You can explain almost everything that goes wrong in football with a scene picked out at will. An important requirement: you watch football games WITHOUT a fan passion with one of the two teams. Whereby the annoyance tends to get even bigger if you are a supporter and are currently being disadvantaged. However, you are then a) not entitled to vote, because you are biased and every emotional statement about disadvantage can only be ridiculed, but at the same time b) this emotional imbalance can be rectified individually on the next matchday by repeating the same violations of the sense of justice brings to your own side, in that your own team uses the same vile measures, but you then inevitably have to approve of them, after all you have paid a lot in advance emotionally.
Watching games without your own connection to one of the teams could very well be compared to torture. It’s just unbearable. And if a statement is made, shouldn’t it – with guaranteed neutrality – deserve to be heard? It’s just unbearable. And nobody makes an exception when it comes to the ugliness.
Examples abound, and while the intent is to focus on individual ones here, there are a few general observations that repeat themselves in every game that deserve mention here: when a defender has finally lost a tackle, then it helps only the very last emergency measure after all holding, tugging, plucking was fruitless. He just goes down. Of course there was contact, because he deliberately triggered it by keeping his arms permanently on the opponent. If he breaks loose anyway, the straddle moves out of the way on the ground, can’t be stopped even with foul play, then only this last attempt remains. Dropping, rolling, arms somewhere in his own face, probably mostly to hide shame, but at the same time simulating he was hit somewhere. And in how many cases he can prevent the promising attack by foul whistle, allegedly perpetrated on himself, is just unbelievable. This “storm foul” is one of the biggest annoyances in general.
There is none, it is non-existent, there is only one defender who has tried everything to foul but has no (ultimate) success in doing so.
He even achieves the partial success that the hindrance at least slows down the attacker, giving other defenders the opportunity to close the gaps that have arisen in good time, to cover spaces or opponents.
Now this man also gets a free kick. A direct intention as to why this is the case and why it is interpreted that way, not behind it, but an effect: no goal situation and the very best ones are therefore withheld from the neutral spectator. The fact that there are simply no goals and you wait pointlessly for a twisted game or for a spectacle at all doesn’t seem to interest anyone anyway.
The second division started with Bochum – St. Pauli 0:1. St. Pauli better in the first half, without scoring, Bochum closer to the lead after the change, conceded the goal instead, ran pointlessly – final whistle. A first example: you wait endlessly for a goal, if it falls, the game is decided. Good football – no goals. One thing decides.
Same start on Saturday. Here, however, Ingolstadt is superior to Union, Union gradually finds its way in, the game is then balanced, after 59 minutes it is 0:1. That was it. No more goal. One goal is enough, whoever scores is the winner. St.Pauli scores after 65, Union after 59.
Then Darmstadt – Fürth. Another 1-0. Balanced game, maybe even Fürth slightly ahead. 1-0 after 54 minutes. Final score 1:0. Is that fun now?
At the same time the only “scoring” game. Regensburg did well in Bielefeld, deserved a draw, even took the lead, conceded 1-1, that was right. Then Bielefeld loses a man after 84. Nevertheless, the winning goal: a defender heads back more than three meters to his own goalkeeper in added time. An attacker suspects that, intervenes, pokes the ball into the goal. Late drama, but an absolutely curious and at the moment very happy hit. Tragedy for Regensburg. Well, at least a little emotion. This is also a good game, but not a feeling of happiness when you look at it, also because of the tragic end.
Dresden – Duisburg on Sunday another game of the type. Both tried to take the lead. Only there are simply no goals. When it was 1:0 – conceivable, yes, for the narrowly better team – after 88 minutes the only goal that decided the game. Four out of eight games with this result. Who would want to watch these games but one true enthusiast?
