Euro 2012 draw Sunday 7th February from 11 a.m.

Mitch Connor

noodler wrote: »

No that was AET, full time score was 0-1.

no, the score at 90mins was 1-0. At fll time (AET) it was 1-1.

the game in Paris was 120 mins. we didn't win it. we went out cause we drew the game

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

no, the score at 90mins was 1-0. At fll time (AET) it was 1-1.

the game in Paris was 120 mins. we didn't win it. we went out cause we drew the game

The game was 90 minutes.

Another 30 was added because of a tie break situation.

_blank_

CHD wrote: »

Why am I bothering with someone who hates everything FAI/Ireland

This is nothing to do with me hating the FAI, I can assure you of that.

Are you people drunk?

I've never heard anyone else claiming anything like this before.

Mitch Connor

noodler wrote: »

The game was 90 minutes.

Another 30 was added because of a tie break situation.

so the 30 minutes were a new game were they?

No.

The game in paris was 120 mins long, and we drew it.

_blank_

I'd love someone to show me even one link that's not a post on this thread where it says that Ireland won in Paris.

GuanYin

CHD wrote: »

no 90 minute game? What? Seriously idiotic Des. Why am I bothering with someone who hates everything FAI/Ireland and Guanyin who obv thinks we are a 3rd world country of football.

Goooooooooooooooood Luck.

and not because you've been shown to be wrong ?

noodler wrote: »

The game was 90 minutes.

Eh no. Do you even know the laws of the game?

"Extra time" as in, the time is "extra", additional meaning the game length is extended.

Notice it's not called "mini-new game" time, or anything similar.

Scores at the end of extra time overrule the scores in normal time for a fixture. Every kid I coach knows this.

Mr.Nice Guy

Des wrote:

I'd love someone to show me even one link that's not a post on this thread where it says that Ireland won in Paris.

France 1-1 Ireland (2-1 on aggregate)

A controversial extra time goal by William Gallas saw France end Ireland's World Cup dreams with a 2-1 aggregate win.

It was a cruel end to Ireland's campaign after an excellent performance had given them hope of overturning a one goal deficit after the first leg at Croke Park.

France's performance was poor throughout and they were defeated over 90 minutes by Robbie Keane's goal in the first-half which forced extra time.

However, Gallas secured France's place in the World Cup finals with a controversial goal that should have been disallowed.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/sport/football/france-1-1-ireland-2-1-on-aggregate--$1341397.htm

Can I ask if the game was 120 minutes long why did the referee blow at the 90 minute mark and not just keep playing until we get to 120 minutes. Surely he blew because the match had been won by Ireland and the tie had to be taken to 120 minutes? That was how I had perceived it. After the 90 minutes we had achieved an away victory. The tie then went to E/T where we were robbed of a shoot-out.

I don't see why an extra time goal - one that should't have been given anyway let's not forget - should deprive us of what we know was a win in normal time.

And yes I'm aware FIFA's records say otherwise to the above but their records also say Gallas scored a legitimate goal so who cares?

Mitch Connor

If you follow this terrible reasoning, and say we 'won' in paris, then surely that means the following...

Lost in Dublin.
Won in Paris.
Lost in Paris.

Yeah, makes so much sense now.

1 result in Dublin. 1 result in Paris.

GuanYin

I must say, I'm amused at this.

Opinions are one thing, not understanding the basic concept of cup competitions is another.

That, by the way, doesn't say the game was 90 minutes Mr. Nice Guy. It says they were defeated over 90 minutes. You can be defeated over 73 minutes, you can be defeated over 12 minutes. That wasn't the length of the game.

Mitch Connor

Ref blew at 45 mins too. So were there 3 games then?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Can I ask if the game was 120 minutes long why did the referee blow at the 90 minute mark and not just keep playing until we get to 120 minutes. Surely he blew because the match had been won by Ireland and the tie had to be taken to 120 minutes? That was how I had perceived it. After the 90 minutes we had achieved an away victory. The tie then went to E/T where we were robbed of a shoot-out.

I don't see why an extra time goal - one that should't have been given anyway let's not forget - should deprive us of what we know was a win in normal time.

And yes I'm aware FIFA's records say otherwise to the above but their records also say Gallas scored a legitimate goal so who cares?

