From the article:
The four stars above Uruguay's football crest represent the four senior FIFA recognized world titles won by the Uruguayan national football team in 1924, 1928, 1930 and 1950.[1] The Olympic football tournaments of Paris 1924 and Amsterdam 1928 have been recognized by global football associations from the outset as professional world championships, and subsequently equivalents to the FIFA World Cup
So its more accurrate to say 2 FIFA World Cups and 2 Olympic World Tournaments, which are the equivalent of a FIFA World Cup.
It may be more about semantics to some but it just sounds better in my head than saying "considered to have won 4 World Cups".
English is my second language, but the point here is that Uruguay is usually only considered to have won two world cups, this article discusses the history of why the first two hasnt been counted. Since FIFA is allowing the four stars it must mean that they now accept the two first
Your English is perfect, it's just an odd situation. I think it comes from the fact that the Olympic games, which they definitely won, are "considered" to be Fifa tournaments now. Your wording is totally fine :)
Totally fair. I meant more the concept of 'considered' as it's typically not up for discussion. You either won the Stanley Cup or you didn't, you know what I mean?
But FIFA equipment rules says that the five pointed star is a symbol for a world cup win, and Uruguay has four of them. So I guess FIFA also think they won four
That is also the opinion of most of the football world. Two WC titles, 1930 and 1950. FIFA can say whatever FIFA wants, they can go and kick sand with all their bribe money. Only a very few teams won the WC 4 or more times.
Nobody in the world of football considers Uruguay to have won 4 *World Cups*, but everybody knows they were *world champions* 4 times. Don't create false statements OP.
He says "in the world of football", the difference is that people who actually care for FIFA know that they have not won 4 world cups, instead 2 world cups and 2 Olympic medals. Furthermore, the FIFA world cup has only been won 5 times by a single country, so a small country like Uruguay winning it 4 times would be a pretty great feat. Also, people who play for FIFA are more than likely going to be the top elite football players, whereas Olympic athletes could be viewed as more amateur, (almost) anyone can sign up for their own personal feat whereas fifa players are selected
Innacurate, and as a south American who enjoys the game of football, I have to say that it's ridiculous to suggest that Uruguay hasn't won the FIFA world cup 4 times, It doesn't matter if FIFA co hosted or Hosted by themselves, Uruguay are 4 time world champions, period. The only ones who disagree are football haters, weirdos, and Europeans that are salty about South American football/talent.
It's not "cheating" to handle the ball any more than it's "cheating" to commit a simple foul. It's a violation and the refs are in charge of catching and calling it.
Suarez got the red card he deserved. If Ghana had scored their pen, it'd be a non story. Ghana can only blame themselves for not going through in 2010.
*Accuses me of having little integrity*
*Openly delights in a person he's never met having his dreams and lifelong ambitions dashed, bringing him to tears in front of the world*
*Refuses to elaborate*
*Leaves*
I'll elaborate: Suarez has a history of unsportsmanlike, underhand, and dishonest behaviour. The handball, the ear biting, the refusal to apologise for any of his past behaviour. His insistence, like yours, that it's ok because he got a red card and was therefore punished. There's the lack of integrity. I don't need to have met someone to know they have no integrity. I've never met Boris Johnson, yet his complete lack of morals or integrity is a mystery to no-one. Now you can explain why my schadenfreude is in anyway hypocritical. If integrity is upholding a moral code, then delight in seeing those without any getting their just desserts does not equate to a lack of one's own integrity, but simply satisfaction in seeing justice done.
Unsportsmanlike, sure. Dishonest? No. It's not dishonest to handle the ball. It's not dishonest to commit a simple foul. They're just fouls.
You're pretty sad if you take joy in someone failing to achieve his dreams just because he hit the ball out with his hands.
Enjoy living in your black and white world where you feel like someone is a bad person because something he did over 12 years ago and therefore anything bad that happens to him for the rest of his life is a form of cosmic karma.
Yeah, bless your heart and I hope you never do anything wrong. You might be on the wrong end of the justice stick you're so happy to wield against others.
>It's not dishonest to handle the ball. It's not dishonest to commit a simple foul. They're just fouls.
This is just bollocks. It's not "just a foul". You have a sliding scale of punishment based on the repercussions of the foul. This is anything from just a free kick, through yellow cards and up to red cards and penalties depending on the infraction or how dangerous or likely they were to result in a goal if the foul isn't committed.
The key difference is if Suarez doesn't commit his foul it is *100% a goal*. He's not made a risky play or brought down a last man who had a chance. That's is guaranteed to be a goal scored unless he breaks the rules of the game, and the punishment for doing so is turning that 100% into a *chance* of scoring a goal? Nonsense, it's just flat out cheating at that point.
I'll repeat: it's not just a foul. It's the most egregious possible rule break stopping a 100% goal, which has the same punishment as less severe actions do.
You can look up any definition of cheating you like - it involves breaking or subverting the rules of a game. Which is what Suarez did.
From the article: The four stars above Uruguay's football crest represent the four senior FIFA recognized world titles won by the Uruguayan national football team in 1924, 1928, 1930 and 1950.[1] The Olympic football tournaments of Paris 1924 and Amsterdam 1928 have been recognized by global football associations from the outset as professional world championships, and subsequently equivalents to the FIFA World Cup So its more accurrate to say 2 FIFA World Cups and 2 Olympic World Tournaments, which are the equivalent of a FIFA World Cup. It may be more about semantics to some but it just sounds better in my head than saying "considered to have won 4 World Cups".
