May 25, 1995 The '66, '70 & '78 World Cup Controversies, The HoG, etc (Juan Gonzalez, Shaggy, Eduardo Tabacman, Colin Morris, Marcelo Weinberger)
Jan 17, 1997 The '66 World Cup Controversy Revisited (Marcelo Weinberger, Colin Morris, Ariel Mazzarelli)
Jan 21, 1997 Other Controversies Revisited (Steve Jones, Stephen Davies, Ariel Mazzarelli, Marcelo Weinberger)
===========================================================
1. The '66, '70 & '78 World Cup Controversies, The HoG, etc
===========================================================
From: dolina@nyc.pipeline.com (Juan Gonzalez)
Subject: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 25, 1995
It is widely believed in Argentina and much of south america that the game
in 1966 between England and Argentina was fixed. Argentina had a very good
team that year and the game was very difficult for England until
Argentina's best player Rattin was given a Red card for no apparent reason.
This was the last W.Cup that was not televised to the world and some people
think that this had something to do with the outcome of that game. Are
there any comments about this in England or anywhere else? I'd like to know
what the British think of that particular game.
---------------------------------
From: sg@ssru.city.ac.uk (Shaggy)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 30, 1995
I very much doubt that the game was a fix but you do bring up an interesting
point. I've only recently seen footage of this game and Rattin is very harshly
sent off indeed. Not only that but film of the game shows England's incredibly
physical tactics which went almost totally unpunished by the referee. The
thing to remember though is that England in 1966 were a good team and probably
deserved their World Cup success. Argentinians will complain non-stop if we
accuse their game in 1978 v Peru as a possible fix when there is genuine
evidence for that to be the case and what about Maradona's handball in 1986 -
how come the only people watching that didn't see this were the referee and
linesman.
---------------------------------------------
From: dolina@nyc.pipeline.com (Juan Gonzalez)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 30, 1995
Well to tell you the truth I didn't see it until the replay, the point
here I think is that not much is said about the game in 1966 becuase it was
not televised to all of the world. When I spoke with Rattin he told me he
just felt helpless in that game. He thought that England had a good team
and didn't need the ref's help, he just thought that Argentina also had a
good team that year and would have won the cup had it not been for the
referee. I don't think there is a conspiracy here but for some reason refs
in the world cup used to favor the home team a great deal. It was very
important for England to win that cup and there may have been a great deal
of pressure on that referee. Argentina in 1978 is also very suspicious but
they also had to win that world cup and had a team that deserved it. There
is still no hard evidence that the Peruvian team let in the 6 goals but who
knows the truth, we may never know.
----------------------------------------------
From: tabacman@math.ethz.ch (Eduardo Tabacman)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 30, 1995
Just as an aside, maybe someone with a better memory than mine can confirm
(or deny this): Was it in this game, that during the halftime, some
journalist from argentine radio asked a player (Corbatta, I think) what did
he think of game. The answer came back (live) for everyone to hear:
"Nos estan cagando a patadas !" (somewhat like "They are kicking the shit
out of us", in the physical sense).
>[Argentinia v Peru 1978]
As far as I know, there is no evidence whatsoever, only (very) suspicious
circumstances. Or do you have in mind something else?
> [Maradona's handball in 1986]
I was in Argentina watching the game, and of course no one saw the handball
there. But bias aside, I don't think it was so evident.
Years later, I looked some english newspaper in the library, and the day
after the game, they say nothing about a handball. Just what a great
performance Maradona had, and the great second goal, what a shame we are
out, etc.
Only two days after the game, they publish some photo that clearly shows
the handball.
It seems that only then they were sure it was a handball, otherwise
they would have said something the day before, methinks.
So, I don't know. Did everyone but the referees (who should have seen it)
and the newspaper I looked at saw it inmediatly in England ?
(Seriously, I would like to know).
--------------------------------------
From: cmorris@ccnet.com (Colin Morris)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 30, 1995
At the risk of inflaming a lame and tedious debate on this goal, here
are some reference points I can give you. Firstly, the '86 World Cup
film - Hero - superimposes the BBC commentary on the goal. It's pretty
obvious from the commentary that they are very clear that the ball has
been handled, although it sounds as though they make this conclusion
from watching a slow-motion replay of the goal. Secondly, a couple of
headlines from reports in England were "Arms and the man" (The
Guardian) and "Cheating Dago" (who else but The Sun). Sounds like at
least those two papers were well aware of what happened!
===============================================
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 25, 1995
The quarter-finals cross refereeing (an English ref robbing Uruguay
against W.Germany and a German ref favoring England against Argentina)
was indeed very much commentated also in Uruguay. It was also discussed
here in r.s.s. But this was 29 years ago, so why don't we stop this kind
of whining, so we can freely laugh at the English, still whining
for the '86 Hand of God?
