Talk:Charles Corver
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group. | ||
 |
The article on Charles Corver is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the Netherlands task force. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
Made this more neutral and corrected a few grammar errors.
[edit] Schumacher challenge
Did Corver ever explain why he deemed Schumacher's challenge to be not a foul? Jess Cully 22:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In football a foul of the goalkeeper is,if he stops the player before shooting the ball.But Battiston has shot the ball and has had no chance to reach it.Not every injuring in football can be seen as a foul, it might be a unhappy crash.A foul is too when you try to hurt your opponent by using your shoes but not if he raises your foot against you you put your knees and your front leg against him.If Battiston would have left his leg above Schumacher would have several bones broken and Battiston would have committed no foul,because it was out of the five meter area.
That's not even close. The laws at the time stated that if a player deliberately made contact with an opponent it was a foul. Regardless of where the ball was. It was a dreadful foul and I do not know why Corver has never been pursued in relation to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.8.21 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it`s not even close.If a Mercedesdriver and a Fiat 500 driver crash in a narrow street with full speed together the Mercedesdriver is not automatically guilty.One rule can be used against Schumacher,the rule not to jump at the player,but the goalkeeper has to jump to get the ball and if this would be a foul, dozens of fouls would be committed every match, the refree wouldn`t stop whisteling.I think it was a unhappy crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.225.2 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a real good joke to sign the decision for Schumacher as one of the worst decisions ever made.Coerver was not a unknown referee with primitive intentions,who comes and goes.He was a referee with very good references and also a dutch referee who doesn´t advatadge Germany.The ones who wanted to have a penalty almost french people,didn´t consider, that the ball was already gone.And a intended foul it was never.My father is amateur referee and said,if the goalkeeper comes out to take the ball it´s own risk to run there.The red card of Jens Lehmann in the champion league final 2005/6 was absolutely all right,because he snatched with his hand the leg of the forward to make him fall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.214.11 (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
