Football was also played during the week, namely league football – the author’s core business — because in “everyday league life” the algorithms work best, which are ultimately supposed to secure the livelihood. In everyday league life it looks like this: everyone plays against everyone else, in the first and second leg. This allows reliable numbers for the goal average and the number of draws, which are required for the calculations. At the same time, you can pretty much rely on the fact that you show your everyday face in everyday life. It is the face that everyone knows and can also rely on. This also ensures that the calculation bases are consistent and reliable as far as possible.

Just to make a comparison: there is always something special about international appearances. There are no everyday faces here, but rather the holiday faces. However, these have the disadvantage that you see them too seldom to be able to judge them well, to assess them well, that they give a clear picture. More concretely: there is only a very blurred picture in relation to the goals scored. Not only that the needs are different. It should be remembered that the second leg is also included in the evaluation and that both sides usually know which result is useful for the teams and which one should be avoided. It is immediately clear that this has a not inconsiderable influence on the game: you are 1:2 behind, but do not dream of switching to attack now – as is usual in a league game – but hold on to the result with tooth and claw, because you would be one round further with the same.

In terms of goal average and draw frequency: there is no fixed number of teams that take part, or the participants play different numbers of games. In this respect, the cut that occurs is always a falsifying one.

Applied to national cup games: here every child already knows that “the cup has its own rules”. So why try to force him into a (mathematical) corset? And anyway, the teams play against each other in all classes, so that comparisons are difficult to make.

The day-to-day business is the league operation – but with which you are definitely and easily busy. Which league played during the week? One of Dirk Paulsen’s hobbies, the second-highest class in Austria, the so-called “Sky Go League”, obviously named after the sponsor, who, however, does everything here as well, just to send away anyone who strays onto the canal.

One could possibly be merciful towards these actors on the commentator side, or at least recognize that if one is already broadcasting in a subclass manner, one would definitely not have to reckon with collapsing lines because these would make them glow due to the large number of viewers? Compare this to a table tennis event that is exceptionally televised: would the reporter give the slightest thought to the fact that there were any mistakes here? Probably hardly. Not only that he and no spectator would recognize errors at all, if they were given. No, you would automatically and naturally feel lucky to be on the air here and felt the urgent obligation, if it was a fringe sport, then to draw the viewer into the action by artfully creating drama and emphasizing top performances. A negative word? Didn’t think of it, didn’t occur to him in a dream. Would be out of place – and he knew and felt that and would cling to it like a rabbi to his prayer book.

In football, all of these laws become blurred, trampled on, abused from head to toe, turned on their head, scrambled, reversed. Of course, consistently the reason behind it: any praise would identify you as a layman. One daringly pronounces a “nice shot” — and would immediately have to fear the following reaction: “Nice shot? Nice shot! If you give it that much space? Someone has to go on it, everyone is just watching! So it wasn’t a problem and any street footballer who walked along could have managed it.”

Whatever it might be, apparently it’s not allowed to be said. You have to put your fingers in the wounds. And if there are no wounds, then you tear them open with your own hands. You just make them up. Who could against that? There is such an endless range of standard sayings that have zero content, but only disparagement of what is happening, often a disfigurement of the German language, and mostly a violent overcoming of simple logic. “But the goalkeeper doesn’t look good there.” would be one of them.

Well, the guesswork is pretty simple: the comment comes after the ball bounces in the net. He doesn’t look good taking the ball out of the net?! Anyway, please would the speaker just pick out the one scene where the goalkeeper looks good while the ball goes past him into the net? The phrase “he doesn’t look good there” is a tautology, a self-proving statement that does not add the slightest amount of knowledge to the listener. It only has one single effect: there is a weakness, an imperfection, wanting to uncover a deficiency that is not actually represented. If he were represented: due to the reflexive repeated and regular use of the phrase, there is no differentiation whatsoever. It becomes implausible per se because it is used every time. The one who is separating notices absolutely nothing of this. He feels good at the moment. Mistakes recognized, mistakes pointed out, even before the spectator can catch his breath, let alone jump out of his chair, because he might even have liked the action, a goal scream is what he would have been waiting for for a good half hour, but this one for him gets stuck in the throat as part of the supposedly unavoidable “error analysis”. Here as elsewhere: the neutral, but non-existent viewer meant. Because he was scared of fear. If anyone else was there, they would have these thoughts:
“I was just about to celebrate a nice goal, but now I find out that it wasn’t nice at all. Well. I’m not happy, I see, I’ll change the channel – maybe there’s something to cheer about on the “Show with the Mouse” – and I’m guaranteed not to come back. Spoiled for fun – until the end of the day. Thank you, goodbye.” Just as all his predecessors have done