======================================
From: cmorris@ccnet.com (Colin Morris)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 30, 1995
> [Rattin] thought that England had a good team and didn't need the ref's help
I watched this tournament in England and my view is that Argentina
were victims of their reputation for foul play earned during the first
round games. I went to the W Germany v Argentina game, and the
Argentinean tactics were appalling. Aside from the Albrecht sending
off, there was one outrageous rugby tackle (also by Albrecht, I think)
that didn't even merit a booking, plus many other tackes that could
have resulted in red cards these days. I believe Argentina were
collectively warned about their behaviour after the first round, and I
think this influenced the behaviour of the referee in the QF:- Herr
Kreitlein was on the lookout for trouble from the start and pounced on
what he perceived was the first instance of it. Imho, the sending-off
was ludicrous, even though Rattin had been either warned or booked
prior to the incident.
>he just thought that Argentina also had a good team that year and would
>have won the cup had it not been for the referee.
They played well in that QF even with 10 men. However, I'd be hard
pressed to believe that they'd have won the tournament. They only held
W Germany to a 0-0 draw in the first round through pretty brutal
tactics, and Portugal probably had the best footballing side in the
tournament.
>It was very important for England to win that cup and there may have been
>a great deal of pressure on that referee.
There's no doubt that England got some favours during that World Cup.
Probably the most blatant was allowing them to play the semifinal at
Wembley whereas it was scheduled to be played at Goodison Park. I'd be
hard-pressed to agree there was a conspiracy involved though.
>Argentina in 1978 is also very suspicious
Again, I'd be hard-pressed to label what happened as a conspiracy, but
events certainly fell favourably for the host nation with their
knowing exactly how many goals they needed to score going into that
game etc.
------------------------------------------------
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 30, 1995
> [1966 semi-final switch]
Well, this is nothing compared with Brasil allowed to play the 1970
semifinal against Uruguay in Guadalajara whereas the game was scheduled
to be played at Mexico D.F. After all, there are no major differences
between Wembley and Goodison Park (altitude, climate), while the
differences in the Mexican case absolutely favored the Brasilians.
As I said in an earlier post, things happened in most WC's... even with
the so acclaimed WC'70 Brasilian side. They didn't need it, they were
the best team by far, but facts are that they tied Uruguay in the last
minute of an even first half, which started with Uruguayan dominance. In
the second half, the Uruguayans were very tired, due to Guadalajara's
humidity and the last minute trip, after they had prepared to play in
Mexico City's altitude. Brasil dominated, scored a second goal, and in
the last minutes they scored a third one. Although the best team won,
it's difficult to say what could have happened if the game was played
where it should have been played.
================================================
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 30, 1995
I don't like the word conspiracy, but when you have a quarter-final
Argentina - England and Uruguay - W.Germany, and you put a German ref
in the former and an English ref in the latter, and both South American
sides happen to be robbed... well, I wouldn't say that FIFA made all it
could to appear clean... I still remember that photo taken from a German
newspaper with Schnellinger taking the ball from the goal-line as a
goal-keeper after Rocha's header, with the game 0-0 and the Germans
playing incredibly violent, and later the ref sending off two
Uruguayans (the first one for protests, the second one rightly sent-off
for violent play). As I said in an earlier post, it was 29 years ago and
after all strange things happened in most WC's.
After reading your comment, Shaggy, I'd like to remind you of the
comment about Argentina in WC'66 that the r.s.s. FAQ used to contain. I
hope you already took it out...
--------------------------------------
From: cmorris@ccnet.com (Colin Morris)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 31, 1995
Oh Marcelo, you're breaking my heart. Germans playing incredibly violently?
This was a Uruguayan team that wasn't exactly reticent about dishing out the
physical stuff either... Handling to prevent a goal? Well, this is a sure
sign of a conspiracy if the ref missed it, just like it must have been a
conspiracy in 'the '86 QF. Not. And the first sending off was for an off the
ball offence spotted by a *Scottish* linesman; quite why a Scottish linesman
would be involved in a conspiracy to help England is interesting. My
conclusion is that Uruguay let one bad decision cause them to lose their
heads and consequently lose the game.
I'll grant you that the choice of referees was terrible given their
nationalities, if only because it leaves FIFA open to these "conspiracy"
allegations 30 years down the road. By the way, Kreitlein and Finney were
selected because they were considered, along with Dienst (linesman in the
England QF, ref in final) as the best refs available:- the former had just
received high marks for his handling of the European Cup final and the
latter was considered a "shoe-in" for the final if the hosts had failed to
get there.
------------------------------------------------
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: May 31, 1995
The small difference is that two Uruguayans *were* sent-off, while the
Germans (who actually started the rough play) didn't. You're telling it
yourself: bad refereeing caused them to lose their heads. You know, they
were not exactly cry babies...
