Euro 2012

Rooney the most unfit player on the pitch?? Are u serious? He is one of the best forwards in the world. He is a consummate athlete and has to be to play anywhere near the level he does. Wayne Rooney is built like a tank - he is not fat! That's his physique, Scher!
Sorry but no way! Nobody that plays professional football is anywhere near unfit, let alone one of its best proponents. Not gonna let u away with that one, sorry! Watch him play for Man U and tell me he is unfit - his work-rate is unreal!

:)

I think the only superlative adjective I am happy to use with Rooney's name is "most overrated".

Now, I dislike the way the English media over-rates the English team. But I think they still have class individuals: Gerrard, Hart, Terry, Walcott, Rooney - the whole squad has class in spates tbh. The thing is (and has been for a long time): they don't play well as a unit, and it is because of all this hype, pressure and their inability to deal with it and when they play they get the jitters (they look frightened to try go forward most of the time) but Wayne Rooney is still a class act and I have been watching him play week in week out in the Prem since he scored that wonder goal for Everton against Arsenal when he made his debut at 15. Rooney is at his peak now. I love watching him play for Utd. And he strikes me as the kind of bloke who would play just the same if he were paid the same as the rest of us were (ie -me and ie not much)....He is pure quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Are we not going to talk about the Ukraine goal that was not given? Do we need goal-line technology?

---

As glad as I am that England won, that goal not being given was was a travesty. Very poor refereeing in this tournament, generally.

We certainly *do* need goal-line technology. I've no idea why FIFA won't implement it.

I like to see Portugal win this game but if they don’t it would be fun, no doubt, to see Ronaldo crying like a baby.

50 on Portugal

50 on Portugal, please.

The Ukraine ball over the line was a mistake, but they also missed the offside that preceded it as the player got the ball. On that basis, the outcome was fair, though it rarely ever is in most games. The number of times the refs and linesmen make terrible decisions in the Premiership is beyond belief. In Rugby League, they have the video ref who can make an independent decision. It won't always work, but i'm surprised they put up with the complete uncertainty of refereeing decisions. Have we not got goaline tech just because FIFA are fogies? The tech has been around for years.

It works very well in American Football. I cannot think of many who would want to reverse the replay review rule.

It's funny to watch the Euro Cup on US channels, a mixture of Europeans and a few American broadcasters and the Europeans are really sticky about change, whereas the Americans are open to changing to a replay rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

The Ukraine ball over the line was a mistake, but they also missed the offside that preceded it as the player got the ball. On that basis, the outcome was fair, though....

---

Ah, well that would imply that you see them as two components of the same event. I'd argue that they're separate events, and that once the offside has not been flagged, it's over and no subsequent event can depend on it.

This came up recently in something I read about semantics. Was the second plane hitting the other tower of the WTC on 9/11 a separate event to the first plane hitting the first tower, or were both planes components of the same event?

It's not a theoretical question. Billions of dollars depend on it - because the WTC was insured against disastrous events.

If the first plane hitting was one event and the second plane hitting was another event, then the insurance company has to pay up twice. If it was one event, then they only have to pay up once - and there's a ceiling on the money they have to pony up for one event.

The argument for the 'independent events' view is "Well, if the second plane hadn't arrived, you'd pay us for the first one, up to the limit, right? So that's a single insured event. Therefore the second plane was a second insured event, and you have to pay us up to the limit on that one too."

The insurance company's argument is that the 'event' was the entire attack, and that both planes were part of that one attack, so they only have to pay up once.

Yes, even this comes down to an argument about money. Though quite an intriguing one.

It's true - both events are dependant equally on if.

Interesting about the WTC. I suppose a compromise is out of the question.

How did the insurers asses the premium and the risk, one building or two? It Sounds like one side is trying to underpay and the other trying to get overpaid, so compromise would be a good idea, though not in the lawyers' interest.

In a way the offside was part of the same move that led to the goal not given. I think a game has "moves" and passages of play that can't be defined exactly, but every one knows what they are. On the otherhand a missed offside has less significance than a missed goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

How did the insurers asses the premium and the risk, one building or two? It Sounds like one side is trying to underpay and the other trying to get overpaid, so compromise would be a good idea, though not in the lawyers' interest.

---

It can depend on a number of factors but the interpretation of 'Event' comes down to 2 things:
- the policy wording (as you can define 'Event' how you wish), and
- the doctrine of proximate cause which will consider any event which is an 'unbroken chain of events leading to the loss' as being caused by and part of a single event.

So in this way a building which burns to the ground as a result of an earthquake damaging its electrical systems will be considered to have been damaged by earthquake rather than fire (in principle. In practice you would have to check the wording). This is a big issue where inner limits are applied to catastrophe perils (such as earthquake, windstorm, flood), where the insurance is on a named perils basis (e.g. third party, fire and theft) or where an insured has selected to limit their policy exposure based on the maximum amount they think they are likely to incur any one event. So in the WTC example, the owners of WTC may have elected to set a maximum event limit of, say, $100m representing the value of a single building on the assumption that they were not likely to lose both buildings in a single event. In this scenario they'd be thinking of fire, or vehicle impact or explosion which would be unlikely to transfer and cause damage to the adjacent building. It's quite a common approach. No one, of course, would have been considering this scenario, but it is arguable that there was an unbroken chain of events from the conspiracy to commit terrorism to the destruction of the two towers.

So it's not a simple question, and the vast sums involved and impact on other similar cases mean it's unlikely to be settled out of court.

20 on Czech Republic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

It works very well in American Football. I cannot think of many who would want to reverse the replay review rule.

It's funny to watch the Euro Cup on US channels, a mixture of Europeans and a few American broadcasters and the Europeans are really sticky about change, whereas the Americans are open to changing to a replay rule.