Well, it was good football, yes, you could, but you can see in almost every scene that goals would be so easy – if only the whistle was within the rules. Ingolstadt should have gotten the penalty in stoppage time. What good does it do to recognize this as a penalty if the pundits agree afterwards? No, it just gets wiped away. Was nothing and nothing. It doesn’t matter how you judge it afterwards. Of course, behind this is the fear that you will whistle – and the whistle will be recognized as incorrect. Then you would have a problem. In the opposite, practically chosen case, not to whistle, nothing happens to you. There is no question what the choice falls on – in this and in every other scene.
The examples in which it was said “very close, but rather not offside” should not be listed individually. But it happens all the time. One or two scenes on average per game.
But now to the biggest annoyances, which should be explained in concrete terms using individual scenes.
One of them is also a “permanent guest” on all sports fields in the world, which has found its way and no longer seems to be banished. Unbelievable how it was possible and allowed and no one does anything about it. But the assertion stands: only followers look anyway, this or that, none of whom have a voice or would not be heard if they spoke.
Austria Wien plays against Sturm Graz in the afternoon at 4 p.m. Sturm takes the lead and even extends it. But Austria is just as good – or better – and creates a lot of chances. The reporter’s “swan song” is of course permanent and unbearable, because there must be no identification with losers – following the German example in Austria – and whoever is 0:2 behind simply cannot be good, let alone one should sympathize with him. Accordingly, they are dismantled by the speaker and each attack is explained with the impossibility of succeeding in this way – even if a few aluminum hits were represented. “The precision is missing.” No, you idiot, the luck is missing!
Well, you have to swallow the excitement about it anyway and permanently – except for all the smart ones who don’t even switch on or, even better, don’t take out a subscription first, you’re on the safe side. Cheat Sky, cheat football. The really big thing, you all have to look at it. Until then a game begins – which is entirely put together out of shortcomings, if the commentators are to be believed.
Austria finally manages to make it 1:2 in the 82nd minute. Heiko Westermann, now in the dress of Austria, wants to follow the ball immediately. Because: his experience teaches him that every second is precious and the ball should land on the center circle as quickly as possible so that the game can continue. However, the just-beaten goalkeeper has conflicting ambitions. He recognizes Westermann’s request – and simply clings to the ball, still in the goal net. Westermann does nothing, he doesn’t even try to snatch the ball from the goalkeeper. It’s just that he wants to be there fast, he’s late but the goal net has awkward physical properties – what’s the wisest choice to take when trying to catch a bear? – he stumbles. He stumbles towards the goalie but barely touches him. He doesn’t give up the ball anyway, and his action is neither hindered nor restricted in any other way. The only question to be asked is whether his reaction is a desirable, regular, beautiful, ethical one?
Anyone who still has a sense of justice would do it, only that person isn’t represented in the audience. Not because none of them would have one, no, rather because those on the other side would have the justification that “the others would do it the same way” and the others complain but are considered “biased”. So much for “inspiring one’s own intentions”. “Of course you see it that way. But everyone does it that way.” Does that mean it is correct behavior? Everyone does it – then everything is ok? This is where the error lies. Injustices cannot be ironed out by mutual perpetration. It cannot be endured by such.
However, the referee plays the dirty game. Because: Heiko Westermann must be punished for this overzealousness? The goalie just wants to take a few seconds off the clock. He’ll be allowed to hold the ball for a few agonizing seconds – for the justice fan? “Time game” is a generally recognized means of getting ahead? What does he care about some fictitious “neutral spectator” who could safely be described as the “actual friend of the game” but who has to be made into the game’s enemy as a result? Don’t give a fuck, why should it? The media sets the standards: “Achieve dirty victories that in a week no one will ask how they came about.”
Westermann gets yellow. This is the only correct action. It is important that goalkeeping behavior is DOUBLE rewarded. Seconds wasted like that, plus the seconds for the warning. The Westermann has to remember that. Only “yellow” helps here. The narrator, by the way, not the slightest bit of sounding and blasting anyway, gives Westermann similar advice along the way. “The ball doesn’t belong to anyone. Given his experience, he must know that.” As if he wanted to steal it?
You only have this choice: throw the TV out the window or at least cancel the subscription.