This is the mustard that has been contributed so often that it sticks to every nook and cranny. Now some butter is added, namely “by the fishes”. What was really going on during the week? By the way: writing down all reporter-German “blunders”, lapses, logic and language violations, self-adulation, platitudes spoiling excitement and fun, unspeakable stupidities would a) require a stenographer and b) is not necessary at all, since it is a single hodgepodge of where randomly picking out a single sentence is enough to ensure the complete destruction of the comments – as the reporters do in the event, but this is absolutely wrong, as would be easy to prove, but not even necessary. It’s kind of like under the kilt: there’s nothing and there was nothing.

The comments are all taken from the conference, in which four games were played in parallel, all kicked off on 8.817 at 18:30.
Finally, an example: when the 1-0 came in the game between Wiener Neustadt and Hartberg shortly after the break, you heard the goal scream and also saw the display shortly afterwards, but you would probably have preferred not to do it – if you had enough sense is — when one heard: “The goal had become apparent in the last few minutes…” The true prophet saw it coming, of course, a real expert, he knows his stuff, he knows all the waters washed. However, if you were to ask him why he was only revealing this now, after it happened, and not just three minutes before, you would get the following excuse, actually cleverly concocted for the moment: “Well, I wanted you guys but don’t anticipate the joy. Surely I can’t predict that a goal will be scored soon, even though I know it? Then who would be watching?”

No matter how clever the excuse might be, it could be immediately refuted at any other point. Because the most popular – and also to be heard that evening – are the comments: “I can’t imagine that they will score another goal. As weak as they were all the time.” That’s exactly what happened in the game Kapfenberg – Blau Weiß Linz, score 0:1, 82nd minute. This would certainly spoil the joy of watching this game. They’re so weak, they don’t score anyway. Curiously, however – the spokesman admitted this with some shame – Kapfenberg had at least two huge chances to equalize afterwards. The oracle is therefore always used when one sees sufficiently good chances of success that one is right.

Back to Wiener Neustadt’s 1-0: it was obvious. What do you do with it now? Should you now with all the assembled friends – fictitious, because you even have ear plugs in your ears and are of course alone on such unique “happy days” and that all over the world — start the wave, cheers to the reporter ? What does he think, what to do with that statement, how helpful it is, to what extent it fulfills nothing less vile than the fact of smartass?

Well, once you get going, you can easily imagine the alternative career path. In pure theory, he would continue to keep his knowledge to himself – that of the announced gate — because the gate would not fall in the first place.
(Just so, for your own amusement, just describe the scene, which was later described much less “nicely” in the summary: an attacker creates almost as much space at the intersection of the outer lines — i.e. at the corner flag — just as much space, how you need to get the ball in. It looks more like you could save yourself the Flakne, because from this position, almost from a standing position, nothing can happen: he probably speculated more on a corner kick The ball, however, went past the defender – with the speaker’s verdict of course being ‘gives him too much room, goes too hesitantly’ – and fairly flat on the near post, where another attacker actually snuck up and took the ball from there, very difficult position, since the angle is quite acute, placed in the box; it can happen, it has nothing to do with mistakes, which of course were immediately blamed on the central defense, which “completely alone g had left” and comparable, well-known nonsense)

A very unlikely goal in its creation, so could it just not happen? The game would go on, possibly Wiener Neustadt actually had the larger share of the game and the better chances before and afterwards, but did not score a goal either now or until the 80th.
Then the guests manage to make it 0:1 with one of the rare counterattacks. Now you can see immediately what the assessment should be. And at this point it would also be advisable, instead of the reporter there, to just put tapes there that were recorded in advance and depending on the score and development – sometimes also using a random algorithm, you have to remain flexible – play a suitable commentary. It is not differentiated anyway and the senseless sayings do not reveal any pattern. Except for that: the main thing is negative, the main thing is to spoil the fun. One searches in vain for meaningfulness. For this situation, however, there would only be one thing that would actually always come: “Well, that’s how it is, if you don’t take your own chances, then at some point your opponent will.”

So you have the right explanation ready for every possible case that occurs: if the better team scores the goal, it was announced – as a specialist he is at the top — if the opponent has scored it you have this smart-ass saying in store – and looks great too. He knows all the rules and laws. class man.

