France vs England

[santa sangria]

Get on with it lads!

 

[CaptainsPlease]

No DOGSO in my opinion.

 

[george.g]

English commentators seemed to be implicating bias for the umpteenth time today

 

[socal lurker]

I'll respectfully disagree looking at Mount's pace into the box and distance from the ball and that Lloris stayed back. Don't think it's clear cut either way,which is why I consider it luck he received a YC.

I don’t think it’s even close. I doubt you can find a play close to that given a red in a pro game. no ref in this WC is even thinking about a red on that.

 

[santa sangria]

No DOGSO. No control. No chance to control. Reckless foul yes. Dogso no.

 

[santa sangria]

How long then? Will we get 10 or 11? Really paying for wasting time after the goal.

 

[george.g]

How long then? Will we get 10 or 11? Really paying for wasting time after the goal.

I expected 11

 

[es1]

Blown up at leady 30 seconds early there. The ball was dead for a minute prior to that feee kick too

 

[N416405]

Why as the defender would you "clear out" a player, paying no attention to the ball, giving away an obvious penalty; unless you felt you would stop a goal being scored?

 

[santa sangria]

Why as the defender would you "clear out" a player, paying no attention to the ball, giving away an obvious penalty; unless you felt you would stop a goal being scored?

Have you refereed football? Have you witnessed what footballers do?

 

[Mooseybaby]

About as blatant barge with no intent to play the ball you will ever see. Shaw was lucky to get away with the push in the back on Giroud. Granted England players were feeling aggrieved (rightly or wrongly), but the dissent was ridiculous at times, especially Maguire.

 

[es1]

Arghhhh fookimg gutted

But I thought we were superb tonight. We'll win a pot sooner rather than later

 

[RustyRef]

Not disputing you, but what would they pull you for?

Libel. If you write any accusation publicly you need to have evidence to back that up, if you don't you can risk being served a legal notice of an intended private libel case. People mistakenly think that as they are using a member name rather than their name they are exempt, but that isn't the case and rather the legal company contact the forum mods and demand the actual details of the person(s) making the posts.

Example here https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/19/swfc_net_libel_case/

 

[N416405]

Have you refereed football? Have you witnessed what footballers do?

So we agree he did it to stop him scoring a goal, therefore dogso.

 

[Therealcjhill]

View attachment 6225

But that photo clearly shows it outside the box.. Kane made the mistake of dragging his foot..

 

[socal lurker]

So we agree he did it to stop him scoring a goal, therefore dogso.

You’re really going to die on that hill, huh? Every deliberate SPA foul is aimed at stopping a goal. The odds of the attacker controlling the ball are nowhere near high enough to support DOGSO.

 

[JamesL]

So we agree he did it to stop him scoring a goal, therefore dogso.

I think you really need to look at the considerations for DOGSO and re evaluate this statement.

There was no way mount was in control of the ball and it was extremely questionable that he would have gained control.

Almost every foul in football can be done to "stop him scoring a goal". That's just too simplistic and football does not expect a red card here.

 

[Kes]

But that photo clearly shows it outside the box.. Kane made the mistake of dragging his foot..

I think you'll find it shows the contact of the defenders leg/foot with Kane's calf is inside. The position of Kane's boot is irrelevant...

 

[Mooseybaby]

Is the something in the air tonight? WTAF?!!!

For what it's worth, thought Kane was already going down before any contact was made, but the media won't say anything about that because he's English.

 

[one]

Read a couple of pages of this thread. Gave up reading the rest. A lot of fan comments. Disappointed to see accusations on the referee and referee bashing comments on a referee forum.