Guest firetotheworks Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Like you realise he didn't 'trip the opponent' don't you? He tackled him? It's a massive part of the game. EDIT: Obviously taking the piss like but that rule you've dragged up really doesn't support what you're saying in any way. Your argument for the penalty is that the 'trip' happened in a different stage of play to the contact with the ball. He didnt win the ball. The rule says a careless trip results in a foul. If you can't get all of the ball in the same sliding movement and actually win possession, it's careless and running the risk of tripping. That's what happened He did win the ball, he knocked it into Greizmann who didn't have control of the ball and then he 'tripped him' ie touched him with nowhere near enough contact to cause him to be impeded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Replied in the other thread Might as well keep it all in here now He got his achillies. You see on one replay the force was enough to lift the defenders leg up. Definitely enough imo, but obviously the argument about what actually is enough is and probably always will be a never ending one Which is exactly why VAR is a waste of time in these contentious situations and referees should be doing their job instead of making decisions in super slow motion where they become completely different incidents. It's supposed to just be for clear and obvious errors. Not giving or giving a penalty there wouldn't have been a clear and obvious error, so bringing VAR into just ruins it as a spectacle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varadi Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Fwiw Clattenburg reckons the use of VAR and the decision were spot on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Like you realise he didn't 'trip the opponent' don't you? He tackled him? It's a massive part of the game. EDIT: Obviously taking the piss like but that rule you've dragged up really doesn't support what you're saying in any way. Your argument for the penalty is that the 'trip' happened in a different stage of play to the contact with the ball. He didnt win the ball. The rule says a careless trip results in a foul. If you can't get all of the ball in the same sliding movement and actually win possession, it's careless and running the risk of tripping. That's what happened He did win the ball, he knocked it into Greizmann who didn't have control of the ball and then he 'tripped him' ie touched him with nowhere near enough contact to cause him to be impeded. such as small touch on the ball as to make it move like 2cm off its original course isnt "winning the ball" (imo) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Like you realise he didn't 'trip the opponent' don't you? He tackled him? It's a massive part of the game. EDIT: Obviously taking the piss like but that rule you've dragged up really doesn't support what you're saying in any way. Your argument for the penalty is that the 'trip' happened in a different stage of play to the contact with the ball. He didnt win the ball. The rule says a careless trip results in a foul. If you can't get all of the ball in the same sliding movement and actually win possession, it's careless and running the risk of tripping. That's what happened He did win the ball, he knocked it into Greizmann who didn't have control of the ball and then he 'tripped him' ie touched him with nowhere near enough contact to cause him to be impeded. such as small touch on the ball as to make it move like 2cm off its original course isnt "winning the ball" (imo) It caused Greizmann to no longer be in control of the ball and he did that by knocking the ball off him. For me that makes it fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Like you realise he didn't 'trip the opponent' don't you? He tackled him? It's a massive part of the game. EDIT: Obviously taking the piss like but that rule you've dragged up really doesn't support what you're saying in any way. Your argument for the penalty is that the 'trip' happened in a different stage of play to the contact with the ball. He didnt win the ball. The rule says a careless trip results in a foul. If you can't get all of the ball in the same sliding movement and actually win possession, it's careless and running the risk of tripping. That's what happened He did win the ball, he knocked it into Greizmann who didn't have control of the ball and then he 'tripped him' ie touched him with nowhere near enough contact to cause him to be impeded. such as small touch on the ball as to make it move like 2cm off its original course isnt "winning the ball" (imo) Like I've honestly never seen this argued before. The only time I can imagine it being the case is if the tackle was at a slow pace (like Dummett's against Mahrez) when it could be argued that any small deviation is irrelevant but even then I imagine most people would just assume that contact with the ball is enough for it to be classed as a tackle. The tackle today was at pace, you cannot just say 2cm off it's course is nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Like you realise he didn't 'trip the opponent' don't you? He tackled him? It's a massive part of the game. EDIT: Obviously taking the piss like but that rule you've dragged up really doesn't support what you're saying in any way. Your argument for the penalty is that the 'trip' happened in a different stage of play to the contact with the ball. He didnt win the ball. The rule says a careless trip results in a foul. If you can't get all of the ball in the same sliding movement and actually win possession, it's careless and running the risk of tripping. That's what happened He did win the ball, he knocked it into Greizmann who didn't have control of the ball and then he 'tripped him' ie touched him with nowhere near enough contact to cause him to be impeded. such as small touch on the ball as to make it move like 2cm off its original course isnt "winning the ball" (imo) Like I've honestly never seen this argued before. The only time I can imagine it being the case is if the tackle was at a slow pace (like Dummett's against Mahrez) when it could be argued that any small deviation is irrelevant but even then I imagine most people would just assume that contact with the ball is enough for it to be classed as a tackle. The tackle today was at pace, you cannot just say 2cm off it's course is nothing. 