In all cases, it would have as little to do with expertise as Mars has with consumed energy – or was there even a connection? – or the Milky Way with a bookworm. It’s such worthless blah-blah in the attempt to rack up Expert Points that you’re left with your punching bag to blow off — or grab a pen and paper.

That comment about a substitution in the same game in the following minute hit exactly the same mark: “He takes Sanogo down. He didn’t have a good day today, walked a lot, little yield.” No, just how weak is that? Here it would almost be a little weaker than in the first case. Because with a goal you could actually get the idea: the better team, has already had a few scenes, well the goal, that would almost still be possible in comparison (only the alternative case, happened too often to explain it as a coincidence, would have made him blush if he had ever experienced such feelings) bearable. But commenting on a substitution like that?

So that means: he would easily be able to fill the role of coach at the same time. Or should one even suspect that he has just given the coach a hidden signal: “Take the Sanogo down, he won’t do it today!” At least he wants to make you believe that he can read the game and has eyes and ears everywhere . Substitution takes place: “Yes, right, it wasn’t good today. He had to take that down.” If there was room for improvement in terms of “primitiveness”, then he would have gradually reached the limit here – compared to the previous comment.

Here, too, the imagination makes it possible to put a stop to the clumsy craft. In the interview, the coach would have to mention the substitution, purely coincidentally, and say that he took Sanogo down for tactical reasons after the opening goal, or that the substitution had been agreed long beforehand. Only then the man would not give in: “Well, I found him weak. Aren’t you?” “No, he’s done his job.” Shame, admission of error? Never!

A comment here, which had separated the same happy fate of every other — namely that of the complete absence of listeners — sounded like this: “Pretty staid second division football here.” In the Kapfenberg game against Blau Weiß Linz, in the 66. Minute. There are two teams at the start that would be more likely to be expected in midfield to below. “Honestness” cannot be increased anyway. Just kidding. Like Asterix and Obelix for example. When a lukewarm cervisia was served and the guest didn’t seem happy with it. The waiter asked, “What about the cervisia? Isn’t it lukewarm enough for you?” A little lukewarmer – then everything would be fine?!

So linguistically and logically ever 6. conservative, even more conservative, pretty conservative, when will he be good again? A little less stuffy maybe? It’s exactly what you’d say if you didn’t want to sell something anyway. The barker stands up and shouts, “Pretty average stuff today, medium-sized potatoes, same price as the next stall!” Want some? It’s absolutely average, even more average than last week.” “No thanks!”
The game had reached somewhere at the peak of averageness – and that is put in an absolutely positive way. Because “average” would almost still work? This was conservative. Are you looking forward to the next overlay?!

It could also be interpreted as a disappointment. “I thought tonight was the Champions League. Instead, only second division. But she’s conservative.” Which can also be understood as a hidden hint to the executive floor: “This is junk, did you pay money for it?” Only on the counter, “You got a salary and if so, do you know who that should finance?” there were no answers.
Or like this: at first he wanted to say “that’s conservative football” but at that moment it occurred to him that it was actually only Kapfenberg playing against Blau Weiß Linz and not Bayern against Real. In this respect, he would have to acknowledge the “conventional” if it didn’t have a salary? “Yes, it’s conservative, but what did you expect? It’s the second Austrian league?” Now he somehow noticed that, so he added, at the same time in the madness of the negative trend, that it could even be conservative by second-league standards? So it was suddenly “pretty staid second-division football”, although this is precisely the recognition of second-class status, to which one might perhaps attribute it without providing it with a comment? Alternatively, he could have said theoretically – as he does in principle with every comment, here in a nutshell: “This is second division, it’s weak, so please switch over and watch somewhere where you do better be entertained.” Whatever the consequences, if someone who yelled “Here!” at the distribution of stupidity was given the task of pruning a tree a little and he rationally decided to cut the branch for which he decided to cast himself before cutting it off…

Wattens was behind against Floridsdorfer AC, as usual, 0:1. Not justified, because they were the better team. In a fade-in to this game in the 70th, Wattens was awarded a standard. This did not bring the 1:1 – oh miracle. When would a goal ever be scored? However, the commentator had some really good advice on the failure to equalize: “If you’re behind, you should at least make a little more out of set pieces.” Boom! He sat!