Mr.Nice Guy

GuanYin wrote: »

I must say, I'm amused at this.

Opinions are one thing, not understanding the basic concept of cup competitions is another.

That, by the way, doesn't say the game was 90 minutes Mr. Nice Guy. It says they were defeated over 90 minutes. You can be defeated over 73 minutes, you can be defeated over 12 minutes. That wasn't the length of the game.

It's a matter of perception as to who is misunderstanding the concept here. It said we were defeated over 90 minutes because that is the designated length of an official match. We won the match and then lost the tie (unjustly).

Mitch Connor wrote:

Ref blew at 45 mins too. So were there 3 games then?

He blew at 45 minutes for half-time. He blew at 90 minutes for full-time.

Doesn't this prove the point? As I said before, if the match was 120 minutes long what was called to a halt at the 90 minute mark?

Edit: Just to add to this:

Lost in Dublin. - Yes, match 1
Won in Paris. - Yes, match 2
Lost in Paris. - Yes, the tie overall

A tie is made up of two matches home and away as I understand it.

_blank_

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Doesn't this prove the point?

Absolutely not. Ireland simply did not win a football match in Paris in 2009

GuanYin

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's a matter of perception as to who is misunderstanding the concept here. It said we were defeated over 90 minutes because that is the designated length of an official match. We won the match and then lost the tie (unjustly).

A match is 90 minutes long unless otherwise agreed by the teams and referee. In this case the team associations through UEFA and the International FA panel designate that a game tied on aggregate after 90 minutes in the second leg is extended into extra time, at the end of which, the score overrules the scored after 90 minutes (designated by the notation a.e.t).

He blew at 45 minutes for half-time. He blew at 90 minutes for full-time.

No. he blew after 90 minutes for the end of normal-time. The game is extended into extra-time.

(in the US we use the terms regulation time and overtime and STILL I seem to understand these concepts better than you).

Doesn't this prove the point? As I said before, if the match was 120 minutes long what was called to a halt at the 90 minute mark?

Because 90 minutes was the end of normal time before the beginning of extra time.

Tell me, do goals count as double in moral victories?

_blank_

GuanYin wrote: »

Tell me, do goals count as double in moral victories?

love it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Des wrote:

Absolutely not. Ireland simply did not win a football match in Paris in 2009

Well did France win a football match in Dublin in 2009? If your answer is yes then we have an illogical situation whereby a first leg match is counted over 90 minutes but a second leg match over 90 minutes is not.

GuanYin wrote: »

A match is 90 minutes long unless otherwise agreed by the teams and referee. In this case the team associations through UEFA and the International FA panel designate that a game tied on aggregate after 90 minutes in the second leg is extended into extra time, at the end of which, the score overrules the scored after 90 minutes (designated by the notation a.e.t).

See what you're describing here is the aggregate scoreline. I accept that aspect of things but don't agree that the aggregate scoreline erases the scoreline of the second game. It merely shows the state of balance of the overall tie.

As someone said before me, your argument implies the first match counts as a scoreline on its own merits (1-0 to France) but the second match scoreline does not count (1-0 to Ireland). That doesn't follow. There's no Extra-Time scenario without both matches being taken into account.

GuanYin wrote:

No. he blew after 90 minutes for the end of normal-time. The game is extended into extra-time.

(in the US we use the terms regulation time and overtime and STILL I seem to understand these concepts better than you).

Normal time as in the normal designated time for a match. You could equally call it match time. The match ended, but the tie continued.

Similarly, if after extra-time the scores were level, the tie would have continued further still in the form of a penalty shoot-out.

GuanYin wrote:

Because 90 minutes was the end of normal time before the beginning of extra time.

Tell me, do goals count as double in moral victories?

Yes normal time, the normal time for the match. The match was brought to its conclusion with Ireland having won it 1-0. We then went into another phase of the tie, but not the match.

PS the moral victory alone makes all this redundant surely. :cool:

GuanYin

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

See what you're describing here is the aggregate scoreline. I accept that aspect of things but don't agree that the aggregate scoreline erases the scoreline of the second game. It merely shows the state of balance of the overall tie.

