World Cup Qatar

[Ram-Alf]

20 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.

Now we're getting into semantics ?

Maybe cricket, When the balls going to the boundary and it's stopped but some part of his body touched the boundary while some part of his body touched the ball at the same time ?

According to VAR Kane was tackled outside of the box, The defender according to VAR had not touched Kane when he was on the line, Some will debate he was ?, Football is worth 1000s of millions of £s World wide, We're talking a hairs breath that could win or lose a game and a fortune or a Ref who's not up to the job, Until those that make the Laws of the game have a change of mind...this is all we have.

I am no advocate of VAR as it throws up situations like this and others to boot, Refs are now letting those in the booths make the important decisions...and that's why they're getting worse.

[Carl Sagan]

15 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

But the initial contact was outside the box. The initial foul was outside.

By letter of the law, it’s irrelevant that it continued inside the box.

It’s like with shirt grabbing. They always pull it back to where the foul started, not where the player later fell to the floor.

VAR and neutral commentators explained it was outside the box.

We can agree on one thing though. It was 100% a foul. Ridiculous it wasn’t given alongside another foul on Saka which was waved off.

I disagree in that over and over again we see penalties given for shirt-pulling that begins outside of the area, but continues into the box. I don't know what you've been watching, but I've not seen it the other way around. And it should be the same for every type of foul. Plenty of neutral commentators said "penalty".

[Bris Vegas]

40 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

I disagree in that over and over again we see penalties given for shirt-pulling that begins outside of the area, but continues into the box. I don't know what you've been watching, but I've not seen it the other way around. And it should be the same for every type of foul. Plenty of neutral commentators said "penalty".

But VAR said it was outside the box. The neutral commentators said that as they can hear what VAR is saying.

If it really was an incorrect decision and obvious at that, don’t you think the FA would be asking questions of FIFA now?

That the incident hasn’t been reported suggests it wasn’t a big error.

[TigerTedd]

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

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.  

 

For arguments sake this isn’t shirt pulling, so doesn’t fall under this rule of continued shirt pulling. So it’s a foul, and a single point of contact outside the box. However, by not blowing for the initial contact, the ref has played on advantage, then almost instantaneously there is further contact inside the box.

if the ref blows his whistle as soon as contact is made, then it’s a free kick, but the ref will normally only blow their whistle after the fouling movement has been completed and the attacker is on their arse. Therefore you could argue that anything uk until that point was playing advantage to see if the attacker could wriggle out of it.

whether that’s the rule or not, I have no idea and no reference, but that’s what I think it should be.

any defender trying to be clever needs to know to Clío the attackers ankles before they get to the box, and if that doesn’t work first time, not to continue following through once the attacker has stepped foot into the box. It seems fairly obvious to me that that should result in a penalty, and if the rules say otherwise, the rules are wrong. 

[LazloW]

[Crewton]

13 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

any defender trying to be clever needs to know to Clío the attackers ankles before they get to the box,

[Gaspode]

19 minutes ago, Crewton said:

phwoar Nicole ?

[TigerTedd]

4 hours ago, Crewton said:

I don’t get why my phone does that. It refuses to believe that clip is a real word and that I’m more likely trying to spell Clío. My kids have been to many birthday parties at Clío and climb. 

[RoyMac5]

 

[Ram-Alf]

14 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

I hope they've thoroughly checked that pussy cat, Them Qataris could be up to no good, Already in bother with the EU over money laundering with some MEPs 

[i-Ram]

3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

What a nice story ?. Declan Rice will look after him the first week back, but as he has a prior engagement on Wednesday his friend Kurt has offered to cat sit.

[DavesaRam]

On 11/12/2022 at 17:23, Rammy03 said:

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.

But you don't have to counter-attack to zip the ball from player to player. You might remember after months of side-to-side until the opposition are asleep, in his last game, Rosenior got the team passing the ball quickly and we were a different side. Most of us thought that maybe we had turned the corner, but we didn't know that Rosenior knew that his time was up, and the change in playing style was his final hurrah.

The fact that they did move the ball quickly was because they had the ability to do so, and knew that doing it puts the opposition on the back foot. The way the gameplay took place had a lot to do with our performance which limited how much France could put on our goal. I wondered how much more pressure we could have put France under if we put some urgency into our build up play. We'll never know of course, but they did us proud to a degree.

