had it well defended. It seemed like a fair play to me, but the referee thought otherwise.

Buffon misplayed a ball played back to him that barely went out for a corner…nice call by the AR. Cahill headed the kick over the goal from close range.

Recent entrant Aloisi was rightly called for a push in the back of an Italian defender down in the penalty area in the 82nd. Australia would then have a couple of thwarted opportunities including when Buffon pounced on the ball at Viduka’s feet.

In the 86th, Aloisi went down outside the penalty area, the ref rightfully allowed play to continue, the ball then fell to Viduka whose shot went wide left.

At the other end now Iaquinta had an opportunity but it was right at Schwarzer. Then in the 88th I though Lucas Neill had committed a foul right in front of the AR, but no flag was raised and there was also no whistle - perhaps both officials expected the other to make the call. And then out of frustration Gattuso stopped the counter-attack by knocking Chipperfield off the ball. He was cautioned for this after a bit of argy bargy with Aloisi who came in to defend his defender.

Then…well…I had a bit of technology situation as I was watching the match about ten minutes behind everyone else. So as my dvr (digital video recorder) began recording the next program on ESPN, I was immediately transported to real time and the post-game report.

What? What had happened? Did somebody score?

Moments later I would see the replay of Lucas Neill’s foul on Grosso in the penalty box. And by no means was it reckless or dangerous, but it was certainly a foul nonetheless as his body took the attacking Italian out of the play. Totti slammed the penalty kick past Schwarzer to give the Italians the slim 1 - nil victory in the game’s dying moments.

It’s a tough way to lose to be sure, especially when you’ve been up a man for most of the half. But to this I would say two things: 1) The Aussies should’ve scored when they had their chances, and perhaps more pertinently to Neill’s foul, 2) Why, Lucas Neill did you go to ground and put the referee in a position to make that call on you? Of course a decision like that will always be controversial, regarless of what the referee decides, but by taking the course of action you did, it was YOU who cost the Socceroos a spot in the quarterfinals and not the referee. His call, after all, was correct in this instance and that penalty decision falls squarely on your shoulders.

It’s a tough way to bow out of the World Cup, but on this day, the Italians proved to be the better team. They managed to stay in the game despite losing a man and came out on top in the end.

Until next time…

peace,
ac

p.s. Because I am off to Germany later this afternoon, you will have to wait a day or so for my reportage on the three remaining Round of 16 matches. Thanks for your patience.

Tags: Harry Kewell, Lucas Neill, Luis Medina-Cantelejo, Referees, World Cup

Referees World Cup RSS Feed

del.icio.us:Materazzi Sees Red in Italy's Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

digg:Materazzi Sees Red in Italy's Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

newsvine:Materazzi Sees Red in Italy's Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

reddit:Materazzi Sees Red in Italy's Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

fark:Materazzi Sees Red in Italy's Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

Y!:Materazzi Sees Red in Italy's Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

stumbleupon:Materazzi Sees Red in Italy's Last-Second Victory Over the Socceroos in Kaiserslautern

Comments

Displaying the most recent 25 comments from a total of 45 comments.

Read the rest of the comments

By nicko | June 28th, 2006 at 7:03 pm

The incorrect red card decision ruined the game, up until then Italy were the better team so regardless of the penalty decision imho the better team went through.

as an aussie I’m gutted, but I’d much rather go down to a better team through a bad decision than go through unfairly.

Posted from Australia

By AE | June 28th, 2006 at 7:30 pm

i agree with Aaron on the fact
that Socceroos had a whole half
to put the ball into the net. When the team failed to score then they are left with a probability of a questionable call in the waning minutes and may be victims of a referee’s decision.

I have replayed this PK foul over and over on my DVR. The camera angle is different for the spectator than the referee and the play appears different when viewed in slo -mo vs. full speed.

I think the call was harsh in that the Neill never made contact with Grosso, that is clear.

