Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community

thomam

Members
  • Posts

    1,978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Profile Information

  • Location
    Edinburgh
  • Gender
    Male
  • Springsteen fan since?
    1980

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    @thomam

Recent Profile Visitors

2,777 profile views

thomam's Achievements

  1. I think Maguire deserved his place on the basis of the hardest camera-destroying penalty I've ever seen
  2. I'm broadly very happy with the way we play. Possession, move the ball about, probe and reset if nothing's on. We DO need to make more use of our attacking talents, but primarily the issue is that when the chips are really down, we need to be responsive to the developing game, not stick rigidly to Plan A. Against some teams, you accept they'll have good spells but expect to be able to wrestle some control back. Against the very top ones, you have to accept that you may need to try something different to re-establish control - or even parity. That's the gap at the moment.
  3. My main complaint re Southgate ass that it was Croatia Semi Final repeated. Early goal and relatively comfortable but did nothing when the opposition got on top. Change was needed and he didn't make it until it was 1-1. Wasn't sure about the subs for penalties. Coming in cold for that must be incredibly hard, but that doesn't account for Rashford's abberation.
  4. Laws were changed a while ago. Play is only stopped if the second ball interferes with play or a player.
  5. Outside interference under Law 5. As play was stopped at the time, no action taken - but if he believed it had I terfered with the goalkeeper once the kick was taken, it would be a drop ball
  6. Sigh. Because two players impeded Sterling involving contact. If you don't see that from the video, we're never going to agree, so let's just agree to differ.
  7. Don't necessarily agree. You're then into the question of whether it would have been a "clear and obvious error" or a matter of judgement. What would PROBABLY have happened is VAR inviting the ref to review the decision himself to see if the pictures aligned with whatever his thought process was in not awarding. Effectively saying "not clear cut, you might want to have another look at this". At which point I think a majority would decide it was a penalty - because that angle gave a much clearer view of the actual contacts involved. The law merely states that impeding an opponent involving contact is a direct free kick. There is no "magnitude" involved. Your only question would be whether Sterling was, in fact, impeded.
  8. I spent 15 years refereeing up to the level of semi-Professional football. I'm able to separate my support from England from my understanding of the laws of the game and how they're interpreted. There isn't a VAR on the planet who, looking at the clips, would overturn that decision. Knee to knee contact from first defender, body to body contact from Jansen. They impeded an opponent and involved contact. The sanction is a direct free kick. Law 12.
  9. No. One was blatant and not given. The other was 60 / 40 and given.
  10. There's also a longer clip on Lineker's Twitter feed. It's a penalty.
  11. You obviously haven't watched England play much over the last 40 years, then
  12. FTAOD, this is a penalty uxl6PqFqWxCkwp9j.mp4
  13. Finished 21 shots and 10 on target. Schmeichel had an absolute lifetime game. Best bit of the whole game was the nerve-calming 53 pass, 3-minute exercise in game management at the end. That, more than anything else, is what good teams do. As for the pen, see why he gave it (more for Jansen than the initial "nibble"), see why VAR didn't overturn it (no clear obvious error), see why Denmark (and their Caledonian branch) would be unhappy with it.
×
×
  • Create New...