FIFA Confederations Cup, yay or nay?

Intercontinental news and information

FIFA Confederations Cup, yay or nay?

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

29 May 2017, 10:51 #1

FIFA Confederations Cup

Total votes: 6
4(67%)
2(33%)

So with reports that ticket sales for this summer's tournament are doing poorly, and FIFA apparently planning changes to the Club World Cup, is the Confederations Cup going to end up as a casualty? And more to the point, who here likes it and thinks it should stay?
Personally I think what they're planning for 2021 (hosting it in an Asian country other than Qatar) could end up being the way to go for the future, it might benefit from being seen as its own event rather than being 'tethered' to the next year's World Cup, could definitely do well out of hosting being taken to countries that might appreciate it more.
Reply
Like

Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

29 May 2017, 10:53 #2

Isn't the point of hosting it in the World Cup hosting country so that they can test stadiums and security, etc. on a smaller scale before the main event?
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

29 May 2017, 11:29 #3

It was (and of course for a while at turn of millennium alternated with a non-WC host every 2 years*), but as of the 2026 World Cup, the 'test event' is going to be the World Cup Intercontinental Play-Offs, they'll hold those matches in the World Cup host nation(s) presumably in November 2025.
Not sure what they've got for Qatar to test in 2021 though, maybe they'll end up getting a youth World Cup or something.
* = The other day I came across this piece of beautiful bizarreness, South Africa and Egypt putting forward a co-hosting bid...
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

30 May 2017, 07:23 #4

Qatar has hosted a youth world cup before (this didn't seem to generate as much "oh no it'll be hot" outcry at the time). The Confederations Cup can be good when the teams in it are taking it seriously, and the local public turn out to watch. But it doesn't seem to have captured the TV market attention (in Europe at least) and is considered far less important than the World Cup and the major continental tournaments - FIFA seem to have failed to "exploit" this tournament as much as they would have wanted.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

30 May 2017, 11:26 #5

nfm24 wrote:
Qatar has hosted a youth world cup before (this didn't seem to generate as much "oh no it'll be hot" outcry at the time).
In fairness it was in late April so not quite the middle of summer (also a late replacement so little time to take complaints), but a very valid point (aren't some places still banging the 'too hot' drum even for December?), not to mention it was a youth tournament, which would've no doubt brought out the "think of the children [who are actually in the U20 bracket so legally adults]" brigade nowadays.
They also had the 1994 World Cup in some hot places in the USA, and as recently as 2011 had an U17 World Cup in summer in Mexico, none of them quite match Qatari heat but it'll be interesting to see if the same people complain if matches in the 2026 World Cup get played in Miami or Monterrey in the middle of summer (or Marrakesh, or Abidjan). And not a FIFA event, but this tournament looks like it would have been a pretty hot one.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

30 May 2017, 11:44 #6

nfm24 wrote:
The Confederations Cup can be good when the teams in it are taking it seriously, and the local public turn out to watch. But it doesn't seem to have captured the TV market attention (in Europe at least) and is considered far less important than the World Cup and the major continental tournaments - FIFA seem to have failed to "exploit" this tournament as much as they would have wanted.
Yeah, not sure what's up with the Russians not snapping up tickets, a lower level of foreign tourists is a little more understandable, but they're using less stadiums and with lower capacities than Brazil and still not even half-sold at the time of writing, not to mention this is their first-ever major international tournament hosting.
It's never going to be as big as the World Cup, and I agree, FIFA have a nice thing going with the 'champion of champions' angle but for some reason it's not clicking with the masses. No-one expects it to challenge the World Cup but under this 'warm-up event' approach maybe it suffers from the comparisons.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

30 May 2017, 12:00 #7

I'm not sure, but maybe typical Russian attendances at stadiums are lower anyway. For international matches at least.