Did you read the beginning of my post? Did I mention a conspiracy? My
view is that not only the choice of refs was totally unfortunate, but
that the real cause of TWO bad refereeings was prejudices. Of course not
a conspiracy.
--------------------------------------
From: cmorris@ccnet.com (Colin Morris)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: June 1, 1995
>You're telling it yourself: bad refereeing caused them to lose their heads.
No, I'm arguing that a bad *decision* (missing a probable handball on the
line) followed almost immediately by a German goal caused the Uruguayan team
to collectively lose its head. I'm sorry, but having to have police
intervention to restore order and protect Haller after his legs were scythed
off (the second sending off) was intolerant behaviour of an ill-disciplined
side.
To my mind, a lot of the refereeing difficulties in '66 were caused by the
huge difference in interpretation of the laws between European and South
American referees. The gap still exists, but is a lot narrower than it used
to me. So what Europeans often interpreted as a physical but fair challenge
was often considered illegal by South Americans:- hence, I suspect, a lot of
the Uruguayan belief that the Germans were being "rough".
>Of course not a conspiracy.
Apologies, you said they were "robbed". I think that's as silly an
allegation as us English droning on about the "Hand of God" robbing England
in that '86 QF. By the way, I agree the selection of Kreitlein for the
Argentinean game was *very* unfortuante after that ugly game between
Argentina and W Germany in the first round; I don't think the selection of
Finney can be categorized as such.
------------------------------------------------
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: 1966 WORLD CUP CONSPIRACY
Date: June 1, 1995
Colin, calling this a *probable* handball is more or less like calling
the HoG "probable..." but in fact this is not what I wanted to discuss
here. More interestingly you said:
>[regarding differences in interpretation of the laws]
I would say that this is a very interesting observation and I would even
agree with it... if it wasn't incredibly one-sided. When South Americans
consider that the European opponent is playing rough against their more
technical style, they are just having a different interpretation of the
rules. However, when South Americans are considered to play violently by
Europeans... they are just beeing dirty! This is exactly what I was
referring to when I said that "the real cause of TWO bad refereeings was
prejudices. Of course not a conspiracy."
For example, a few days ago I read in a Uruguayan magazine a very
interesting interview with Francescoli. He was asked about the dirty
play of the Uruguayan side in WC'86. Remember that Uruguay arrived to
that tournament as, at least, a second range candidate. Francescoli was
anticipated to be one of the stars of the tournament, and you know very
well how it ended. So, when he looks back at his career, this tournament
is still bothering him. You know what he said (in fact, something that
most Uruguayans knew, and that any person that played soccer can
understand)? "Look carefully at most of the violent plays, and you will
notice that in most cases the reason was very simple: we arrived late at
every tackle, at every challenge. In the first game against the Germans,
although it turned well, I realized how bad our preparation was. In the
next game, there was a play where Batista almost killed a Dane, I
thought he had broken him in two pieces. The Dane was so strong that
nothing happened. Do you think that Charlie wanted to harm him? Not at
all! He simply arrived late to the challenge!"
I'm sure most European readers would say. "Bullshit! These simply were
dirty players." No matter that Uruguay was the second *most* fouled team
in WC'90 (the Belgians committed a record number of fouls in their game
against Uruguay), when a Uruguayan team arrives in London, the Sun will
say "Here come the killers!" (BTW, they're having some trouble to defeat
"the killers:" last time it was in 1969, and only twice since they
started playing...). But on the other side, what we interpret as
European rough play, is just a matter ot interpretation...
> Apologies, you said they were "robbed".
Sorry, there was a language problem here. In Spanish (or at least in our
dialect), when you say "el referee nos robo," you're not implying that
he was paid, or that there was a conspiracy, or something like that. I
probably misunderstood the meaning of the English term. About the
comparison with the '86 QF, you probably missed my first article in this
thread: I just said that talking here about a conspiracy puts us in the
same level as the whining English... Finally, the selection of Finney
might have been OK as an independent event; but given the selection of
Kreitlein and the other QF, I don't think it was OK.
==========================================
2. The '66 World Cup Controversy Revisited
==========================================
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: 1966 world cup final
Date: Jan 17, 1997
"rsilv" writes:
> The thing that I remmember most for that world cup was that they
> changed the place of the semi final game Portugal x England that was
> going to be played in Liverpool but they changed the night before the
> game and made the Portuguese team to travel by train to London.
> Funny. That's the only World Cup that changed a site of a semifinal
> game. It's on the record. rsilv
Is rsilv Brasilian? This would explain his selective memory, as he
forgot that exactly the same happened in a semifinal in Mexico 4 years
later. Actually, it was much worse: Uruguay was forced to play in
tropical Guadalajara, instead of Brasil travelling to the altitude,
where Uruguay should have been waiting for them, as scheduled.
