The Ref Stop

England v Ghana

The Ref Stop
Think we got on the lucky end of 2 KMIs that could have gone differently.
I do think no foul against Konsa and not dogso for Pickford are probably better outcomes, but if given the other way I doubt VAR would have intervened.
 
Last edited:
Strange game.

That’s an absolute stonewall pen against Konsa imo. He’s off the floor, nowhere near the ball and definitely brings him down. Commentators completely brushed over it, but the post-match covered it.

Also couldn’t believe no added time despite a long substitution happening moments before. Not even going to mention the drinks break farce in the first half…
 
ARF said:
Thought Konsa was very lucky to not give away a penalty there - dived in and took the man out first, before possibly getting a toe on the ball.
Click to expand...
Not sure how this wasn't given as a penalty. Glaring error by VAR not to award a stonewall penalty.

Lucky Lucky England!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
I did think the Konsa challenge was a stonewaller, especially with VAR.

The Pickford one I think both players change directions into each other - but think he was in no mans land!
 
Maybe it's the England bias in me but I don't think the Konsa penalty is stonewall by any means. He doesn't get the ball, but he also doesn't get a lot of the man who seemed to fall over anyway, all very messy and the ball went through regardless. Had it been given, I don't think it's wrong, but I do think the VAR was correct not to get involved.

I would also apply the same comments to the Pickford potential DOGSO. I'm not 100% sure either player commits a foul. The Ghana player definitely doesn't obviously, but add in the defenders very close by and I'm not convinced there's enough evidence to call that a clear DOGSO.

2 calls that could easily have gone against us, and wouldn't have been obviously wrong if they did, but I also don't think either of them were errors for VAR.
 
RefereeX said:
Maybe it's the England bias in me but I don't think the Konsa penalty is stonewall by any means. He doesn't get the ball, but he also doesn't get a lot of the man who seemed to fall over anyway, all very messy and the ball went through regardless. Had it been given, I don't think it's wrong, but I do think the VAR was correct not to get involved.

I would also apply the same comments to the Pickford potential DOGSO. I'm not 100% sure either player commits a foul. The Ghana player definitely doesn't obviously, but add in the defenders very close by and I'm not convinced there's enough evidence to call that a clear DOGSO.

2 calls that could easily have gone against us, and wouldn't have been obviously wrong if they did, but I also don't think either of them were errors for VAR.
Click to expand...
I agree with you - not stonewall in my eyes. With specific regards to the Konsa incident, the question I would pose is - from his position, was he entitled to challenge for the ball in the way that he did - slightly behind the attacker but from the side? If yes, then it could perhaps be argued that it was more of a coming together with the leg/knee of the attacker coming into contact with Konsa’s. Perhaps more of a case of a penalty than not, but not imo a clear & obvious error for VAR.
 
Last edited:
For me this was more of a foul than the one on Mbappe vs Senegal. The latter was referred by VAR and I don't see how this one wasn't. It could possibly be that in their regular group review meetings they were told the threashhold for VAR should have been higher and the Mbappe one should not have been reffered, hence this was not referred based on that.
 
Having watched it again, I actually do think it's probably a pen and should have resulted in a VAR intervention. It's the fact Konsa's flailing leg lands on top of the knee of the Ghana attacker that causes him to stumble I think.
 
It's a pen and on opposition to most I thought the ref got the Pickford one right.

Mrs Ls summary was "not as good as the other one, the other night"
 
JamesL said:
It's a pen and on opposition to most I thought the ref got the Pickford one right.

Mrs Ls summary was "not as good as the other one, the other night"
Click to expand...

I also was good with the non-pk on Pickford, with the attacker coming in high with studs exposed.

The second one was an amazing gift to England. I would expect that called live, though the R appears to have been to far behind the p,ay to make the call. I think VAR clearly should have sent this down. It is is example 345,675 as to why VAR never had a chance of ending controversy. I do think the high foul bar we’ve seen in many games, plus the C&O standard plus the PK clarity expectation can make it really hard on the VAR to draw lines. But I find it very surprising how quickly the check was cleared on this, especially as they had to also check the OS decision (though the OS was so obvious that would hardly take any time at all).
 
socal lurker said:
I also was good with the non-pk on Pickford, with the attacker coming in high with studs exposed.

The second one was an amazing gift to England. I would expect that called live, though the R appears to have been to far behind the p,ay to make the call. I think VAR clearly should have sent this down. It is is example 345,675 as to why VAR never had a chance of ending controversy. I do think the high foul bar we’ve seen in many games, plus the C&O standard plus the PK clarity expectation can make it really hard on the VAR to draw lines. But I find it very surprising how quickly the check was cleared on this, especially as they had to also check the OS decision (though the OS was so obvious that would hardly take any time at all).
Click to expand...
They probably also had to check the APP as there was a potential foul (it wasn't) on Eze when Ghana won the ball at the very start of the attack so additional layer of complexity. I guess they have to clean the penalty first and then look at APP but it was cleared very fast.
I cant help but feel the lack of any appeal from the Ghanaian player helped with decision making.
 
The question we could ask ourselves is - if the Konsa incident came up in a clip for a Laws of the Game Test, with options being - penalty kick - no card, penalty kick - red card, penalty kick - yellow card , or to allow play to continue, I suspect the answer the FA would provide is penalty kick - no card (or perhaps penalty kick - yellow card/reckless), but penalty no further action required would be fine with me. From the replies to date on here, virtually everyone is content with (at least) a penalty.
 
Just watched the Konsa incident again in slow mo from behind the goal/pitch.

I still think it should have been a penalty against Konsa.
However, the slow mo he jumps in front of Adu (think it was him) and he knees/kicks Konsa which brings him down.
Dont get me wrong, its stretching. As I said I think it should have been given without VAR and wouldn't have been reviewed.
But I wonder if VAR sees it as described above and didn't get involved because of.
 
Hard to make much of this England game. Easy trap to fall into... not winning when seemingly not required to do so
The refereeing team was amateurish. Safe (swerving decisions) refereeing
I never envisaged this fella rocking up as a FIFA ref. I thought he was better in Home Alone personally

1782404267528.png

We're now in a phase of farcical games for which the results will be determined as much by 'tactical manoeuvring' as the ability difference between the combatants (who may not be very combatant). Guesswork from a betting perspective. A draw between Australia and Paraguay is hovering marginally above evens! There could be some proper farce to facilitate FIFA's commercial aspirations

England showed 'German efficiency' in the first game, but this Ghana game resembled Sir Loser Southgate's tenure. No idea which performance we're most likely to repeat. I'm not that bothered either way for some reason. Shows how out of love I am with Infantino's world of professional football. I was out jogging for much of the Ghana first half
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top