>> ^harry:

It's the fucking vuvuzela. South Africa pretends it's tradition, but it's apparently something that was ivented about 30 years ago, I guess by a marketing dude.
It's a monotonous buzzing that continues for the full 90 minutes. Some channels (like the BBC) appear to manage their sound levels reasonably, but the Dutch broadcasters have been unable to cope, and the commentators are frequently drowned out.
I don't like football as it is, but this makes it totally impossible to even watch it in the background. I'll just count the number of cheers and cries in the street when Oranje is on.


Yes South Africa...collectively as a country is pretending that they like something as a tradition. Firstly it doesn't have to be old for it to be a tradition. Secondly you can't tell people how to enjoy a game in their own fucking country, so shut the fuck up.

>> ^Morganth:

Dannym3141, I was watching on vtm, a Flemish station in Belgium.
Ajkido, it's soccer. The live action never stop for commercials. So when they choose to show one goal over and over again, and not another even though the game is tied, it's bias. Their half-time commentators (who were Belgian, not English) were all sitting at a tabled draped in a giant English flag.


Call me crazy, but theyre likely to show the goal where the defence was sliced open by the non-scoring striker allowing the controversial captain to score a good goal rather than the one where the goalie dropped it.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm a football newb. What's with the constant droning horns in the background. At first I thought it was a psychological thing to use against the opposing team but it is non-stop.


Drove me up a freaking wall. Apparently, they're vuvuzelas which are big horns that South Africans blow at matches. I imagine all the World Cup visitors wanted them too.

Your video, England's Robert Green fails to block a shot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Morganth:

Watching the game here in Europe my friends and I all noticed that when England scored, the replay was shown about 20 times in the next ten minutes. Ten minutes is about how long it took them to actually show this goal again for the first time. None of the stations here have been subtle with their...bias.


I don't know what channel you were watching, so i can't call bullshit on that. Where i was watching it from, i saw plenty of replays of both goals.

I might suggest that the reason you saw more replays of the first goal is because it was a display of footballing skill rather than this goal which was a display of an arsehole failing to pick up a ball travelling at 5mph. It was hardly eventful. They tend to show replays of stuff that's good. Or stuff that's comically bad. But this drew just pulled up just short of comically bad, resting evenly at tragically bad.

For the first time i can genuinely say without a shadow of sarcasm that my nan could have saved that goal.

>> ^Morganth:

Watching the game here in Europe my friends and I all noticed that when England scored, the replay was shown about 20 times in the next ten minutes. Ten minutes is about how long it took them to actually show this goal again for the first time. None of the stations here have been subtle with their...bias.


I was watching that game "here in Europe" and that was not the case. They couldn't show the goal right away as the game continued so quickly, but it wasn't ten minutes. More like a minute. And after that we saw multiple replays.

It's not biased to prioritize the live action over replays.

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll