The Official World Cup 2018 Thread

Started by Ball Hopper, November 16, 2017, 05:14:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

screenexile

Quote from: BennyCake on July 02, 2019, 10:41:48 PM
Never a penalty. The US player was running, no intent or contact whatsoever

Definite penalty what were you watching??

Tony Baloney

Youse still talking about the pen the doll missed?

Hound

Was the disallowed goal before or after the pen?
Was it allowed by the ref initially?
Any doubt about it or clearcut ?

Jell 0 Biafra

It was before the penalty.

About an 1/8 of an inch offside, going by the freeze frame.  Initially allowed by the ref, and then oVARturned.

Tony Baloney

VAR needs to be written off as a failed experiment. Yes to goal line tech, no to VAR.

Sportacus

Neville is an awful spoofer.  Called Lucy Bronze the best player in the world before the game.  Talk about no craft.  All about himself spoofing to the media.

Main Street

Quote from: screenexile on July 02, 2019, 10:42:41 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on July 02, 2019, 10:41:48 PM
Never a penalty. The US player was running, no intent or contact whatsoever

Definite penalty what were you watching??
It's no penalty if the forward clips the defender and that's what it looked like to me, rather than vice versa.
I suspect White was adjusting to make contact with the ball.
But hey I have no complaints, the penalty was saved and order restored.

BennyCake

Quote from: screenexile on July 02, 2019, 10:42:41 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on July 02, 2019, 10:41:48 PM
Never a penalty. The US player was running, no intent or contact whatsoever

Definite penalty what were you watching??

Love Island

moysider

Quote from: Tony Baloney on July 02, 2019, 11:01:38 PM
VAR needs to be written off as a failed experiment. Yes to goal line tech, no to VAR.

Not on tonight's outcomes.
Var got both right.
England disallowed goal was offside - not by much but it was still clear.
Stonewall penalty as well.
Two good decisions by VAR.

Neville might need to be reviewed. A decent bloke and would forgive him the bit about going down to 10 men. Having a dig at the ref though was just silly. Reckoned she lost control of the game!
The ref was brilliant.


Capt Pat

The penalty decision was correct. The defender might not have meant it but there was contact so it is a definite penalty. The penalty itself was one of the worst  I have seen in such a crucial situation.

imtommygunn

Quote from: moysider on July 03, 2019, 12:21:13 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on July 02, 2019, 11:01:38 PM
VAR needs to be written off as a failed experiment. Yes to goal line tech, no to VAR.

Not on tonight's outcomes.
Var got both right.
England disallowed goal was offside - not by much but it was still clear.
Stonewall penalty as well.
Two good decisions by VAR.

Neville might need to be reviewed. A decent bloke and would forgive him the bit about going down to 10 men. Having a dig at the ref though was just silly. Reckoned she lost control of the game!
The ref was brilliant.

His team kept giving the ball away when under no pressure at all. That was their main issue so he should look at that first.

England teams always do this kind of thing. I think it's the pressure of the media. Doesn't seem to happen to very many other countries. The sloppiness of a lot of their passing was very poor.

Main Street

#1811
Quote from: Capt Pat on July 03, 2019, 12:29:48 AM
The penalty decision was correct. The defender might not have meant it but there was contact so it is a definite penalty. The penalty itself was one of the worst  I have seen in such a crucial situation.
So if an attacking player runs into a defender or an outstretched foot and falls over, it's a penalty?

Intent is not the question in this situation, it does not come into the equation, it's a question of who tripped who.

gallsman

Quote from: Tony Baloney on July 02, 2019, 11:01:38 PM
VAR needs to be written off as a failed experiment. Yes to goal line tech, no to VAR.

The problem isn't VAR, it's the rule. She was offside. VAR allowed the ref to make the correct decision.

The real question is whether that should be the correct decision.

gallsman

Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2019, 01:03:05 AM
Quote from: Capt Pat on July 03, 2019, 12:29:48 AM
The penalty decision was correct. The defender might not have meant it but there was contact so it is a definite penalty. The penalty itself was one of the worst  I have seen in such a crucial situation.
So if an attacking player runs into a defender or an outstretched foot and falls over, it's a penalty?

Intent is not the question in this situation, it does not come into the equation, it's a question of who tripped who.

But that's not what happened, is it? White was in front of the American defender.

magpie seanie

I think the penalty was an incorrect decision. White pulling her leg back to shoot was what caused the contact. Surely a defender doesn't have to get out of the way to let her shoot? If we're saying she has to then where are we going. This "there was contact" rubbish - if that's the criteria there are literally hundreds of penalties each game. This incident was the same as when an attacker moves their leg to initiate contact when looking for a penalty.

USA were the better team but I feel they ran themselves into the ground and were hanging on somewhat towards the end. Someone called Alex Morgan a diver above - she's a magnificent striker. Everythnig about her play was fantastic. She did exaggerate a few times granted but this competition has shown a marked absence of the scandalous carry on that's the norm in the mens game.

Also disagreed totally with Phil Neville on the ref. Thought she was excellent throughout bar the penalty decision (though I accept she may have done what refs are told to do - I'd disagree with the instruction). Phil has done a good job. Their best WC ever and within a hares breath of at least taking a superior side to extra time. He got a lot of unwarranted shit when he took the job, glad for him he has proved people wrong.