World Cup Qatar

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

No read the other posts the contact continued well inside the box. The rules say the ref must award a penalty. 
 

https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/football-5-rules-most-fans-confused-unaware-about

holding in this context means any unlawful impediment to a player going forwards, not just grappling with the hands. 

Sportskeeda

"Although the foul initiated outside the box, it continued at least till the line marking the penalty area and a foul on the line is a penalty. People argued on social media if the decision was right or not, but the referee got it spot on according to the FIFA rules"

Kane was fouled outside of the box and fell into the box, With Kane falling into the box it comes down to VAR they looked and said nowt.

Peter Walton said on the line so "a foul" Lee Dixon said Peter Walton said it was on the line so a penalty.

Now here's the problem, Has VAR intentionally/mistakenly cocked up or doesn't know the rules, They had multi TV screens it took some 2mins to come to this decision, I'd guess Peter Walton had the same view as we did, I saw no contact inside the box, I slowed it down as I taped it, Again in normal play it looked a continuation, After slowing it down the defender had got his leg out of Kanes legs...but then again my eyes are 66 years old ?‍♀️ 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Unlucky Alf

[Archied]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I think some fairly harsh judgements have been made on last night's game, which in the immediate aftermath is understandable, but for my part, the serial choker / bottlers jibes seem a tad crass. The key moments that resulted in the game slipping away from us were the VAR non-decision on the first of a dozen or so fouls on Saka which then resulted in the first French goal. Then a penalty that would be given 8 or 9 times out of 10 was again not deemed to be even a foul. Lastly, the Kane penalty miss. 

I think it can be sensibly argued that Harry choked. We've seen him take a lot of spot-kicks over the years and that was comfortably the worst. It'll haunt him for years and that's rather sad for a player who has always given his all for both club and country. That said, how that miss extends to the rest of the team I'm not sure. We soaked up the early pressure, we started to take control of the game around the 25 minute mark and were comfortably the more threatening side after that. And before we forget, the team we were playing are the reigning world champions.

As for Southgate, I've expressed frustration when we retain the dual-holding midfielder line up against the likes of Wales, but I can see why he would favour such tactics against a side like France. Trying to break down teams who sit deep versus nullifying the threat of teams like France who come at you all guns blazing, requires different approaches. Based on the performance over the full 98 minutes, this was a game we really ought to have won and in so much, I'd say his decision was more or less vindicated and his record is one of the best in the national team's long history. It's a shame then that so many choose to pour scorn on him and the team when with a fairer crack of the whip, we'd most likely have seen England advancing and not France.

Before the game I had it pretty much a 50/50 with England perhaps slight favourite s, my thinking was France concede goals , England score goals ( this World Cup ) and I think though mbappe is special England had the stronger line up through team and squad so the match panned out fairly even in my view though France taking they’re chances made it feel England were chasing and never really looked like winning it over 90 mins 

on Southgate , I confess he’s not my fav manager but he’s done fairly well, that said my gut feel is he isn’t quite squeezing the best out of a very decent and deep pool of talent which has youth and experience to blend but that’s subjective and opinion based, would they have beaten France had they gone for an all guns blazing shoot out style ? We never know but I do feel the players England have to call on at this point it may have been they’re best policy against France 

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, SillyBilly said:

We did lose on penalties so no change? Kane blazed it over the bar which sealed our fate. Or are we supposed to pre-qualify with timing of when the penalty was missed now? 

You know as well as anyone that "Losing on penalties" is a reference to losing a recognised and traditional penalty shoot-out competition (Min of 5 each, with potential sudden death thereafter), that takes place at the end of a game in a knock-out competition, and usually follows a draw after 90 minutes, and more often than not (but not exclusively) also follows a similarly recognised and traditional extra time period.

This is not what happened last night.  We lost... in part... due to one of our players missing a single penalty in the normal 90mins.
 

I'm a big fan of pedantry, but your post is just a pisstake!   

[Ram-Alf]

Some good pics here...?

 

[PistoldPete]

52 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Sportskeeda

"Although the foul initiated outside the box, it continued at least till the line marking the penalty area and a foul on the line is a penalty. People argued on social media if the decision was right or not, but the referee got it spot on according to the FIFA rules"

Kane was fouled outside of the box and fell into the box, With Kane falling into the box it comes down to VAR they looked and said nowt.