2cm is more than enough to affect Griezman's first touch, which causes the ball to get away from him. Not a pen, but I wouldn't have had a problem if the ref had given it. The fact that VAR looked at it from every angle, and gave it is the pisser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Like you realise he didn't 'trip the opponent' don't you? He tackled him? It's a massive part of the game. EDIT: Obviously taking the piss like but that rule you've dragged up really doesn't support what you're saying in any way. Your argument for the penalty is that the 'trip' happened in a different stage of play to the contact with the ball. He didnt win the ball. The rule says a careless trip results in a foul. If you can't get all of the ball in the same sliding movement and actually win possession, it's careless and running the risk of tripping. That's what happened He did win the ball, he knocked it into Greizmann who didn't have control of the ball and then he 'tripped him' ie touched him with nowhere near enough contact to cause him to be impeded. such as small touch on the ball as to make it move like 2cm off its original course isnt "winning the ball" (imo) Like I've honestly never seen this argued before. The only time I can imagine it being the case is if the tackle was at a slow pace (like Dummett's against Mahrez) when it could be argued that any small deviation is irrelevant but even then I imagine most people would just assume that contact with the ball is enough for it to be classed as a tackle. The tackle today was at pace, you cannot just say 2cm off it's course is nothing. So take this (0:39) Had his studs skimmed the ball and gave it a slight bobble (they might have tbf, there's only one replay and you can't see clearly), you say it's not a penalty, as it doesnt matter that he brought him down, cause he touched the ball first? I've seen instances like this a few times before, surprised you havent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I cannot watch the vid as the UK is blocked. I don't know the actual rules but I would assume that if the referee saw that there was definite contact he would wave it away in the Premiership atleast, the same with most people watching the game along with the commentators. Contact with the ball is generally assumed as being a tackle atleast from what I've always seen - I never knew that there was anyone who disagreed but apparently there's loads (not saying it's wrong, just never seen it before) I don't even think that matters too much today though as the contact was actually pretty relevant due to the pace they were going imo. EDIT: I'm talking clear contact here, not 'did his studs shave the dust off the ball' type of contact which is impossible to verify. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 agree to disagree man, let's enjoy the Argentina game and get back to it when a VAR decision cause controversy in like 15 mins time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 hear hear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I like the difference between our (Norway) studio and the British one. Over here they’re all «This is the saviour of the sport. Best thing since sliced bread! So good!» and in Britian it seems to be pure hatred Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 So how does this work? That Argentina shout was a stonewaller but it never even got looked at? The refs watching the tele couldn't have missed it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 They’ll have looked at it, but decided it was nothing and not instructed the on-field ref to overturn his decision/look at it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 GNev and Clattenburg reckon Argentina's oenalty that was given shouldn't have been given Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 The shoulder charge? Even the Iceland players didn't seem surprised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 The shoulder charge? Even the Iceland players didn't seem surprised. On replays it's not a pen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Fwiw Clattenburg reckons the use of VAR and the decision were spot on So did the Australian pundits after the game - Mark Schwarzer was weirdly enthusiastic about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Hopefully another day of: VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 I'm glad VAR isn't being used invasively, but it means the decision to implement it is even more pointless. Blatant handball by Serbia but it's allowed to play on (probably would have been pulled back if they'd scored), they win a freekick straight after though. So then what, they score from that freekick and the handball that wasn't punished allowing them to win the freekick is somehow irrelevant? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Again I would rather we didn’t have VAR and I don’t think there is a need for it, not domestically anyway, but so far it’s been used the way it was designed for, to double check certain decisions and give the ref a 3rd eye and each decision has been correct. The refs have been good thus far IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooonDoom Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 The ref in the Germany Mexico game is quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 The ref in the Germany Mexico game is quality. He was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 What's the point of VAR if the refs have the right to refuse to use it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 An unintended consequence of VAR could very well be a higher standard of football. If you know you’re less likely to get away with a foul in the box, presumably you’re more likely to refine your technique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now