UEFA 2012

[Pandorius999]

There's a thread for not going to see it because of racism but none about the tournament itself. And it's been derailed to once hockey. Now this thread should (hopefully ) be about who's gonna be the likely champs etc

P.S. do I have any interest in it? Nope I was just asked to find "interesting" topicsfor threads. And also asked to stop posting so often. This is a trial and error for the first and a negative for the second.
I know you'll either call me an "attention whore" or "child" or "retard". Bit people who asked me to comply should have known that if I did they'd still have Pandorius999 to deal with.

Anyways back to topic. Who's gonna win this year? Google says Spain are reigning world and UEFA champions while Russians are good under Arshavin. Think the Italy Spain game was one sided?

[ejls]

I don't suppose you would want to explain what the hell UEFA stands for, considering the number of yanks here on the forum?

[DS1980]

Originally Posted by ejls

I don't suppose you would want to explain what the hell UEFA stands for, considering the number of yanks here on the forum?

Union of European Football Associations

[ejls]

Originally Posted by DS1980

Union of European Football Associations

Soccer?

[DS1980]

Originally Posted by ejls

Soccer?

Yes, it is the second largest international soccer competition after the Fifa World cup.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by ejls

Soccer?

No, football. The game that's played chiefly by hitting a ball with your foot.

[Prurient Purveyer]

Originally Posted by ejls

Soccer?

Yes soccer; kissing, hugging, tanties.

You've got grid iron, we've got rugby, Europes got Thoccer, how thweet.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

Yes soccer; kissing, hugging, tanties.

You've got grid iron, we've got rugby, Europes got Thoccer, how thweet.

Rugby: group of large men wrestling with each other for a ball. Sounds pretty gay to me.

[Prurient Purveyer]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Rugby: group of large men wrestling with each other for a ball. Sounds pretty gay to me.

Doesn't matter Dave, we tried to liven this lame duck thread up but Americans couldn't give a toss about soccer so let the bugger die.

[DS1980]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

Doesn't matter Dave, we tried to liven this lame duck thread up but Americans couldn't give a toss about soccer so let the bugger die.

Some americans care! Me for instance. And Adam Richmond from Man Vs Food. Maybe one or two others !

[sullygom]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

Yes soccer; kissing, hugging, tanties.

You've got grid iron, we've got rugby, Europes got Thoccer, how thweet.

you've loads of sheep as well !!!!!

[Pandorius999]

Why does no thread ever stay to discuss the games themselves? Oh damn everyone's watching porn. Off I go.

[Jamie90]

[Prurient Purveyer]

Originally Posted by sullygom

you've loads of sheep as well !!!!!

Yes we do.

And we know which are the pretty ones too- so there!

[richief]

Fucking French, time for the second 100 year war I think.

[DraganR88]

[michael saint]

Everything was going fine until the Croatian women arrived..................................

[michael saint]

Do we have to have the same fucking shite EVERY fucking time there is a FOOTBALL thread for fucks sake you boring bunch of bastards.



Football = Football

American Football = American Football

Rugby Union = Rugby Union.

Not that fucking difficult is it ?

[richief]

What ever you do Mike, do not try and differentiate between Union and League, I think it could cause some aneurysms.

[michael saint]

Originally Posted by richief

What ever you do Mike, do not try and differentiate between Union and League, I think it could cause some aneurysms.

Ahhh Rugby League, home of the uncontested Scrum. I can barely even call it rugby.

[richief]

Originally Posted by michael saint

Ahhh Rugby League, home of the uncontested Scrum. I can barely even call it rugby.

The scrum is laughable, but you do get some good tackling, such a pity they got rid of the ruck and maul, and the scrum and lineout, so it is pretty much a game for the backs to play.

[Jamie90]

lets get back to topic here

GERMANY! GERMANY! GERMANY!

[richief]

No.

Scotland Scotland Scotland.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by richief

No.

Scotland Scotland Scotland.

West Brom West Brom West Brom


Boing Boing :P

[tomtom48]

spain going to win = but france have the sexys fans - did u see that french girl lift her top when they scored - nice

[meforyou]

This thread is asking the question about the likely winners. All I can say with any certainty is that it will NOT or never be England! Every couple of years they go through the qualifying stages, beating tiny republics who nobody has ever heard of, with teams made up of parking attendants, accountants, hairdressers and motor mechanics, and everyone says that this England side is the best ever . . . until they play larger countries, who show just how pathetic the England team is. Occasionally they put up some kind of fight, although with no consistency. To make matters worse, the "news" programmes fill up with bullshit, with a reporter standing outside the team hotel, telling us how well the preparations are going. The only certainty is that the pubs full of overenthusiastic fans (who generally leave disappointed), make a killing for the first week or two. Oh - I'm English, by the way. Let's focus on the cricketers and rugby players, who actually play with pride and passion, rather than because they're becomming yet richer from everyone else's misery.

