After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many had
predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in for a
classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out of England?
RM
On 2024-07-09 16:01, Real_Mardin wrote:
After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than
many had predicted (well at least in th first half), could
we be in for a classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken
too much out of England?
Should not matter, though knowing England it might. England
could field
Alexander Arnold, Konsa, Stones, Shaw
Rice, Gallagher, Eze
Gordon, Watkins, Palmer
Most of whom should be very fresh, and still be competitive.
And still have Kane, Bellingham, Saka, etc to bring on as subs
if need be.
Fairly radical changes to England lineups have worked in the
past (eg. Mexico 1986, Italy 1990, as a result of injuries,
suspensions - probably more recent examples as well).
With England you just never know. Usually they have one
really good game in them per tournament (certainly not always
though - thinking of 2014, 2000) and they certainly have not
used it up yet this time.
After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many had
predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in for a
classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out of England?
RM
Xavi Simon had put Netherlands 1-0 with a shot from the edge of the
area.
Then on 17 minutes, a gift for England. Kane blasts a shot over, but
after the position VAR calls the play back....for a penalty review!
There was contact from a defender! But surely Kane had got his shot off
by then?
On 2024-07-09 6:01 p.m., Real_Mardin wrote:
After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many had
predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in for a
classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out of England?
RM
We have already declared Spain as Euro 24 winners, so this match is for
2nd place.
On 2024-07-10 11:18, Binder Dundat wrote:
On 2024-07-09 6:01 p.m., Real_Mardin wrote:
After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many had
predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in for a
classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out of England?
RM
We have already declared Spain as Euro 24 winners, so this match is
for 2nd place.
1-1
Simons with a nice goal that Pickford might have stopped, though the
shot was hard. Incomprehensible VAR penalty given to England, Kane scores.
I actually would quite like England to win this, but for me, there is no
way that was a penalty.
Best Eng;and game of the tournament so far? Foden had a shot saved off
the line (even though he should have done a lot better than that once he
was played in). Now Dumfries heads it onto the crossbar off a corner.
After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many had
predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in for a
classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out of England?
RM
On 10/07/2024 16:20, FF wrote:
Real_Mardin wrote:
After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many
had predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in
for a classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out
of England?
RM
Big mistake. This should never have been a penalty. It probably was
a foul, but Kane had already shot and missed. By any standard this
is not a penalty (though it would have been a foul if outside the
box).
Come on! Studs up challenge that hit Kane while the ball was still in
play. It doesn't matter if he had shot already. It's a penalty.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Xavi Simon had put Netherlands 1-0 with a shot from the edge of the
area.
Then on 17 minutes, a gift for England. Kane blasts a shot over, but
after the position VAR calls the play back....for a penalty review!
There was contact from a defender! But surely Kane had got his shot off
by then?
Ref reviews- penalty! Even the English commentators think it’s a joke of
a decision.
Kane takes the penalty and shoots low, the keeper was close was was
beaten- 1-1.
RM
On 10/07/2024 16:33, Futbolmetrix wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:31:33 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
Best Eng;and game of the tournament so far? Foden had a shot
saved off the line (even though he should have done a lot better
than that once he was played in). Now Dumfries heads it onto the
crossbar off a corner.
Now Foden tries to do a Yamal, but his shot doesn't curl back
enough and hits the post.
Pretty good game so far, btw.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:03:16 +0000, FF wrote:
Yes, good game. England finally show some football. They moved well,
were dominant and even dangerous a few times. But they shouldn't have
had the penalty. Holland seemed aware that they're the weaker team and
didn't try to contest the midfield, sat back and defended and tried to
punch on the counter, which they were able to do once.
First 15 minutes of the second half, and the aliens that abducted the
England squad in the first half have kindly returned the original
players to the field. Phew.
Yes, good game. England finally show some football. They moved well,
were dominant and even dangerous a few times. But they shouldn't have
had the penalty. Holland seemed aware that they're the weaker team and
didn't try to contest the midfield, sat back and defended and tried to
punch on the counter, which they were able to do once.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:03:16 +0000, FF wrote:
Yes, good game. England finally show some football. They moved well,
were dominant and even dangerous a few times. But they shouldn't have
had the penalty. Holland seemed aware that they're the weaker team and
didn't try to contest the midfield, sat back and defended and tried to
punch on the counter, which they were able to do once.
First 15 minutes of the second half, and the aliens that abducted the
England squad in the first half have kindly returned the original
players to the field. Phew.
HT:
Netherlands 1 - England 1
It’s fair to say England have finally produced their performance. In control of midfield and creating most of the chances. But both teams
have hit the woodwork. And for all their possession England would be
behind were it not for a very strange VAR penalty.
RM
Netherlands the better team in the second half, which was nowhere near
as good as the first.
Southgate's subs ended up seeming inspired as Palmer's pass found
Watkins who shrugged off De Vrij to finish cleanly in the far corner.
90th minute, 2-1.
On 2024-07-10 13:51, Real_Mardin wrote:
HT:
Netherlands 1 - England 1
It’s fair to say England have finally produced their performance. In control of midfield and creating most of the chances. But both teams
have hit the woodwork. And for all their possession England would be
behind were it not for a very strange VAR penalty.
Netherlands the better team in the second half, which was nowhere
near as good as the first.
Bellingham, apart from two decent goals, has really been completely
mediocre in this tournament. Foden had a really good first half, but
could not seem to find the space in the second.
