#61
|
|||
|
|||
Not just Kane, Maquire was being fouled at the same time. 2 clear penalties from the same ball in. Impossible not to have seen one of them.
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Apparently there used to be a subsection, added about 20 years ago which stated that if a player made contact with an opponent either before or at the same time as the ball, then it was a foul. Seems that came to be seen as a universal rule that if you got the ball first it could never be a foul. That subsection has now been deleted. Probably due to players touching the ball moments before wiping someone out and governing bodies working out that was actually quite dangerous. Lazy pundits, most of whom are ex-players from that era still talk about anything after a touch on the ball being irrelevant, but it's no longer true.
|
#63
|
||||
|
||||
I was gobsmacked that neither of those assaults on Kane were given, especially the first one when the defender wasn’t even facing the ball
I thought I hated the use of VAR. turns out the non use of it is equally as infuriating
__________________
Pride of South London |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
I felt like the one good thing about it would be no more contentious non-decisions like we've had to deal with before. But apparently that's not the case and it's only used to help France win a game.
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
In the past a ref could quite easily miss that sought of thing when there is a lot going on in the box but now there is 4 other guys watching a screen , what the **** are they doing ? I'd like someone to explain it .
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I imagine that the ref was told but chose to ignore it. I hope he gets sent home, clearly influenced by the prospect of Colombia facing England in the next round.
__________________
“She belong to the streets” - Future |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Seen it and shared it
__________________
“She belong to the streets” - Future |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think that you are bang on with this. The thread is filled with 'whats the point?' and 'it won't help' but last night all of England was crying out for VAR to be used.
__________________
“She belong to the streets” - Future |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
I agree with the use of VAR in certain circumstances, but half the pub crying "VAR! VAR!" every time an England player was touched got a bit annoying last night.
__________________
Bacon!!!! |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Russia demonization. Akin to 1930's Germany. Who funds the anti russia propaganda site bellingcat? http://newsvideo.su/video/9455566 Pretty obvious really. |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Russia demonization. Akin to 1930's Germany. Who funds the anti russia propaganda site bellingcat? http://newsvideo.su/video/9455566 Pretty obvious really. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is referring to obstruction not tackles. |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
Hearing this chanted every 10 minutes away at the Amex was enough for me to think it a bad idea
__________________
"And then when it was all over, a thousand Palace fans stayed on to applaud their side's warm-down and the strains of Glad All Over crashed out across Selhurst. Daft little tune .......brave little team" Sunday Mail 7/11/2004 after 1-1 with Arsenal |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Doesn't say it though does it, it says "contact" and it doesn't mention which part of the body. And a tackle is winning the ball not just touching it and obstruction means getting in the way of. Which did he do? The latter.
__________________
“She belong to the streets” - Future |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player." I really don't think this is the part of the law the referee was applying in the France Australia game. You were quoting the 'trip or attempt to trip' part before which is clearly the relevant part (whether you think it was the correct assessment by the ref or not). Walker - yes. Fits the description of impeding with contact perfectly even if incredibly inconsistently applied by the ref. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
I am aware of the attempt to trip but we don't know which part he applied. I am second guessing he is talking about impeding through contact. Tbh either could be applied imo.
For Walker, it's a shame we had him playing there instead of a centre half, because there's no way Jones or Cahill would've blocked with a swinging elbow like that. I got the feeling he swung out an arm to block but the bloke wasn't there so his arm went further back, then the attacker made a meal of it. Can't deny a penalty but can complain that the ref didn't apply the same at the other end. I genuinely think he did it for Colombia who we may face next round, thank feck Tunisia had barely any time in our box.
__________________
“She belong to the streets” - Future |
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Ok - so for the sake of clarity you've argued here that the ref may have given France a penalty for obstruction and you've argued elsewhere that it was definitely a penalty and you've suggested to pretty much anyone who doesn't think the ref was right on this occasion should go and read the rules ... or forever sound like a pundit.
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Corruption is the only logical way to explain the refusal to consider rugby tackles on England players penalty offenses whilst instantly blowing for a far less clear-cut incident against the England defense.
If England have to play twelve men again, I will start to wonder if there might be an additional tranche of Russian bribe money set aside for officials now that the Ruskies have snaffled the tournament itself. After all, who would they most like to see out of the tournament other than England, given the recent political aggro? I have to be careful. The injustice of last night just might get me caring about England again and I get quite enough pain from Palace! |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Be interesting to see just how far Russia get.
__________________
Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
An argument put forward last night was around timing. The Walker incident was clear as there wasn't a crowd of people whereas the Kane incidents were in a crowded box and there was insufficient time to view the 25 camera angles in the 23 seconds between the corner and play re-starting. Hmmm. What a load of tosh. One would have thought it was sufficient to pick this up on one of the 25 screens to the extent sufficient to signal the ref that something is being looked at. This doesn't take 23 seconds. So whilst I like your theory, there's always the thought that the VAR boys were tuned into Love Island on the other channel, watching "The Impossible Job" on IPlayer or outside having a fag at the time. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|