[thinskin]

Originally Posted by michael saint

Ahhh Rugby League, home of the uncontested Scrum. I can barely even call it rugby.

Originally Posted by richief

The scrum is laughable, but you do get some good tackling, such a pity they got rid of the ruck and maul, and the scrum and lineout, so it is pretty much a game for the backs to play.

The scrum in RL is no more laughable than the line-out in RU. In both games the one skill that makes the games so watchable is the ability to pass the ball out of the tackle.

Prefer run and wriggle myself but I watch both.

Thinskin

[NoTrouble]

What happened to the so called beautiful game today in Warsaw Poland as fans give each other and the game a black eye.

Euro 2012 Violence: Russian, Polish Hooligans Clash In Warsaw

WARSAW, Poland -- Russian soccer fans clashed with police and Poland supporters in separate incidents in Warsaw on Tuesday, shortly before the two teams were to meet in an emotionally charged European Championship match. Several people were injured.
In what appeared to be the most violent incident, Polish soccer hooligans were seen attacking Russians, who responded violently. The two sides, made up of dozens of men, kicked and beat each other in the faces, while flares could be seen exploding in their midst.
Associated Press journalists saw several people lying injured and bleeding on the ground, with one of them appearing to be seriously hurt. Poland and Russia fans were also seen fighting and throwing stones outside the stadium.
The two countries share a difficult history, including decades of control by Moscow over Poland during the Cold War. Many Poles felt the Polish authorities should not have allowed the Russians to march as a group in Warsaw given the historical wounds.
There were a number of other incidents as well, which came as Russia fans waving their country's flag marched to the stadium in a show of patriotism seen as provocative to many Poles. It was considered a huge security challenge for police.
Russia fans clashed with police on a bridge near the National Stadium and police were later seen making arrests.
In another incident, a group of clearly drunken Polish men began fighting among themselves, hitting and kicking each other. Two were on the ground bleeding and police intervened, throwing two more to the ground. The men were holding cans of beer and mumbling and one appeared to be unconscious. An AP reporter witnessed the incident and saw police detain three people.
One Russian who didn't have tickets to the game, but made the two-day car trip from Moscow simply to be in be the city, said it was wrong for the Russians to march in Warsaw given the countries' troubled history.
"The march, it wasn't right. It was a provocation. It shouldn't happen like this. But there are also aggressive Poles and we are scared here," said the man, who gave only his first name, Petya.
He and a friend had hoped to cross a bridge leading from the city center to the stadium to soak up the atmosphere in the area. But they gave up that notion and were sitting outside, sipping on beers from a distance, and planning to watch the match on TV in an apartment with friends.
In recent days, Polish media have tried to stir up nationalistic sentiments over the match, suggesting the encounter would be more than a simple soccer game. Newspapers Monday were full of dramatic references to Poland's victorious 1920 battle against the Bolshevik Army, known as the Miracle on the Vistula.
The Super Express tabloid carried a front page mocked-up picture of Poland coach Franciszek Smuda charging on horseback, saber in hand, in a 1920 Polish army uniform under the headline "Faith, Hope, Smuda" – a play on an old army motto: "Faith, Hope, Motherland."

[richief]

Originally Posted by NoTrouble

What happened to the so called beautiful game today in Warsaw Poland as fans give each other and the game a black eye.

I suggest you look here for some of your answers.

http://forum.xnxx.com/showthread.php?t=288234

[michael saint]

Originally Posted by NoTrouble

What happened to the so called beautiful game today in Warsaw Poland as fans give each other and the game a black eye.

A bit of harmless fun that you could see in any town in the UK at chucking out time.

[chris4sylvia]

Originally Posted by michael saint

Ahhh Rugby League, home of the uncontested Scrum. I can barely even call it rugby.

Due to some laws about "props" in scrums, Union also has uncontested scrums. Reference the 2003 Powergen Cup semi-final between Leicester and Gloucester, in which Gloucester won because of this ruling.

http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/5031.php

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...for-final.html

[michael saint]

Originally Posted by chris4sylvia

Due to some laws about "props" in scrums, Union also has uncontested scrums. Reference the 2003 Powergen Cup semi-final between Leicester and Gloucester, in which Gloucester won because of this ruling.

Of course if a Prop is injured/sent off and there is no experienced replacement for safety reasons it makes perfect sense to have uncontested scrums.

As you well know this is not the norm.

I can't recall that game.

[chris4sylvia]

Originally Posted by michael saint

Of course if a Prop is injured/sent off and there is no experienced replacement for safety reasons it makes perfect sense to have uncontested scrums.

As you well know this is not the norm.

I can't recall that game.

I don't recall the game either, but Sylv and I did take my father to Twickenham, for the final, and watched Gloucester give Northampton a good beating.

