The Ref Stop

Norway Vs England

Is the ball sensor tech designed to pick contact with 'things'? Not sure. But it definitely looked like something changed the trajectory of the ball. Maybe a sudden gust of wind? Can the video evidence trump the sensor tech? There is precedent for video evidence overriding GLT on multiple occasions.

Other than that the Kane no foul call went Norway way and I think it was correct by referee and VAR. The disallowed goal for the push by Haaland went England way and I think it was the coorect outcome by wrong process. It was a 'foul' but not enough for VAR to get involved.
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
Is the ball sensor tech designed to pick contact with 'things'? Not sure. But it definitely looked like something changed the trajectory of the ball. Maybe a sudden gust of wind? Can the video evidence trump the sensor tech? There is precedent for video evidence overriding GLT on multiple occasions.

Other than that the Kane no foul call went Norway way and I think it was correct by referee and VAR. The disallowed goal for the push by Haaland went England way and I think it was the coorect outcome by wrong process. It was a 'foul' but not enough for VAR to get involved.
Click to expand...

This wording of it's a foul but it's not enough of a foul for VAR to get involved is something I can't get on board with because clearly FIFA has a lower threshold for VAR intervention, it is basically if the referee misses a foul and for me it was a clear foul then the VAR rightly gets involved as that is their instruction.

I think even in the PL that gets given as they want to tighten up on the holding and pushing stuff in the box for the upcoming season but I so can see them going with the "referees call" of backing the penalty just because there is contact.

We have to accept there is no "referees call" in this world cup, if its a wrong decision, it will get recommended to be overturned.
 
Paul_10 said:
This wording of it's a foul but it's not enough of a foul for VAR to get involved is something I can't get on board with because clearly FIFA has a lower threshold for VAR intervention, it is basically if the referee misses a foul and for me it was a clear foul then the VAR rightly gets involved as that is their instruction.

I think even in the PL that gets given as they want to tighten up on the holding and pushing stuff in the box for the upcoming season but I so can see them going with the "referees call" of backing the penalty just because there is contact.

We have to accept there is no "referees call" in this world cup, if its a wrong decision, it will get recommended to be overturned.
Click to expand...
Fair point on my 'wording'. To be clear, for me it was not a clear and obvious error by the referee to 'ignore' that push. Happy to agree to disagree on our views on C&O.

And I actually believe FIFA has announced they want a higher threshold on VAR intervention for physical offences.
 
I just saw, in our sports news, a square on camera angle for the debated goal kick and it doesnt show anything supporting contact with a wire. The trajectory is a little weird but, somthing you would get from a lot of back spin or head wind.
 
I think VAR cancelled itself out with the cancelled penalty and soft push. Both arguably not warranting of VAR intervention as not clear and obvious mistakes. I actually think both outcomes were correct in the end, but the VAR intervention, not so much.

Really sorry if this offends, but I simply can not see the wiregate impact on the ball - perhaps it is my England tinted glasses, but I’ve looked at all official replays, videos and slow motion replays and can not clearly see it.

I think what is definitely true is that Norway were great this competition and played some cracking football!

Playing football in that humidity last night clearly affected the quality of football - these things really need to be considered when choosing venues for hosting the competition in the future.
 
one said:
I just saw, in our sports news, a square on camera angle for the debated goal kick and it doesnt show anything supporting contact with a wire. The trajectory is a little weird but, somthing you would get from a lot of back spin or head wind.
Click to expand...
Although there appears to be some debate about whether Norway’s Technical Area identified what appeared to have happened, I didn’t see any reaction from onfield players from either team - who would be expected to be quick off the mark - especially from Norway in this instance.
 
Kane was fouled in the run-up to Norway's goal - yes the player got the ball but kicked through the back of Kane's legs in the follow through. Should have been disallowed.

Haaland's push for Norway's second goal was blatant, did affect England's ability to defend the corner, and the rule change to allow it to be reviewed did its job. However I'd further change the rule such that if you foul someone before the corner is taken, you forfeit the corner and it gets switched to a goal kick instead.

The ball hitting the wire - happens all the time at junior matches locally where lazy 3G pitch operators can't be bothered to take down the curtain wire. If it did hit the wire then yes it should have been a drop ball and the camera operator should have been lynched - because this shouldn't be happening at this level. However, the video footage doesn't look conclusive, it could have been a gust of wind affecting the flight of the ball at that height, and snicko says there was no touch so play-on was the right decision.

England's disallowed penalty - we teach kids from a young age to deliberately use their body and legs to shield the ball. The attacker, having got in front of the defender, is perfectly entitled to move his leg across to stop the defender from getting the ball. The defender isn't entitled to go through the attacker to get it back. Penalty should have stood.

In short, Norway need to stop complaining because I see two decisions that have incorrectly gone in their favour, one correct decision in England's favour, and one inconclusive decision in England's favour.
 
Paul_10 said:
For me anytime a player UNNATURALLY put there leg across like that and there is contact by the defender who has not attempted to challenge for the ball then it's definately not a penalty. The attacker clearly instigates that contact.

Well done VAR because I hate this type of cheating and would hate if England was on the wrong side of such a decision.
Click to expand...
Hi Paul, in what sense is that an 'unnatural' movement? Players move across in that manner to try and get in front of an opponent the whole time. I'm struggling to see how that is not a legitimate attempt to shield the ball and so keep possession by Spence?

Think about a defensive scenario: Defenders in control of the ball are given a huge amount of licence to move their body across to block a player when they're shepherding the ball out of play; if an attacker then contacts them from behind, it's almost always a free kick.

Yes we can maybe reasonably say 'I thought it was a somewhat soft foul and so didn't meet high pen threshold' but how can this be construed as a "clear and obvious" error by the ref??
 
dadofref said:
Kane was fouled in the run-up to Norway's goal - yes the player got the ball but kicked through the back of Kane's legs in the follow through. Should have been disallowed.