Grosso elected to drag his foot
and make contact with Neill on the ground then act like he was tripped. It was a cheap display
of effort, yet if the Socceroos
would have been attacking the box perhaps they could have ended up with a similar call.

Dangerous play….. perhaps, Obstructing the player… possibly
Tripping foul - not in my opinion.

I think the referee had to call something……. It should have been an IFK from where Neill went down.

Oh - perhaps a yellow for Grosso
for his acting….or an Oscar.

Posted from United States

By Christo | June 28th, 2006 at 9:07 pm

I’ve been a ref for eight years and I wouldn’t have awarded a penalty.

The slide didn’t contact the ball because it was an attempt to block a shot, it was not a tackle. The slide was well in front of the player. The Italian could jump, was jumping, and did not get caught up by the player. In order for it to be a game-changing call, it has to be clear.

After the game I would have questioned myself about whether it was the right call, but going back to this clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3G7tCw7SVA4

you can see that at second :44 the Italian is in the process of jumping over and is about to land succesfully on his right foot but jerks it back (it looks like he is on ice) so he falls. At second :10 you can see why he does this: it’s a nice little trick pulling the ball around the Australian, but he is not going to be able to reach it and make a shot on goal before the next defender gets there.

I would feel good about making the non-call.

Posted from United States

By Katie | June 29th, 2006 at 12:51 am

Yes the Socceroos had the whole first half to put the ball away, but so did Italy! And they shouldn’t be on the wrong end of such a life changing call just because they didn’t do so. And if it was an attempt to redeem italy after realising a bad red was given, then its not on.

And i also agree that you should take INTENT into account when refereing, you can clearly see even in real time that Neil didn’t do it on purpose, as opposed to Italy’s dives, or even dives from Japan of which there were many in the first half of the Japan Australia game.

All in all, it was a game with 2 equallly harsh calls. The referees in this tournment have produced the worst decisions in any tournament I have ever seen (not just during this game in question).

Posted from Australia

By Katie | June 29th, 2006 at 12:59 am

Also Harry C i’m with you all the way, I am also English living in AUstralia, and it was great to see the sportsmanship, and the determination of the team. Australia definately has produced more exciting games than England has so far!

Posted from Australia

By matilda | June 29th, 2006 at 4:17 am

I haven’t posted on the Australia blog because it’s too long and emotional at the moment and I don’t like bickering. Going out in the last seconds of the game through a penalty kick felt horribly cruel though, so I do understand the angst over there. Going down 3-0 would have felt better. Anyway, I’m expressing my views here instead because they mainly involve the events Aaron posted about. Don’t mind if no-one reads it, just need to have my say somewhere quieter.

First of all, unlike some fans I don’t blame Cantalejo because I’ve seen him officiate other games and he’s usually good; explains his decisions to players, tries not to go overboard but is firm at the same time. He made his penalty decision in the space of about 2 seconds and from one particular angle. (Yes, we could argue until the cows come home about the potential role of video replay but that’s the flawed nature of football).

One criticism I do have of the referees is that they have displayed a subconscious desire to even out their decisions, to be “fair” by penalising both teams. How many times, for example, have we seen a hard red card closely followed by another softer one for the opposing team? This “quid pro quo” type of refereeing is just human nature I guess but it’s responsible for some of the inconsistent decisions we see. The reason I’m mentioning this propensity of refs is because I think it was relevant to this game. In a strange way, the red card against Italy made Cantalejo more amenable to making a similarly strong call on Australia. When he thought he saw an opportunity to be strict with Australia, as he had with Italy, he took it. I’m not convinced we’d have seen the second big decision without the first?

