Norway Vs England
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
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.
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.
Wilson80
New Member
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??
Wilson80
New Member
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!
That has to be a bare faced lie
Wilson80
New Member
I reckon tech error more likely—but
I've just read through the rest of this thread. I hadn't realized the footage might have been fakeI reckon tech error more likely—but
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
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
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
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.
bester
RefChat Addict
If you look at the tail on the graphic you can see a wobble right as the perturbation happens.
This could be a big gust of wind but a notion that kind of impact force wouldn't show on the ball trace is for the birds..
Could be a graphics problem on the BBCs end as well
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
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!
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!
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
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think we’ll agree more after a few more jars!
one
RefChat Addict
My thoughts on the Spence penalty. I'd like to think I'm impartial on this. Protecting/Shielding the ball is one way of looking at it, the other way is tripping an opponent. Most descriptions given here can also be used for id Spence attempted to trip the Norway player. I really can't give a good description of how I would differentiate between the two but in this cas had the Norway player had fallen over instead of Spence, it would have been a clear trip.
one of the bigger considerations is the position of the two players in relation to each other and the ball. In this case they are more or less side by side and equal distance to the ball.
Another point I would make is that had the Norway player brought his leg across the same way as Spence did, most on this forum would have still wanted a penalty.
Obviously the other consideration is who had posession of the ball immeduately prior and I guess that is why the ref gave a penalty.
one of the bigger considerations is the position of the two players in relation to each other and the ball. In this case they are more or less side by side and equal distance to the ball.
Another point I would make is that had the Norway player brought his leg across the same way as Spence did, most on this forum would have still wanted a penalty.
Obviously the other consideration is who had posession of the ball immeduately prior and I guess that is why the ref gave a penalty.
Archer
🟨 C1 (BE)
This is fantastic.
one
RefChat Addict
That still (and I must admit mine too) are not accurate. The telling still is immediately prior to when spence put his leg across. IMO the Norway player had as much chance (if not better) as getting the next touch as spence did.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think it is simple. Spence has the ball. Defender gets too close and clatters him. Yes, Spence moves his body and legs. If this isn’t a foul I certainly need new training and new references.