Semi Final 2: Netherlands vs England live from the BVB Stadion Dortmund. Wednesday ITV1 8pm

[JJ72]

1 minute ago, GunmaN1905 said:

For me the biggest issue is "clear and obvious" thing.

It's either a foul or it's not, make the rules clear.

I can see both sides of the argument in this situation.

For me it's not a penalty because it's an attempted block with studs not facing Kane, the foot wasn't even that high (below waist level) and it was Kane who initiated the contact with his momentum. To even give a yellow on top...idk.

But if it is a penalty, then where do we stop with defenders making contact after the ball is gone?

Defenders can't foul after the ball has gone. It's not.difficult to understand why it was referred and then given. The guy had his studs up.

[Mr Adam]

1 minute ago, GunmaN1905 said:

For me the biggest issue is "clear and obvious" thing.

It's either a foul or it's not, make the rules clear.

I can see both sides of the argument in this situation.

For me it's not a penalty because it's an attempted block with studs not facing Kane, the foot wasn't even that high (below waist level) and it was Kane who initiated the contact with his momentum. To even give a yellow on top...idk.

But if it is a penalty, then where do we stop with defenders making contact after the ball is gone?

Defenders making contact after the ball is gone is most fouls though. The defender is challenging the person in possession, doesn’t get the ball and impacts the player with his studs. It’s a free kick anywhere else. 
 

Like I say in my opinion it’s one to stick with the on-field decision, whichever way it goes 

[Sned]

1 minute ago, GunmaN1905 said:

It's either a foul or it's not, make the rules clear.

Can you ever fully make things that black and white though? I think it's almost impossible, so many decisions in football that involve contact between players is SO subjective. Partly why I'd always prefer the referee on the pitch to make the decision rather than VAR getting involved.

[Ackter]

Just now, Mr Adam said:

Defenders making contact after the ball is gone is most fouls though. The defender is challenging the person in possession, doesn’t get the ball and impacts the player with his studs. It’s a free kick anywhere else. 
 

Like I say in my opinion it’s one to stick with the on-field decision, whichever way it goes 

But it's Kane making contact with Dumfries

[hairwad]

Shaw on

[Freakiie]

To be honest the whole "well he got the shot off" argument is weird to me in the first place. There's plenty of times where someone gets a pass off, gets hit by a defender who is a second to late and that's pretty much called as a foul every single time. So, why would it be different in a shooting situation? In my opinion situations where a defender clatters the striker should be given as penalties more often, regardless of whether the striker managed to shoot before getting run over or not.

[Mr Adam]

Trying to make rules black and white is why we have such **** handball rules 

[georginho_juventusygr]

SHAW IS IN!

[Mr Adam]

Just now, Ackter said:

But it's Kane making contact with Dumfries

Kane’s in possession and is playing a natural shot. It’s not like he’s dangled his leg out. 

[Ackter]

Just now, Freakiie said:

To be honest the whole "well he got the shot off" argument is weird to me in the first place. There's plenty of times where someone gets a pass off, gets hit by a defender who is a second to late and that's pretty much called as a foul every single time. So, why would it be different in a shooting situation? In my opinion situations where a defender clatters the striker should be given as penalties more often, regardless of whether the striker managed to shoot before getting run over or not.

If the midfielder got the ball off and then kicked the other player then it would actually be the same situation.

[eenie]

1 minute ago, JJ72 said:

Defenders can't foul after the ball has gone. It's not.difficult to understand why it was referred and then given.

Walker did exactly that on a Dutch player towards the end of the half, slid through him after Stones had nicked the ball away. Nothing doing.

[DJ]

Big Wout Weghorst on and he makes it known ^^

[Ackter]

Just now, Mr Adam said:

Kane’s in possession and is playing a natural shot. It’s not like he’s dangled his leg out. 

But neither has Dumfries. He's made a completely acceptable attempt to block the ball and their feet collide (becauze Kane follows through and kicks him). If Dumfries had kicked out and then connected with Kane it would obviously be different.

[arenaross]

Quote

 

There's an unwritten law in football that if a player manages to complete a shot on goal and is then caught by a defending player, there shouldn't be a penalty. So why is that? Mainly it's because the attacking team cannot lose out on anything because of the challenge -- the shot has been released and the move is over.

It's seems odd, because often in this situation we'd say "but that's a foul anywhere else on the pitch." But make no mistake, there's another unwritten law that the threshold is far higher on a penalty providing a shot on goal vs. a free kick in an area that isn't immediately dangerous.

So, how did England get a penalty in this situation?

It's a very harsh intervention by the VAR, Bastian Dankert. It's his ninth game of the tournament, far more than any other video assistant. He has clearly earned a reputation within UEFA as its most trusted VAR throughout the tournament.

So, why has Dankert advised a penalty? He has taken the nature of Dumfries' challenge, leading with the studs as opposed to making an attempt to kick through the ball, as being reckless -- which is why the Netherlands' player was booked. And that's the one area where a defender catching an attacker after a shot can be seeing as a penalty -- when it's reckless or dangerous.

Can you see why this might be a penalty? Yes. Does this reach UEFA's high threshold for a clear and obvious error for a VAR intervention? No.

And in UEFA competition you will almost never see a VAR intervention rejected at the monitor by the referee

 

 

[Mr Adam]

Just now, Ackter said:

But neither has Dumfries. He's made a completely acceptable attempt to block the ball and their feet collide (becauze Kane follows through and kicks him). If Dumfries had kicked out and then connected with Kane it would obviously be different.

