A&H

Euros

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn't have minded having a tenner on Southgate's team selection at 10's on
That's 1 to 10 BTW
Substitutions were lame
Can't blame the Scots cos the minnows get nothing to feed off, but this result will keep them going for a decade
After an game-changing ECL Final display, Ref was disappointing. Probably a dozen or so minor mistakes and 'reverted to type'
Too many issues with team selection, weary looking players and perennial tournament disappointment to see England really threatening
Not that I'll lose any sleep over it. 7/1 drifted to 17/2 ... 10/1 would be more accurate
 
The Referee Store
I don't think you can give a penalty for that unless there is a law change to say that you can't jump with your arms raised.
I don't think a law change is necessary. There is already definitions in law for CRUEF. This can easily fall under either of those if judged by the referee to be as such. The onus is on the player to comply with CRUEF requirements. If natural action means breaching CRUEF requirements then those natural actions must be modified for safety.

Kicking a ball is a natural movement and part of the game. However if the head of a (say injured) player is right next to the ball, then the onus is on the player to modify their playing the ball actions so that it complies with CRUEF requirements.
 
They were both guilty of exactly the same thing. Jumping with leverage
Jumping with leverage is not an offence. Being careless (or worse) in a challenge is. In this case one player can claim he was careful for his hand/arm not to make contact with the opponent's face. and there is evidence to prove it. While there is also evidence to prove the other player was not careful.

This is a classic tool/weapon example. There are many FIFA training videos like this.

Even if we consider this a foul for both players, because one has been elevated to a reckless challenge because of level of contact, it would become the more serious offence and the one to punish.

I'm still in two minds if it was a clear and obvious error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
Jumping with leverage is not an offence. Being careless (or worse) in a challenge is. In this case one player can claim he was careful for his hand/arm not to make contact with the opponent's face. and there is evidence to prove it. While there is also evidence to prove the other player was not careful.

This is a classic tool/weapon example. There are many FIFA training videos like this.

Even if we consider this a foul for both players, because one has been elevated to a reckless challenge because of level of contact, it would become the more serious offence and the one to punish.

I'm still in two minds if it was a clear and obvious error.
It's all boils down to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion
If a player does not use arms for leverage, they'll be crap in the air. All players (especially those who are good in the air) do it
I trust in the Laws of Physics more than I do, some 'FIFA training video'
Two drink drivers, one fails the breathalyser, the other is in a fatal accident. One gets their knuckles rapped, the other goes to jail. But all drink drivers are guilty of the same wrong-doing. Those who are good in the air, inflict more nose bleeds. Referees then retrospectively shoehorn the contact into the 'careless & reckless' definition even though the player is only falling foul of Newton's Law. Sometimes a player looks.... and is then involved in a deliberate act... that's different

Anyway, I'm happy to understand things from both from Newton's and the layman's perspective, so I get the argument for a PK. And I get that people judge things based on outcome, rightly or wrongly
VAR has no place interfering however, except that it's done so based on the 'bloody outcome'
 
Quick question based on a claim from 'my' fans forum.

Claimed on there, that there is a dedicated AVAR for offside at this tournament, unlike the PL?

Any truth in that - anyone know for sure if there are more people in the VAR room (In Switzerland apparently) for Euros than Stockley Park for the PL?

Thanks
 
Peter Walton. Yes it was a trip but he went down too easily to give it

Always brings a big cheer in my household when they go over to ”our refereeing expert”, Peter Walton.
Wondering how he is going to justify the latest incorrect decision.
And then wondering how he is going to backtrack once the decision has been overturned by VAR.

All part of the entertainment…
 
Quick question based on a claim from 'my' fans forum.

Claimed on there, that there is a dedicated AVAR for offside at this tournament, unlike the PL?

Any truth in that - anyone know for sure if there are more people in the VAR room (In Switzerland apparently) for Euros than Stockley Park for the PL?

Thanks
Dale Johnson (who tends to know what he's talking about with VAR) has said exactly this and has directly credited this change as the reason offside checks are so much faster.


