Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Borodane said:

Does that really matter? They have a special rule that a game can be postponed 48 hours but now say that it wasn’t possible to postpone the game. Why is it possible to postpone a game in one special circumstance and not another. This instance was so special that it could have allowed a postponement. Could even be after the group stages had finished. If uefa really wanted to they could have made it happen. In the end it was much easier to say finish the game or lose. Kjær had to substitute himself as he could play on after he tried. Do you honestly think that the players were able to make a sane decision at the time?

Yes it does matter because you aren't postponing the game.  Once a game kicks off it then a postponement isn't an option.  Postponement occurs before the game starts.  You can abandon games or suspend them, the latter was the case this time.

It depends on what you mean by a sane decision?  They were sane enough to care about the outcome of the match regardless of what had just happened to their teammate, otherwise they'd have just forfeited the game.  Just take the 3-0 defeat, and focus on your mate, everyone would understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ouch 🤣

When you see something like that it makes you think about stuff and I think its an appropriate time to also say how positive this forum is for myself and my mental health and mood.  It’s a great place

The problem with the gesture itself (in my opinion) is that there are no concrete goals. 'End racism' is a noble idea, but how do we know when that's been achieved? Can it be achieved? I wonder i

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Yes it does matter because you aren't postponing the game.  Once a game kicks off it then a postponement isn't an option.  Postponement occurs before the game starts.  You can abandon games or suspend them, the latter was the case this time.

It depends on what you mean by a sane decision?  They were sane enough to care about the outcome of the match regardless of what had just happened to their teammate, otherwise they'd have just forfeited the game.  Just take the 3-0 defeat, and focus on your mate, everyone would understand.

Sometimes you see things way too black and/or white, CT .. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Yes it does matter because you aren't postponing the game.  Once a game kicks off it then a postponement isn't an option.  Postponement occurs before the game starts.  You can abandon games or suspend them, the latter was the case this time.

It depends on what you mean by a sane decision?  They were sane enough to care about the outcome of the match regardless of what had just happened to their teammate, otherwise they'd have just forfeited the game.  Just take the 3-0 defeat, and focus on your mate, everyone would understand.

So you would say any decision made in a state of shock is a well reasoned decision? What’s to say a suspension of a game can’t be 2, 7 or 10 days? It wasn’t a knockout game so they just had to finish the game in time for the knockout stages. 
To say that the players could just have forfeited the game is awfully arrogant with very little understanding of the entire situation. They are professionals and with 16k in the stands and an entire nation watching, it was by no means a decision they could make at the time. 
UEFA protected their investment with little thought about the human aspect. It wasn’t a broken leg or a clash of heads. It was player who died on the pitch and to give his teammates an ultimatum of go out and play or lose regardless of eriksen being revived is frankly a horrific choice to give. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SmogDane said:

Sometimes you see things way too black and/or white, CT .. 

I don't think it's black and white mate. They had three options, those are the options in place should a game be suspended as far as I'm aware.  Those rules would be in place before the tournament starts.  UEFA can't just make things up as they go.  I don't know what the reasoning is behind the game having to be finished the next day at the latest.  I'm sure there's a reason for it, probably to do with the tournament schedule at a guess, and being fair to both teams involved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Borodane said:

So you would say any decision made in a state of shock is a well reasoned decision? What’s to say a suspension of a game can’t be 2, 7 or 10 days? It wasn’t a knockout game so they just had to finish the game in time for the knockout stages. 
To say that the players could just have forfeited the game is awfully arrogant with very little understanding of the entire situation. They are professionals and with 16k in the stands and an entire nation watching, it was by no means a decision they could make at the time. 
UEFA protected their investment with little thought about the human aspect. It wasn’t a broken leg or a clash of heads. It was player who died on the pitch and to give his teammates an ultimatum of go out and play or lose regardless of eriksen being revived is frankly a horrific choice to give. 

I'm sure they were in a state of shock.  I would have chosen to forfeit in the same position, there's no way I'd want to play a game of football after that.  I just couldn't face it.  But I understand the entire situation fully.  They are in a tournament that has rules in place for these eventualities.  That's the situation.  It might not be ideal, or palatable, especially as you played, and lost, but that's the way it is.  I'd be surprised if their decision to play had anything to do with how many people were in the stands.  It was solely about the tournament itself.  They prioritised the result, not UEFA. 

I don't really see how UEFA protected their investment?  They have to be fair to everyone in the tournament, including Finland.  Maybe Finland wouldn't want to have played today (48 hours later), and then have to play again on Wednesday?  Maybe they'd feel under pressure to agree to it so that they don't look like the bad guys for being more concerned about their rest than this awful situation?  UEFA remove that by having rules in place that everyone understands.  Looking at the schedule, it would be just about impossible to fit the game in before the group stage ends, which would mean one game being played after the other two teams in the group had finished their group games.  It wouldn't make much difference to me if they did that but they've purposely put the games on at the same time to avoid situations where people already know the result they'd need to qualify.  Again, it about being fair to everyone, not just Denmark.

There are other reasons that games can be suspended, and UEFA's rules have to cover matches in those situations as well, as frankly those situations are probably more likely.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, boro-unger said:

I don't know how Spain havent scored yet. They should be 3 up.

I might be imagining it, but haven't they struggled in opening games previously.  Not struggled in terms of the play but in getting a result?  I have hazy recollections of them being shocked a few times?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I'm sure they were in a state of shock.  I would have chosen to forfeit in the same position, there's no way I'd want to play a game of football after that.  I just couldn't face it.  But I understand the entire situation fully.  They are in a tournament that has rules in place for these eventualities.  That's the situation.  It might not be ideal, or palatable, especially as you played, and lost, but that's the way it is.  I'd be surprised if their decision to play had anything to do with how many people were in the stands.  It was solely about the tournament itself.  They prioritised the result, not UEFA. 

I don't really see how UEFA protected their investment?  They have to be fair to everyone in the tournament, including Finland.  Maybe Finland wouldn't want to have played today (48 hours later), and then have to play again on Wednesday?  Maybe they'd feel under pressure to agree to it so that they don't look like the bad guys for being more concerned about their rest than this awful situation?  UEFA remove that by having rules in place that everyone understands.  Looking at the schedule, it would be just about impossible to fit the game in before the group stage ends, which would mean one game being played after the other two teams in the group had finished their group games.  It wouldn't make much difference to me if they did that but they've purposely put the games on at the same time to avoid situations where people already know the result they'd need to qualify.  Again, it about being fair to everyone, not just Denmark.

There are other reasons that games can be suspended, and UEFA's rules have to cover matches in those situations as well, as frankly those situations are probably more likely.  

Of course you would. I’m sure you would know exactly what you would do in such a situation under those circumstances. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Changing Times said:

I might be imagining it, but haven't they struggled in opening games previously.  Not struggled in terms of the play but in getting a result?  I have hazy recollections of them being shocked a few times?

I remember then losing to Switzerland (I think) first game a few years back, then they won the tournament anyway! 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Borodane said:

Of course you would. I’m sure you would know exactly what you would do in such a situation under those circumstances. 

he always knows exactly what he would do in every single situation, it's actually quite impressive.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • What information would make people change their minds? How about gay role models, who have public platforms to share their stories and lifestyles which were unavailable in the 1960s? How about incontrovertible scientific evidence that old assumptions about homosexuality (it's a perversion, it can be cured, etc) were wrong, making it easy to debunk those inaccurate old stereotypes? How about evidence of the damage homophobia can cause on both a personal and societal level? You're right that religion plays a big part in these matters, but ignorance is a bigger problem. Nobody had the internet when homosexuality was outlawed in the UK, or a thousand public platforms for debating right and wrong with people from all over the world. Every nation's citizens lived in relative ignorance, largely believing what they were told by their elders and betters. The Saudis still have to, because their internet is censored centrally. If they could access the same panoply of information we can, I suspect the majority would at least question or even soften their attitudes towards same-sex relationships, even if their religion will always prevent them embracing it. Instead, the Saudis are only allowed to access content their government has approved. Their government disapproves of homosexuality, so that's the only version of the truth people get to see. Lack of information = lack of knowledge = lack of tolerance. Apologies to the mods: I know we're way off topic here.
    • When Bryan English joined from Chelsea. He's since gone back to Chelsea and he's their medical director.
    • I think we won a medical award of some description during Karankas time, that does ring a bell
    • He's a much better footballer (especially technically) than I think anyone really thought when he signed. I just assumed he was another Warnock ogre but he really does seem like a very good player at this level. 
    • I thought we won some kind of award a few years ago?  Might have been medical rather than sports science, mind.

×
×
  • Create New...