The AFC and CAF have hosted plenty of tournaments in hot countries over the years.  Personally I've never understood the big deal about the playing conditions.  As long as they are not actually oppressive to the population in general (e.g. spectators).  Surely part of the game is to adjust your playing style to the conditions, within reason.  If it is hot, you keep the ball more and don't waste energy chasing lost causes as you would do in November in the mud.  If it is dry and hard ground, long balls will bounce through more easily. 
Of course, you could also adjust the rules e.g. water breaks every 15 mins, extra sub, or reduce the length of the game down to 70 minutes for example.
Last edited by nfm24 on 30 May 2017, 12:04, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like

Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

31 May 2017, 08:31 #8

mattsanger92 wrote:
nfm24 wrote:
Qatar has hosted a youth world cup before (this didn't seem to generate as much "oh no it'll be hot" outcry at the time).
In fairness it was in late April so not quite the middle of summer (also a late replacement so little time to take complaints), but a very valid point (aren't some places still banging the 'too hot' drum even for December?), not to mention it was a youth tournament, which would've no doubt brought out the "think of the children [who are actually in the U20 bracket so legally adults]" brigade nowadays.
They also had the 1994 World Cup in some hot places in the USA, and as recently as 2011 had an U17 World Cup in summer in Mexico, none of them quite match Qatari heat but it'll be interesting to see if the same people complain if matches in the 2026 World Cup get played in Miami or Monterrey in the middle of summer (or Marrakesh, or Abidjan). And not a FIFA event, but this tournament looks like it would have been a pretty hot one.
Without going too far, the Intertoto Cup matches played in July and August in the summer of 2003, especially in southern Europe, were a valid example of extreme conditions. That was a dramatic summer because of the worst heat wave since time immemorial.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

31 May 2017, 09:16 #9

nfm24 wrote:
The AFC and CAF have hosted plenty of tournaments in hot countries over the years.  Personally I've never understood the big deal about the playing conditions.  As long as they are not actually oppressive to the population in general (e.g. spectators).  Surely part of the game is to adjust your playing style to the conditions, within reason.  If it is hot, you keep the ball more and don't waste energy chasing lost causes as you would do in November in the mud.  If it is dry and hard ground, long balls will bounce through more easily. 
Of course, you could also adjust the rules e.g. water breaks every 15 mins, extra sub, or reduce the length of the game down to 70 minutes for example.
Yep, although critics will say that those countries in Asia and Africa are 'used to it', and it's not the same as inviting countries from Northern Europe, kind of like a reverse Super Bowl argument. And completely agree with the 'adapting your game' part, of course most World Cups are usually held in optimum conditions (or close to it), but there will always be surprises and part of football is to adapt, like that Switzerland v Turkey match at Euro 2008.
Unfortunately the 'spectators' part will probably be a lightning rod for controversy even with the air-conditioned stadiums, you just know that there's going to be a fan or few who suffers from heatstroke and it'll be Qatar's fault despite the fan receiving numerous warnings about what to do for their own safety. I'm basically picturing this on steroids.
In fairness I played in 25-degree heat the other week and felt a little uncomfortable by the end, although that might have just been the cheap artificial turf trapping more heat close to the pitch, plus playing for something like half-hour to an hour with no water break, and not particularly wanting to put myself under too much strain for the sake of a pick-up game. I'm sure if there was an important match, even with a higher temperature, I'd push myself more and be around people who make sure I'm doing the right things... like staying hydrated.
And I think FIFA already have a water break rule if the temperature's above a certain level but it's around halfway through each half, though common sense says that can easily be added to if the situation calls for it. The introduction of video referees might allow a few more informal water breaks as well...
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

31 May 2017, 09:20 #10

Luca wrote:
Without going too far, the Intertoto Cup matches played in July and August in the summer of 2003, especially in southern Europe, were a valid example of extreme conditions. That was a dramatic summer because of the worst heat wave since time immemorial.
And what about all the clubs that willingly go on summer tours to USA/Australia/Singapore/Portugal?
Reply
Like

Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

31 May 2017, 14:57 #11

Well, at least the tours are often well paid. I don't think the good old Intertoto was very remunerative...
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

31 May 2017, 22:55 #12

> critics will say that those countries in Asia and Africa are 'used to it'

This point has some merit, but nowadays World Cup hosts are announced many years in advance - teams know what they should be preparing for. The difficulty is to tally that with the variable conditions in qualifying campaigns, where you can have two very different climates three days apart (also applicable in the finals with two cities in a large country). This is something South American teams seem to be better at than European teams.