But anyway…

Another point I’d like to make is that there has been a lot of doubt cast over the legitimacy of the penalty, not just in Australia (which you’d expect!) but also in English, American and European reports. Surprisingly, there has also been criticism in Italy. La Gazzetta dello Sport, Italy’s leading sports publication, called it a “dubious penalty.” Italian defender Gennaro Gattuso said “it was never a penalty” to the same publication. I’m well aware of Gattuso’s hard man defender reputation but when the Italian media and an Italian player both criticise the decision that helped them win, it does suggest the Australians aren’t just being sore losers.

and…

Posted from Australia

By martin | June 29th, 2006 at 5:38 am

Ermm watching the replay provided by the link, Grosso never even ends up in the penalty box after he falls. So thats a free kick at best.

Posted from Australia

By Diane | June 29th, 2006 at 5:59 am

Hi Guys anywhere that you can find list of refs for the quarterfinal games etc or are they just announced on the day

Posted from Japan

By lisa | June 29th, 2006 at 8:04 am

Christo, excellent analysis, and one I completely agree with.

Katie, you said “Yes the Socceroos had the whole first half to put the ball away, but so did Italy! ”

Absolutely key- great point. There’s a very irritating assumption in almost all the coverage & blogs, that because Australia did’t score all game, this atrocious game ending call is deserved! Italy did not score either! How obnoxious are these snobbish attitudes about old firm teams!

The game should have been won and lost by skill and endurance in overtime, or by a pk shoot out.

Posted from United States

By AF | June 29th, 2006 at 8:13 am

I think we can all agree that there’s been some pretty bloody awful refereeing this WC (which is not necessarily the same as awful referees). Now, while I understand FIFA taking the stand that a referees decision is final (though the refusal to incorporate video evidence under any circumstances baffles me) - is it so unreasonable to ask that the penalties which accrue from their decisions reflect the possibility that the ref may be wrong?

Now, I perhaps have not thought the implications of the following through, but it seems to me that it would be no bad thing if there were some small time-threshold at the tail end of the match such that, should both teams be otherwise drawn within this timeframe the ONLY way to avoid going into extra time is to score a REAL (well, non-penalty) goal. This way one side may still go one up from a dodgy penalty, but at least the other side has the opportunity to fight back. It also might remove some of the incentive for desperate players to get ‘creative’ in the dying seconds of a match.

I have no idea how you address unwarranted straight reds, though.

Posted from Australia

By Singaravelan | June 29th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

Have anybody know each red card = US$10K fine? I think FIFA making money.

Posted from Malaysia

By USA Referee | June 29th, 2006 at 2:21 pm

FIFA assignments for quarterfinals and lst of referees retained for final 8 matches:

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060628/1/8ds8.html

I must say that I agree with the penalty on Australia despite the fact that I really wanted to see Australia through to the quarters. The defender went down into the path of the attacker,without playing the ball, ultimately taking the attacker down in the box taking away his scoring chance. Could the attacker have avoided the defender? Possibly, although if you watch this in real time, he really had little time to avoid the defender, and in reality it is not his place to avoid the defender, it is the defenders job to play the ball rather than slide into the path of the attacker. A borderline penalty perhaps, but certainly a penalty.

Regarding the final list of referees, I’m glad to see Larrionda of urugauay retained. Even as an American, I was disgusted by the ridiculous criticism of Wynalda and the other American commentators of the official who gave three deserved reds. We do see the departure of Ivanov, which i think is a little disappointing as I think the referee committee should have retained him, even if only as a fourth official, to send a statement to Sepp Blatter that he cannot manipulate the referee process with statements about the officials in the press.

Posted from United States

By Sam | June 29th, 2006 at 6:33 pm

Martin: Re “Grosso never even ends up in the penalty box after he falls. So thats a free kick at best.”

I think you might be confused as to which is the penalty box. The penalty box is the larger one around the goal, not the smaller one. Grosso was well inside the larger area — indeed, he was almost in the smaller area (also known as the “goal area”).