Sturm managed to make it 1:3 on the counterattack. Also this scene with all conceivable potential for annoyance. However: the only 17-year-old Romano Schmid had already forced the 3:2 against St.Pölten in injury time last week with a legitimate penalty, a foul on him. Now he was sent on the journey, against the exposed defense. Alone against the goalkeeper, outside the penalty area. Of course, the goalkeeper would knock him out – if he could. He tries too. But it doesn’t really work. In other words, Schmid falls, even rolls over, but gets up straight away and continues to run with the ball. The goalkeeper is now complaining about everything imaginable. Something must have happened so that no goal was scored?
Emergency brake tried or at least accepted with approval. Although the striker falls, he still stays on the ball. What now? He can’t quite make up his mind and vacillates between “his foot was on my head” and “he took the ball with his arm when he fell.” If he had chosen one or the other, the ref would certainly have agreed with him. Because he first held his head and then pointed to the arm so that the handball signaled, the referee found: “Well, if he doesn’t even know why I should blow the whistle, then there’s somehow a lack of credibility.” And he let go.
Romano Schmid is the first goalscorer in the Bundesliga (yes, also in Austria) to be born in the current millennium.
Back to the complaints: those are the ones that can spoil the game. Anyone who applies an emergency brake or would be willing to do so complains. That should give you something to think about. Apart from the fact that false complaints could be punishable as such, but would at least be undesirable and violate ethical rules. But the fact that one can even be successful with it – because an attempt could hardly be interpreted otherwise: this is the only way I can still save what can no longer be saved — is even more questionable. The defenders have become accustomed to such behavior through the permanent right. “I just go down, he fouled. It’s always like that.” Here, only indecisiveness stood in the way of a possibly successful objection.
There is no question that both indicated offenses would be an absolute joke. The striker’s foot went about half a meter past the goalkeeper’s head. Injured by the draft? Even if he had touched it, the fall would have been much more likely to have been caused by a foul play than by it having flown voluntarily. You might have a chance to see it as a “normal crash”. But even then a striker foul would be an absurdity. There was no handball far and wide. But if he had touched the ball with his hand, then this would also have happened in the fall and that would have been much more likely to have been triggered by the goalkeeper.
It was completely different, however, when a cross was about to come into the Austria penalty area. Holzhauser, who was just available to counter the flanker, straddled, but a little too early. The flanker brought the ball through flat under him, against the running direction, so to speak behind him. But now Holzhauser fell so “skillfully” that he held his arms over his head. The straddle actually with complete body extension. With this incredible skill, he managed to stop the ball that had already passed under his body with his arms. He slid a little further, so to speak, the ball stayed in his hands. Now he got up again in a flash, then with the ball at his foot. The daring thesis here: if the referee had ONLY THIS to evaluate, he could not have done otherwise than to give a free kick. However, with his arms unfortunately in the box at that moment – more skill was not possible — he gave NOTHING AT ALL. Because: a penalty for it? No, you can’t. Free kick ok, penalty no. Since it was within: keep playing.
Now put this handball in relation to what the goalie of Austria chalked up to the striker who had broken through: he is said to have touched the ball with his hand in the fall, which was triggered by a foul game that could only have been called “emergency brake”. He doesn’t, but there’s no harm in complaining. He deliberately stopped the ball with his hand in a self-inflicted fall (namely a sliding tackle without contact). But there is nothing for that.
Now any claim of “didn’t see right” would be flimsy and window dressing. It’s about three times as bad as what the defense attorney did and goes unpunished. The striker was just lucky for a handball that was not even committed that the goalkeeper cannot decide to break the rules, that he was able to continue playing at all.
If you look at this relationship, then it deserves only this description, namely as a blatant disproportion. The strikers are permanently disadvantaged, and more than significantly.