Haaland's push for Norway's second goal was blatant, did affect England's ability to defend the corner, and the rule change to allow it to be reviewed did its job. However I'd further change the rule such that if you foul someone before the corner is taken, you forfeit the corner and it gets switched to a goal kick instead.

The ball hitting the wire - happens all the time at junior matches locally where lazy 3G pitch operators can't be bothered to take down the curtain wire. If it did hit the wire then yes it should have been a drop ball and the camera operator should have been lynched - because this shouldn't be happening at this level. However, the video footage doesn't look conclusive, it could have been a gust of wind affecting the flight of the ball at that height, and snicko says there was no touch so play-on was the right decision.

England's disallowed penalty - we teach kids from a young age to deliberately use their body and legs to shield the ball. The attacker, having got in front of the defender, is perfectly entitled to move his leg across to stop the defender from getting the ball. The defender isn't entitled to go through the attacker to get it back. Penalty should have stood.

In short, Norway need to stop complaining because I see two decisions that have incorrectly gone in their favour, one correct decision in England's favour, and one inconclusive decision in England's favour.
Click to expand...
Very well put.

Although I didn't watch back the Kane foul so not clear on that one.

Bizarre to me that people are kinda blaming Spence for protecting the ball!
 
RefereeX said:
Apparently fifa have said the ball monitor (the same one that showed a spike for the goal that was disallowed for offside in the Portugal Croatia game) didn’t show a spike for the ball hitting a wire
Click to expand...
That has to be a bare faced lie
 
Wilson80 said:
I reckon tech error more likely—but 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I've just read through the rest of this thread. I hadn't realized the footage might have been fake
That said, just before going to be, BBC showed the ball hitting the wire during their post match analysis, so I've no idea. Accident waiting to happen though. Like playing on a schools astro pitch. Spider cam, along with Ref cam, none of it brings much to the table for me anyway. Gimmick stuff
 
I thought Mr Turnip was poor. Probably another who was just a bit messed up by Colina instructions as he unwisely let a number of fouls go probably against his better judgement, but then conversely gave a PK that was never a pen. Maybe he was caught by the trap of levelling things up with that decision, but I'd struggle to give him better than 6/10 overall

Even Christina's performances have dropped off tamely, although you can tell that's she's right up on the latest FIFA guidance
This 'guidance' nonsense. It's like playing golf with wildly different Local Rules depending on the competition. Even as experienced and well informed referees, she's coming out with stuff (from the horse's mouth) that we know very little about. It's a very flawed way of officiating a sport, refereeing bodies everywhere, full of self-importance, giving their own interpretation of a cryptic and amateurish book

Listening to our own FA in their pre-season call, banging on a about 'captain's only' garbage, when we're watching refs on the biggest stage being harangued by hordes of players (3 mins or so at PKs) without any action taken. It's farce and impossible for us
 
Last edited:
Two things to account for regarding the England performance
1) It's very common for any side to follow up a stellar performance with something below par
2) The wet bulb temperature at pitch side was touch 31 degrees. Anything above 28 and outdoor strenuous activity is generally indicated as 'dangerous'. Above 32C and even semi nude young fit people start falling ill when sat doing nothing. Beyond 34C, folk are dying as it's uninhabitable. I'm not sure how FIFA can get insurance for these occasions. I thought Gordon looked ill (his flat out sprints probably done him in) and I thought England struggled as Norway were likely better acclimatised

The Argies are no great shakes and I'd say the most likely outcome is a England defeat in the Final
 
Paul_10 said:
I'll be honest I have no idea why the ref even given it, it looked so unnatural and I was amazed when he pointed the to the spot.

I think the game needs to clamp down on this and not just back the referee because there is contact. The only reason why there was contact is because the England player instigates it with an unnatural movement.

Also this arguement of protecting the ball, why would you be protecting the ball when you been running to goal and trying to shoot? Just don't buy that argument.
Click to expand...
Because his next action from protecting the ball would be to pass or shoot. Spences movement getting his body between the ball and opponent was natural.
 
Wiregate can do one.

The foul on Spence is an obvious penalty. If the LotG are rewritten to say “the referee’s job is to avoid giving penalties and cards at all costs, so any tenuous justification will do, even if it means ignoring the actions of the offender” then - by all means - chalk it off.

The forensic rerefereeing is embrassing for the tournament. The only things worse are the tournament breaking their own rules about suspensions and the ludicrous error in misapplying the law about mistaken identity.

FFS I just worked on a big youth tournament this week. If the organizers pulled these kind of stunts and back room referees made these kinds of decisions, the teams would be off and they would not come back next year.

It’s amateur hour and worth billions!
 
santa sangria said:
Wiregate can do one.

The foul on Spence is an obvious penalty. If the LotG are rewritten to say “the referee’s job is to avoid giving penalties and cards at all costs, so any tenuous justification will do, even if it means ignoring the actions of the offender” then - by all means - chalk it off.

The forensic rerefereeing is embrassing for the tournament. The only things worse are the tournament breaking their own rules about suspensions and the ludicrous error in misapplying the law about mistaken identity.

FFS I just worked on a big youth tournament this week. If the organizers pulled these kind of stunts and back room referees made these kinds of decisions, the teams would be off and they would not come back next year.

It’s amateur hour and worth billions!
Click to expand...
I think whats completely ludicrous is that despite us both being experienced and informed tefetees, you think thos is clearlu a pen and i think the opposite. That must be down to very different expectations depending on who coaches us etc... Which is mad.
Not that i abide by all cpaching, but i find it easier to be consistent when i omvaroably tirm doen claoms for fouls involving any degrer of upper nody contacy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top