You can check out the helpful diagram here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_pitch

Posted from United States

By hardy campbell | June 29th, 2006 at 8:05 pm

Let’s face it. Neill’s tackle-Grosso’s dive/foul/whatever would have been called a penalty by 99 out of 100 referees. And under the circumstances, 10 seconds left, a man advantage, overtime looming, why on Earth does Neill risk missing the tackle in his area in the first place? Football is about thinking as well as athletics, and here the Aussies showed their naivete and foolishness in the extreme. They were rightly punished, REGARDLESS of whether it was a “dive” or not. But this has happened to the Down Underers before(recall Iran in ‘97.)I actualy rooted for the Socceroos but never thought they were as menacing as the Italians, despite the meaningless “possession” statistic. Next time, Aussies (and this advice goes to my fellow Americans as well), bring your brains as well as your brawn to the tournament.

Posted from United States

By Christo | June 29th, 2006 at 11:47 pm

A few last thoughts. A referee always has to ask a few key question when making that split second decision whether to call a foul or not. One primary question is whether the offending player is playing the ball or the man. In this case, it seems clear to me that he is playing the ball, reaching out to block a shot. The fact that he did not touch the ball is not proof that he was playing the man, just as touching the ball is not proof that one is not playing the man. There’s a famous shot of one player delivering a whole-hearted kick to another player’s testicles with the caption, “But ref, I touched the ball!”
Secondly, it is the job of the attacker to avoid the defender if the defender is already there. As in basketball, the question is whether the defender has established a position by the time the attacker arrives. Again, it’s clear that the defender has stopped sliding and his hip is stationary by the time the attacker reaches him.

It’s a close call, though. There are a lot of subtleties and the action is happening very fast. Which is my point. If the call could really be reasonably made one way or the other, and you are about to award the game to one team, as a referee you have to be conservative and let it go.

It’s been interesting analyzing this play, and instructive.

Posted from United States

By LiverpoolFC | June 30th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXNc-4To80c&search=italy%20dive

That was such a DIVE, I mean look at how far he travels, NOTE-this is a stationary man, he’s just at maximum clipped him with the front of his boot and he goes flying as if he’s been hit by a semi-trailer. I mean I see, this sort of stuff all the time in amateur soccer, its just embarassing that a referee hasn’t been able to pick it up. Really embarrassing, if it were any other team my feelings would still be the same, they were hard done by and they got a raw deal. Gusso was on a yellow at the time and probably should’ve been given another and sent off and Australia should’ve played against 9 men. No offence guys thats the truth and the fact how he laughs his head off afterwards,just acts to the fact how the referee has obviously been conned.

Posted from Australia

By simon | June 30th, 2006 at 4:18 pm

i’m sorry Italian fans, but every time i see the replay of that penalty against us Aussies my heart crumbles to pieces. Grosso even looks up to see what thje ref does and then goes back to his writhing in agony antics. I am not abusing your country or your past footballing heroics, but then i really hope justice gets done. Go ahead and call me names, and you have every right to, as this is your blog…. But GO UKRAINE, GO SHEVA…

P.s:@ MARCO and company, let the poor country where i’m posting from stay out of this slanging match. I’m an aussie here for a business deal. not an indian.

Posted from India

By simon | June 30th, 2006 at 4:27 pm

A borderline penalty perhaps, but certainly a penalty.

@ USA referee… What does that mean…. Smacks of double standards. or at least is a statement with two opposing meanings.

Posted from India

By Massimo | July 1st, 2006 at 12:02 pm

Sorry but that referee really sucks.
What’s going on with these bad referees? What happened was that he gave a red card out of hatred for Italy. then the guy on the microphone told him “Hey dude you really screwed up it was not a red card”. So what didi he do. Instead of trying to ref well he decides to make it up to the Italians. I hate that referee because now Australians think they were robbed. I wanted a fair match 11 against 11 so that Italy would have screwed these aussies 4-0 and that @sshole hiddink could have gone home crying.

Posted from Italy

By Leannyn | July 2nd, 2006 at 1:53 pm

“In the 86th, Aloisi went down outside the penalty area, the ref rightfully allowed play to continue, the ball then fell to Viduka whose shot went wide left”.