The mid-half water break was long overdue. It's not in anyone's interest to make players play without sufficient water regardless of the conditions.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

01 Jun 2017, 14:00 #13

> This point has some merit, but nowadays World Cup hosts are announced
many years in advance - teams know what they should be preparing for.

Exactly, that's why teams go on training camps (although a lot of the time those pre-tournament neutral venue matches seem to be in Switzerland or Austria regardless of whether the tournament's being played in a mountainous region), it doesn't stop some people using the different climate excuse when things go pear-shaped though.
I'm not saying it's wrong as they have the free choice to pick anywhere in their country to play, but the most blatant example of exploiting the conditions is when the USA play someone like Costa Rica or Mexico in winter months and they specifically pick somewhere with a colder climate to hold the match.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

01 Jun 2017, 14:09 #14

Probably just revenge for all those years of being taken to altitude and forced to play in the mid-day heat after being kept up all night by mariachi bands and random phone calls to their hotel rooms. It was common in Africa for the home team to make it as difficult as possible for the away team, messing about their hotel transfers, taking them back and forth between different hotels (some without running water etc), using rickety old buses with no air conditioning, failing to send FA officials to greet the team at the airport, changing the kick-off time or venue at late notice, etc etc.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

15 Jun 2017, 07:21 #15

Speaking of Africa, apparently the Cameroon team at this summer's tournament might be a team of imposters, according to a bold claim and a clickbaity headline. Granted it's more a dispute between a Cameroonian club over who the FA President is, but can't be great motivation for the players who I'm assuming will be able to pass FIFA's ID checks...
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

15 Jun 2017, 21:42 #16

So this report from Germany suggests the official line on the Confederations Cup might soon be a nay, and Mr Rummenigge agrees with this (and in a very Faragish kind of way says that everyone else thinks the same thing) because of course he does...
Reply
Like

Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

16 Jun 2017, 09:01 #17

Well, the Confederations Cup history teaches that Germany have never
taken this competition seriously. In 1999 they fielded a "B" team, while
in 1997 and in 2003 they refused to enter. Only in 2005 they employed
their strongest squad, obviously because they hosted the tournament.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

16 Jun 2017, 19:19 #18

And yet the other 'big teams' in this year's tournament (Chile and Portugal) appear to be taking it very seriously going by their squad selection, while Germany decide to not even bother calling replacements for their injured players in a weakened squad. Considering they easily have the means to call someone new into the squad it shows a complete lack of respect for the tournament and to the many possible players who would have loved the chance to be in that atmosphere gaining experience (even if they weren't likely to play much).
I don't know what Germany's problem is with this tournament, but whatever it is it seems to be exactly that - their problem.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

17 Jun 2017, 23:41 #19

Maybe they should just take this further by fielding only 10 players. Or 8 players and two guys in speedos on deck chairs.
Reply
Like

Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 16:49

18 Jun 2017, 20:04 #20

after Chile-Cameroun I wonder who is still in favour of the video-referee? it only delays the game, brings confusion  and its decisions are not perfect.... I was and am not in favour...
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

19 Jun 2017, 14:13 #21

I am in favour of the principle.

I am not in favour of playing around with a new system in an important international competition. Testing should be done in friendlies or youth cups only.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

19 Jun 2017, 19:24 #22

Technically it did do its job well and disallowed/allowed VARgas' goals where they should have been, but it wasn't exactly a fluid process. I was more concerned about how they didn't add the stoppage time, in fact there was meant to be 4 minutes and despite having a VAR review in the middle of it the ref ended after 3:30?
As I've said before, on the one hand both teams are equally affected by the rules so it's not a huge problem, but VAR could have done with a lot more testing on the club scene first. But kudos for calling the Confederations Cup important, I take it you're one of the yays on my poll?
Reply
Like

Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 16:49

19 Jun 2017, 20:22 #23

I am a yay
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

19 Jun 2017, 21:09 #24

It is a major competitive tournament for senior international teams, worth ranking points etc. So FIFA itself considers it important regardless of what us punters think :-)

It smacks of FIFA trying to "show off" how innovative they are being by trialling stuff when the spotlight is on them. Actually it just looks unprofessional.

