Football has lost the plot

The missed Argie penalty wasn’t a pen for me. Watch the striker’s right foot ‘slide’ across the defender putting his foot in the way making contact inevitable. Totally played for
 
The Mexico penalty was so so soft but there was contact so can see why it was given.

However I watched Switzerland Colombia last night! And a Switzerland player was chopped down with way more force than the Kane contact on the Mexico player, then in the extra time I thought Colombia should have had a penalty ! Both way more blatant than the Kane challenge.

Neither one went to VAR
 
Robbieboro said:
The Mexico penalty was so so soft but there was contact so can see why it was given.

However I watched Switzerland Colombia last night! And a Switzerland player was chopped down with way more force than the Kane contact on the Mexico player, then in the extra time I thought Colombia should have had a penalty ! Both way more blatant than the Kane challenge.

Neither one went to VAR
Click to expand...
but contact isn't enough for something to count as a penalty. There has to be some context to it.
 
Ravshoutsatbeck said:
It is interesting because if you watch it frame by frame the Mexican initially makes contact with his studs on kanes shin.

You could argue it was reckless and the Mexican should be sent off by this still image - which is obviously stupid
...

Stuff like that makes a mockery.

View attachment 109196
Click to expand...
If you put the ball on the deck and the Mexican puts his foot across Kane while he's trying to play it and doesn't touch the ball, it's a free kick to England isn't it?
 
Robbieboro said:
The Mexico penalty was so so soft but there was contact so can see why it was given.

However I watched Switzerland Colombia last night! And a Switzerland player was chopped down with way more force than the Kane contact on the Mexico player, then in the extra time I thought Colombia should have had a penalty ! Both way more blatant than the Kane challenge.

Neither one went to VAR
Click to expand...
There was an interesting comment by Christina Unkel (whatever you think about her, she will be more up to date with IFAB guidance than us.)

She said if it is knee to knee contact that won't be a penalty, but if it is foot to foot it would be..

I suspect this is the guidance about normal incidental contact vs tripping.
 
For whatever reason I have really noticed in the WC so many fouls being given for players stepping on another’s foot or toe. It’s always going to happen, it’s purely accidental and must be a foul in existing domestic football. But it has been a near constant in this WC and I’ve no idea why that scenario specially has been so noticeable.
 
festa5 said:
One of the issues I think is that replays, particularly slowed down, which seems to be primarily what they go off, only give you part of the story, but they seem to be treated as the definitive version of events.

You can't judge speed or force from them. I think you get refs in real time see the incident, think it's not significant enough for a foul but then get sent to a monitor where a slowed down version looks worse.

I do have some sympathy with them. It's a brave man, knowing the world is watching, who says "trust me, I know the replay looks bad but there was nothing in it".
Click to expand...
To be fair, for the last year (I think) it’s been specifically the case that the VARs are prohibited from taking account of slow motion replays to judge questions of excessive force. But of course, they are allowed to use slow motion replays for other things so when we see such a replay being used:
(a) it looks like they are taking account of it;
(b) it’s probably impossible in practice as humans not to have taken some account of it;
(c) the lack of openness about the processes they are going through to make the decision compared with, say, rugby allows us all to speculate that they have taken account of it.

It’s just one of the many, many ways in which football does video review uniquely badly.
 
Nero said:
The Egypt disallowed goal was correct sadly. A massive shame as it was a great goal too. Salah wasn’t fouled in the box either.

I also think England’s red was correct. It was unlucky as no intent but it was still a nasty one. No issues with the Mexico penalty either. I can see why they gave it. In fact, the circumstances were very similar to the one England received in the European Championship Semi Final.
Click to expand...
So according to the explanation of the VAR interventions, you are plain wrong there. Salah was fouled, but as the foul 'didn't cross the threshold for a penalty' at this edition of the WC, play was not brought back. All else being equal, if the Egyptian had stood on the Argies foot in the box and Salah had been fouled outside the box the decisions could have been reversed! As others have said in the thread, it's the lack of transparency which is the big issue. If you're gonna use VAR, everyone need to know what is going on at each stage otherwise it just looks meh.
And as for Quansah's red card (and Baloguns) there have been a number of challenges that looked as bad when slowed down or still shotted in a number of games, but nothing given and not VAR'd. It just looks terrible.
 
Nothing much a matter with VAR, it stops the corruption we have been blighted with to a big degree. I do think the FL Referees are the poorest Ive ever seen for at least the last 5 seasons, I've not seen a competent one. The level of incompetence and overweight old men lacking fitness (surprise surprise) is astounding.
 
Scrote said:
That's exactly what VAR was intended to do. Which is why it should be burned to the ground and then the ground it was on should be burned.

If something happens in the build up to a goal (or prior to an awarded penalty) VAR reviews it and applies the VAR-based threshold.

It doesn't matter what happens in similar incidents where a goal isn't scored because VAR doesn't have permission to intervene (unless it's to draw attention to a potential red card).

The whole concept of VAR is flawed (in my opinion).
Click to expand...
No, you clean up the implementation of VAR.

Every other sport uses technology without any issues at all.
 