The trainer will definitely write that behind his ears. “Ah, I see, if it’s 0-0, the set-pieces don’t matter, if we’re probably leading even more. If we’re behind, then we have to make something of it! I’ll include it in the training program for next week: we train standards when we’re behind. You suddenly shoot very differently, did you notice?”

No really. Nonsense in higher powers from an individual who is allowed to pat himself on the back “publicly” at the listener’s expense, at the listener’s conversation all the time, equipped with the high level of competence a) microphone in hand, b) knows the score c) most important : nothing in mind.

Two more scenes that are suitable to make the nonsense of the rules clear.

In the first (picked out; there would be a multitude) scene, from the game Wiener Neustadt – TSV Hartberg (final score 1:0), the guest goalkeeper comes out of the five to box away a cross. An opponent is more favorable to the ball. The goalkeeper jumps ruthlessly to the ball – as usual – but misses it anyway and instead only hits the opponent, also with the box insert. No penalty, no foul, no red, no nothing. “The main thing is that no goal is scored. So you have to grant the goalkeeper a few more special rights? That the player might get injured—unfortunate. Why is he standing there exactly where his teammate is flanking? He had enough time to get out of the way – then nothing would have happened to him. Besides, the question must be allowed: did he want to score a goal? Well, that’s still to come!”

That’s roughly how you would have to put it in the mouth of a rules official who would have to judge this scene. Or should he once again say, “Yes, the man with the pipe missed that. Happens.” Even though he was standing close by? This is just nonsense. He’s seen but thinks he’ll get away with not imposing one.
On the subject of “not seen”: strangely enough, in another situation from a much greater distance, he recognized a foul by a stormer, which was not the case, but whistled for it immediately and unequivocally. When the striker asked: “What am I supposed to have done now?” he got yellow for it.
Admittedly, the second scene is fictitious, but it is not uncommon.

Incidentally, the comment on the actual scene was as follows: “Here the guests were lucky that there was no penalty.” At least this would include the realization that he also recognized the violation of the rules (in the repetition he says: “Only hits the opponent, not the ball”), only with the assessment “I was lucky” one cannot agree with him. The strikers would be much more lucky if, in very rare cases, there was a penalty kick. So he should have said: “Here he did what he always does when he thinks it’s justifiable: he didn’t whistle.”

The other scene was still the much more questionable: FAC was still leading 1-0, injury time had long since begun, soon over. The goalkeeper of the guests had moved up to the corner. The corner was saved, an FAC player would have had a completely free path to the empty goal – the opponent caught the otherwise unattainable ball with his hand. A very bad offense, of course, and such behavior discussed elsewhere (what punishment would I need so that he didn’t repeat this behavior because it’s disgraceful and robs a goal situation, in principle a clear goal here), but he’s unlucky in that sense with handball that he cannot finally get the ball out of the attacker’s path. In other words: the attacker would still have free rein, the bad action was of no use.

What does the referee do? He whistles, right away. He no longer gives the ball a chance to get into the striker’s path – which he does.

Everything about this scene is somehow “wrong”. It shouldn’t come to the handball. The main problem here would be that the neutral spectator is constantly deprived of goal scenes in this way – and this withholding — in an unsportsmanlike way, mind you — has already driven these neutral spectators away. Furthermore, the interruption of the referee is of course a farce. There would not be the slightest need to interrupt immediately, especially bearing in mind the so-called (!!) Advantage Rule. It’s just called that, it doesn’t offer any advantages, instead only disadvantages – as seen here.

Why did he interrupt? It is almost a reflex for the referees to find a hair in the soup when there is a chance to score. “Could be a goal, I’ll whistle. To be on the safe side.” Mainly because it was to be feared that there would be some blemish attached to the goal – which the referee missed at the moment – ​​that the goal would be declared “irregular” and he would be in need of an explanation all in a certain way in the (not desirable) focus. Because: if a referee is in focus, then almost exclusively because of a (crucial) error. Admittedly, this is all a chain of eventualities, but the reflexes are determined by it. “A goal can only count if all possibilities of breaking the law can be ruled out. As soon as there’s a chance something went wrong, I have to stop.”

This intuitively sensed insanity has already moved the rules officials to this still and actually even more nonsensical “rule modification”. The instructions to the referees are: “Only give penalties if you are absolutely sure.” Somehow you had to explain why almost every sports show said at least five times: “Should have been a penalty.” But wasn’t it?

This is also partly the reason for this type of rule interpretation.