About the actual implementation of the VAR... I am confused, why is everything still controlled by the pitch referee ultimately? I thought the point of the VAR was to account for mistakes or omissions by the pitch referee. But it seems they aren't really able to overrule him without his own input, why?
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

21 Jun 2017, 16:24 #25

I guess the VARs are supposed to be like the linesmen. If the ref doesn't see an incident that the lino does, the ref takes the advice on board and makes his decision from there (usually in line with what the official who saw the incident says). VAR consultation seems to be the same thing but with an earpiece. Not like in American sports where the ref will 'go to the booth' for themselves
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

21 Jun 2017, 19:13 #26

I thought there was supposed to be a contingency for the pitch referee to view the video himself, in a "referee review area", if he so wishes. If not, then to me it seems strange to leave the final decision with the pitch referee.

And of course, the VAR cannot resolve incidents where the referee intervened erroneously, e.g. blew the whistle for a non-existent foul or offside in the build up to a potential goal which never materialized. In that case all the VAR can offer is a moral victory.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

23 Jun 2017, 09:56 #27

nfm24 wrote:
I thought there was supposed to be a contingency for the pitch referee to view the video himself, in a "referee review area", if he so wishes.
Right on cue, this is exactly what the Gambian referee did after the punch-up at the end of the Mexico-NZ match.  However, the fact that, even after viewing the incidents himself, the referee decided to give only three yellow cards seems to show that personal judgment will still play a large part, regardless of the VAR pinpointing the relevant incidents to be punished.
Personally I would have given at least one red card there, definitely for Marco Fabián who ran 30 yards unprovoked to elbow a relatively innocent NZ player in the head.  A few others could easily have been sent off as well.
On the plus side, at least this means my fear that the VAR would spell the end of the good old traditional mass brawl are unfounded.
Reply
Like

Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

23 Jun 2017, 18:02 #28

nfm24 wrote:
On the plus side, at least this means my fear that the VAR would spell the end of the good old traditional mass brawl are unfounded.
As long as there is a Latin American team on the field, the risk of a good old mass brawl is always alive and kicking...
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

23 Jun 2017, 23:09 #29

Yes and particularly when their opponents are a robust agricultural team.
Reply
Like

Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

29 Jun 2017, 09:36 #30

Wow, third consecutive final for Chile!They can become the fourth South American country to win a FIFA competition for major national teams, after Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

29 Jun 2017, 16:35 #31

Chile could also win a "major" international trophy for the third year in a row, almost an unique feat.
Reply
Like

Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

29 Jun 2017, 18:17 #32

What about this Argentina's hat-trick? 1991 Copa América, 1992 King Fahd Cup, 1993 Copa América. Ok, the King Fahd Cup wasn't the most prestigious tournament, but it is officially recognized by FIFA as the predecessor of the Confederations Cup.
Brazil could have achieved a legendary poker, when they won the 2004 Copa América, the 2005 Confederations Cup and the 2007 Copa América, but they missed the 2006 World Cup. Luckily for Italy
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

29 Jun 2017, 20:32 #33

nfm24 wrote:
Chile could also win a "major" international trophy for the third year in a row, almost an unique feat.
And if they somehow also get the 2018 World Cup and 2019 Copa America they could get up to 5 in a row, unless they count the Olympics they'd have to invent a 2020 tournament in order to keep it going beyond that (call me).
Anyway, I hope they do win on Sunday, Germany in general have treated the tournament as though they selected 'nay' at the top of the first page. Pretty much summed up by choosing not to replace two injured players pre-tournament, when you'd assume that could give two German players priceless experience of the 'tournament atmosphere'. Aside from contempt for both the Confederations Cup and their own players, they'd probably already paid most of the costs for a 23-man squad in advance, if anything only taking 21 is just inefficiency on their part, which their countrymen must surely see as unforgivable.
Ignoring that bias though, two questions regarding tonight's match - how did Mexico lose that, and how did Mexico lose by that much? Not taking anything away from the German squad as they can already call it a fantastic achievement, but I hope Chile smash them in the Final (metaphorically, of course). I fear the CC loses some of its credibility if Germany can treat the tournament like they have and not only come away with a medal, but a gold one...
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

29 Jun 2017, 22:04 #34

We can't expect the Germans not to use the event as a bit of a road test, given that it was indeed designed to be that. Other countries are allowed to field youthful "development" squads when it suits them, so why not. Even though many of their squad players are inexperienced internationally, they are not fringe players with their clubs. Unlike the members of many other national teams, these German players are pretty much all regular players at a good level in a strong league.