[richief]

Originally Posted by michael saint

Of course if a Prop is injured/sent off and there is no experienced replacement for safety reasons it makes perfect sense to have uncontested scrums.

As you well know this is not the norm.

I can't recall that game.

I can remember back in the Carling days when England had no replacement front rower take a voluntary uncontested scrum 5m scrum instead of a free kick, the opposition took the ball and scored the winning try, but he was always a fucking amateur.

[umpire2]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

No, football. The game that's played chiefly by hitting a ball with your foot.

Hmmmm......since you can hit it with anything but your hands, why limit it to "FOOT"ball?

Shouldn't it be "ANYTHINGBUTHANDSBALL"???

[richief]

Originally Posted by umpire2

Hmmmm......since you can hit it with anything but your hands, why limit it to "FOOT"ball?

Shouldn't it be "ANYTHINGBUTHANDSBALL"???

Because the ball is primarily moved with the feet, in your version it is thrown and caught, carried and only ever kicked for a field goal, extra points or at the kick off or restart. So why is it not called handball, and why is it called a touch down when it is only ever carried into the end zone?

[umpire2]

Originally Posted by richief

Because the ball is primarily moved with the feet, in your version it is thrown and caught, carried and only ever kicked for a field goal, extra points or at the kick off or restart. So why is it not called handball, and why is it called a touch down when it is only ever carried into the end zone?

The rules changed.

In the early days (before the development of the forward pass), just like soc......er......'Football', the most useful way to get a ball downfield in a hurry was to kick (or 'punt' it).

Quite often a team, once receiving the ball (after a kick.....with the foot, by the way) would kick it right back down the field without ever trying to advance it by running.

It was a game of field position, rather than ball possession, wherein teams would try to 'out-kick' (with the foot, by the way) each other until they got close enough to the opponent's goal to attempt running it in. If they then failed to score a touchdown (which required the player who crossed the goal to physically TOUCH the ball to the ground) on three tries, they would kick (with the foot) a field goal.

Changes over time were made (like the forward pass) to speed up the game and create more scoring opportunities. That changed, just the name of the game didn't.

The original game was closer to rugby than soc..."foot"ball.

[richief]

Originally Posted by umpire2

The rules changed.

In the early days (before the development of the forward pass), just like soc......er......'Football', the most useful way to get a ball downfield in a hurry was to kick (or 'punt' it).

Quite often a team, once receiving the ball (after a kick.....with the foot, by the way) would kick it right back down the field without ever trying to advance it by running.

It was a game of field position, rather than ball possession, wherein teams would try to 'out-kick' (with the foot, by the way) each other until they got close enough to the opponent's goal to attempt running it in. If they then failed to score a touchdown (which required the player who crossed the goal to physically TOUCH the ball to the ground) on three tries, they would kick (with the foot) a field goal.

Changes over time were made (like the forward pass) to speed up the game and create more scoring opportunities. That changed, just the name of the game didn't.

The original game was closer to rugby than soc..."foot"ball.

Well that is going to upset a few people, knowing that your game was based around Rugby will make a few of your fellow citizens scream, one in particular will try to shout you down and tell us all that a 350lb fat guy can run rings around a 280lb fit guy, sorry but he can't.

[umpire2]

Originally Posted by richief

Well that is going to upset a few people, knowing that your game was based around Rugby will make a few of your fellow citizens scream, one in particular will try to shout you down and tell us all that a 350lb fat guy can run rings around a 280lb fit guy, sorry but he can't.

I wouldn't say that.

I like American football, soccer and rugby about equally---they all have their merits.

[Pandorius999]

Originally Posted by meforyou

This thread is asking the question about the likely winners. All I can say with any certainty is that it will NOT or never be England! Every couple of years they go through the qualifying stages, beating tiny republics who nobody has ever heard of, with teams made up of parking attendants, accountants, hairdressers and motor mechanics, and everyone says that this England side is the best ever . . . until they play larger countries, who show just how pathetic the England team is. Occasionally they put up some kind of fight, although with no consistency. To make matters worse, the "news" programmes fill up with bullshit, with a reporter standing outside the team hotel, telling us how well the preparations are going. The only certainty is that the pubs full of overenthusiastic fans (who generally leave disappointed), make a killing for the first week or two. Oh - I'm English, by the way. Let's focus on the cricketers and rugby players, who actually play with pride and passion, rather than because they're becomming yet richer from everyone else's misery.

he won't be happy....

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by richief

Well that is going to upset a few people, knowing that your game was based around Rugby will make a few of your fellow citizens scream, one in particular will try to shout you down and tell us all that a 350lb fat guy can run rings around a 280lb fit guy, sorry but he can't.

The salient point wouldbe that a 350lb fat guy can run OVER a 280lb fit guy. Any rugby player trying to tackle an offensive lineman would come out of it with a concussion.