Southgate's subs ended up seeming inspired as Palmer's pass found
Watkins who shrugged off De Vrij to finish cleanly in the far corner.
90th minute, 2-1.
Can't say it was deserved, or an overall good performance from either
team, but both had their moments.
Real_Mardin wrote:
After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many had
predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in for a
classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out of England?
RM
Big mistake. This should never have been a
penalty. It probably was a foul, but Kane had
already shot and missed.
By any standard this is not
a penalty (though it would have been a foul if
outside the box).
FF <...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Real_Mardin wrote:
England? >>After the first semi final proved to be more exciting than many had
predicted (well at least in th first half), could we be in for a
classic? Or have two lots of extra time taken too much out of
RM
Big mistake. This should never have been a
penalty. It probably was a foul, but Kane had
already shot and missed.
Very helpful! Next time I scythe down an opponent
with a late tackle I can tell the referee that he’s dead
wrong to punish me since the ball was already far
gone.
By any standard this is not
a penalty (though it would have been a foul if
outside the box).
Yeah, who doesn’t know about the famous section
of the Laws of the Game where they tell you about
the two different set of rules inside and outside the
box!
Ciao,
Werner
Yeah, who doesn’t know about the famous section
of the Laws of the Game where they tell you about
the two different set of rules inside and outside the
box!
You can do as much sarcarm as you want, this is how refs usually call
it. Remember Schumacher vs. Battiston, for a classic exmple ?
It probably was a foul, but Kane had already shot and missed.
Attempting to determine if the situation yesterday was
properly called or not are futile, as there are arguments
either way, maybe a bit higher for it being called. However,
without VAR, that PK would never have been called, as Kane had
already played the ball. And had he scored, there obviously
wouldn't be a call, as Dumfries wouldn't have gotten cautioned.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 8:15:50 +0000, Werner Pichler wrote:
Yeah, who doesn’t know about the famous section
of the Laws of the Game where they tell you about
the two different set of rules inside and outside the
box!
Dale Johnson, ESPN's VAR expert, who tends to defend and explain VAR decisions even when they go against most fans' perceptions, in this
case thought the decision was wrong, explicitly arguing that the
threshold for a penalty should be higher:
"It's seems odd, because often in this situation we'd say 'but that's
a foul anywhere else on the pitch.' But make no mistake, there's
another unwritten law that the threshold is far higher on a penalty
providing a shot on goal vs. a free kick in an area that isn't
immediately dangerous."
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:32:39 +0000, FF wrote:
You can do as much sarcarm as you want, this is how refs usually
call it. Remember Schumacher vs. Battiston, for a classic exmple ?
erm... that was more than 40 years ago, maybe the interpretation of
the laws has changed since then? (and even then, it was widely
thought to have been a scandalously bad decision).
It probably was a foul, but Kane had already shot and missed.
...
Attempting to determine if the situation yesterday was properly called
or not are futile, as there are arguments either way, maybe a bit
higher for it being called. However, without VAR, that PK would
never have been called, as Kane had already played the ball.
HASM wrote:
It probably was a foul, but Kane had already shot and missed.
...
Attempting to determine if the situation yesterday was properly
called or not are futile, as there are arguments either way, maybe
a bit higher for it being called. However, without VAR, that PK
would never have been called, as Kane had already played the ball.
Thanks. I was thinking an opinion from a ref or ex ref would be
helpful.
So you're saying that without the VAR there is (or was) indeed this
unwritten rule that if the ball gets out of reach for the attacking
team, before the foul, then it shouldn't be called (inside the box). I
really don't understand why it should be different with the VAR.
So you're saying that without the VAR there is (or was) indeed this
unwritten rule that if the ball gets out of reach for the attacking
team, before the foul, then it shouldn't be called (inside the box).
"FF" <...@yahoo.com> writes:
So you're saying that without the VAR there is (or was) indeed this unwritten rule that if the ball gets out of reach for the attacking
team, before the foul, then it shouldn't be called (inside the box).
Not really.
Football laws are/were always very vague/incomplete. In the USA we
had a companion book published almost every year called Advice to the Referees*, that added a lot of examples for each law, and it
clarified a lot of how the USSF wanted things called, and still,
obviously incomplete, as one cannot dream all situations that happen
in the game.
(* mostly written by Jim Allen, the "pen" behind the now idle "ask a
referee" website, and used to be the "voice" of USSF.)
What I remember from the video replay, and its been a few days,
Dumfries didn't really kick or attempted to kick Kane, he seemed to
have tried to block or play the ball and while doing so was kicked by
Kane. Kane was trying to kick the ball, indeed did it, and was not
trying to kick or attempting to kick Dumfries, though he did.
Thus, inside or outside the penalty area (there are no boxes on the
pitch:-)) this can be interpreted under Law 12 as a: careless (no
caution) or reckless (caution) challenge by Dumfries, resulting in a
direct free kick, penalty kick in this case; can be interpreted as
"playing in a dangerous manner", resulting in an indirect free kick
(and boy, are they "fun" to set up, inside the penalty area, somewhat
close to the goal line); or could also be interpreted as no foul
whatsoever (which was what my example comparing feet to head was
aiming at.)
Take your pick, direct, indirect, or nothing? In real time, the
referee picked no foul (incensing the English), after being called by
VAR and watching the video, he picked direct (incensing the Dutch),
and indirect was probably never considered (which would have incensed
both the English and the Dutch.)
Wondering what Jim Allen would have picked.
-- HASM
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:48:40 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,633 |