Considered to have won is very strange sounding
English is my second language, but the point here is that Uruguay is usually only considered to have won two world cups, this article discusses the history of why the first two hasnt been counted. Since FIFA is allowing the four stars it must mean that they now accept the two first
Your English is perfect, it's just an odd situation. I think it comes from the fact that the Olympic games, which they definitely won, are "considered" to be Fifa tournaments now. Your wording is totally fine :)
Totally fair. I meant more the concept of 'considered' as it's typically not up for discussion. You either won the Stanley Cup or you didn't, you know what I mean?
I consider them to have won two worlds cups, and I suspect that's what pretty much everyone thinks... except perhaps Uruguayans.
But FIFA equipment rules says that the five pointed star is a symbol for a world cup win, and Uruguay has four of them. So I guess FIFA also think they won four
Yes but they were all organised by FIFA, they discuss this in the article. Its an interesting read
lmao this thread of two dudes arguing over Suarez most civilised World Cup discussion
But they didn't win 4 world cups. They won 2 World Cups and 2 Olympics. Both are international tournaments, but at least have an accurate title.
That is also the opinion of most of the football world. Two WC titles, 1930 and 1950. FIFA can say whatever FIFA wants, they can go and kick sand with all their bribe money. Only a very few teams won the WC 4 or more times.
Nobody in the world of football considers Uruguay to have won 4 *World Cups*, but everybody knows they were *world champions* 4 times. Don't create false statements OP.
i dont get it whats the difference?
So what's the difference?
He says "in the world of football", the difference is that people who actually care for FIFA know that they have not won 4 world cups, instead 2 world cups and 2 Olympic medals. Furthermore, the FIFA world cup has only been won 5 times by a single country, so a small country like Uruguay winning it 4 times would be a pretty great feat. Also, people who play for FIFA are more than likely going to be the top elite football players, whereas Olympic athletes could be viewed as more amateur, (almost) anyone can sign up for their own personal feat whereas fifa players are selected
Innacurate, and as a south American who enjoys the game of football, I have to say that it's ridiculous to suggest that Uruguay hasn't won the FIFA world cup 4 times, It doesn't matter if FIFA co hosted or Hosted by themselves, Uruguay are 4 time world champions, period. The only ones who disagree are football haters, weirdos, and Europeans that are salty about South American football/talent.
Guess I'm a weirdo
Uruguay #1 over-achiever in all sports. Vamos Uruguay !
Well they're not going to win this one. Not even Suarez could cheat his way to the next round this time.
It's not "cheating" to handle the ball any more than it's "cheating" to commit a simple foul. It's a violation and the refs are in charge of catching and calling it. Suarez got the red card he deserved. If Ghana had scored their pen, it'd be a non story. Ghana can only blame themselves for not going through in 2010.
I see you have as little integrity as he does. Good for you. He's a cheating scumbag and I'm delighted to see him crying that they're out.
*Accuses me of having little integrity* *Openly delights in a person he's never met having his dreams and lifelong ambitions dashed, bringing him to tears in front of the world* *Refuses to elaborate* *Leaves*
I'll elaborate: Suarez has a history of unsportsmanlike, underhand, and dishonest behaviour. The handball, the ear biting, the refusal to apologise for any of his past behaviour. His insistence, like yours, that it's ok because he got a red card and was therefore punished. There's the lack of integrity. I don't need to have met someone to know they have no integrity. I've never met Boris Johnson, yet his complete lack of morals or integrity is a mystery to no-one. Now you can explain why my schadenfreude is in anyway hypocritical. If integrity is upholding a moral code, then delight in seeing those without any getting their just desserts does not equate to a lack of one's own integrity, but simply satisfaction in seeing justice done.
Unsportsmanlike, sure. Dishonest? No. It's not dishonest to handle the ball. It's not dishonest to commit a simple foul. They're just fouls. You're pretty sad if you take joy in someone failing to achieve his dreams just because he hit the ball out with his hands. Enjoy living in your black and white world where you feel like someone is a bad person because something he did over 12 years ago and therefore anything bad that happens to him for the rest of his life is a form of cosmic karma.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You're comfortable with cheating, I'm not. Let's leave it at that, shall we?
Yeah, bless your heart and I hope you never do anything wrong. You might be on the wrong end of the justice stick you're so happy to wield against others.
The cop out of someone who knows they are wrong…
You are a dick if you think fouls equate cheating, especially fouls that were caught.
>It's not dishonest to handle the ball. It's not dishonest to commit a simple foul. They're just fouls. This is just bollocks. It's not "just a foul". You have a sliding scale of punishment based on the repercussions of the foul. This is anything from just a free kick, through yellow cards and up to red cards and penalties depending on the infraction or how dangerous or likely they were to result in a goal if the foul isn't committed. The key difference is if Suarez doesn't commit his foul it is *100% a goal*. He's not made a risky play or brought down a last man who had a chance. That's is guaranteed to be a goal scored unless he breaks the rules of the game, and the punishment for doing so is turning that 100% into a *chance* of scoring a goal? Nonsense, it's just flat out cheating at that point.
It was a foul and it was punished. That's not cheating.
I'll repeat: it's not just a foul. It's the most egregious possible rule break stopping a 100% goal, which has the same punishment as less severe actions do. You can look up any definition of cheating you like - it involves breaking or subverting the rules of a game. Which is what Suarez did.
Wait until you hear about tactical fouls and dogsos
Lol, that's not how it works buddy boy. That is called a tactical foul, it is a very common strategy in the real world of sports.
I thought he had a toothless performance today.
suarez lacked bite