[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Naw, it's funny but you dunno what you're talking about, they did some computer analysis and argued that the ball didn't cross the line, so the only WC England had ever won was most likely a fraud...but, hey, ironically attempt some revision re WC 2022 and argue about a technicality against Argentina, which in that case actually did *not* have any bearing on the match.

If you're talking about the '66 final, which I presume you are, England won 4-2 so I guess it wouldn't have been a fluke if one goal was found to be in error after modern day tech was used as you claim.

Right now the rules are clear mate, no player on the side allowed a step on the pitch during play which the French fans are disputing after the match and if it was enforced France would have won 3-2, so don't get carried away with your sentiments.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

If you're talking about the '66 final, which I presume you are, England won 4-2 so I guess it wouldn't have been a fluke if one goal was found to be in error after modern day tech was used as you claim.

Right now the rules are clear mate, no player on the side allowed a step on the pitch during play which the French fans are disputing after the match and if it was enforced France would have won 3-2, so don't get carried away with your sentiments.

I assume that you knew what happened in that match, but apparently not. The disputed goal broke the tie and obviously affected how each team played afterwards, i.e. the Germans had to open up looser and England got that insurance 4th goal. Anyway, since you don't acknowledge that, there's no pt discussing w you, and I think it's laughable you wanna conduct a revision on something that really had no effect on this year's final (to use a hyperbole, the whole freaking stadium could've flooded Argentina's end, so what?), vs that 3rd goal in '66 which did. Arguing technicalities is quite petty when they had no bearing on the game and saying "rules are rules" is just a copout, as the very reason rules were made is to try to make things fair, so try not to be robotic and instead use your brain to look at the actual spirit of why rules were invented in the first place and if it indeed should be applied in this case. Apparently, FIFA decided to go w the more logical decision because that's what reasonable ppl do.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I assume that you knew what happened in that match, but apparently not. The disputed goal broke the tie and obviously affected how each team played afterwards, i.e. the Germans had to open up looser and England got that insurance 4th goal. Anyway, since you don't acknowledge that, there's no pt discussing w you, and I think it's laughable you wanna conduct a revision on something that really had no effect on this year's final (to use a hyperbole, the whole freaking stadium could've flooded Argentina's end, so what?), vs that 3rd goal in '66 which did. Arguing technicalities is quite petty when they had no bearing on the game and saying "rules are rules" is just a copout, as the very reason rules were made is to try to make things fair, so try not to be robotic and instead use your brain to look at the actual spirit of why rules were invented in the first place and if it indeed should be applied in this case. Apparently, FIFA decided to go w the more logical decision because that's what reasonable ppl do.

Well said
That was an emotional response on his end and not a rational one
It's easier when you're unbiased and can see it as a reasonable person
The foot on the pitch clearly had no affect on the outcome

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I assume that you knew what happened in that match, but apparently not. The disputed goal broke the tie and obviously affected how each team played afterwards, i.e. the Germans had to open up looser and England got that insurance 4th goal. Anyway, since you don't acknowledge that, there's no pt discussing w you, and I think it's laughable you wanna conduct a revision on something that really had no effect on this year's final (to use a hyperbole, the whole freaking stadium could've flooded Argentina's end, so what?), vs that 3rd goal in '66 which did. Arguing technicalities is quite petty when they had no bearing on the game and saying "rules are rules" is just a copout, as the very reason rules were made is to try to make things fair, so try not to be robotic and instead use your brain to look at the actual spirit of why rules were invented in the first place and if it indeed should be applied in this case. Apparently, FIFA decided to go w the more logical decision because that's what reasonable ppl do.

You were the one who brought up England's 1966 World Cup triumph cheapening it with your quip about how a goal should not have been. Try using your own brain better instead of making a fool of yourself comparing the resulting play of that with a match 56 years later