---

Our football is a continuous game, which makes it more difficult. There is the question of when do you stop the game to look at the replay and how do you restart the game after it, also how far back can you look? The other night would it have given a goal to Ukraine or denied them one for the offside?

However for the moment I think FIFA is only looking at ball crossing the line technology.

Footie is a great egalitarian sport, everyone can play it whatever their ability, and at the moment everyone plays to the same rules.

30 on Portugal.

I am rooting for the Czechs but I will put my 100 on Portugal for the game's sake.

Incidentally, I am pretty sure our Czech resident does not even know about the game... Right, Jay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Our football is a continuous game, which makes it more difficult. There is the question of when do you stop the game to look at the replay and how do you restart the game after it, also how far back can you look? The other night would it have given a goal to Ukraine or denied them one for the offside?

However for the moment I think FIFA is only looking at ball crossing the line technology.

Footie is a great egalitarian sport, everyone can play it whatever their ability, and at the moment everyone plays to the same rules.

---

It's true that there's the problem of when to stop in open play, but the most important decisions are usually penalties in the box when the ball goes out. I'm thinking of Young's dive for Manchester UTD towards the end of the season which potentially put them in a winning position. If they had gone on to win it, it would have been by a blatant cheat. I think it would be useful there to assist decisions beause the goalmouth is so crowded.

The Czech Republic looked more threatening in the first half, but in the end it was mainly Portugal. Without Ronaldo though, they weren't that good.

Mick - 300

Paul - 300

Snow - 320

Papaya - 121

Scher - 200

Doc - 150

Neely - 320

Mark - 200



Tomorrow:

Germany v Greece

21 on Germany

Greece - what can I say. They weren't rated, but they are here on a wild card. Germany, one of the strongest teams in the tournament. They shoud win, but Greece shouldn't be here.

So on that basis er............ 50 on Greece. It would put the Hellenic cat among the pigeons if they did.

I'm really tempted to go all in on Germany. Think I'll sleep on it.

50 on Greece?:yikes::crazy:

I can't see anything beyond Germany. Total mismatch in my opinion. I think Greece were lucky to come through a poor group - full bank job on Germany Germany 320.

200 on Germany.

I nearly became a competitive bread head there. Lured by the promise of easy imaginary Drachmas to risk all.

However my native caution has kicked in this morning.

250 on Germany

Hmm.... Okay then.

220 on Germany

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

50 on Greece?:yikes::crazy:

I can't see anything beyond Germany. Total mismatch in my opinion. I think Greece were lucky to come through a poor group - full bank job on Germany Germany 320.

---

I do agree that Germany are extremely strong favourites here.

But to say that Greece were "lucky to qualify" shows that you probably didn't watch their games. They fought extremely well both against Poland and Russia, and showed that they can make it very difficult for any team on their day.

I think we'll be hard to beat tonight. But beaten we will be.

100 on Germany, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocHeart

I do agree that Germany are extremely strong favourites here.

But to say that Greece were "lucky to qualify" shows that you probably didn't watch their games. They fought extremely well both against Poland and Russia, and showed that they can make it very difficult for any team on their day.

I think we'll be hard to beat tonight. But beaten we will be.

100 on Germany, please.

---

Oops, I forgot that there was a passionate Greek supporter on here, no offence.:smilewinkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Oops, I forgot that there was a passionate Greek supporter on here, no offence.:smilewinkgrin:

---

None taken :)

Well I'm sticking with Greece - there's nothing better than an underdog howling at the favourite's heels. I just think back to the FA cup. So many big clubs fall under one off games.

You do know that I will gloat and preen if they win don't you?

I might post some pics of the goal, embed links to fan sites and articles, and insist upon a display of the Greek colours in the Euro thread. I might even post a video of myself doing a triumphal "I told you so" dance whilst hollering rapturously to the Greek anthem.

Just imagine what I'll be doing if England win. Woo Hoo!!

I would love to see Greece go through next rouund but I am a die-hard Germany supporter... Shame two of my favourite teams in this tournament have to play against each other.

200 on Germany win.

If they lose, I won't be too broken hearted.

Oh look! Germany can't seem to score




Edit: ignore that.



Edit HA! C'mon you Helas.

Edit: σκατά !

Oh well - I'll be predictively conservative from now on.

Mick - 550

Paul - 250

Snow - 540

Papaya - 142

Scher - 400

Doc - 250

Neely - 640

Mark - 400



Tomorrow:

Spain v France

400 on Spain.

50 on Spain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Oh look! Germany can't seem to score




Edit: ignore that.



Edit HA! C'mon you Helas.

Edit: σκατά !

---

LOL.... This must be the most succinct match report ever. And yet quite accurate.

It was men against boys, really.

I'm miffed that (a) we made no effort to keep the ball in the first half but rather were jittery and hesitant, and (b) our fate was sealed by a third goal which was purely down to very poor goalkeeping.

But one does get the impression that even if Greece had played to their full potential, they still wouldn't have stood much of a chance.

From now on I'll be saying three words only.... COME ON ENGLAND!

:)


EDIT: Did you see Angela Merkel celebrating? Her gut is HUGE!

350 Spain.

I'm going to go for a surprise result.

150 on Spain and France to draw in the 90 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocHeart

EDIT: Did you see Angela Merkel celebrating? Her gut is HUGE!

---

She must have the guts to run Germany for so many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocHeart

I'm going to go for a surprise result.

150 on Spain and France to draw in the 90 minutes.

---

Could you please place a bet on the team you think will go through, Doc?

I am still not sure... Not a fan of either teams and while Spain seems like the better of the two, France might very easily surprise us.

5 on Spain