No it doesn't. Read it again, I'll highlight the important part that you've missed (twice now).

a game tied on aggregate after 90 minutes IN THE SECOND LEG IS EXTENDED INTO EXTRA-TIME, AT THE END OF WHICH, THE SCORE OVERRULES THE SCORE AFTER 90 MINUTES (designated by the notation a.e.t).

key words and phrases:
EXTENDED (ie. the game is lengthened, it isn't finished).
OVERRULES THE SCORE AFTEr 90 MINUTES (ie. the score of the game is the score after 120 minutes)

quote]
As someone said before me, your argument implies the first match counts as a scoreline on its own merits (1-0 to France)[/quote]
Yes

but the second match scoreline does not count (1-0 to Ireland). That doesn't follow. There's no Extra-Time scenario without both matches being taken into account.

The second match ended 1-1 after 120 minutes.

Again, key word EXTENDED.

Normal time as in the normal designated time for a match. You could equally call it match time. The match ended, but the tie continued.

The match didn't end. It was EXTENDED

Similarly, if after extra-time the scores were level, the tie would have continued further still in the form of a penalty shoot-out.

No, penalty shoot-outs don't count as the match. The match ends at 120 minutes and the tie is decided by "kicks from the penalty spot". Which is why games ending on a penalty shoot out always count as a tie.

Yes normal time, the normal time for the match. The match was brought to its conclusion with Ireland having won it 1-0. We then went into another phase of the tie, but not the match.

Your grasping at straws. The match was 120 minutes long, it's a law that stretches from grass roots to international level. The fact you don't understand it surprises me greatly.

PS the moral victory alone makes all this redundant surely. :cool:

Moral victories tend only to exist in people's heads.

_blank_

Licks from the penalty spot sounds disgusting.

GuanYin

Des wrote: »

Licks from the penalty spot sounds disgusting.

Bet you'd like it from my team

FlawedGenius

We needed to win the match 1-0 to force extra time. We won the match - lost the tie, end of story! The playoff was played over 2 legs. Its so stupid to think Ireland didnt win that match.:rolleyes: Ok, it didnt feel like much of a win,:( we were only halfway there and France would of felt the same after the first leg. But it was a win all the same.

GLaDOS

So how about Euro 2012? Think the draw for qualifying was today...

FlawedGenius

ScienceNerd wrote: »

So how about Euro 2012? Think the draw for qualifying was today...

I forgot what thread this was alright!:)

copacetic

GuanYin wrote: »

Again, key word EXTENDED.


The match didn't end. It was EXTENDED


No, penalty shoot-outs don't count as the match. The match ends at 120 minutes and the tie is decided by "kicks from the penalty spot". Which is why games ending on a penalty shoot out always count as a tie.

.

ffs people it's semantics and rubbish ones at that. As for this muck, quoting yourself over and over doesn't make what you say true. Even if you bold your own posts!

Nothing was 'extended'. In theory at the end of the second leg (i.e after 90 mins) the ref and officials calculated whether either team had scored more away goals that the other. Then started a period of extra time.

The team scoring more goals on aggregate wins the play-off. If the scores are level on aggregate, away goals count double. If the teams are level on away goals, or if both matches end goalless, extra-time of two periods of 15 minutes each will be played at the end of the second match. If the score is level after extra time, penalty kicks will be taken to determine the winner.

bolding what fifa actually say makes sense.

Mr.Nice Guy

GuanYin wrote: »

No it doesn't. Read it again, I'll highlight the important part that you've missed (twice now)...

key words and phrases:
EXTENDED (ie. the game is lengthened, it isn't finished).
OVERRULES THE SCORE AFTEr 90 MINUTES (ie. the score of the game is the score after 120 minutes)

Where is this written in the laws of the game? I can't find it. I had a look at the laws of the game and from my reading of it, it seems to suggest that the match is distinct from Extra Time.

copacetic wrote:

bolding what fifa actually say makes sense:

The team scoring more goals on aggregate wins the play-off. If the scores are level on aggregate, away goals count double. If the teams are level on away goals, or if both matches end goalless, extra-time of two periods of 15 minutes each will be played at the end of the second match. If the score is level after extra time, penalty kicks will be taken to determine the winner.

This is a fine example and there are others such as:

The referee has the power to show yellow or red cards during the half-time interval and after the match has finished as well as during extra time and kicks from the penalty mark, since the match remains under his jurisdiction at these times.

