If that was a penalty last night

I'd tend to agree with this. If a genuine attempt to tackle is made, regardless of timing, where the defender is simply trying to 'get a foot in the way' the foot will leave the ground and the studs will be up. Might be a penalty technically but if it was the rules are pants.

 

I think it's borderline. I'm surprised that VAR got involved; I don't think either giving it or not giving meets the clear and obvious threshold.

 

Spot on

 

90% of the time when a ref is asked to look on the screen by var they will give the decision. Not complaining but it was very soft imo.

 

I can fully understand why - if they're sent to the screen it means that someone with the benefit of multiple replays and slowmo has decided that they've made a clear error. If they reverse the decision and it's later deemed that the original decision should have stood then most of the blame gets piled on VAR and not the ref. But if they stick with their original decision and the consensus is that was the wrong outcome then they will get absolutely crucified for doubling down when VAR had indicated that they were wrong.

It's not how it should be of course, but if I was the ref and I was sent to the screen I'd always have in the back of my mind that following VAR is the lower risk option. Going with VAR would be a lot less likely to negatively affect both my career prospects and personal life in terms of the amount of abuse I would receive.

 

That's why var is ******.

Sky (and BBC, itv etc) all have random folk who can bring up a gazillion replays of incidents within a matter of seconds. For me it should be them who are operating VAR and all that should happen is the ref asks the tech guy to pull up all angles of an incident, runs over to the screen (fit 2 extra one at each end of the pitch if needed) and watches himself and makes a decision with a maximum number of views of said incident allowed before he has to decide. No extra ref involved just a video guy and the original ref

 

I can see how that would put the onus back on the on-field ref to back himself to make the correct decision - which can only be a good thing. However, what if the ref has completely missed something? Does Pete the video guy tell him that he needs to send Jude Bellingham off because he's given Rodri a sneaky kick behind his back? Could open up a very serious can of worms.

 

Nope that's part 2 of my change. Make it like tennis or other sports. Captain of the team gets 3 opportunities per game to ask the ref to look at things. Ref only looks if asked by the captain.

 

Would seem like a sensible approach, with the exception of binary decisions like offside, ball over the line etc.

 

Yes but both of those are kind of automated now anyway I think, over the line definitely is and offside is apparently semi automatic but could be much simplified by stating an exact position on the players bodyand using a sensor. Eg a sensor in the club badge, sensor in each boot or a sensor worn around the waist or something

 

100%.

 

Not me, I would have said yes it was penalty if Spain had got it. I really can't see how folk can look at that & say it wasn't a penalty, foot high, studs first & he definitely catches Kane, having said that it's all opinions.

 

No it wasn't reckless at all of course, it was genuine. But the defender didn't get it right, and his boot/studs caught the striker.
And obvious comparisons are there, with that similar incident at Wembley.

 

Exactly both fouls warranted a pen. We got done over at Wembley surprise surprise.

 

Yeah to this day Menai, the more I think about it and watch the highlights, it disgusts me.
The standard of the on the field officials and Var officials that day at Wembley, leaves a right bad taste!.
And yet Var was/is meant to be a positive thing in the game.

 

Really don't get this thread. As a fan of both England and Barnsley over the years we've suffered some appalling decisions. I give you Willard and the poisonous dwarf that was Diego Maradona. Hand of God?? A drug riddled cheat who's end became him.
Five things:
1. You could make case for a penalty...in fact some of the best referees in Europe agreed. He went flailing in with his studs up, what did he expect?
2. Nobody has ever re-played a game because of a ref's decision. It was a penalty cos he said so...we won, that's it.
3. If you are looking for natural justice, we were actually the better side. What exactly do you want to achieve by all your moaning? the result to be chalked off? The result given to Holland? A replay in which they get the dodgy decision and we all go back to moaning about 60 years of hurt??
4. Gary Neville is a Pr!ck and is fast becoming a natural successor to Joey Barton. Okay he doesn't have the base line of random violence and misogyny but he is bitter. Here is an England side that could do something he never did. Wrapped up in Ferguson's club first shtick he was an under-performing England player (they all were) and has realised that. I genuinely think he will be cut inside if we actually win something and he is a pundit who like all pundits has one stock in trade: being controversial.
5. nobody ever won a tournament without that little rub of the green. Time to get behind the lads. Watch that interview with Watkins. he means it and he believes. So should we!!!

 

No' Kane catches him on his follow through' very very soft.

 

and your ultimate point is what??? Shall we hand the trophy back if we win it?? Mate, it's not always the best team that wins. That's life...Oh hang on...we actually were the best team in that match. We may or not win the trophy but these lads have done us proud. Just get behind them. A question for you. Would you feel happier on monday morning whining we'd lost or celebrating if we'd won. Genuinely dont know.

 

It makes no difference, Kane is entitled to take a shot and ultimately that includes a follow through. Dumfries is entitled to block but his block doesn't block the ball and impedes the full motion of the action, by raising his foot to show his studs it presents a risk of injury and becomes a penalty. The rules state it pretty much like that. It's the same if it's an attacking run and whilst in your direct path a leg is outstretched and you run into it, it's impeded your natural motion even though you have essentially ran into it. Call it soft, but it's still an infringement.

 

What, catches his raised foot & studs, of course he's going to follow through with his swing. A very poor challenge I.M.O.