One last scene picked out: when Dresden finally managed to make it 1-0, with a header after a corner, a defender was on the line. He couldn’t get to the ball with regular means. The only option was to raise his arm quickly, like a goalkeeper. Of course he knows at that moment that he is not allowed to do that. Nevertheless, the decision is more of a kind of reflex, the cause of which one should think about. He does it partly because it can bring success. So he raises his arm. Only at this moment it is intuitively clear to him that defending the ball could never pass as a header rescue. He couldn’t sell it as such. So he has to try to fend off the ball as imperceptibly as possible with his hand. The reduced force with which he tries to deflect the ball with his arm, mind you, is not enough to prevent the impact. Arm was in, ball was in. goal, 1-0.
A few thoughts on this: the reflex is triggered by a certain hope of success. Suppose he blocks the ball with his arm so it doesn’t go in. The following possibilities: Referee overlooks it completely. No goal. game continues. He sees it, but decides on “accidental hand ball” (perhaps too crass here, but, see Holzhauser, what goes through everything). No penalty, no goal conceded, saved. He sees it and gives penalty. But does it also have to be red for such a slight reflex? So: penalty instead of goal, he stays on it. Now the possible case: Penalties AND YET red. Ok. But the 911 isn’t there yet. And with four minutes left, maybe ten can make it if our goalie saves?. The last possible case: the referee overlooks it, but is made aware of it by the opposing players with a protest. Now he asks the defender: “Did you put your hand on the ball?” He answers, even truthfully: “No.” Because: it was the elbow or just two fingers. Two fingers are far from being a hand. Or whatever would seem appropriate to ensure success.
So: there would only be advantages.
Now there is a commentator on the scene who “waves through” the facts as follows. “The ball was in anyway, so there’s no need for discussions.” Sure, well deduced, clever man. But what if you wanted to discuss? It was an offense, recognizable even more than an intentional one. It was an attempt to prevent a goal with a completely irregular, rather “swinish” action. Just because it didn’t work out, the attempt failed, aren’t sanctions being considered? Imagine: you take a gun in your hand, pull the trigger out of sheer anger – the gun was not loaded. Labe goes on. For this one and for that one. No, it just can’t be like that. There’s more than one little thing wrong.
One last action quickly told here: the same Holzhauser who committed the handball scored the 2:3 with a penalty shortly after the 1:3. Tension was announced for the last few minutes. Now Austria received a free kick from about 45 meters, in the opponent’s half, already in injury time. A defender positions himself about six meters in front of Holzhauser, who wanted to take the free kick into the penalty area. He just didn’t go back. Holzhauser complained, but he also laughed out of sarcasm. The referee had only one chance: admonish the defender and order him back. He probably saved himself the yellow card because it would have cost even more time. But even to assume that the defender wanted to provoke a yellow card. Because: he is aware of the time gain and this is more important. Yellow completely irrelevant. The referee spares him and Austria so that at least the free kick can go into the penalty area, perhaps as the last goal action.
Now Holzhauser runs, but while he is running, the defender runs towards him again, again about six meters away. To do this, he raises his arm. So he would be absolutely ready to intercept the ball with his hand – if he came close. So again TWO violations of the rules, because he didn’t even get a yellow card for the first (out of a total of three). So is it still worth investing in? The free kick goes into the penalty area, but the defender can’t get to the ball. Nevertheless, the ball doesn’t come quite as planned, which is evident even because of the irritation caused by the defender. You just can’t play a ball with full concentration when there’s a Punch and Judy show going on in front of you. No chance to score, no goal, no compensation, no yellow card, no repetition, no extended stoppage time. But all of this would be possible – if one tried to use a healthy sense of justice. So you just sit there shaking your head: it’s so so ugly, everything about it and everything around it. And no remedy?!
One last example from a veritable cornucopia: Stoppelkamp, now under contract with Duisburg, penetrates the opponent’s penalty area against Dresden with the ball at his foot. It is plucked at the jersey all the time, repeated briefly and repeatedly. Stoppelkamp decides: a) I’ll put it in like that, b) if I fall, I won’t get a penalty anyway. He shoots with his outside instep. A really great try, the ball spins around the back post. You can only see that he doesn’t play the ball in complete control at the moment of the conclusion because of the handicap.