Key words and phrases here - AFTER THE MATCH HAS FINISHED. Thus Extra-Time logically would have to follow 'the match' and would not be an extension of a match as you claim, but rather an extension of the tie. Which is what I have been suggesting.

GuanYin wrote:

Yes

The second match ended 1-1 after 120 minutes.

Again, key word EXTENDED.

Funny I could have sworn I heard a whistle at the 90 minute mark as players began to move over towards their respective coaching staffs to achieve instructions following a match that had ended 1-0.

I repeat, the tie was extended. The match had been brought to a close by the referee on the 90 minute mark.

GuanYin wrote:

The match didn't end. It was EXTENDED

Of course it ended. You can't have Extra-Time until the match has ended!

GuanYin wrote:

No, penalty shoot-outs don't count as the match. The match ends at 120 minutes and the tie is decided by "licks from the penalty spot". Which is why games ending on a penalty shoot out always count as a tie.

A convenient position to adopt in this discussion to be sure! Alas, one that doesn't seem to match the laws of the game as described by FIFA above.

GuanYin wrote:

Your grasping at straws. The match was 120 minutes long, it's a law that stretches from grass roots to international level. The fact you don't understand it surprises me greatly.

I understand your point of view, I just don't happen to share it. Why is that such a problem? It doesn't seem to conflict with FIFA's own interpretation of events based on what I've read.

GuanYin wrote:

Moral victories tend only to exist in people's heads.

Yes, it exists in the part of my head I term my memory.

Listen, our views are obviously not going to be reconciled on this matter so while I've enjoyed this exchange I guess we'll have to agree to differ as I must say goodnight.

Jordonvito

the whole Paris thing was really just a figment of our imagination, it didnt happen at all

CSF

Ireland won the 2nd leg, make no mistake about it.

leninbenjamin

King Arthur: On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

keane2097

This is lol-tastic.

The match was 120 minutes long was it? My hole.

If it was 0-0 after 90 minutes France would have been gutted if we scored two in extra time.

The match was clearly ninety minutes long, with the potential for an extra period of 30 minutes depending on the result of the match.

And it's such a bull**** topic anyway.

The question ought to be, "are we capable of beating a top team over ninety minutes?"

Answer: We beat France 1-0 in Paris over 90 minutes.

Pedantic wankery of the highest order on display here.

everdead.ie

copacetic wrote: »

ffs people it's semantics and rubbish ones at that. As for this muck, quoting yourself over and over doesn't make what you say true. Even if you bold your own posts!

Nothing was 'extended'. In theory at the end of the second leg (i.e after 90 mins) the ref and officials calculated whether either team had scored more away goals that the other. Then started a period of extra time.



bolding what fifa actually say makes sense.

everdead.ie wrote: »

I Beg To Differ

:P

I think the group is tough enough but We definetly have a chance at qualifying so let's hope we play like they did against France I certainly can't complain if they play like that.

Mitch Connor

keane2097 wrote: »

This is lol-tastic.

The match was 120 minutes long was it? My hole.

If it was 0-0 after 90 minutes France would have been gutted if we scored two in extra time.

The match was clearly ninety minutes long, with the potential for an extra period of 30 minutes depending on the result of the match.

And it's such a bull**** topic anyway.

The question ought to be, "are we capable of beating a top team over ninety minutes?"

Answer: We beat France 1-0 in Paris.

Pedantic wankery of the highest order on display here.

over 90mins yeah. The game was not 90minutes long.

That is how it is in 2 leg ties. There is the potential for the second game to include extra time and penalties. the 30minutes added on is just an extention of the match - hence the score carrying over from the 90minutes and the away goals rule still applying.

No one will say we weren't 1 up after 90 in Paris, but the game did not end after 90. We didn't shake hands and head home after 90. the game continued and we ended up drawing the match.

Mitch Connor

everdead.ie wrote: »

:P

I think the group is tough enough but We definetly have a chance at qualifying so let's hope we play like they did against France I certainly can't complain if they play like that.

hopefully Trap will see what the players are capable of, and let them play like that. He did say after the draw that we need to play with the same mentality that we finished off with vs France.

