Day 17: England vs Germany | Sweden vs Ukraine (Ro16 7&8)

that's a damn big lad ....well that goal looks familiar coming from that side with Lindelof
 
Jev said:
Yep, this is a major, major issue with VAR and I'm amazed the people in charge can't see it. Still images and slow-motion distorts things hugely and gives an indication of intent that may not have been there.

I maintain that VAR should only be looking at situations in real time. If you can't call it in real time on repeated viewings, it's not an obvious error and the on-pitch call stands. We'd be rid of those silly offsides instantly too.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. Slow motion should be banned from VAR. frankly it should be banned from football replays completely.
 
fecking hell, they need to make the VAR check decisions clearer.
 
Gio said:
Yes he didn't mean it, yes he won the ball first, and yes he was unlucky to connect with another player. But it's all irrelevant. You have a duty of care in every action on the pitch. This is a textbook definition of a reckless challenge. He wasn't able to win the ball without a dangerous follow through that has wiped out the player. It's too forceful with a player closing in - as he cannot clear it without a heavy dangerous follow through. A clean version of the challenge would be a clearance where the follow through isn't hurtling through another player's anterior cruciate ligament. And if he cannot do that, he shouldn't have lunged in the first place, and should have stayed on his feet.
Click to expand...
He has no idea at the time of making the challenge whether he's able to do it safely or not (and you will answer that he should refrain from making it in that case but you simply can't take away basic instincts of a defender). What you're basically saying is an attacker should also refrain from shooting on goal when there's a defender nearby because the follow through with his leg could accidently end up on someone's leg or whatever. There's always someone nearby hence every challenge, tackle or action could be classified as dangerous. As a result you're gonna give out red cards based on the outcome, which I simply don't agree with because a lot of the times it's gonna be totally accidental.
 
Gio said:
Yes he didn't mean it, yes he won the ball first, and yes he was unlucky to connect with another player. But it's all irrelevant. You have a duty of care in every action on the pitch. This is a textbook definition of a reckless challenge. He wasn't able to win the ball without a dangerous follow through that has wiped out the player. It's too forceful with a player closing in - as he cannot clear it without a heavy dangerous follow through. A clean version of the challenge would be a clearance where the follow through isn't hurtling through another player's anterior cruciate ligament. And if he cannot do that, he shouldn't have lunged in the first place, and should have stayed on his feet.
Click to expand...

And we accept that players will occasionally get this calculation wrong through not fault of their own, but they still have to be shown a red card.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
You think you’d get send off for that at a normal level of football? Sorry but you just wouldn’t. Football isn’t better by pretending it’s not a physical sport.
Click to expand...
No I don’t, because they wouldn’t show the ref a freeze frame of the contact before anything else. Not sure why you’re asking me that
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
then overhead kicks are gone, scissor kicks are gone, volleyed clearances gone etc.

Guess that’s the way the game is heading.
Click to expand...

If you try an overhead kick too close to an opponents head you get penalised. That has been the case for a long time already.
 
I dunno what was more surprising, the goal or the bra
 
why the actual fck is lindelof not back marking the one player in the box....just don't understand the logic with that type of marking iwth the two CB's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.