Rugby demands stamina much more than it demands brute strength. The rugby guys would get steamrollered in the first ten minutes, till the american footballers realised they weren't allowed to stop every few seconds to use the oxygen tank; then they'd spend the next 70 minutes running riot while the gridiron guys were sprawled on the field gasping for breath.

[Jamie90]

[Prurient Purveyer]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

The salient point wouldbe that a 350lb fat guy can run OVER a 280lb fit guy. Any rugby player trying to tackle an offensive lineman would come out of it with a concussion.

Rugby demands stamina much more than it demands brute strength. The rugby guys would get steamrollered in the first ten minutes, till the american footballers realised they weren't allowed to stop every few seconds to use the oxygen tank; then they'd spend the next 70 minutes running riot while the gridiron guys were sprawled on the field gasping for breath.

No, rugby demands both. The plays in grid iron are comparable to a maul in rugby and the rugby players would have no problem taking the hit and working back at the grid iron players to get at the ball carrier.

It would be an interesting match up.

[DS1980]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

It would be an interesting match up.

I don't see how it would be an interesting match up.

The rugby guys would destroy the football players in a rugby match
and the football players would destroy the rugby players in a football match.

[richief]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

The salient point wouldbe that a 350lb fat guy can run OVER a 280lb fit guy. Any rugby player trying to tackle an offensive lineman would come out of it with a concussion.

Rugby demands stamina much more than it demands brute strength. The rugby guys would get steamrollered in the first ten minutes, till the american footballers realised they weren't allowed to stop every few seconds to use the oxygen tank; then they'd spend the next 70 minutes running riot while the gridiron guys were sprawled on the field gasping for breath.

That is the point, you do not have breaks in rugby except for scrums and lineouts and penalties, there is no defensive and offensive teams, though you do have 8 replacements you can swap out and use for blood injuries, and most injuries are treated on the pitch as play goes on.

Originally Posted by DS1980

I don't see how it would be an interesting match up.

The rugby guys would destroy the football players in a rugby match
and the football players would destroy the rugby players in a football match.

So true, but I still prefer the flow of a rugby match over the stop start of gridiron,

[richief]

So the Russians have been sanctioned for their fans behaviour, £96,000 (120,000 euros) in fines and a six point deduction suspended 'til the 2016 qualifiers. These folk are hosting the 2018 WC, how much was paid in bribes for that one Sepp?

I really dislike the fact that European fans can get into the grounds with flares and fireworks and the Unofficial England Band had their instruments confiscated, how many matches have been ruined by the use of pyrotechnics being thrown on the pitch? FIFA and UEFA should ban the things all together they are fucking dangerous, I remember a few years back when a Welsh Rugby fan fired a distress flare over the pitch killing a guy in the opposite stands, they caught him and he got charged with manslaughter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18431163

[thinskin]

Originally Posted by richief

So the Russians have been sanctioned for their fans behaviour, £96,000 (120,000 euros) in fines and a six point deduction suspended 'til the 2016 qualifiers. These folk are hosting the 2018 WC, how much was paid in bribes for that one Sepp?

I really dislike the fact that European fans can get into the grounds with flares and fireworks and the Unofficial England Band had their instruments confiscated, how many matches have been ruined by the use of pyrotechnics being thrown on the pitch? FIFA and UEFA should ban the things all together they are fucking dangerous, I remember a few years back when a Welsh Rugby fan fired a distress flare over the pitch killing a guy in the opposite stands, they caught him and he got charged with manslaughter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18431163

So much for wishes, likes and dislikes. I just wish the Dutch would have had a plan B. Luckily my son and I can now discard the Orange Lions in favour of the three English lions.

Thinskin

[chris4sylvia]

A lot of you are missing a vital point, which is: In Rugby there are rules that govern how the ball carrier is tackled, also in a lot of instances ONLY the person in possession of the ball can be tackled.

The same rules DO NOT apply in American Football, which is a big part of the reason why American Footballers wear the safety gear.

You cannot draw any comparisons between the 2 sports, because even the training programs will be different.
Admittedly Rugby is a more fluid and flowing game BUT, it is still largely dependent on the weather as to if a game is started. There are many instances of American Football games being played in the sort of weather conditions that a Rugby game would have been cancelled.

[thinskin]

Originally Posted by chris4sylvia

A lot of you are missing a vital point, which is: In Rugby there are rules that govern how the ball carrier is tackled, also in a lot of instances ONLY the person in possession of the ball can be tackled.

The same rules DO NOT apply in American Football, which is a big part of the reason why American Footballers wear the safety gear.

I am pretty sure one of our more knowledgeable American cousins may correct me but even in Gridiron only the man with the ball may be tackled.

Thinskin

[richief]

They do seem to hit and block and grab and shove at the line of scrimmage.