Euro 2024 thread
Comments
-
What about Kane's raised foot going for the ball. Isn't that a 50/50?
0 -
Ball had long gone though...
0 -
They don't play in slow motion.
0 -
The second half could have fooled me😂
2 -
The photo literally shows the player going in with his studs up.
0 -
Look, I'm right you're all wrong. You've got till tomorrow to get up to speed.
Hasta la vista
0 -
Spain are a different challenge, but the really encouraging part is how little threat a dangerous Dutch side posed after their goal. A couple of set pieces and the one excellent move down the left with Gakpo and Weghorst was pretty much it.
1 -
Ultimately, in the VAR era, play is going to be reviewed in slow motion...
I'm not quite sure what the defender should have done in the situation though.
0 -
Not gone in studs up.
2 -
Seems Holland have a bit of a rep for this sort of thing.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Dutch can’t complain that they deserved to win but it is the softest penalty I’ve ever seen.
He didn’t “go in studs up”. He didn’t “go in” at all.
-1 -
Free tickets are available on my bandwagon for the final for any recent converts to the blind optimism cause!
0 -
Meh, to an extent the position of his leg and foot looks like the "natural" position you'd take, having been caught out in a slightly dodgy position where you can't immediately cut off the pass, but are still close enough to throw a leg out to block.
I do think it's on the softer end, but you are right. I also think Bellingham's yellow was a fair bit later and was only going to end one way when he left his feet.
0 -
Recent decisions are simply confirming my opinion that FIFA/UEFA want a contactless game.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I’m sure you’ll find everyone revises history and were among those who were behind Southgate all along should they win. Most are already moving that way. Very few tournaments in any sport are won by the team that comes out all guns blazing in the first match.
0 -
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]2 -
I may be imagining this but I thought Sepp Blatter expressed such sentiments during his tenure.
As someone who spent my weekends as a centre half I'd have been furious to be penalised for that challenge.
0 -
Having read a few threads on Twitter this am, I'm not sure this is the case. There appears to be a sizeable faction of so-called England fans who are outraged at this getting to the final malarkey. Which I guess makes sense, as it leaves them much less to complain about. Thankfully there was an apparently controversial penalty (*) awarded to England to complain about, as there wasn't much to complain about re result and style of play.
(*) Back in the day, I remember outrage from England fans about dodgy penalty decisions being when they weren't awarded to England, not when England were awarded a penalty. It's a funny old game, Saint.
0 -
lol some people are in too deep with the southgate hate.
Imagine being an England fan and being annoyed they've got to consecutive Euro finals.
0 -
The only problem is that lovely move where they played out from the back under pressure is Spain.
0 -
This scenario was specifically in the referee guidance notes I am hearing. When they do this for a specific tournament, it always results in odd decisions while the refs get used to it. It therefore always tarnishes major tournaments when people see decisions that no one understands.
There is an argument that "contact" is fine if it is not likely to cause an injury, and that any challenge studs forward is likely to cause an injury. Last night, could have been a metatarsal, or an ankle ligament, for example.
You could also argue that the Dutch defender was adopting a position to block a shot, with no consideration that there was part of another player there.
I am not sure I agree, but on the flip side it's in the interests of player longevity and post-career health, so it isn't quite as outrageous a VAR decision as it might seem.
0 -
It's in the laws that endangering an opponent includes actions that would prevent a player playing the ball for fear of getting injured. Ok he did play the ball - but he was injured .
Even when I was playing 30 years ago I would expect that to be given - I suppose it's one of those that divides even expert opinion as even the studio ref seemed to think it wasn't while the var thought it was.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
On this specific example it is my opinion (other opinions are available) the the attempted block placed the defender's boot in front of Kane. It was Kane's follow through that hit the defender's boot.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
As I have said a few times on this thread, there is a strong contingent of so called England fans who dislike Southgate personally, it has nothing to do with football. It generally tends to be the kind that don't like thoughtful, intelligent, well spoken men in charge of the England team (they generally tend to be the ones who get water cannoned by local police when they turn up at major international tournaments). I know this is not every fan, but I suspect it is a good deal of them.
The others tend to be the overly emotional, entitled fan who can't view anything related to the England team objectively and can't wait to criticise any decision made. These are the types who have pontificated throughout that we are terrible, Southgate needs to be immediately sacked, and we wouldn't make the quarter finals. These are the ones who are now livid that we are in the final, as it highlights to them that they know nothing at all about football.
0 -
I should add there there are still a fair few of us, many on this thread, who are just happy to have a decent bloke and good Manager in charge and that we are in the final. We can all see England were terrible to begin but have gradually improved and now we ultimately have another chance at winning a major tournament. Can't really ask for more than that.
0 -
One can understand (though not excuse) the "watercannon fodder" as they are collectively very stupid and simply know no better, but the "broadcaster" Danny Baker, supposedly a big "football man", is really agitated about England being awarded the penalty. He's likely happier giving out referees' contact details on radio programmes when he disagrees with key decisions, or helping to ruin Gazza'a career by taking him out of the razz with Chris Evans in the run up to the 1998 World Cup.
0 -
So the question then is should Kane have been able to take that shot and, if so, should it be possible to do so without injuring himself. The "follow through" was possibly a tenth of a second, something like that, whereas you could argue the defender set himself up earlier.
It is harsh, but if the rules are clear the defenders will just block with their bodies.
More of an issue is if to do so they get facial injuries when they call, because their arms are behind their backs... but running around like they've been amputated to keep them in a natural position is another stupid rule.
0 -
I would suggest many of those who support him are fans who don't like to analyse the game and feel threatened by others that do. Blind flag waving "back the gaffer" types who just want to get behind the team and see any questioning as disloyal.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
If it is a contact sport then events will happen as a natural part of the game. You can consider that as just unfortunate or move to a contactless sport. We know where this is heading. Which is something else to be banned. Soon the game will be played like 5 a side.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