[ramit]

i miss the likes of Pirlo Pirlo Pirlo

https://www.facebook.com/welovedogs.gm/videos/656770402464837/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-AN_GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=DTfniY

 

[Carl Sagan]

Watching the Argentina Croatia semifinal. As soon as the penalty was given I said that's not a foul. The keeper plants his feet, and draws the foul basketball style as the forward jumps into him. To my surprise Gary Neville and Roy Keane were in 100% agreement with me at HT. But the studio referee expert couldn't see it and said it's a penalty. The ref pundit kept saying "the goalkeeper's forward motion towards the striker" but manifestly there was none. Referees are idiots.

The incident was remarkably similar to when Frank Fielding was sent off at the start of the 10-man game. For me, a foul on the keeper who made no motion towards the striker and couldn't get out of the way.

[JoetheRam]

4 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Watching the Argentina Croatia semifinal. As soon as the penalty was given I said that's not a foul. The keeper plants his feet, and draws the foul basketball style as the forward jumps into him. To my surprise Gary Neville and Roy Keane were in 100% agreement with me at HT. But the studio referee expert couldn't see it and said it's a penalty. The ref pundit kept saying "the goalkeeper's forward motion towards the striker" but manifestly there was none. Referees are idiots.

The incident was remarkably similar to when Frank Fielding was sent off at the start of the 10-man game. For me, a foul on the keeper who made no motion towards the striker and couldn't get out of the way.

Completely agree. The ref seemed to basically say if the keeper doesn't save it, he needs to get out of the way otherwise it's a penalty.

Dixon chatting some crap about the keeper challenging for the ball - which he patently didn't do. He stood there with his hands out and the player ran into him.

Edited December 13, 2022 by JoetheRam

[Gritstone Ram]

3 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Watching the Argentina Croatia semifinal. As soon as the penalty was given I said that's not a foul. The keeper plants his feet, and draws the foul basketball style as the forward jumps into him. To my surprise Gary Neville and Roy Keane were in 100% agreement with me at HT. But the studio referee expert couldn't see it and said it's a penalty. The ref pundit kept saying "the goalkeeper's forward motion towards the striker" but manifestly there was none. Referees are idiots.

The incident was remarkably similar to when Frank Fielding was sent off at the start of the 10-man game. For me, a foul on the keeper who made no motion towards the striker and couldn't get out of the way.

Penalty to me. 

[PistoldPete]

Messi tugging at the inside of his thigh. Now that could get messy. 

[Bris Vegas]

5 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Watching the Argentina Croatia semifinal. As soon as the penalty was given I said that's not a foul. The keeper plants his feet, and draws the foul basketball style as the forward jumps into him. To my surprise Gary Neville and Roy Keane were in 100% agreement with me at HT. But the studio referee expert couldn't see it and said it's a penalty. The ref pundit kept saying "the goalkeeper's forward motion towards the striker" but manifestly there was none. Referees are idiots.

The incident was remarkably similar to when Frank Fielding was sent off at the start of the 10-man game. For me, a foul on the keeper who made no motion towards the striker and couldn't get out of the way.

You see fouls all the time for obstruction when the defender or opposition player can’t do anything about it. They are just standing there and the attacker has ran into them.

Similar here.

But I think those are the rules. If the attacker is in possession or control of the ball, the defender or opposite player can’t impede him without touching the ball.

That penalty though was everything Kane tried to do. Unstoppable.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Bris Vegas

[Gritstone Ram]

Just now, JoetheRam said:

Completely agree. The ref seemed to basically say if the keeper doesn't save it, he needs to get out of the way otherwise it's a penalty.

 

I think you can say if the keeper doesn’t get the ball he will commit a foul and give away a penalty just like if any player on the field doesn’t win the challenge and prevents the player running through.

[Gritstone Ram]

2 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

You see fouls all the time for obstruction when the defender or opposition player can’t do anything about it. They are just standing there and the attacker has ran into them.

Similar here.

But I think those are the rules. If the attacker is in possession or control of the ball, the defender or opposite player can’t impede him without touching the ball.

That penalty though was everything Kane tried to do. Unstoppable.

The only difference with the penalties is Missi’s ripped into the net and Kanes killed a pigeon.