BTW, the Liverpool - London issue in WC'66 was a minor one, when
compared to the shameful quarter-finals cross-refereeing. But, you know,
just like brasilians, the English in this newsgroup think they never
cheat...
==========================================
From: Colin Morris
Subject: Re: 1966 world cup final
Date: Jan 17, 1997
Snaps wrote:
> Actually the two incidents are not exactly the same, as one of them is
> completely fictitious. Where this bizarre story comes from I`ll never
> know because the England-Portugal semi-final was *always* going to be
> staged at Wembley, this was decided months before the tournament even
> kicked off.
Got to disagree with you here. The England semifinal *was* scheduled for
Goodison Park (assuming that England won its group and QF - which it
did). Take a look at the '66 World Cup programme to see this. Also,
this is the reason why England played a friendly at Goodison in early
'66 against Poland:- as a dry run for a possible semifinal there. I
still have newspaper reports detailing all this.
The semifinal venues were switched after the QFs:- the (English) FA
argued that if England didn't play at Wembley there'd be a half-empty
stadium to watch the other semifinal between West Germany and
Portugal. Probably an accurate assertion in the event given that only
38k turned up at Goodison to watch the German semifinal. Nontheless,
the motivations of the FA were pretty transparent given the large
advantage that playing at Wembley was giving England.
Imo, it was a shameful decision to give such an advantage to the hosts
and Portugal have a legitimate gripe about this, far more than the
"crossover referee" conspiracy theories that Marcelo keeps inflicting
us with.
---------------------------------------------
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Get thee to a law school (was Re: 1966 world cup final)
Date: Jan 18, 1997
So you are saying that of all the cheating that the English carried out
in each of the 3 single-elimination rounds on their way to the '66 trophy,
the agreement to have the English referee throw the West Germany-Uruguay
game for the Germans in exchange for the German referee throwing the
England-Argentina game for the English was the least significant.
A refreshing line of defense--"We've done worse than THAT".
LAPD: "Rodney King was not excessively beaten, since he lived to tell
the tale".
US government: "Vietnam can't complain, since we did not drop any nukes".
Nazis: "Some jews are still alive".
Stalin: "There are printing presses in Siberia".
--------------------------------------
From: cmorris@ccnet.com (Colin Morris)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 19, 1997
I see, so we now have to believe that not only did England enter into a
conspiracy to eliminate Uruguay and Argentina from the QFs, get the semifinal
games rearranged, but that dastardly Geoff Hurst deliberately shot against the
underside of the bar so that the Russian linesman could cheat in favour of
England.
>A refreshing line of defense--"We've done worse than THAT".
Which someone preaching about law school would realise wasn't the defence at
all. The switching of semifinal venues is cut and dried. The belief that
German and English referees deliberately threw QF games is not. You and
Marcelo obviously believe so, but many don't and no evidence has ever been
produced to suggest that such a conspiracy existed. My own opinion is that
Uruguay were the victims of losing their heads, and Argentina of their own
thuggishness in the First Round when they ended up being reprimanded by FIFA
for their foul play.
------------------------------------------------
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 21, 1997
Now, tell us, why did they lose their heads? Didn't the ref have
anything to do with that? Didn't Schnellinger's extraordinary save on
the goal line (using his hand, of course...), when the game was 0-0 and
Uruguay was dominating, related to that? Wasn't the ref's one-sided
appreciation of brutal game related to that? I don't know if it was
deliberate or not: but the very appointment of these refs obviously was.
Yes, Colin, you're right: I repeat these arguments in this forum now
and then. Maybe too often. It's obviously ridiculous to whine about a WC
that took place 30 years ago. But I do so (and I'll continue to do it)
every time that yet another English poster in this newsgroup displays
the usual dose of self-righteoussness, accusing others of cheating,
diving, and hand-of-godding. Just as I bring the Guadalajara incident
up whenever the one bragging about cleanliness is Brasilian. In an
increasingly brainless world, where people tend to buy any stereotype
that is sold to them, I find it valuable to give another perspective.
Maybe I'm trying to balance Reuter's stereotype spreading... That's why
I don't like it when you write:
> Argentina [was victim] of their own thuggishness in the First Round
> when they ended up being reprimanded by FIFA for their foul play.
So it's OK if you act against a team based on the stereotype they have.
BTW, who was FIFA at the time? Could it be Mr. Stanley Rous?
------------------------------------------
From: Colin Morris
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 23, 1997
Er no, it's not ok, and I never suggested it was "ok". That's why I said
Argentina was a "victim" of its first-round thuggishness. They had the
misfortune to bump into an overly officious referee who over-reacted to
what he perceived as the first sign of further aggression.
> BTW, who was FIFA at the time? Could it be Mr. Stanley Rous?