Why is this all “correct”? Where is an “advantage” in this? Just what should he do to score or get a penalty? It’s not working. Not like that and not like that. Another great scene, another blatant injustice, again no goal, again no sanctions against a defender who “just wants to prevent a goal”, shouldn’t that be allowed? Again a few viewers less because you can’t stand it as a friend of the game.
When Sturm Graz scored 2-0 – an example of comment nonsense – a sharp cross came from the right into the Austria penalty area. Deni Aler would approach the ball in front. Only he is being pressed by the opponent and would probably not put the ball in the box. Recognizing this, he lets the ball pass, intuitively or on command or just suspecting that a teammate is behind him. It’s that supreme skill, that incredible intuition that no player could ever do online at a FIFA game, it’s what could motivate you to remain loyal to football at any time, it’s what makes you jump out of your chair lets us click our tongues as a friend of football. The narrator: “Aler missed – but not Zulj.” No, it’s just unbelievable how dumb these people are. What made him a reporter? What qualifications does he bring with him? It’s just that one moment, that tiny reaction, that genius, that flash of inspiration that needs to be tracked down and presented to the world. And there is no sense of it. “Aler missed.” No, YOU missed another chance to justify the billions Sky spends on broadcasting rights — which begs the question why it’s called “Sky” instead of “Premiere,” but the answer can be included: because the commentators here babble on everything.
It’s just a nuisance. A smorgasbord of injustices and ugly actions, all geared towards success, accompanied by bullying in a bored tone.
Good only for those who can get some air by writing…. everyone else has already decided: Sky go home or stay home, you can only make a mess here. I don’t need a subscription.
In principle, a single game is enough to show almost everything that makes football so unpleasant. Because: even if a game like the one on Monday evening, July 31, 2017 between Fortuna Düsseldorf and Eintracht Braunschweig was high in goals, with a 2:2 fair result, there was no winner, at the same time great football was offered and a lot of drama and spectacle provided, as well as a few surprising twists and turns, the annoying moments still outweigh the negative. – if you are neutral and attentive enough.
You really can’t make such a good game bad, can you? Everything is on offer, goals are scored, there is a great atmosphere in the stadium, there are ups and downs and there are ups and downs for each of the two teams and their supporters. It ends in a draw, which only has the flaw that even if you’ve done everything from kick-off to final whistle to avoid the “re-lousy” outcome – those who scored triple, you’re penalized by the nonsensical three-point rule if you gasp after those who have lost, they are breathing down your neck – in a nutshell, the unpleasant consequences.
However, with today’s state-of-the-art reporting, it’s easy to spoil the fun. To bring two examples here, taken from the interviews.
Before the game, Torsten Lieberknecht, Eintracht Braunschweig’s coach since 2008 (!!), was asked about Saulo Decarli’s suspension. “Yes, he’s out for a game for disciplinary reasons.” The questioner dares to ask, “Really just for a game?”
One can calmly reflect on these words for a few seconds. How do you come up with the question, what are the ambitions behind it, what kind of “paternalism” is that or what else could it represent?
The assumption that Torsten Lieberknecht didn’t know exactly what he was doing or saying either at the moment the sentence was imposed or at the moment of the answer could be ruled out for the time being – or did the questioner concern himself with his state of mind at the moment? “Mr. Lieberknecht, you make a slightly confused impression on me. Just to be sure: You set the ban on a game, in full possession of your mental powers, and, just now, still having those powers, gave the right answer to my question, yes? “Yes!” “Just to be sure, I would like to ask one more time: “Exactly for one game and only for one game?” “The answer remains: Yes!”
The viewer would certainly feel brilliantly entertained in this way. No matter who you are talking to, please make sure that the person is in their right mind. Otherwise we won’t get any further.