But possession is important here. A player can make a perfect attempt at a tackle and miss the ball and therefore foul the player. In the same way you can make a perfect attempt at a block, miss the ball, and foul the player.

Kane plays the ball, Dumfries doesn’t.

[GunmaN1905]

3 minutes ago, Mr Adam said:

Defenders making contact after the ball is gone is most fouls though. The defender is challenging the person in possession, doesn’t get the ball and impacts the player with his studs. It’s a free kick anywhere else. 
 

Like I say in my opinion it’s one to stick with the on-field decision, whichever way it goes 

But is every contact with a striker a foul then after the shooting motion is complete and the ball is gone? A lot of those were given this season and seemed like anti-football deceisions.

4 minutes ago, Sned said:

Can you ever fully make things that black and white though? I think it's almost impossible, so many decisions in football that involve contact between players is SO subjective. Partly why I'd always prefer the referee on the pitch to make the decision rather than VAR getting involved.

Will never be fully clear when it comes to these situations, but at least it should be as clear as possible.

[Ackter]

Reckless

[Sned]

Just now, eenie said:

Walker did exactly that on a Dutch player towards the end of the half, slid through him after Stones had nicked the ball away. Nothing doing.

It happens multiple times every game. Really baffling decision for the VAR to get involved, they should have just left it alone.

Going to be interesting to see what happens if anything similar happens in the remainder of this game in a penalty area.

[aiston]

Get in the ****ing box Kane

Nowhere near it.

[Andrew_]

Not playing a striker is an interesting decision.

[Pukey]

2 minutes ago, arenaross said:

 

[Ackter]

Just now, Mr Adam said:

But possession is important here. A player can make a perfect attempt at a tackle and miss the ball and therefore foul the player. In the same way you can make a perfect attempt at a block, miss the ball, and foul the player.

Kane plays the ball, Dumfries doesn’t.

Dumfires didn't attempt a tackle. He stuck his foot up in front of Kane and then Kane kicked it.

[Mr Adam]

Just now, Ackter said:

Dumfires didn't attempt a tackle. He stuck his foot up in front of Kane and then Kane kicked it.

He attempted a block and missed.

[ceefax the cat]

6 minutes ago, arenaross said:

 

if anything I'd say the threshold is now lower in the box than elsewhere. The question has become "was there contact, such that we can technically award a penalty?" and not, as it would be in the centre circle, "was it a foul??". Nobody cares if there was 'contact' in the centre circle

And that is 5h1t

Edited July 10 by ceefax the cat

[Ackter]

Just now, Mr Adam said:

He attempted a block and missed.

He missed Kane as well. Then Kane kicked him.

It's a literal nothing incident.

[Redshift]

Netherlands doing a higher press now.

[Haguey]

Stones, absolute Rolls Royce of a defender

[Mr Adam]

Just now, Ackter said:

He missed Kane as well. Then Kane kicked him.

It's a literal nothing incident.

Kane didn’t kick him though. Kane kicked the football and as part of that natural action was impacted by somebody trying to block him and failing. 
 

like I say for me you go with the onfield decision. I can see why it would be given. But no way I’d be overruling it if not given 

[Ackter]

Kane's only good touch has been the penalty. He needs off.

[GunmaN1905]

Where's the yellow for Rice? That was a clear tactical foul to prevent a counter-attack.

[Ackter]

Just now, Ackter said:

Kane's only good touch has been the penalty. He needs off.

And if the last match proved anything, England do not need Kane for penalties.

[Haguey]

Silly Dutch lads, having Weghorst on and not just simply lumping it to him at all times

[metal_guitarist]

Mainoo bailing Rice out again, should have dropped off instead of going flying in for a ball he was never going to win

[DJ]

1 minute ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Where's the yellow for Rice? That was a clear tactical foul to prevent a counter-attack.

Bent ref IIRC
No, that was too light, he didn't even manage to make the foul ^^

[Mr Adam]

This is ending 1-1

[m_fenton]

1 minute ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Where's the yellow for Rice? That was a clear tactical foul to prevent a counter-attack.

Agreed but the ref's been consistent at least, no yellow when Gakpo did it to Saka first half either..

[CFuller]

"The Netherlands. What a tall nation they are, by the way."

[Ackter]

It has to be Southgate telling Kane to get back all the time. Why else would he be doing it?

Does he usually play with a strike partner?

[Redshift]

Netherlands quite tight now. This is going to be intense.

[Ackter]

Ball 86 lost by Kane this match.

[Wavelberry]

Kane's just not at it even when he gets the ball to feet up front.

[ceefax the cat]

Just now, Ackter said:

It has to be Southgate telling Kane to get back all the time. Why else would he be doing it?

Does he usually play with a strike partner?

quick chap either side

[Darren Moores Mum]

Kane

[Ackter]

Jesus Christ.

England are an inverted V in attack. Literally noone in the middle.

[Jisntdaman]

Kane is stinking this place out

[Smallen]

get Watkins or Toney on

[Mr Adam]

Kane is so so so off it 

[GunmaN1905]

We can talk about Kane's physical level and form, but him standing in midfield is all on Southgate.

England is a box threat away from easily winning this game.

[DJ]

Is it me or do England look again like they are happy with a draw? Or has Koeman really managed to turn the possession game around somewhat?

[hilly_boro]

These two teams need to step up the tempo this second half, Matterface has started rolling out his pointless facts. 

Come on guys.