Indeed it was, but so what? Argentina's play in the first round fully
warranted their reprimand. After all, this is the team whose coach
defended a rugby tackle on an opposing German forward by saying "it
wasn't a bad tackle, if he'd really wanted to hurt him he'd have kicked
him". Sure, Argentina had the misfortune to bump into a misguided
official in '66 just as England had the misfortune to bump into a blind
one in the repeat QF in '86. Neither incident a conspiracy does make...
====================================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 21, 1997
The absurdity of your opinion--whitewash seems a better term for it--about
Uruguay was pointed out elsewhere on this thread. The "thuggishness" of
Argentina consisted of a German referee's "opinion" of what constituted foul
vocabulary in Spanish. I suppose that, given the blatant nature of his
permissive favoritism towards the local thugs, the good German had to assume
that Rattin was addressing him with foul language.
------------------------------------------
From: Colin Morris
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 22, 1997
Er Ariel, try reading what you're following up to before putting your
foot in your mouth. I was referring to Argentina's conduct *in the first
round* (when, incidentally, there were no officious German referees in
sight).
---------------------------------------------
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 23, 1997
Netiquette lessons from the likes of you? That'll be the day.
Let me give a brief synopsis of the sequence of events that led up to
the English cheating:
1. First round, Argentina and West Germany play a violent game that
ends in a draw.
2. Simultaneously, the brasucas are literally kicked out of the cup and
the European referees allow their opponents to kick without restraint.
This is the only known case of FIFA referees screwing Brasil.
3. English press starts to badmouth Argentina and Uruguay, in a
crescendo that eventually leads to the infamous "Animals" headline.
4. Quarterfinal round matchups include England-Argentina and
West Germany-Uruguay. For the first game a West German referee is
assigned, for the second an English one.
5. The head of FIFA is Stanley Rous, an Englishman who is getting old
and has yet to see England win anything.
That's the scenario, now back to your post.
Your prejudice and contemptible defense of English cheating goes deeper
and deeper with each reply. Now you are suggesting that it is sensible
for a referee to tilt a game against one of the teams because of his own
prejudice, rather than fairly officiating the game itself. Amazing.
The thugishness to which you refer was the result of a violent
confrontation with the West German squad in the first round. Gee, and
then the West German referee comes up in the quarterfinal. If somebody
suggests that violence is foreign to the German futbol style, all I can
conclude is that he does not know futbol--and the "thuggishness" was
actually an unwillingness from Argentina to stand there and be kicked
at without returning the favor.
Maybe in England, if the victim strikes back, he goes from victim to thug?
It must be a Tory thing.
Your deception over what took place on that day is a bit annoying, as
you are implying that Rattin was ejected for committing a hard foul.
The fact is that Rattin was ejected for daring to talk to the referee
after he had, for the umpteenth time, shown his favoritism towards the
English squad--at a time when it was well-known that the game between
West Germany and Uruguay would be officiated by an English referee.
The referee did not speak Spanish, and Rattin knew no foul words in
German, so the notion that insults were flung is false. Rattin was the
captain, and it is his role to talk to the referee on behalf of the squad.
It is just cheating. As for where I've inserted my foot, do not mistake
my mouth for your colon, as it is a disagreeable mistake.
It's interesting how to this day English futbol is held in contempt due
to the '66 fraud. The Italians do not have this burden, and it is quite
arguable that they've never won a trophy without some sizable fraud
(Gentile is probably the lowest on that scale). So, you see, we all know
that there is less-than-stellar ethics in futbol, and we merely debate
the degree to which it subterfuges what takes place on the field. If the
English fan claims that a WC was due to England as recognition for its
role in codifying the rules of the game, and surely a little cheating
is the norm for the hosts, then the flak would die down. Instead, not only
do folks like Colin moan the livelong day about the Hand of God (instead
of recognizing the brilliance of the play), but they get on a high horse
about fair play, and how the '66 trophy was won fair and square. If you'd
just come out and say "nobody can cheat like the English", including the
only known case of screwing the brasucas, then Colin you might earn some
respect.
------------------------------------------
From: Colin Morris
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 24, 1997
Ariel Mazzarelli wrote:
> Netiquette lessons from the likes of you? That'll be the day.
No netiqutte, just asking you to check what's written before foaming at
the mouth.
> Now you are suggesting that it is sensible for a referee to tilt a game
> against one of the teams because of his own prejudice, rather than fairly
> officiating the game itself. Amazing.
Ariel, please try a little harder before putting your foot in your mouth
(or colon or whatever) once again. Where, exactly, do I say that it is
sensible for a referee to "tilt a game"? Answer: I don't. I said that
Argentina were *victims* of their first round thuggishness. Perhaps you
failed to parse correctly the sentence I wrote? On the other hand,
perhaps you didn't want to as that wouldn't have fit your stereotype of
English posters?
