Talk:Ricardo (footballer, born 1976)

Henry incident
To the Calhau "Rocha" censor: I'm not going to start a argument with a stubborn anti-Portugal advocate. Just as a small resume: You and I don't agree in that it wasn't a penalty. You claim the defender admitted to tripping Henry, but give no proof of your claims. I claim that from the videos of the game it is plain to see that Henry dived without being touched. You, as a good old censor, refuse to even accept the penalty was controversial, sticking to YOUR version of the facts, and censor everything that doesn't fit, refusing to discuss or present proof of your statements. So, who's the blind here?


 * The Inquisition and Galileo also didn't agree that the sun revolved around the Earth. If you don't see Carvalho touching Henry - a touch which he himself admited -, then the problem should be solved with your eye doctor and not with me - and, yes, Henry made the most of it, which doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty, and that penalty is only controversial with bad losers like yourself. So, answering to your question, you're the blind. --Explendido Rocha 10:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A touch he admitted but never was enough to trip Henry, and which wasn't avoidable by Ricardo Carvalho, but was completely avoidable by Henry. Also, in the link you point to, he's very explicit in saying that the referee "could have awarded the penalty or not", as it very clearly wasn't cut and dried. As wasn't the penalty a few minutes later when Cristiano Ronaldo was thrown down inside France's area. But you prefer to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of being a "bad loser" - it's interesting to see how fast you start insulting when you run out of arguments, even resorting to non-sequiturs. I, for one, didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!


 * I don't care what you expect. You started by saying that Henry wasn't even touched, now you are saying that it was touched, but not enough. Thank you for admiting to your blindness,although You are still a bad loser. And, btw, yes, the referee could have awarded a penalty for Cristiano Ronaldo, provided he was as blind as you are. --Explendido Rocha 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad you don't even understand a Monty Python reference, even though this is looking more and more like their "Argument" sketch. You still are resorting to insults due to lacking arguments, though. I said Henry dived without being touched, I admit that Ricardo Carvalho might have touched him, but didn't trip him as you claim - and anyone can see that looking at the video images. As for the Cristiano Ronaldo penalty, a French supporter couldn't have said it better than you just did. But you prefer to keep your torrent of abuse and attacks on Portuguese supporters. What did Portugal do to hurt you so?


 * The Monty Python reference more appropriate to you in the Black Knight on the bridge. And I'm Portuguese but I'm not blind. Ricardo Carvalho, an excellent player for all acounts, made a mistake, like Abel Xavier before him, and I won't lie for the sake of being called a 'good Portuguese' by the likes of you or clowns like Madaíl or Scolari. Simply put: it was a penalty: you would like not to be, I would like to win Euromillions. There is no dishonor in losing to a better team - which France was in that game, - but there is a lot of dishonor in being a bad loser like you. --Explendido Rocha 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, you're acting exactly like the Black Knight (except for the insults, but those are there to mask your lack of arguments) - and it wasn't on the bridge, look it up. Simply put - it was no penalty. But I am not going to re-edit the page today; you are clearly stalking this page and waiting for a edit to show you can edit back and can shout your version of the facts. I give up, I don't have the time to keep arguing with someone who owns the truth and censors everything that might contradict him, and is more interested in engaging in a shouting match than contributing to the wikipedia. And there lies the lack of honor...


 * There is a bridge on the Black Knight scene. You are probably thinking that I'm confusing it with another scene ("European or African swallow?" -"I don't know that"), which has a larger bridge. Now, if someone like yourself, whose contribution history consist mainly of slander, feels insulted, I couldn't care less. You are intitled to think that football rules should be changed so that it wouldn't be a penalty, but since the rules are what they are, it was, and only bad losers like yourself will insist otherwise, even to the point of negating that Carvalho indeed touched Henry - a fact about which there are no doubts. The touch might have been intentional (which I doubt) or accidental, but it happened, and, according to the rules, that is a penalty. You would like the referee to ignore the rules of the game to make you happy? What else, are you one of those who think that the referee hit João Pinto's fist with his belly? --Explendido Rocha 12:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Protection
As I wrote on the Portuguese National Team talk page, I only ask that Mr. Rocha respects that others might have a different opinion. He claims that the admission by Ricardo Carvalho that he touched Henry is proof that it was a foul - even if the touch was never enough to trip Henry, or to stop him from getting to the ball. But then he insists that another touch, Cristiano Ronaldo being pushed from behind and changing trajectory in middle jump, is just a dive. Besides the contradicting views, that is his opinion, and also (unfortunately) the opinion of the referee of the game. It isn't mine, and it isn't the opinion of most Portuguese supporters (and even other nationals have admitted both are disputed). I mostly don't agree with Mr. Rocha imposing his opinion as the ultimate truth, and not admitting he doesn't own the truth, he is just expressing his views. Also, about his attacks on my anonymous posting, I didn't know it had been forbidden in Wikipedia's charter. After all, it's very easy to know my ip, so it isn't truly anonymous (even if this IP is being used by over a 1000 others). I also present my apologies on the couple of attacks I did above, even though they were provoked by his attacks in the history page and later here, I should have known better than to descend to that level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.234.134.115 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I replied to Mr. Anonymous is Talk:Portugal national football team. --Explendido Rocha 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I answered Mr. Rocha claims in Talk:Portugal national football team. 195.234.134.115 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Goal scored for Portugal
This could be miles off the mark but did Ricardo actually score a goal while playing for Portugal? I sincerely hope this was no referring to the penalty he scored against England which, of course, was in a penalty shootout. The page about 'goalscoring goalkeepers' only claims he scored a goal for one of his club sides and a quick internet search turned up nothing. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit was done by Udaymanju239 not too long ago. I've undid his revision. Wolcott (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing

..."Euro 2004[edit]In the quarterfinals of UEFA Euro 2004 against England, Ricardo was one of Portugal's heroes in their win on penalties. With a 5–5 tie he first saved the shot of Darius Vassell after taking his gloves off, and then scored the deciding penalty to send Portugal to the semi-finals.[10]..." end of citing

Copy 1998 Portugal U21 1 (0) 2001–2008 Portugal 79 (0) † Appearances (Goals).
 * Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 00:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

if Ricardo score a goal to England he sheet must be 2001-2008 Portugal 79 (1), right?

In Portuguese is correct. I think that must also in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.65.103.1 (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)