World Cup 2018

[Tom]

Yes more drama I love it hook it into my veins 

Technology is flawless there 

[Audax]

That penalty was also close to the top of the box, I was watching that too.

Well, how about this... exciting.

 

[Stuart]

Just now, Hasta said:

He slides in and gets a slight nick on the ball. Therefore it's not a penalty. 

Dont forget that VAR is only to be used to overturn the on pitch decision if it's a "clear and obvious error".

Refs had a bit of a 'mare there.

This is where I think the game has changed. It’s no longer enough to say ‘he got the ball [as well]’ like it was even 10 years ago. Footballers and the authorities have gone soft. By current standards that’s a penalty. What we need though is consistency.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

40 minutes ago, Audax said:

Ronaldo left in the 25th minute, not 10 minutes.

https://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2016/07/10/europe/european-championships/portugal/france/2024891/?ICID=PL_MS_01

Leading goal scorer in that Euro scored 3 goals, Ronaldo 2, so he's up there.

https://uk.soccerway.com/international/europe/european-championships/2016-france/group-stage/r31060/

A defender vs. an attacker. I'm sure Ronaldo was instrumental in the whole Euro appearance of Portugal. I see no reason for him not to go up; especially, if there is a chance he was intentionally targeted. Ronaldo does work for charity. He and Messi both seem to have run into tax problems.

 

 

 

Going off memory he got injured very early on and he moped around for a while before going off.. I don't think he contributed anything to Portugal winning that game.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Husky]

Just now, Stuart said:

This is where I think the game has changed. It’s no longer enough to say ‘he got the ball [as well]’ like it was even 10 years ago. Footballers and the authorities have gone soft. By current standards that’s a penalty. What we need though is consistency.

Yes. Definitely a 'basketball foul'.

[Audax]

I'm glad they have replay or France's 2nd goal might not have counted... like Lampard's goal was not in South Africa 2010. That was a travesty, everyone saw it but the ref.

[Pedro]

Just now, Audax said:

I'm glad they have replay or France's 2nd goal might not have counted... like Lampard's goal was not in South Africa 2010. That was a travesty, everyone saw it but the ref.

The Lampard one was ridiculous. It was almost a metre over the line.

[Hasta]

Just now, Stuart said:

This is where I think the game has changed. It’s no longer enough to say ‘he got the ball [as well]’ like it was even 10 years ago. Footballers and the authorities have gone soft. By current standards that’s a penalty. What we need though is consistency.

By current standards but not by the rules. Regardless it's the fact that VAR has overturned the on field decision that's controversial. So much for 'clear and obvious'.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Hasta

[Tom]

I don’t think the ref initially gave the handball either.

The way it’s been handled for all 3 goals varies from perfect to debatable but for me all 3 goals were the right outcome which may not have happened a year or two back. 

[Hasta]

Just now, Audax said:

I'm glad they have replay or France's 2nd goal might not have counted... like Lampard's goal was not in South Africa 2010. That was a travesty, everyone saw it but the ref.

Goal line technology is different than VAR and is undeniably a success. 

How did France celebrate? They stood around waiting whilst the referee checked for a potential offside 20 seconds earlier.

[Stuart]

14 minutes ago, Hasta said:

By current standards but not by the rules. Regardless it's the fact that VAR has overturned the on field decision that's controversial. So much for 'clear and obvious'.

Having seen it again, I’m not even convinced the defender got the ball. Clumsy and late. Definite pen mate.

[ChrisPriceBaldSpot]

I would take either of the Aussie centre halves next season at Ewood. 

[Hasta]

Just now, Stuart said:

Having seen it again, I’m not even convinced the defender got the ball. Clumsy and late. Definite pen mate.

He absolutely gets the ball. That's undeniable off one of the angles. And the point is whether it is clear and obvious to overturn the original decision. The debate around it says not.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Hasta

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I was talking with a mate about all the World Class forwards we'd seen over the years. One who rarely gets a mention these days is Teofilo Cubillas of Peru. Look up his two goals v Jockland in the 1978 World Cup, stunning strikes.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, Hasta said:

He absolutely gets the ball. That's undeniable off one of the angles. And the point is whether it is clear and obvious to overturn the original decision. The debate around it says not.