To be honest, I remember the introduction video for the WC in Russia and they discussed having a dedicated offside AVAR at that point - I was surprised to learn the PL had taken the decision to move away from that.
 
Last edited:
It's all boils down to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion
If a player does not use arms for leverage, they'll be crap in the air. All players (especially those who are good in the air) do it
I trust in the Laws of Physics more than I do, some 'FIFA training video'
Two drink drivers, one fails the breathalyser, the other is in a fatal accident. One gets their knuckles rapped, the other goes to jail. But all drink drivers are guilty of the same wrong-doing. Those who are good in the air, inflict more nose bleeds. Referees then retrospectively shoehorn the contact into the 'careless & reckless' definition even though the player is only falling foul of Newton's Law. Sometimes a player looks.... and is then involved in a deliberate act... that's different

Anyway, I'm happy to understand things from both from Newton's and the layman's perspective, so I get the argument for a PK. And I get that people judge things based on outcome, rightly or wrongly
VAR has no place interfering however, except that it's done so based on the 'bloody outcome'
To borrow @one's analogy - if the ball is on the ground a yard out from goal, it is entirely natural for an attacker to kick it in the goal. However if a defender has fallen over and has his head directly betwen the attacker's foot and the ball, the natural action of kicking the ball in the goal will result in kicking the opponent in the head - which I think we'd all expect to be called as a foul. The same action is or isn't a foul, depending on what's happening around the ball and if the player has taken enough care over that action given that context.

There is nothing wrong with using your arms for leverage. But when you do that, you must be confident an opponent's head isn't in the way. And if it is, you have a simple choice - use your arms and risk giving away a foul, or accept a slightly less impressive jump but with less risk of being considered careless.
 
I don't think a law change is necessary. There is already definitions in law for CRUEF. This can easily fall under either of those if judged by the referee to be as such. The onus is on the player to comply with CRUEF requirements. If natural action means breaching CRUEF requirements then those natural actions must be modified for safety.

Kicking a ball is a natural movement and part of the game. However if the head of a (say injured) player is right next to the ball, then the onus is on the player to modify their playing the ball actions so that it complies with CRUEF requirements.

I disagree. It is impossible to jump properly with your arms by your side. Watch the arms of any sports person in a sport that involves jumping, for example high jump or long jump, and the use of their arms are key, stop them from using them and they can't do their sport. Football is no different, you can't jump without using your arms. Stand in front of a mirror, jump as high as you can and watch what your arms do, they will come up.

I played lots of games at centre half and I copped my fair share of stray arms, just as I accidentally caught attackers. You accept that in those roles there is going to be accidental contact, just as the Czech players accepted it yesterday, no one was calling for a fall (and let's face facts, these days players are very quick to demand fouls). There's been a lot of talk in recent years about what the game expects, and the only people that expected a penalty there are referees. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
 
To borrow @one's analogy - if the ball is on the ground a yard out from goal, it is entirely natural for an attacker to kick it in the goal. However if a defender has fallen over and has his head directly betwen the attacker's foot and the ball, the natural action of kicking the ball in the goal will result in kicking the opponent in the head - which I think we'd all expect to be called as a foul. The same action is or isn't a foul, depending on what's happening around the ball and if the player has taken enough care over that action given that context.

There is nothing wrong with using your arms for leverage. But when you do that, you must be confident an opponent's head isn't in the way. And if it is, you have a simple choice - use your arms and risk giving away a foul, or accept a slightly less impressive jump but with less risk of being considered careless.
I said that I accept the arguments for the foul. Pay attention!
 
Don't think he did, nothing showing on BBC Sport page. Nailed on yellow especially considering it looked like the goalscorer sent something flying off the desk. 🤔
 
I don't think it was mandatory, he didn't go into the crowd. Was the celebration excessive? Yes, it probably was but I've got no problem with the emotion of the occasion being taken into account.
 
German goal there ruled out.

Only seen on phone so not a great view of it.


Im guessing it was given offside but did the German attacker get a touch on the ball ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top