> Instead, not only do folks like Colin moan the livelong day about the Hand
> of God (instead of recognizing the brilliance of the play), but they get on
> a high horse about fair play, and how the '66 trophy was won fair and square.
Again, putting words into my mouth. I've posted none of these things,
merely that I happen to disagree with your conspiracy theories regarding
the '66 World Cup. But don't let that intrude on a good flame eh Ariel?
I thought not.
---------------------------------------------
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 25, 1997
Colin Morris wrote:
>Ariel, please try a little harder before putting your foot in your mouth
>(or colon or whatever) once again.
That's *your* colon that is being explored, boy. I guess you've lent it out
so many times that you've forgotten that it belongs to you.
>Where, exactly, do I say that it is sensible for a referee to "tilt a game"?
>Answer: I don't.
Well, here's the quote that started this whole thread,
Colin Morris wrote:
>Imo, it was a shameful decision to give such an advantage to the hosts
>and Portugal have a legitimate gripe about this, far more than the
>"crossover referee" conspiracy theories that Marcelo keeps inflicting
>us with.
There, you insinuate that there is next to nothing to the claim that
the English referee threw the West Germany-Uruguay game in exchange
for the German ref doing the same for England against Argentina.
When you are called on this, you do some clumsy dance about how it is after
all a consequence of "thuggishness", which is apparently a different
word in your dictionary than mine, since self-defense is hardly thuggish.
Of course, you and every other RSSer reading this is free to believe that
when Argentina met West Germany in that first round, the poor defenseless
German squad was mauled without provocation or initiative on their part.
Afterward, Sir Stanley Rous (Englishman, head of FIFA for those of you too
young to remember) sends a German referee against Argentina. Ha! That's bad
enough on its own... but then also, to send an English referee to oversee
the Germans? That English ref was even more blatant with his bias, and that
settled all speculation.
Below, I will give you another chance to "clarify" yourself, Colin--did the
ref throw the game but it was justified, did he unjustifiably throw the game
but it is not a big deal, or did he not throw it at all? You seem unable to
admit that both England and West Germany benefited from the referees, yet you
also seem unable to deny it. I'm afraid that only leaves obfuscation as an
option, and that surely is not the tack you'd wish to take.
>I said that Argentina were *victims* of their first round thuggishness.
Well there is a backhanded pseudoacknowledgement if I ever saw one.
You also neglect to mention who is doing the victimizing, and who
benefits from the victimization.
Reuters would be proud of Colin's sentence. Reminds me of that recent
article, when they used the fact that Chile had been violent in
Buenos Aires to "remind" us that it is Argentina that is violent.
>Perhaps you failed to parse correctly the sentence I wrote? On the other
>hand, perhaps you didn't want to as that wouldn't have fit your stereotype
>of English posters?
You do not yet fit the stereotype, Colin. You do fit the stereotype of
the Reuters crowd, of course--fortunately, not all English posters do so.
This is specially the case after they hang around in RSS for a while
and discover that neither the game nor sportsmanship ends once one crosses
the channel. It is your particular pathology to be rather slow to come
around rather than remain a loyal echo of the Reuters party line, but please
don't paint all your countrymen with that brush.
England cheated its way to the champion's stand. Admit it, celebrate it if
you wish, and move on--or don't, at this point I don't much care what you do
since the facts are too clear to ignore and you've had a long time to examine
them. So, here, so that you do not feel like anyone is putting words in your
mouth, make your choice.
COLIN'S OPINION OF THE 1966 WORLD CUP QUARTERFINAL ROUND DEBACLE INVOLVING
ENGLAND-ARGENTINA AND WEST GERMANY-URUGUAY
a) The refs threw the games, and it was outrageous cheating by the English
b) The refs threw the games, and it was typical cheating by the English
c) The refs threw the games, and the South American thugs had it coming
d) The refs threw the games, and the South American thugs were victimized
because they were really thugs and justice is hard to come by when you
are a thug so justice was served after all specially because England won
e) The refs threw the games, and England never cheats so it must have been
the South American thugs that cheated
f) The refs did not throw the games, but the South American thugs were
victimized anyway even though the refs were fair so it is all rather
confusing but England won so please stop talking about it
g) The South American thugs should have never been allowed to come to England
in the first place and the refs merely victimized the thugs to make
that perfectly sensible point and all World Cups should be run that way
h) Of course England cheated, how else could they win the world cup? Besides
the South Americans are cheating thugs, you know
i) Thug handball animals empire fairplay hearhear Rule Britannia
================================
3. Other Controversies Revisited
================================
From: Steve Jones - JON
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 21, 1997
My favourite "conspiracy theory" was a few seasons ago when ManU fans by the
shed load were calling for an investigation into the Liverpool v Blackburn
match because they all knew that Liverpool would throw it to spite them.
Strangely enough it all went quiet by the time the final whistle went.
