From: car@public.BTR.COM (Carlos Rimola-Sarti  car@btr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: Re: Congratulations to the great Danes !
Date: 21 Jul 92 06:22:04 GMT
Organization: Connective Strategies, Inc. (CSI).  Mountain View, California

In article <BrG5Mv.9JA@apollo.hp.com> moynihan_r@apollo.hp.com (Robert Moynihan) writes:
-In article <7392@public.BTR.COM> car@public.BTR.COM (Carlos Rimola-Sarti  car@btr.com) writes:
->In article <Br0yHz.A94@apollo.hp.com> moynihan_r@apollo.hp.com (Robert Moynihan) writes:
- 
-      Much debate on "Who's a cheater, Vilfort or Maradona" deleted...
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OK to delete whatever you like but remember that this was the *focus* of
this thread..

-
->-                       ... Let's assume that Vilfort's hand did indeed touch
->-the ball.  (On slow-motion replay, it certainly looked like the ball hit
->--something-.)  Did this touch in any way enhance Vilfort's ability to control
->-the ball?  I don't think so.  If Vilfort's hand were at his side when the ball
->-came past, it would still have landed at his feet, he would still have been
->-able to cleanly kick the ball at the corner.  Indeed, he may have been able 
->-control the ball more cleanly if it were not deflected in mid-air, and hence
->-been able to avoid needing a lucky bounce off the post to score the goal. 
->-Now I realize that "did the touch give an advantage" has nothing to do with 
->-whether or not it was a foul.  I am merely trying to point out why there might
->-be less uproar over the goal than there was over the "hand of God" which
->-could not have been scored at all without Maradona's deliberate touch.  Vilfort's
->-was clearly incidental.
-
->-...  Cheating is cheating.  Saying it's okay if you can get away with it is
->-like saying it's okay to steal something as long as you don't get caught.  Play
->-by the rules, or don't play.  To me there is one acceptable foul -  the one that
->-happens by accident - you tried to make the play cleanly, but fouled anyway. 
-
->Firstly I DO NOT like to see any team, my favorite or not, win on the basis
->of a questionable goal or one scored by illegal means.
-
->Having said that, let me just say that it really bugs me to see the 
->hypocrisy of some people in this group in trying to rationalize the
->fact that Villfort scored a goal which simply WOULD NOT have happened
->had he not helped stop/control tha ball with his hand.  "Oh, it's not
->the same as 'hand of devil Maradona', he's bad bad bad, not the same,
->not the same".   PLEASE!  If you are going to beat on Maradona for a
->play that happened 6 years ago, at least don't be hypocritical.
-
-Honestly Carlos, I fail to see how I'm being a hypocrite.  If Vilfort's hand
-did indeed touch the ball, then there should have been no goal.  In that case,
-The final score would be 1-0 in Denmark's favor, so they didn't win due to
-"a goal which simply WOULD NOT have happened had he not helped stop/control 
-the ball with his hand."  

Let's make it clear immediately that Denmark's win has *NOT* been
questioned here (not by me at least).  In fact, I was cheering for them and
previously commented here that they played an intelligent strategy.  I have
my critcisms about Denmarks strategy but they have already been discussed
in other threads.

What I find anoying is the fact that you (and a couple of others) seem to
try to make a distinction and justify the goal in the case of Vilfort as
opposed to the case of Maradona's.  The situation is very simple - hand
used, illegal goal.  Just be consistent!  Don't tell me that Vilfort's 
"moves" were so great that it shoud justify one case over the other.  This
is what I call "hypocrisy".  

-And, as I stated above, I seriously doubt he could
-have deliberately used his hand to control the ball.  He was running full speed,
-the ball came from behind him over his head.  -Nobody- has reflexes that fast.
-It only looks easy in slow-motion.  Further, I believe the goal would have been
-scored -whether or not- anything touched the ball in mid-flight.
-
-Assuming Vilfort did touch the ball with his hand (I am not convinced of this,)
 ^^^^^^^^
-then in my opinion, the goal is in the same category as Maradona's, which is to
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-say, illegal.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, we are in agreement here! (see underlined sections).  BUT, this is 
not what your original comments indicated and, again, my point is - if you
are going to criticize an illegal goal that happened more than 6 years ago
then, at least, be consistent!  Hand used, illegal goal.  

Now, you appear to be genuinely convinced that the Vilfort's hand did not
touch the ball.  I think you are wrong.  But, we can discuss this on its own
basis, not on the basis of "which illegal goal is more justifiable".

-In fact, he would be no less a "cheater" than Maradona was on the
-"Hand of God" goal, as once his hand had touched the ball, he should have stopped
-attacking.  My first post was not intended to condone -any- illegally scored goal.
-It was intended to put forth a possible explanation as to why there might be
-less uproar over the Vilfort goal than there was over Maradona's -by the general
-public-. 
-
-Have I done a better job of explaining myself this time?
-

Yes!  I hope I also have?

-Bob Moynihan
-moynihan_r@apollo.hp.com
-

+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Carlos Rimola-Sarti                   |         email: rimola@csisdn.com  |
| Connective Strategies Inc.            |                      car@btr.com  |
| ISDN PRI Connectivity Group           |         phone:      415-903-2585  |
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| "Al compas del cha-cha-cha, del cha-cha-cha del tren..."                  |
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer