They need to get rid of that fecking screen as the calls are always overturned once the ref is asked to take a look. What is even the point of making the whole soap opera out of it when the original decision is going to be overturned anyway?
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
So Kane had his studs up as well ?
Then you're sayin Dumfries was stationary and had no forward momentum?
No need for the insult, you don't like my opinion fine, then to tell me I have mental health issues is just a no no.
You're asking how he's endangering his opponent when his studs literally ended up on Kane's laces, after Kane has taken a shot at goal? Who's in danger of an injury there, Kane or Dumfies?
Mate, give it a rest. This is embarrassing.
Wasn’t a pen. England lucky again but tbf they’ve had years of bad luck themselves.
No but i think Holland were dumb not to take a few dives in the box after to even it up
I mean, the point of a studs up challenge is whether you're leading with your studs or not. I think it's pretty evident that both Kane and Dumpfies have legs raised but only one is leading with his studs.
It wasn’t an attempted tackle. And that’s important. The nature of a tackle means two players coming together at speed, so if one extends his leg to make sure that contact is with his studs then they are deliberately endangering their opponent. Which is very different to lifting a leg to block a volley. The whole “studs up” thing is irrelevant here. He isn’t coming over the top of the ball to try and hurt someone.
It's a very thin line no?
And one player dangling a leg a bit late and the proactive player kicking into the studs is almost always a foul?
Bizarre that it was given.
What about bicycle kicks? Should it be a foul if the defender challenges for the ball with his head.
What about bicycle kicks? Should it be a foul if the defender challenges for the ball with his head.
It always is. That's the point, it's all fine if the outcome is fine.
Usually but not always. Intent matters and a good referee can differentiate between a genuine attempt to play the ball and a cynical attempt to hurt someone. A difference that becomes even more relevant when trying to block a shot at goal. Of course, that sort of nuance is out the window now we’ve been inflicted with all of this VAR bollockology.
Always a foul
Really? Worst ever? I'd say Maradonna's hand retains that honor.
No, it doesn't here. It's not being in control of your foot to ensure the opponent doesn't get injured. It's soft and almost always not given pre VAR.
If by worst you mean best thing ever, then yes.
If it had been a decision made on-field I'd say it was soft but you can see why it's been given. But it's not something that VAR should be intervening in, in no way is it a clear and obvious error.
Very surprised when they sent him to the monitor, delighted they chose to on this occasion but I can't deny that the other way round I'd be fuming.
Very surprised when they sent him to the monitor, delighted they chose to on this occasion but I can't deny that the other way round I'd be fuming.
Agreed. Trying to fool everyone by going to the monitor as if there’s any other outcome than overturning the decision. How weak and pathetic they have made look themselves once they are called to the screen is honestly embarrassing.
Last edited:
The only really debatable thing is the hand ball. Saka touches it with his hand. Belgium had their goal disallowed for the exact same thing.
I can live with the penalty decision. Dumfries was late and Kane being the cnut he is put in a very convincing, I broke my foot performance.
Now stop bickering and go play the final and leave me wallow in peace.
I can live with the penalty decision. Dumfries was late and Kane being the cnut he is put in a very convincing, I broke my foot performance.
Now stop bickering and go play the final and leave me wallow in peace.
No, a tackle doesn't need two moving players, you can tackle a stationary player in possession of the ball just fine. His movement and momentum is taking him towards Kane and he has a leg outstretched towards him. If he was only trying to block the shot instead of tackle, he would have moved and stretched his leg parallel to the goal line, towards De Vrij. He then would have actually blocked the shot. But instead he went for the ball and moved towards Kane but got there late. He hoped to get to the ball before Kane struck it. It's just late tackle, leading with the studs, which is endangering the opponent and it's a foul and a yellow.
Aye, it’s bollox. Although I have once seen a referee disagree with the referral. It was in an Ireland match, where the ref had given a free right on the edge of the box. He was called over to the screen because VAR guy thought it might have been inside the box so was a possible penalty. After seeing the footage he decided he’d made a mistake and reversed the original decision, giving a free to the defender. Was a surreal experience to watch. So unprecedented.
I would argue he was very much in control of his foot. Kane, less so. Or at least he could have taken more care with his follow through. If he wasn’t trying to engineer a penalty, that is.
You actually think Kane was trying to create a penalty incident when taking the shot?
1. Slight push outside of the box is basicaly always a foul. Never in penalty box. In fact, refs are instructed by Uefa/Fifa that contact for penalty must have higher intensity.
2. You have many times situations where players shoot and AFTER the shot, defender who dived to block the shot, takes down attacker. It is never given.
3. Attacker and gk on one on one situations. Attacker tries to chip it above gk and then he is taken down by rushing gk. Never given (unless ball stayed in a play).
4. When two players outside penalty area go to head a ball and clash in the air, it is a foul for one who got the ball first. Never, ever given in penalty box.
5. Only on this Euro there were lots of situations like this. All of them ended unnoticed by Var, fans, players......because it is something which is never given.
I understand English fans being subjective here but this decision was a joke and i can't believe how many football fans defend it. And it could make a huge precedent for future. Because; there is always some contact in penalty box.
It was soft, I'm just saying why I think it was given.
That’s crazy! Kane had a shot like normal, absolutely did not look for contact.
No, the handball isn't debatable. The rules are pretty clear, if the ref thinks Saka's hands are in a natural position then its not an offense.
Maybe when a lot of people are defending it, there's a reason other than people not being as smart as you are. Its a penalty for me because its a foul and its in the box.
So far I just disagreeing, but this here is genuinely a pretty insane take.
Kicking the ball means following through, it's just the laws of physics, you can't stop your foot dead mid-air after kicking the ball. Kane kicked the ball towards goal with his laces. Dumfries is leading with his studs and makes no contact with the ball, only the player. But somehow the careless person is the one kicking the ball with his laces, but not the one leading with his studs? Like it wasn't Kane who could have got injured there, but Dumfries? Mental
Well they were off the ground. Is all forward momentum a lunge? Lovely melodrama at the end there.
Not really. I just think Kane is a despicable, cheating wanker and I'm quite enjoying doubling down on his role in all of this. The screaming and play-acting was cringey enough, so I might as well go all in.
He definitely sold the contact well after the fact
During the match I thought the red and VAR did a good job. Looked like a penalty to me. However, missing the clear handball from Saka is major feck up. In this case no penalty due to handball before.
Despite VAR and dozens of slow motions from different angles you get any possible opinion.
From never ever a penalty, over 50:50 to absolute stonewall penalty. Football is just amazing, isn't it. You just love this sport. A few seconds give whole nations enough stuff to debate and argue for days.
Despite VAR and dozens of slow motions from different angles you get any possible opinion.
From never ever a penalty, over 50:50 to absolute stonewall penalty. Football is just amazing, isn't it. You just love this sport. A few seconds give whole nations enough stuff to debate and argue for days.
That's not for attacking handball though. Or they have changed the rules since the Belgium game, but I doubt that.
Dumfries has the side of his boots toward Kane. The only reason he catches the studs is because he swings his boot from the side. His studs are clearly aimed toward the ball, not Kane.I mean, the point of a studs up challenge is whether you're leading with your studs or not. I think it's pretty evident that both Kane and Dumpfies have legs raised but only one is leading with his studs.
Far less controversial decision than that Cucurella hand ball.
As i said; there is a contact. So all good. It has ground for penalty. But then it should be a penalty every time for this kind of situations. Every contact with attacker after he took a shot should be a pen by this standard. I am fine with that but i hope that fans (who defend this pen now) will not start screaming; "football is gone".
Ah come on lads, he's visibly leading with his studs, regardless of what he's aimimg at?
That's one thing I'm sure we can agree on
Watch it in real time. How can he put his foot up to try and block the shot in any other way?
You did hear from the media, both ways. McCoist said yes for example and Neville/Carragher said no. Nobody sensible pays attention to idiots in the red top rags. Not sure why everyone thinks all England fans do.