Hopefully there will be some new names in the squad this time round. There are players who I would like to see declare and brought into the team such as Simon Cox and Jamie O'Hara, but I would also like to see the likes of McCarthy (before he changes his mind and declares for Scotland as has been rumoured) and Fahey called up to the squad and given a go.

For a country with such a small pool of talent to pick from, to be ignoring some of the guys we have been ignoring is disgracefull imo.

On the draw in general, I am happy with it. We couldn't have asked for much more and all over the teams are beatable at home, and we should be able to get draws at worst in Russia and Slovenia - as long as we play to our strengths and potential. It is a winnable group imo.

keane2097

Mitch Connor wrote: »

over 90mins yeah. The game was not 90minutes long.

That is how it is in 2 leg ties. There is the potential for the second game to include extra time and penalties. the 30minutes added on is just an extention of the match - hence the score carrying over from the 90minutes and the away goals rule still applying.

No one will say we weren't 1 up after 90 in Paris, but the game did not end after 90. We didn't shake hands and head home after 90. the game continued and we ended up drawing the match.

This is pedantic muck.

A game is 90 minutes long. After 90 minutes we were beating France 1-0.

Are we capable of winning a game of soccer against France? We are yeah.

The whole argument about is it an extension, is it a new game is completely irrelevant.

We started a game in Paris against France, both teams tried to win it. We ended up winning it.

Because of other external issues we went on to play a bit more that night and other stuff happened, but the fact remains we started a game and 90 minutes (plus half-time) later we had won it.

The game was NOT scheduled to be 120 minutes by the way, as I said France would have had their complaints if we went looking for an extra half an hour to get a goal to level the tie if it was 0-0 after 90 minutes.

The match was scheduled to be 90 minutes long, and if the result of that match cancelled out the result of the first match we'd play an extra 30 minutes to settle it out.

Unless ye're all saying France didn't beat us in Dublin either?

everdead.ie

Mitch Connor wrote: »

hopefully Trap will see what the players are capable of, and let them play like that. He did say after the draw that we need to play with the same mentality that we finished off with vs France.

Hopefully there will be some new names in the squad this time round. There are players who I would like to see declare and brought into the team such as Simon Cox and Jamie O'Hara, but I would also like to see the likes of McCarthy (before he changes his mind and declares for Scotland as has been rumoured) and Fahey called up to the squad and given a go.

For a country with such a small pool of talent to pick from, to be ignoring some of the guys we have been ignoring is disgracefull imo.

On the draw in general, I am happy with it. We couldn't have asked for much more and all over the teams are beatable at home, and we should be able to get draws at worst in Russia and Slovenia - as long as we play to our strengths and potential. It is a winnable group imo.

How has McCarthy been doing at Wigan?

keane2097

I'm going to quietly withdraw from this thread because I'm afraid it will make my head explode.

Great draw for us by the way - Russia are amazingly overrated.

Necronomicon

everdead.ie wrote: »

How has McCarthy been doing at Wigan?

Very well since the start of the year, by all accounts. He's been a regular since January. I remember seeing an interview with Martinez recently after they signed Moses when he was talking about their youth, and how McCarthy has been 'forcing' Martinez to pick him through his performances.

everdead.ie

Tardelli mentioned himself and Coleman could be in the picture for the Brazil friendly and also Greg Cunnigham would be nice if they called Up Kyle Naughton, O'Hara and the likes and said look we where thinking of giving you a call up would you be intrested?

Nalz

Dear Lord I cant get those last 15 minutes back now. What waffle!

The_Kew_Tour

christ ya cant win sometimes, when we drew 0-0 against Romania in 1990 over 120 min and won on penos we only drew game, and when we beat France 1-0 over 90 minutes and they got one in extra time its draw too:rolleyes:

Fr Tod Umptious

Just looking at the uefa website about teh dates for the qualifing games and it seems the midweek games are scheduled for Tuesdays, odd

The following 12 dates are reserved for group matches in qualifying:
a) 3/4 and 7 September 2010
b) 8/9 and 12 October 2010
c) 25/26 and 29 March 2011
d) 3/4 and 7 June 2011
e) 2/3 and 6 September 2011
f) 7/8 and 11 October 2011

The following dates are reserved for the play-off matches between the
remaining eight runners-up:
a) 11/12 November 2011
b) 15 November 2011

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/news/newsid=947547.html#match+details+dates