An alternative interpretation would be: “The behavior of Saulo Decarli was obviously damaging to the club. Are you sure that a penalty of just one game is appropriate for this?” Yes, even if the teacher – note: the questioner is actually everything in one person: interview expert, football expert, coach expert, as a player anyway world class, teacher, psychologist and everything that has not yet been mentioned, also always in expert status – here a wiser answer would know: the sentence was nevertheless determined and there is not the slightest reason to doubt it – but is done nonetheless.
The truth, however, is a much sadder one: it is a pathetic attempt to look good, of course, but even more so to stir up trouble in some way. There’s not much else to report about football itself other than league tables, entitlements and results — the game itself doesn’t seem to deliver enough — so fires are set all around. Perhaps it will succeed in igniting a scandalous fire? At that moment you would at least have something to report.
So imagine that players or officials hear this (impertinent) question. One player says, “Back when I was doing this, I was given THREE games. He only gets ONE. That’s unfair.” Or the President listens along: “Oh, that’s right, that was worth more than just a game. I have to talk to the coach about that. It doesn’t work that way either.”
Maybe even the trainer thinks: “Well, if he’s asking like that, was it too light a punishment? I’ll raise to two games!” What would the consequences be then…
These are the small fire sources that have been laid. ONE of them could become wildfire? It may even be a little closer to the surface. The brazen reporter feels secure in his position – although he is wrong to do so, because his actions and questions are likely to be questioned by his superiors? — but knows that a trainer is practically always on an ejection seat, the buttons of which can even be operated by the reporter at will (ie: the media representatives start the discussion, which ends with the dismissal). So it seems advisable for him to tickle the interviewee a little. Let’s see how he reacts? If he reacts “appropriately” and rebukes the questioner – then he simply says back to the studio after the end of the interview: “But he reacted quite thin-skinned. Is he under that much pressure already? This is definitely not a good sign .”
Another example of impertinence at half-time. This time Esther Sedlaczek conducted the interview with sports director Marc Arnold. She was cast in a Sky campaign in which moderators were sought. A total of three people were selected. All three female. But they do their job really well and are more than a welcome splash of color in the actual male world of football, not to use the much more appropriate word “attractions”, thanks to the beauty of the sex alone. So: you really like to see and hear them and it was a smart move by Sky, the casting. At the same time following the English model, which is not surprising. After all, Sky comes from England and had to take over the ailing premiere in the hope of bringing back a few subscribers with such modifications?!
Nevertheless, women should be careful not to adopt “men’s jargon”. Not only because it would be out of place anyway, but also because it doesn’t suit them. The (mostly male) respondents in interviews would like to chat a bit anyway, and even more so if asked by a woman, and the questions, given a female tone, would elicit a lot of interesting information that teammates of the diametrically opposite gender are not capable of.
Basically, the plan is a good one, a very promising one. There is a problem with the implementation. Whatever it may look like in the circle of colleagues and how people talk there, they also like to “talk shop”. It remains to be seen whether the women there see themselves more or less forced to put themselves on an equal footing with the male representatives or to suggest that one elevates oneself to become an equally “good” reporter if one does the same. However, the idea could only develop its true effectiveness if the women remained recognizable as such.
So Ms. Sedlaczek conducted an interview of the usual type, Marc Arnold answers patiently and competently, with well-chosen – but therefore already slightly “softened” words. There was a discussion she had initiated about promotion ambitions after Braunschweig had failed in the relegation in early summer and now seemed to fear the famous “aftermath”. Marc Arnold spoke of the balance in the league and that one would very much like to be able to get involved in the upper table regions again. However, the lady didn’t think this was enough to get to the point. Here in Germany, clear commitments are required. “We want to be champions” should all 18 Bundesliga teams say – so that 17 of them can be stomped to the ground the next day by how far they would have fallen short of their own claims.
An insistence on “seasonal goals” is anyway exclusively media-based nonsense. Only if you tell the truth, you will be confronted with the comparison with the phrase pig Blah Blah. “We think from game to game” is actually far too stretched out. Because basically you think from action to action: if you and your team find the best possible solution in this scene, then this will shift the chances of a good result in this game as favorably as possible in your own favor. Nothing game to game let alone “over the season”.