You could get away with tackles like that in the past, today you can't.

[Husky]

21 minutes ago, Hasta said:

By current standards but not by the rules. Regardless it's the fact that VAR has overturned the on field decision that's controversial. So much for 'clear and obvious'.

That's the thing. Clear and Obvious.

I wonder what views Platini was shown. It seemed like it was a rushed decision backed up by previous complaints about VAR taking too long. It was never a penalty and Griezmann should have been booked for simulation - in fact I thought that's what they were actually going to VAR for.

[Hasta]

Tyrone - I give up. I'm just repeating myself.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Hasta

[Stuart]

Just now, Hasta said:

He absolutely gets the ball. That's undeniable off one of the angles. And the point is whether it is clear and obvious to overturn the original decision. The debate around it says not.

I must have missed the ‘undeniable’ angle. All the angles I saw went from ‘no contact’ to ‘not clear’.

The good thing about VAR is that it gives us the best of both worlds:

1) Enough opinions on it to generate debate

2) The right outcome - on the evidence so far

It has also been managed much better and more quickly than recent trials.

So much better than the debate that we used to have around obviously incorrect decisions. That Pogba goal could well have gone the way of Lampard’s a few years ago now and France could have only got a draw and potential early elimination.

[arbitro]

38 minutes ago, Stuart said:

This is where I think the game has changed. It’s no longer enough to say ‘he got the ball [as well]’ like it was even 10 years ago. Footballers and the authorities have gone soft. By current standards that’s a penalty. What we need though is consistency.

But surely the contact comes as a consequence of sliding to get a touch on the ball before his opponent. A touch on the ball is winning it and any contact is a by product of this. And I don't believe that the incident was 'clear and obvious', borne out by the fact we and millions of other are disagreeing.

One thing I think we all agree on is that the art of tackling is soon to be extinct.

[Hasta]

15 minutes ago, Stuart said:

I must have missed the ‘undeniable’ angle. All the angles I saw went from ‘no contact’ to ‘not clear’.

The good thing about VAR is that it gives us the best of both worlds:

1) Enough opinions on it to generate debate

2) The right outcome - on the evidence so far

It has also been managed much better and more quickly than recent trials.

So much better than the debate that we used to have around obviously incorrect decisions. That Pogba goal could well have gone the way of Lampard’s a few years ago now and France could have only got a draw and potential early elimination.

There's an angle from the far corner flag where you can see the pattern of the ball change direction as he nicks it. It is subtle but definitely is there. 

VAR was brought in to ensure we got the big decisions right and eliminate controversy. Itsbeing used to look at margin calls and the same controversy arises. 

In my opinion,, plus that of a few members of the BBC team and many others it was not a penalty. Even more people agree that, with it being such a close call, VAR shouldn't overturn.  

Also, there were 5 minutes injury time. 6 substitutions gives 3 minutes. The ref played on for 35 seconds before then reviewing the incident, giving the penalty, booking the defender and so on. That whole incident probably took well over  2 minutes. Add in the other two VAR reviews, plus normal time added on and that game should have gone on for about 5 more minutes.

Last night, Costa jumped and led with his arm for the first goal for Spain. That was reviewed and not changed despite the fact the majority of people would say it was a foul.  

Goal line technology has been an outstanding success. VAR needs a lot of work to avoid becoming the waste of time (literally) it currently is.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Hasta

[Stuart]

Just now, arbitro said:

But surely the contact comes as a consequence of sliding to get a touch on the ball before his opponent. A touch on the ball is winning it and any contact is a by product of this. And I don't believe that the incident was 'clear and obvious', borne out by the fact we and millions of other are disagreeing.

One thing I think we all agree on is that the art of tackling is soon to be extinct.