England got a penalty off gail platt in the croatia game exactly like the one kane gave away, works both ways unfortunately.
 
HolgateCorner said:
No, you clean up the implementation of VAR.

Every other sport uses technology without any issues at all.
Click to expand...
They've had the best part of a decade - with a whole host of technological improvements - and it still doesn't work.

It can't be cleaned up because it's flawed from first principles. It needs ripping out.

The parts that work can then be reintroduced and those that don't can either be dropped completely or re- designed.

Tinkering didn't change what is fundamentally wrong.

theboydom said:
So according to the explanation of the VAR interventions, you are plain wrong there. Salah was fouled, but as the foul 'didn't cross the threshold for a penalty' at this edition of the WC, play was not brought back. All else being equal, if the Egyptian had stood on the Argies foot in the box and Salah had been fouled outside the box the decisions could have been reversed! As others have said in the thread, it's the lack of transparency which is the big issue. If you're gonna use VAR, everyone need to know what is going on at each stage otherwise it just looks meh.
And as for Quansah's red card (and Baloguns) there have been a number of challenges that looked as bad when slowed down or still shotted in a number of games, but nothing given and not VAR'd. It just looks terrible.
Click to expand...
Salah wasn't fouled.

Have you got an official source that says he was?

One of the big problems in all this (as mentioned on the match thread) is that commentators, pundits and journalists all give their opinions as fact.

As far as I've seen, no "official" statement has been made to say the reason for there being no VAR referral on the Salah incident was due to the threshold for a penalty being higher than a foul elsewhere. That came from the commentary/punditry of the match.
 
Part of the problem is that commentators are sometimes listening to what the VAR team and referee are saying and passing it on to the audience, then other times they're giving their own opinion on what's happening and people understandably assume it's based on something.

With Ally McCoist repeatedly banging on about the Egypt goal being disallowed because he was "grabbing his jersey", I'd forgive a lot viewers for thinking that's why the goal was disallowed, rather than the Argentinian player's foot being stepped on and causing him to lose control of the ball.

They never corrected it at any point during the game either, you had to wait till the end of the match for the studio to point out that it wasn't disallowed for a shirt pull.
 
Last edited:
Nero said:
The Egypt disallowed goal was correct sadly. A massive shame as it was a great goal too. Salah wasn’t fouled in the box either.
Click to expand...
Yes but how far do you go back. If you had went back begore said foul you would have seen another etc etc. to go down the full length of the pitch to disallow something that had not been picked up on by officials is ludicrous.
 
I think everyone is culpable for this really: fans; managers; pundits...

It's technology that's responsible: television and slow motion replays. Before that, the referee was always right, there was no way of checking and no way of proving him wrong. And then there was.

Now "clear and obvious" is ok in theory, but there's a grey area. A decision may be given; it may not be clearly and obviously wrong, but deeper analysis is going to prove that it was wrong. The 15th camera on super slow motion maybe. If it is wrong on that viewing, fans, managers and pundits will cry blue murder.

So, what do we want: do we accept that mistakes will happen and get on with the game, or do we hyper analyse every decision and find that mistakes are everywhere? "Clear and obvious" could be the worst of both worlds.
 
The foul on Martinez was definitely a foul. There is a difference between contact and having your foot stood on. I play football regularly and you feel the two types of incident completely differently. If someone touches your foot as you are stepping forwards you might land slightly differently but it doesn't really impact anything unless your are running at speed. If they stand on your foot and you try to take a step it completely throws your balance off and you fall over. It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. It's just physics.

The foul on Salah didn't happen. There was a (successful) tackle so neither player had control of the ball. Both players put their foot in the same place and there was side-by-side contact of the feet but not enough to cause him to go down because that sort of contact doesn't do that. Salah dived.

The penalty Kane gave away was unlucky as he attempted to play the ball. The Mexican got there first so it was a late tackle. It was the correct call. It seems harsh because it was unintentional and it was a split second away from getting there first but any time a player gets to the ball first and the other player kicks (or like the Gordon penalty, the keeper makes contact with their hand) then it's going to be a foul.

The Kane shout in the DR Congo match was different because Kane dived and dragged his feet to initiate contact.

The only really baffling decision I remember is the Konsa tackle against Ghana. No idea how that wasn't a penalty.
 
As soon as professional footballers could influence the rules off the pitch, through the influence of tv commentary / punditry, the game was in a cycle where it would become harder for ref's, we'd see more frequent rule changes, and passing the buck would become the norm. It's not the only thing that has led us here but it is a fairly chunky link in the chain.

Brian Clough was entirely correct.

I believe more pundits should be supporters who are good value for broadcasting and can also show an insight from the other side of the game, the side the vast majority in football are familiar with. Pro's now won't have attended games in the same way as fans. They'll have been in youth teams and academies playing saturdays from a young age so it's expected. They also treat it like a job, which it simply isn't for the vast majority.

Again, more needs to be addressed to stop this tailspin on standards, greed, commercialisation and the removal of actual passion for the game. Not making the most bank, screwing supporters, buying fouls, calling in favours, sending spies...etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top