There is an attempt behind it – always keeping in mind the fact that the game itself, the scenes in the game, the tension, the goal sequence do not seem to give enough for the reporters who are insensitive to it – to open up “secondary theaters of war”, so that there is anything to report at all. It can at least be a small scandal?! The question about the goals for the season has the same intention as the insistent question about the justified or unjustified duration of Saulo Decarli’s internal ban. One would like to “provoke” the interviewees in a certain way, to call out ambitious goals – and then rub them under their noses when they become far away: “But back then you still talked full-bodied about promotion, now you are a threat to the relegation zone close. How much longer are you going to sit on the bench?”
Finally you would have found your little piece of happiness in the form of an upcoming dismissal from the coach?!
Apparently, Esther Sedlaczek eventually had enough of the evasive answers (“strong league, many good teams, every game close and competitive, we would be happy if we could be up there again”); everything said just as well as it was is possible) and she followed up energetically: “So you want to move up now or not?”
No, I’m sorry, that’s exactly the level at which the male colleagues operate and which she’s approaching on a clearly falling road. Luckily he didn’t go so far as to answer “Of course we want to go up”, which was suggested by putting a gun to his chest, but actually put it in his mouth. Because: this would have been directly processed further as calling out the goal for the season, almost as an insinuation. “Didn’t you say you want to move up?” Where the truth should be: “I responded to a leading question with the only answer option available.”
The speaker during the game spread tension, a kind of anticipation, he seemed to go along with it or even – actually unthinkable? – having a little fun with it yourself. The intonation was, to use that big word, “meaningful” — only it is the one which in England is both automatic and natural and both adopted and maintained at any given game. This could even be taken as a compliment to the commentator.
But it may also be noted that it is by no means enough to use this tone of voice when the facts are proven. So if the words remain critical – although “overly critical” would of course be much more appropriate – and situations are described incorrectly, do not do justice to the circumstances, and the person who is disadvantaged is judged emotionlessly, then what is offered in this country remains: a bad report. The tone of voice makes you feel compelled to look. plus point. Because of the statements themselves, you have to feel compelled to listen away – or to get annoyed. Double minus.
Sehr früh im Spiel gab es ein Kopfballduell, bei welchem die beiden Spieler sichtbar mit den Köpfen zusammen prallten. Man könnte bereits hier über die Entwicklung des Spiels insgesamt nachdenken: man MUSS an den Ball kommen, egal wie. Selbst wenn ein Gegenspieler von der anderen Seite oder von hinten kommend das gleiche Ziel hat und der Ball in der Luft ist. Die Häufigkeit von derartigen Zusammenprällen hat gewaltig zugenommen. Vielleicht gibt es doch noch ein paar andere Werte, welche wieder Einzug halten könnten, jenseits des reinen Erfolgsdenkens? Die Frage wäre auch, inwieweit (neutrale, nicht vertreten, gut) Zuschauer dies sehen wollen. Immer wieder blutende Wunden am Kopf und Spielunterbrechungen und Befürchtungen um das Wohl Einzelner – gegenüber einem rollenden Ball und ein paar Torszenen oder gar Toren.
Jedenfalls konnte der Düsseldorfer nach kurzer Behandlung weiter machen, während der Braunschweiger einen jener kunstvollen Turbane angefertrigt bekam (Steven Breitkreuz). Braunschweig dadurch temporär in Unterzahl. Die sich daraus ergebenden Nachteile doch mehr als offensichtlich. Nicht nur ein Mall weniger, sondern gar ein Innenverteidiger weniger. Die bräuchte man – nicht nur jene mit dem breiten Kreuz sondern allgemein mit den adäquaten Körperabmessungen – um Tore zu verhindern. Einer fehlt – schlecht für die Abwehr.