Top footy conspiracies
1) England bribed/cheated everyone to win in 66
2) England were drugged/poisoned in 70
3) Argentinian drug cartel fixed 78 final (told to me by a Brazilian :)
4) All Scottish Refs are rabid Rangers supporters and hold season tickets.
5) The ref always supports the opposition
etc etc etc
================================
From: stephen.davies@bbsrc.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 27, 1997
OK Ariel we all agree with you - England cheated their way to the
1966 World Cup. Now will you answer a few points:
1) Did Argentina cheat in 1978 - organising their vital final group
game after the Brazil match so that they'd know exactly the result
needed (and the Peruvian goalkeeper who was born in Argentina knew
how many goals to let in)?
2) An undeserved red card for Maradona lead to your exit at the hands
of Brazil in 1982 at the express wishes of Havelange, the Brazilian
president of FIFA.
3) Hand of God 1986 - oh what a beautiful goal - the skill needed to
anticipate the mis-hit clearence by the defender and punch it past the
keeper - only Maradona could have done this - this is why he was better
player than Pele.
4) World Cup 1990 - the skillful Argentinian side were cheated out of
a deserved third World Cup victory by the referee in the final who sent
off two players just because they were born in South America.
5) 1994 - we don't take drugs, it was all a CIA conspiracy to deprive us
of another victory.
See - if you try hard it's really easy to throw around all sorts of crap
about conspiracies. Now brush those chips off your shoulders and listen:
The "Hand of God" incident was always going to be remembered in England.
It was blatant cheating for which Maradona showed no remorse. The fact
that Argentina/UK were at war only 3-4 years previously added an intensity
to the result of the match which hadn't been seen before. Also, the phrase
"hand of god" has been generally misinterpreted - I've been told by a Spanish
friend that it means lucky - thus leading to an obvious confusion between
native spanish and english speakers.
The English team is not generally regarded in contempt as you suggest
elsewhere - they don't try to win penalties by diving and do not feign injury
to get opponents booked/sent off - thus the Fair Play awards in 1990, at
Euro96, and coming top of the UEFA Fair Play tables for club teams taking
part in the European Cups over the last few years.
Now just calm down, get a few early nights in, and start enjoying football
again for what it is - the best game in the world.
---------------------------------------------
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 27, 1997
Stephen Davies wrote:
>OK Ariel we all agree with you - England cheated their way to the 1966 World Cup.
Good. Now on with the show.
>1) Did Argentina cheat in 1978?
Now now. People seem to forget why it was that the games were not
played simultaneously. As if the phenomenom had gone away! What happens
when you have simultaneous play is that your television screen is unable
to show both games live.
Even the '78 tournament did not convince FIFA that this was a bad
situation. It was only after the Austria-West Germany debacle in '82
that it was finally decided to sacrifice a little TV coverage.
As for that goalkeeper, his name is Quiroga, and he could not have
stopped any of the six goals. If that had been Seaman in his place,
we might have scored 10 of 'em.
>2) [Maradona's red card in 82]
The red card came in the last minute of a 3-1 loss, which was the
last game of the tournament for Argentina. So your assessment of the
situation lacks correlative conviction. Besides, a kick in the balls
in a dead-ball situation is a clear red card. What *should* be said about
that play is that the brasuca had it coming. As you'll recall, he had
just kicked an opponent in the face and walked away with the ball as if
nothing had happened, when the score was already 3-1 and the game was
for all purposes over.
The problem in 1982 was Gentile, and if you'd been paying attention
during that tournament, you would have remembered that.
>3) Hand of God 1986
Did he use his hand? I have the four replays from each angle, and you
cannot see the hand. The CIA and the KGB sent some photographs to James
Bond where the hand is seen somewhere near the ball, but I'm not sure
we can trust such sources.
You're right, it was a beautiful goal. Remember the quote above,
>OK Ariel we all agree with you - England cheated their way to the 1966 World Cup.
and it becomes even more beautiful.
>4) World Cup 1990 - the skillful Argentinian side were cheated out of
>a deserved third World Cup victory by the referee in the final who sent
>off two players just because they were born in South America.
And don't forget the phantom penal. If the game had stayed 0-0 (and there
is good reason to believe it would have), would Goyco have done it again?
We'll never know. At any rate, if Mr. Pearce had not been such a cagon,
maybe we would have met the English in the final, and then you would have
another game to moan about.
>5) 1994 - we don't take drugs, it was all a CIA conspiracy to deprive us
>of another victory.
CIA? Do you have documentation for this? All I know about is that the
test was not done with strict adherence to the rules, yet the punishment
was by all accounts the strictest and severest ever. A similar infraction
cost a Spanish player a single game in a previous WC, and it doesn't even
register in professional leagues like the NBA.
>See - if you try hard it's really easy to throw around all sorts of crap
>about conspiracies.
