Am I remembering correctly that I thought there was a back pass last night. Any replays?
Euros
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
- Status
Justylove
RefChat Addict
My take on the key incidents last night.
1) I thought that the theme of showing leniency to players was continued, there were a couple of challenges early on that could easily have been yellow cards.
2) There was a lot going on in a small area leading to the free kick for Denmarks goal. On one hand Shaw can think himself unlucky as there were a handful of offences by both teams in that melee, on the other, he's given the referee a decision to make.
3) Ref did a great job of ensuring the Danish wall was the right distance from the England wall in the set up for the freekick, however before the ball is struck, they definitely shuffled much closer. Arguement could be that it should have been an IFK to England, but that would have caused uproar I'm sure!
4) For our penalty, real time, I was sold on it being a pen, only when I watched the repeated angles did some doubt creep in. On balance it's one of those that if the ref gives it, it's not going to be overturned and vice versa. Defender might consider themselves unlucky, but as with Luke Shaw in point 2, by challenging, he's given the referee a decision to make.
Objectively, I thought the better team won. England had the better chances and looked more dangerous and Denmark didn't really pose much attacking threat. One great save from Pickford from a strike where the player was offside anyway was really the only memory I have of him being tested.
1) I thought that the theme of showing leniency to players was continued, there were a couple of challenges early on that could easily have been yellow cards.
2) There was a lot going on in a small area leading to the free kick for Denmarks goal. On one hand Shaw can think himself unlucky as there were a handful of offences by both teams in that melee, on the other, he's given the referee a decision to make.
3) Ref did a great job of ensuring the Danish wall was the right distance from the England wall in the set up for the freekick, however before the ball is struck, they definitely shuffled much closer. Arguement could be that it should have been an IFK to England, but that would have caused uproar I'm sure!
4) For our penalty, real time, I was sold on it being a pen, only when I watched the repeated angles did some doubt creep in. On balance it's one of those that if the ref gives it, it's not going to be overturned and vice versa. Defender might consider themselves unlucky, but as with Luke Shaw in point 2, by challenging, he's given the referee a decision to make.
Objectively, I thought the better team won. England had the better chances and looked more dangerous and Denmark didn't really pose much attacking threat. One great save from Pickford from a strike where the player was offside anyway was really the only memory I have of him being tested.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
No guarantees a goal wouldn't have been scored either. Why would it leave a bad taste in your mouth (unless you're a Dane)?
The fact remains, there was definite contact and the referee gave it. England have fallen foul of terrible refereeing decisions on numerous occasions at tournaments in the past. Denmark's goal being allowed to stand after a clear "wall" offence by their players was possibly another example.
Swings and roundabouts fella. If the penalty decision ruined an otherwise controlled and gutsy performance from England's players for you on the night then so be it ...
No guarantees a goal wouldn't have been scored either. Why would it leave a bad taste in your mouth (unless you're a Dane)?
The fact remains, there was definite contact and the referee gave it. England have fallen foul of terrible refereeing decisions on numerous occasions at tournaments in the past. Denmark's goal being allowed to stand after a clear "wall" offence by their players was possibly another example.
Swings and roundabouts fella. If the penalty decision ruined an otherwise controlled and gutsy performance from England's players for you on the night then so be it ...
Only because you want simulation out of the game and even with VAR, simulation gets rewarded. And the hypocrisy of it all is if Denmark(or Italy) did that then there be alot of comments of injustice.
Delighted England won and deserved to win but I rather it was not from a very dubious spot kick.
There was a shout for one early on - didn't think it was at the time and haven't seen any replays of it!
1) I know all the players paid their £5 subs before KO but I thought guaranteeing everyone a 20 minute run-out was a Sunday morning thing
2) The pendulum has swung back towards the players refereeing the game. Maka didn't ignore players buying fouls like earlier in the tournament
3) Gimme a gallon of Abbot and rotating dancefloor and I'd still be steadier on me feet than Sterling and Kane
4) If we don't cheat, we won't be competitive, especially in the final. Unless Kuipers does a 'Lahoz'
5) Semis and Finals are tight affairs and often won by adept cheating or a stroke of luck. England bought more raffle tickets in the oppo PA so that dominance gave us a higher chance of getting a 'soft one' (or more accurately, a mistake). So be it
6) It's a shame Refs haven't got the balls to apply the LOTG with respect to 'pass back'
2) The pendulum has swung back towards the players refereeing the game. Maka didn't ignore players buying fouls like earlier in the tournament
3) Gimme a gallon of Abbot and rotating dancefloor and I'd still be steadier on me feet than Sterling and Kane
4) If we don't cheat, we won't be competitive, especially in the final. Unless Kuipers does a 'Lahoz'
5) Semis and Finals are tight affairs and often won by adept cheating or a stroke of luck. England bought more raffle tickets in the oppo PA so that dominance gave us a higher chance of getting a 'soft one' (or more accurately, a mistake). So be it
6) It's a shame Refs haven't got the balls to apply the LOTG with respect to 'pass back'
I dont think we can use the flow of the game as justification for the penalty award.
Looking at both sides of the arguments here...