Peter Walton said on the line so "a foul" Lee Dixon said Peter Walton said it was on the line so a penalty.

Now here's the problem, Has VAR intentionally/mistakenly cocked up or doesn't know the rules, They had multi TV screens it took some 2mins to come to this decision, I'd guess Peter Walton had the same view as we did, I saw no contact inside the box, I slowed it down as I taped it, Again in normal play it looked a continuation, After slowing it down the defender had got his leg out of Kanes legs...but then again my eyes are 66 years old ?‍♀️ 

According to you Kane fell into the box having been fouled outside the box. But that isn’t right , the player had his leg wrapped between Kanes thighs. The photo I showed has that position on the line with Kane leaning forward. There’s no way Kane could disentangle himself from that as he leaned into the box. 

[PistoldPete]

15 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Some good pics here...?

 

Well that third one is pretty clear isn’t it? Kanes foot may be just behind the line but his knee where the foul is continuing is well over the line. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by PistoldPete

[Ram-Alf]

15 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well that third one is pretty clear isn’t it? Kanes foot may be just behind the line but his knee where the foul is continuing is well over the line. 

His knee, Look at the bandage/top of sock, Contact is below the knee.

Here you go Pete.

https://www.specsavers.co.uk/

Edited December 11, 2022 by Unlucky Alf

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

PSG owned by Qatar Sports Investments tells you why the referee and VAR was so bad. 
 

If Qatar had to choose whether England or France progressed, now who would they make it harder for. 
 

Yes we missed a penalty but with fair officiating we would have won that game. 

[Wolfie20]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

But it’s irrelevant when the foul started. It ended in the box and there is clear evidence to that effect. Holding in that context means any impediment not just gripping with the hands as other references have pointed out. And as you would expect why would it be different rules for different types of foul?

Not sure where you’ve got your definition of holding from - i can't find it on the FIFA website.

It's totally relevant under FIFA rules with regard to where the offence started. There is a clearly defined difference between the offence of holding an opponent and impeding through actual contact - one has a potential for the offence to result in a penalty if it starts outside the area, the other doesn't.

[PistoldPete]

22 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

Not sure where you’ve got your definition of holding from - i can't find it on the FIFA website.

It's totally relevant under FIFA rules with regard to where the offence started. There is a clearly defined difference between the offence of holding an opponent and impeding through actual contact - one has a potential for the offence to result in a penalty if it starts outside the area, the other doesn't.

Just take the time to read the posts above, and/ or Google it there's plenty of authorities confirming this, including one above that you have chosen to ignore. 

The on pitch ref got it wrong twice over, it was a clear foul  and the rules state that he should play advantage if that impediment continues into the box.

 

So the only possible argument is whether the VAR was unable to say it was clear and obvious  to over-rule the decision not to give a penalty. It was clear and obvious not to give a foul but VAR cannot award a free kick, its a penalty or nothing

[Wolfie20]

A bit condescending but no surprise there. If you're referring to the Sportskeeda article I have read it but gave it no more credence than any other opinion - it doesn’t actually quote the exact FIFA ruling.

Carry on using whatever you want to validate your opinion, I'm not bothered.

[PistoldPete]

22 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

A bit condescending but no surprise there. If you're referring to the Sportskeeda article I have read it but gave it no more credence than any other opinion - it doesn’t actually quote the exact FIFA ruling.

Carry on using whatever you want to validate your opinion, I'm not bothered.

The Sportskeeda article does quote the exact same FIFA ruling that I quoted. 

[Bris Vegas]

10 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Here is the letter of the FA  law 12.3 on Advantage:

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick".

So you are wrong, I'm afraid. 
 

 

I stand corrected on that.

But going back to the foul, it wasn’t shirt tugging. It was contact outside the box.

I could be wrong. But if I’m wrong, so were the foreign commentators and VAR.

They didn’t rule out a penalty on it being not a foul. They ruled it out based on it being outside the box.

So you could be right and that could be a VAR mess up. But I still believe it happened outside the box.

[Wolfie20]

34 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I stand corrected on that.

But going back to the foul, it wasn’t shirt tugging. It was contact outside the box.

I could be wrong. But if I’m wrong, so were the foreign commentators and VAR.