Denn: kurz danach, als Breitkreuz noch draußen war, ein Angriff der Düsseldorfer über links, ein Sololauf, eine scharfe, flache Flanke in den Strafraum, ein wenig Panik durch die Unterzahl und ein wenig Unordnung durch den fehlenden Mann, ein unglücklich abgewehrter Ball, einem Düsseldorfer vor die Füße, welcher ihn versenkte. Das 1:0 nach 9 Minuten.
Nun gibt es eine Menge, was man dazu segen könnte – beispielsweise die oben abgegebenen Situationsbeschreibung. Man könnte die Freue über ein frühes Tor äußern — als „Neutraler“, was der Kommentator zu sein hätte – oder auch die Bilder selbst sprechen lassen. Was er hingegen tat, war weder dies noch das noch jenes. Der erste Kommentar war dieser : „stümperhaft“.
Allein schon ein derartiges Wort in den Mund zu nehmen ist eine Unverschämtheit. Es entspricht zugleich so wenig den Tatsachen wie der Mount Everest ein Tal ist. Der Defizite in der Einschätzung lange nicht genug: es ist ein krasser Irrtum und wird der Lage und den Geschehnissen absolut nicht gerecht, lässt jegliche Anteilnahme an dem Braunschweiger Schicksal – Mann verletzt, Unordnung dadruch – vermissen, nur wäre all dies sogar als unbedeutend abzutun, wenn es dem primären Ziel dienlich wäre: „Wie kann ich dafür sorgen, dass möglichst viele zuschauen und zuhören möchten?“ Beim Catchen oder Wrestling ist alles gefaked. Dennoch geschieht das Gegenteil von Kritik. Man baut ein Drama auf, im Tonfall und in der Art der Darstellung, ohne jegliche Basis. Die Duelle sollen toll aussehen und nach Brutalität riechen – nur ist es viel eher eine Art Wattepusten, was da betrieben wird. Marktschreier haben Vorfahrt: mach das Meiste daraus, egal wie schmalspurig dein Produkt in Wahrheit ist.
Commenting on the bungling has the opposite effect: it’s a mistake, it’s a misjudgment, especially since there are the two perspectives and there would be no need to emphasize the negative side. So it’s wrong, it’s what you want to see, it’s what football is all about, what you could only hope for happened – and it’s given an attribute that it’s pointless to be yourself to do that. Who would visit a circus where the performer would trip over his own legs with a simple cartwheel? THAT would be clumsy. Because a) you would be able to do this cartwheel yourself and because b) you pay an entrance fee to see a double somersault and not a single cartwheel – even if you could do it.
So the man has killed two birds with one stone and almost three: there is nothing on offer here, so you’d better switch. You can dabble around enough yourself, you don’t need highly paid kickers for that. The second fly: if nobody is listening anymore, I can continue to do my job as clumsily as I can – and nobody notices anything. Nobody listens.
It is almost superfluous to mention that the phrase pig opened up again directly after the “bungling” and that he read the “chain of errors” directly from his list of platitudes, pre-recorded and available to every reporter at Sky at hand or from the effeff . “Goal – error chain” is almost a kind of tautology. gain of knowledge? Zero. Since it is “counted” for each goal. Accuracy: below zero.
The “chain of errors” begins where an attacker outplays his opponent. The “mistake” is that you can’t let yourself be played off. “It’s much too easy” is the standard comment today, if it does work out. Conversely, it would mean: “keeps getting stuck” if the normal case occurs and the striker is stopped. However, the other normal case is actually this: if a defender is outplayed, he fouls. So: coming is not. Stop with legal means or, when exhausted, use illegal ones.
The fact that the attacker left two opponents standing here was a miracle in a way, you have to admit that. Because the increased skill to avoid the willingness to foul twice is very high school. It practically never happens.
It may be briefly mentioned here: if the first or second defender had managed to bring down the attacker, as he intended, then the term “fault chain” would not have existed. The “incorrectness” would then basically be the bigger one. However, the use of illegal means is much more valued than doing without them – and conceding a goal.
All of these observations can make you think: how degenerate is football today?