I suppose, but one doesn't have to try hard for the '66 tournament, unless
you are trying to DENY that England cheated. Fortunately,
>OK Ariel we all agree with you - England cheated their way to the 1966 World Cup.
so we don't have to worry about that with ya.
>Also, the phrase "hand of god" has been generally misinterpreted
Of course. It was a double-entendre. Besides, why should he have any
remorse--he cheated against the most hypocritical cheaters in the history
of the world cup! Remorse?! Ha!
Haven't you heard the phrase, "turnabout is fair play"? We have another
phrase, "he who steals from a thief has a hundred years of forgivance".
It's even better because, rather than bribe the ref, he did something that
even the TV cannot catch. A few years ago I heard the English broadcast of
that game, and the announcers can't say whether he used his hand. Towards the
end of the game, one of them somberly says
"I've just received word from one of the photographers that, indeed,
Marrradona used his hand to score the first goal",
and then a few moments of silence as though the queen had died.
It still makes me smile.
>The English team is not generally regarded in contempt as you suggest
Are you kidding? You are no more sportsmen than the rest, and as for contempt,
let me tell you, NOBODY likes losing to England--it is embarrassing. For
heaven's sake, man, NORWAY got into the world cup at your expense!
Ok, since we are talking about sportsmanship and the 1996 Eurocopa, maybe
we should ask the Spanish RSSers to give an opinion of the Wembley experience.
>Now just calm down, get a few early nights in, and start enjoying football
>again for what it is - the best game in the world.
Well on this we also agree.
---------------------------------------------
From: Arang Keshavarzian
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 28, 1997
Ahh, you guys bring a tear to my eye. Was that a "I Love the World Cup"
ad or the first recorded Kodak moment on the internet.
Well, count me as three and lets hope that the argies and the brits
will go France in '98.....
=====================================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 28, 1997
Rich wrote:
>What tosh. So in your mind its ok to cheat as long as you're not English.
Well, no, I would not say that. It is not "ok" to cheat, but it can be
"great" if you do it in such a way that tv replays from four angles do not
catch you at it. I see you are@bbc, so you should appreciate that.
At that point, there is still a bit of an ethics issue--but when the
target are the biggest cheats of world cup history (with the possible
exception of Italia '34), that settles that.
>I for one am sure that a lot more goes on than is known about and that
>nobody is completely clean. There are too many strange decisions by
>those in control (Ref's included).
Yes, and it's part of the game, isn't it? It's certainly a sizable chunk
of RSS traffic.
>I feel if Ariel watched anyone in Euro96 with the same attitude that he
>watchs England with he'd feel they cheated. There simply isn't a team
>full of saints and if there were they'd lose.
Aha! But you see, there is exactly ONE team that parades itself as the
paragon of fair play and virtue. That is one of the many hues displayed
in this thread.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Jones - JON
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Jan 29, 1997
So its England's fault that they keep winning the FIFA fair play awards?
It's Englands fault that we've had players like "Mr White" Gary Lineker and
of old Billy Wright (neither of them were EVER booked) ? I for one
would have not bothered about the hand ball had Maradona just said
"Yup I did, sorry but this is the WC and I'm only a short bloke, can't
believe the ref didn't spot it" (and remember the British public voted
Maradona's wonder goal in the match where he ran past the English defence
as the best goal of all time). Koemann after the David Platt incident said
on Fantasy Football that he thought he should have been sent off but didn't
think it was a penalty (something about making sure of that :).
England are not "whiter than white" but this "conspiracy theory" nonsense
is rubbish, why the hell would England or Germany worry about Argentina
in 1966 ? It wasn't until 78 that Argentina won the WC (on home soil after
facing an Argentine keeper to go through :). In 1966 England were
the best team in the world, in 1970 they were better but lost because
of the infamous Charlton substitution (caused no doubt by a Mafia plot)
to Germany and Brazil won with probably the finest team ever assembled.
England won the fair play award at their last two tournaments, and I think
the domestic clubs top the Euro awards as well (correct me if I am wrong),
this isn't England's fault it just so happens we foul less and don't do
as many drugs.
-----------------------------------------------------
From: marcelo@hplgser.hpl.hp.com (Marcelo Weinberger)
Subject: Re: Get thee to a law school
Date: Feb 2, 1997
Steve Jones wrote:
> Why the hell would England or Germany worry about Argentina in 1966 ?
Geez... these guys never stop embarrassing themselves:
In 1966 Argentina was already 12 times champion of the continent that
had won 4 out of 7 World Cups, once WC runner-up, once Olympic runner-up
(at a time when the Olympics were an equivalent of the WC). Argentina
had already given to the game some of the best players ever, including
the best at his time, Alfredo Di Stefano. On the other hand, England...
well, they had managed to get an honorable loss against the US in a WC.
By far their best contribution since the early 20's...