Germany vs Paraguay
- Thread starter WillH
- Start date
Off you pop, mate.Assuming you’re referring to the challenge in the 115th minute, it’s only reckless for me. Yes, the player lunges in from the side, however he makes contact with the top of his boot to the side of the boot of the opponent. The opponent’s safety is not endangered and the force used is arguably high but not excessive.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Anyone else ruling the ET goal out by Tah?
Personally I am. Does enough that although the keeper stands back up and makes an attempt to save it, his reaction and time to compose following being fouled is heavily reduced and chances of saving it are increased if not fouled.
Personally I am. Does enough that although the keeper stands back up and makes an attempt to save it, his reaction and time to compose following being fouled is heavily reduced and chances of saving it are increased if not fouled.
one
RefChat Addict
We talked about using the outcome of a tackle to justify a decision in another thread. This Musiala tackle is another one but it works for him in the reverse way. Everything about it smelt red but it missed that final element, the force in and the point of contact.
And the Tah goal should have stood for me. Not enough in there to call a foul in the first place let alone getting VAR involved. I am really confused by the degree of tolerance used by VAR in the world cup.
And the Tah goal should have stood for me. Not enough in there to call a foul in the first place let alone getting VAR involved. I am really confused by the degree of tolerance used by VAR in the world cup.
The contact is actually very minimal and only with the trailing leg.
Player had completely lost his head granted, but the outcome was only a reckless tackle.
Had he made contact with his leading leg it might have been a different story.
Regarding the disallowed goal, I’d be more comfortable if it was disallowed on field and not by VAR review, but the players only intention is to block the keeper, play silly games and all that…
Player had completely lost his head granted, but the outcome was only a reckless tackle.
Had he made contact with his leading leg it might have been a different story.
Regarding the disallowed goal, I’d be more comfortable if it was disallowed on field and not by VAR review, but the players only intention is to block the keeper, play silly games and all that…
Very well described and agree with both. Shearer and Keane can say it was a soft foul as much as they want & it was, but it was also a deliberate action by the attacker to prevent the goalkeeper from being able to move to attempt to gain possession of the ball. As has also been pointed out, if this offence has been penalised against Arsenal last season 60% of their goals would have been ruled out. Hopefully, the PGMOL will be tougher this season in order to stamp this out.
Archer
🟨 C1 (BE)
For a fortnight, sure.
I'd completely echo that @one. I've enjoyed VARs largely "light touch" approach in the WC, with the bar for intervention where we all thought it would be when first introduced (allow the referee to referee the game and make minor mistakes, only intervene for howlers), but then now and again they intervene when you don't think they would.
I'm personally fine with the intervention here as whilst the keeper goes down easily he's still impeded.
As for Musiala, he's a very, very lucky boy. In parks football you'd better RC him or all hell will break loose, but with the lack of force and fortunate point of contact afforded by replays reckless was correct imho.
Also cannot believe the Qatar player has been suspended for five games!