They didn’t rule out a penalty on it being not a foul. They ruled it out based on it being outside the box.

So you could be right and that could be a VAR mess up. But I still believe it happened outside the box.

I don't believe you are wrong. Continuation of a holding offence into the box must result in a penalty but the rules are clear in there being a difference between holding and other (non-holding) contact and there's no requirement to award a penalty if the latter offence occurs outside the area.

[Wolfie20]

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The Sportskeeda article does quote the exact same FIFA ruling that I quoted. 

You are correct - the rule the article quotes is in italics, the next paragraph is purely the writers' opinion,.

I'm out of this madhouse thread!

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, Wolfie20 said:

I don't believe you are wrong. Continuation of a holding offence into the box must result in a penalty but the rules are clear in there being a difference between holding and other (non-holding) contact and there's no requirement to award a penalty if the latter offence occurs outside the area.

Bris had said that its like shirt puling which can start outside the box and continue inside and the ref will give a free kick. He was wrong about that , I mean I remember very well Stephen Pearson in the play off semi against Southampton, the ref rightly gave a peno.

Likewise a continuing foul such as the incident referred to in the Sportskeeda article Man City V Barcelona. You say that is all opinion, but how can it be matter of opinion in such big games? This is a rule, it shouldn't be open to interpretation?  How can VAR award a penalty to Barcelona and not to England? 

What wouldn't be penalty is if it was Kane's momentum alone that took him into the box and he then just fell inside the box. It has to be a continuing foul , in which case the ref has to give the most favourable interpretation of when the foul occurred, in this case in the penalty area.  

 

[DavesaRam]

In the ned, if the ref had given the foul on Saka, then France wouldn't have counter-attacked and got their first goal. We could argue that we should have defended that counter attack better, but it should never have been allowed to take place. I think the ref had an agenda - whether it was his own, or one given to him I am not sure. But not only was that foul on Saka not given, he steadfastly refused to give free-kicks for the constant barrage of fouls on Saka, plus his belligerent refusal to go to the VAR experts (sic) (or sick!) for the foul on Mason Mount, even though the blindest of referees could see it was a blatant penalty. 

My beautiful wife said we shouldn't be depending on getting penalties to win matches, to which I said "France shouldn't be depending on getting away with blatant, cynical fouling all match long to win either".

And although most on here say that England were the better team, I reckon there was a major difference between the two teams. When England got the ball, especially after they stopped faffing around at the back, the player virtually always had to stop the ball and control it before thinking what to do with it, so our build up play was ponderous for most of the time. France on the other hand were able to see the pass before the ball arrived, and pinged it around the team. We are capable of one-touch, zipping the ball around with pace, but chose to not do it, probably on the basis that there is an element of risk involved, which Safegate won't countenance. And that was the difference. France seemed to have better individual players who were more comfortable on the ball, even though our endeavour meant we were more of a threat in the second half. If only ...................

[Gritstone Ram]

3 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

His knee, Look at the bandage/top of sock, Contact is below the knee.

Here you go Pete.

https://www.specsavers.co.uk/

Shouldn’t it be similar to the offside where it’s the part of the body furthest forward so if any part of him is in the box it’s a penalty.

[Rammy03]

30 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

And although most on here say that England were the better team, I reckon there was a major difference between the two teams. When England got the ball, especially after they stopped faffing around at the back, the player virtually always had to stop the ball and control it before thinking what to do with it, so our build up play was ponderous for most of the time. France on the other hand were able to see the pass before the ball arrived, and pinged it around the team. We are capable of one-touch, zipping the ball around with pace, but chose to not do it, probably on the basis that there is an element of risk involved, which Safegate won't countenance. And that was the difference. France seemed to have better individual players who were more comfortable on the ball, even though our endeavour meant we were more of a threat in the second half. If only ...................

They were able to zip the ball about quickly because they were counter attacking us most of the time. France barely had any sustained pressure, both of their goals were against the run of play and came out of nowhere.

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

Shouldn’t it be similar to the offside where it’s the part of the body furthest forward so if any part of him is in the box it’s a penalty.

no its where the contact occurs. Whether it's at the knee or just below is irrelevant its way up above his foot and his feet are only just below the line. So the contact is pretty clearly inside the line , not even on the line (which would also be a peno).