All you people accusing italians of being huge divers should rewatch the match and see just how much time australia spends on the floor writhing in feigned agony.

I am from Australia and I think it was a PK. We were great but now we are a joke because the whole world views us as sulky losers.

Nice one guys.

Posted from Australia

By AF | July 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 am

“All you people accusing italians of being huge divers should rewatch the match and see just how much time australia spends on the floor writhing in feigned agony.”

…. I think this rather sums up the issue here, myself. Not that it’s necessarily true (about the feigned agony). It may well be - to an extent it almost certainly is since pretty much everyone seems to exaggerate even real injuries just a little bit. The point is it seems to be so friggin’ easy to do. I know that , personally, I never make any judgement on fouls/injuries etc until I see a nice close-up replay afterwards (even then you sometimes have to think long and hard about the actual physics of an incident). I used to, but the number of times I found myself saying ‘get up you pansy’ to a television set only to see a man virtually knee-capped on replay induced me to change this habit. Sometimes your vantage point is just bad and/or the acting just too good. Generally the ref is in a better position to judge, but not always - he isn’t god. Which is why making NO recourse to video evidence EVER strikes me as so ridiculous. I mean, there really are good arguments against its widespread use - the best of which being that this is a game that just isn’t played in the same sort of punctuated frenetic periods of play (yay the letter ‘p’) as are other codes. Play just doesn’t die every time a contentious event occurs allowing for a call upon the video and I think we’re just going to have to wear that a certain degree of bad calls the entire televisual audience can see are bad are going to creep in.

But PENALTIES? The same argument just doesn’t hold here. Play is often dead with a capital D in such instances. Moreover, since an incorrect call can be tantamount to handing one side a victory and leaving a bad taste in everyone’s mouth there is simply no excuse for not taking steps to make sure your call is the right one. None at all. And unless it happens, diving is just not going to stop at points such as this one. The player in question risks a yellow card for a chance to win the game - the only way this is ever going to look like a bad idea (for other than moral reasons) is if he KNOWS he’s going to be caught.

And while I’d agree with you that the talk of diving/cheating Italians is unfortunate, I don’t think it should cloud the issue over whether or not THIS Italian on THIS occasion took a dive to win the match. Look at the footage in the cold light of day, especially with regard to various parties’ accounts of what happened (Grosso’s statement that he got caught in Neil’s legs and had no choice but to go down, for instance) and I find it hard to understand people’s reluctance to believe that he dived. I think BOTH sides should be mad at what happened here to some degree.

I mean, Suppose Italy wins the world cup. Grosso’s antics kind of rob them of the chance to enjoy that as they should, which is rather sad.

Posted from Australia

By LiverpoolFC | July 4th, 2006 at 3:12 pm

Everyone knows the dive was invented by the Italian cheats, now a few countries have adopted it thanks to the terrible officiating at the hands of FIFA but I failed to see a single dive from the Australian’s unlike ur side which I saw not only dive time and time again with beautiful precision but also saw mcbride from the US get stitches to the face via a vicious elbow, i saw a man win a game with a dive disgraceful, the seria A is being investigated, Juve man jumps out of window caus he couldn’t hack the thought of being caught….list goes on Italian football is a disgrace…END OF STORY

Posted from Australia

By ants tamm | July 10th, 2006 at 7:11 am

What happened with Zidane? Red card to Zidane. But Materazzi? What did he say to Zidane?

Posted from Finland

By Perlita | July 10th, 2006 at 10:50 am

I think the referee should have given a card to Materazzi as well

Posted from Kuwait

By Keiran | December 24th, 2006 at 8:42 am

Even though it may seem like a while ago but i still remember watching the itilian…’Walk’ over lucas..
sorry buddy that wrote this but you said it was a foul non the less… and still to this day im sure all of Australia will dissagree with you… maybe we just can’t accept that we lost.. but at the end of the day.. i strongly belive it was not a foul!

Posted from Australia

Comments are closed