@Kes had that penalty been the other way, how would you have felt about it? My guess is you'd be pretty unhappy (of course I might be wrong)
From a refereeing perspective it was disappointing to see it awarded, although I can see how the ref gave it. For me it's a C&O and the referee should have been asked to look at it (that's my opinion). It's a VAR failure more than anything.
And from a fan boy point of view its flipping fantastic to finally be on the other side of a bad decision.
Did we deserve to win the game? Yes. Certainly our performance post 60 min mark. Thought Danes were better in the 1st period.
Does it make it less enjoyable that we got through on a bad decision? No as a fan, as a ref yes.
Is it coming home? TBC
Looking at both sides of the arguments here...
@Kes had that penalty been the other way, how would you have felt about it? My guess is you'd be pretty unhappy (of course I might be wrong)
From a refereeing perspective it was disappointing to see it awarded, although I can see how the ref gave it. For me it's a C&O and the referee should have been asked to look at it (that's my opinion). It's a VAR failure more than anything.
And from a fan boy point of view its flipping fantastic to finally be on the other side of a bad decision.
Did we deserve to win the game? Yes. Certainly our performance post 60 min mark. Thought Danes were better in the 1st period.
Does it make it less enjoyable that we got through on a bad decision? No as a fan, as a ref yes.
Is it coming home? TBC
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
What makes you think it was a clear and obvious error?
From the replays I’ve seen it looked like there was a enough there for it to go either way albeit a very soft penalty.
I don’t think I would have been complaining if it hadn’t been awarded.
It was simulation (in my opinion).
There is very little, if any, contact from the first player and sterling is horizontal before the 2nd player is even close.
I'm usually one to back faster players, being reasonably quick myself, but I think the ref, and the VAR, have been had off on this one.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
I disagree.
Penalty or Simulation is not a binary decision.
For me, had Sterling gone down with absolutely zero contact, it's simulation.
In this instance, there was contact on Sterling, the big question is "was that contact enough to warrant a PK?" If the answer to that is no, then it doesn't automatically mean that it's simulation.
I don't see it as being clear and obvious that the referee got this wrong, I see it as one of those many decisions that we've all seen at FA events where you ask 100 referees for their opinion you get almost an even split between the two possible outcomes.
Nobody is claiming justification, just a question of probability
Kes
I'll Decide ...
As a fan, for me, it's already "home".
It's the European Championship Final, it's being played at Wembley and it involves England.
How much contact does there have to be for it to be a penalty ? Penalties are like eggs. There are soft ones and hard ones, but a soft egg is still an egg !
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Correct. Like you said in your earlier post (a bit better than I did) - if you don't buy a ticket, you don't win the "raffle".
I disagree.
Of course, it's not a binary decision. A player may fall to the ground through many many other forces.
Ive taken all that into consideration. Sterling is looking for a penalty. He is actively looking to deceive the referee into believing something has happened, which has not. He is on his way down, contact or not, the fact he appeals is what makes me lean towards deception
It's not binary, but in this specific instance looking at the replays I don't think the contact has caused the fall - Sterling has pretended to be tripped. As you say, depending on who the VAR is one person might say it's not a clear and obvious error due to the contact, another might say that they thought it was simulation and to review it.
one
RefChat Addict
For me justify a foul because there was body contact is no different to justifying no foul because there was ball contact (I got the ball ref).
On the wall, most camera angles were deceiving. Shuffling to on side is not an offence, getting closer than 1m is. The wall line was 1m away from the 18 yard line. Attackers move but stayed on the 18 yard line.
On the wall, most camera angles were deceiving. Shuffling to on side is not an offence, getting closer than 1m is. The wall line was 1m away from the 18 yard line. Attackers move but stayed on the 18 yard line.
one
RefChat Addict
It does if the referee gives a penalty. If you look at the definition of simulation in the book, this is it.
Of course if you say it was a pen, then it's not simulation. But from what I read here some agree it's not a penalty and the rest (almost) say it wasn't a clear and obvious error. So calling this simulation is fairly accurate. Contact = no simulation is a myth.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
In instances like this there can be 4 outcomes
1- no foul end of
2- a foul
3- simulation
4- anticipated contact.
Officiating solo this weekend, we will probably have awarded a penalty, and incurred the expected wrath of the defending team
Being afforded the aid of a voice in our ear and/or the opportunity to view it again, if you still deemed that to be a foul, thats your call
however, had this referee viewed the incident again, I am going to predict that he would not class it as a foul, but instead anticipated contact, and thus a yc and idfk against Sterling, because for all the will in the world, it appeared there would be, and was, an illegal tackle on Sterling.
Difficult call , with differing outcomes at various levels.
1- no foul end of
2- a foul
3- simulation
4- anticipated contact.
Officiating solo this weekend, we will probably have awarded a penalty, and incurred the expected wrath of the defending team
Being afforded the aid of a voice in our ear and/or the opportunity to view it again, if you still deemed that to be a foul, thats your call
however, had this referee viewed the incident again, I am going to predict that he would not class it as a foul, but instead anticipated contact, and thus a yc and idfk against Sterling, because for all the will in the world, it appeared there would be, and was, an illegal tackle on Sterling.
Difficult call , with differing outcomes at various levels.
- Status