Mexico lost by having a comically disorganized defence. Based on the first 10 minutes I thought it was going to be another 7-1, but luckily for Mexico they don't have David Luiz.

Argentina won 3 Copas in 3 years in the 1940s.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

29 Jun 2017, 22:07 #35

I'm confused by the lack of use of the VAR in the two semi-finals. It's almost as if there had been some directive to deliberately avoid using it. Two fairly clear penalties (or at least VAR-worthy potential penalties) and no action whatsoever.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

30 Jun 2017, 09:08 #36

nfm24 wrote:
We can't expect the Germans not to use the event as a bit of a road test, given that it was indeed designed to be that. Other countries are allowed to field youthful "development" squads when it suits them, so why not. Even though many of their squad players are inexperienced internationally, they are not fringe players with their clubs. Unlike the members of many other national teams, these German players are pretty much all regular players at a good level in a strong league.
I've not got a problem with them using fringe players, they have the right to pick whoever they want, it's more the whole attitude of the German FA (and related names such as Rummenigge) seemingly undermining the tournament at every available opportunity.
The fact that they won't take a full allocation of players when they easily have the means to is a proverbial middle finger to the tournament they're playing in (we care about this so little we're not going to bother bringing a full squad), their own 'fringe fringe' players (we'd rather leave the slots empty than take you as backup), and their chances of winning (IIRC there was a match at Euro 2008 where due to suspensions/injuries Turkey had only a couple over 11 players left to choose from, if something like that happened to this German team it would have taken 2 less incidents to get there), although that last part has unfortunately been proven wrong by whatever they have in the water that makes them go deep into tournaments regardless (visiting Munich for a few days in a month's time, if I come back with a driven winner's mentality you'll know what happened).
The only passable excuse they have for not calling up replacements is that whole 'maintain squad chemistry' angle, but by their own admission it's a development squad that's unlikely to be the core of any future side, so I'm failing to see many positives from their decision (aside from possibly giving Sane and Demme the easiest medals of their careers, as FIFA still list them as squad members but 'absent').
Back on Rummenigge, matter of fact I'll take my previous comparison to Farage a step further and suggest that this has the makings of a German football version of Brexit* (Confexit?). The establishment of a country are pointing out faults (fabricated or otherwise) in a harmless but generally positive external international thing they're part of in an attempt to distract from their own controversies (2006 World Cup bidding) while making little attempt to help improve said external thing from the inside, in the meantime actively undermining it with the help of a semi-related mascot claiming to speak for the masses but is really in it for their own gain and not even pretending to hide it that much.
* = Feels like I've been here before...
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

01 Jul 2017, 13:17 #37

If the Germans are supposedly not taking it seriously, then I imagine they won't bother to celebrate it at all if they win it.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

01 Jul 2017, 23:58 #38

Never said anything against the players, they've been great, but if you're talking about the FA/media/supporters of Germany then yes it will be interesting to see, maybe taking the mood flip of a big English club who thinks the League Cup is beneath them until they win it...
But even with the players the Chileans were clearly more animated than the Germans in terms of celebrating getting through to the Final, but that can probably be excused as cultural differences...
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

02 Jul 2017, 19:59 #39

mattsanger92 wrote:
Not taking anything away from the German squad as they can already call it a fantastic achievement, but I hope Chile smash them in the Final (metaphorically, of course). I fear the CC loses some of its credibility if Germany can treat the tournament like they have and not only come away with a medal, but a gold one...
Bugger.
Reply
Like

