Norway - France
- Thread starter Tealeaf
- Start date
Was it missed? Did it need penalising when the shot sailed high and wide straight awayMiss a dangerously hight foot, though
Maybe not. But without penalising it, you're sending the message that either you missed it, or found it acceptance. That then causes problems when the same happens for the opposite teamWas it missed? Did it need penalising when the shot sailed high and wide straight away
Real time looks a penalty. Then on replay one angle looks like attacker initiates contact - if we’re being generous ( or dives to ensure it if we’re not). Yet another angle makes it look like a foul.
Is that a crystal clear case of subjective?
Natural justice done with the save I suppose.
Is that a crystal clear case of subjective?
Natural justice done with the save I suppose.
No it’s a clear case of a penalty!
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I don’t see that as anything less than the dictionary example of a stonewall penalty. Oliver also couldn’t have been in a better position to see it.
I’d still really like to see Oliver (and Turpin, for that matter) on one of these non-UEFA games like Turkey-Paraguay or Egypt-Iran. Both are clearly excellent on these UEFA Champions League-style games. I just want to see how they would do on a game with some more, shall I say, “fireworks”. I had a similar interest in El Salvador’s Ivan Barton working Japan-Sweden for the opposite reason. Barton (probably our best CONCACAF official) is an intense guy. That works great for some the wild games we get with Central American teams, but I wanted to see how he did on a game where a less intense touch would be needed. The opposite is the case with Turpin and Oliver. Can their calm, quieter type of approach keep the fireworks at bay? I think it would be interesting to watch.