On the first showing it looked a penalty. The fact that we are now debating potentially one angle on super slo-mo showing a slight nick before what everyone agrees was the player [also] being brought down by the follow through, surely puts it into the “advantage to attacker” bracket.

By the way, it’s the second contact that I’m talking about which ultimately brought him down.

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, Stuart said:

On the first showing it looked a penalty. The fact that we are now debating potentially one angle on super slo-mo showing a slight nick before what everyone agrees was the player [also] being brought down by the follow through, surely puts it into the “advantage to attacker” bracket.

By the way, it’s the second contact that I’m talking about which ultimately brought him down.

But what is the defender supposed to do on the second contact? In my opinion that contact is virtually unavoidable and a consequence of sliding in to get a touch on the ball. I also think several angles showed the ball deviate slightly as the defender gets a slight touch.

Either way I think most would say it wasn't a clear and obvious error by the referee in real time.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

15 minutes ago, Hasta said:

There's an angle from the far corner flag where you can see the pattern of the ball change direction as he nicks it. It is subtle but definitely is there. 

VAR was brought in to ensure we got the big decisions right and eliminate controversy. Itsbeing used to look at margin calls and the same controversy arises. 

In my opinion,, plus that of a few members of the BBC team and many others it was not a penalty. Even more people agree that, with it being such a close call, VAR shouldn't overturn.  

Also, there were 5 minutes injury time. 6 substitutions gives 3 minutes. The ref played on for 35 seconds before then reviewing the incident, giving the penalty, booking the defender and so on. That whole incident probably took well over  2 minutes. Add in the other two VAR reviews, plus normal time added on and that game should have gone on for about 5 more minutes.

Last night, Costa jumped and led with his arm for the first goal for Spain. That was reviewed and not changed despite the fact the majority of people would say it was a foul.  

Goal line technology has been an outstanding success. VAR needs a lot of work to avoid becoming the waste of time (literally) it currently is.

I thought the Costa incident was a foul. He jumped into his opponent leading with his elbow.

[Stuart]

6 minutes ago, Hasta said:

There's an angle from the far corner flag where you can see the pattern of the ball change direction as he nicks it. It is subtle but definitely is there. 

VAR was brought in to ensure we got the big decisions right and eliminate controversy. Itsbeing used to look at margin calls and the same controversy arises. 

In my opinion,, plus that of a few members of the BBC team and many others it was not a penalty. Even more people agree that, with it being such a close call, VAR shouldn't overturn.  

Also, there were 5 minutes injury time. 6 substitutions gives 3 minutes. The ref played on for 35 seconds before then reviewing the incident, giving the penalty, booking the defender and so on. That whole incident probably took well over  2 minutes. Add in the other two VAR reviews, plus normal time added on and that game should have gone on for about 5 more minutes.

Last  ignited, Costa jumped and led with his arm for the first goal for Spain. That was reviewed and not changed despite the fact the majority of people would say it was a foul.  

Goal line technology has been an outstanding success. VAR needs a lot of work to avoid becoming the waste of time (literally) it currently is.

We are never going to agree, but even by your own admission there is apparently a subtle touch from one angle which in your opinion justifies the defender going through the back of a player and bringing him down when the shot was still on - despite said nick. As Gary Neville said though, the defender has gone to ground and loses control. He’s giving the referee a decision to make.

If there was no VAR and the penalty was given I don’t think there would have been many complaints- for all of the reasons given.

It seems the controversy is more about the use of VAR at all rather than actual incidents.

For me, the use and speed of it is improving. If it continues to get most decisions correct then it’ll be here to stay. The problem is that there is very little objectivity’s in football so you will always get strong opinions from people with an affiliation or preference towards or against a particular team. You could put replays on a big screen and you would never get 100% consensus. There will be some Argentinians who still swear blind that Maradona didn’t handle the ball, didn’t do it deliberately or didn’t deserve any sanctions.

[ChrisPriceBaldSpot]

I sense a 1-1 draw in this game. Messi and Sigurdsson