Joined: 05 Apr 2012, 14:54

02 Jul 2017, 20:01 #40

Boooo.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

02 Jul 2017, 20:05 #41

Vidal didn't die for this.
Reply
Like

Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

03 Jul 2017, 08:55 #42

The point is: if you work well, you deserve to win. The Germans deserve an applause for the fantastic work they're carrying on with their youth system. Between the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, their football was in bad condition. In 15 years, through competences, organization, structures and investments, they've built probably the best mine of talents in Europe. Maybe nobody, in this generation, is kissed by the football gods and will ever be able to win the Golden Ball. But in the important tournaments Germany will be protagonist again for many years.
As to Chile, yesterday they played a very good final. They were condemned only by an individual error. But in 3 consecutive finals and in 330 minutes they did not score a goal.
Reply
Like

Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

03 Jul 2017, 16:09 #43

I like how "simulating the VAR system" (i.e. by drawing a video screen in the air with your hands) is now a bookable offence.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

03 Jul 2017, 16:42 #44

This discriminates against deaf players.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

04 Jul 2017, 12:28 #45

nfm24 wrote:
This discriminates against deaf players.
Luckily football's getting more inclusive, Sporting Lisbon leading the way.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

04 Jul 2017, 19:19 #46

Chile should employ an out-of-work English football manager, the more amateur and agricultural the better. His only job will be to stand behind Bravo's goal and be ready to shout "F**KIN' HOOF IT!" whenever one of the Chilean midfielders attempts to dither needlessly in the vicinity of his own goal area. There will also be a translator employed to translate "F**KIN' HOOF IT" into Spanish. And the Chilean players will be drilled in hoofing practice. The only one who showed a clear hoofing ability was Angelo Sagal, but unfortunately he showed his talents in the wrong goal-mouth. The Germans were much better at hoofing, and that is the only reason they won.

The refereeing in the final and 3rd place match was shockingly bad. Not just the arbitrary choices of when to use VAR, but the bog standard officiating. Yellow card for Jara flagrantly elbowing Werner in the face *even after the referee has looked at it* ? Bottled. Also the general poor work of the linesmen in giving extremely soft free-kicks to defenders shielding the ball from attackers trying to pinch it. But this is ubiquitous in football.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

05 Jul 2017, 18:51 #47

nfm24 wrote:
Chile should employ an out-of-work English football manager, the more amateur and agricultural the better. His only job will be to stand behind Bravo's goal and be ready to shout "F**KIN' HOOF IT!" whenever one of the Chilean midfielders attempts to dither needlessly in the vicinity of his own goal area. There will also be a translator employed to translate "F**KIN' HOOF IT" into Spanish.
First of all they already do something like that in blind football (although in that case it's the sighted goalie doing the yelling and a guy with a metal pole behind the other goal to help the attackers), and secondly I looked it up on Google Translate and they'd have to yell "¡Puta pezuña!", one of those words FIFA has been cracking down on recently from Mexican fans, so to have it yelled pitchside would be inadvisable.
Meanwhile, I would have enjoyed watching the 3rd Place Play-Off, but ITV despite having the live rights (which for football is in rare supply for them now) somehow contrived to not show it on any of their channels or even put up a live stream on their website. Instead, of the two channels previous matches had been on, one was showing the Tour de France (fair enough), and the other showing repeats of Bear Grylls Survival School, The Voice Kids, and some gameshow called Babushka, so I guess they get points for being kind of on-theme with the third one?
Reply
Like

Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

05 Jul 2017, 19:45 #48

"¡Puta pezuña!" would actually be the equivalent of calling someone a "f**king hoof". Hey, you, you f**king hoof. Or possibly "b.itch hoof". Intriguing insults, but not sure they're going to have the desired effect.
Last edited by TheRoonBa on 05 Jul 2017, 19:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

08 Jul 2017, 15:51 #49

TheRoonBa wrote:
Or possibly "b.itch hoof".
Sounds like one of those bizarre American attempts to incorporate 'European culture' into their chants that gets stuck somewhere inbetween the real thing and not wanting to drop their vocabulary from it either...
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

30 Nov 2017, 13:03 #50

Reply
Like