Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:50 pm
The last replay they showed made it look much more like a foul, would have been handy if they'd shown it earlier. Can see why it was given.
Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.
Dumfries’ leg was blocking the shot. Kane kicked through the ball and made contact with the studs on his heel on the follow through.
It isn’t a foul anywhere on the pitch. It’s even less of a foul when you have VAR double checking what happened.
BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:44 pm
A panel of ex-pros are going by their interpretation, that means nothing when you put it against the rule.
These guys have the experience of playing many games at the highest level and experienced the rule interpretations given by some of the best referees in the world. As shown last night, different referees interpret the rules differently.
The rule is the rule. It can’t be interpreted differently.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:50 pm
The last replay they showed made it look much more like a foul, would have been handy if they'd shown it earlier. Can see why it was given.
Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.
Dumfries’ leg was blocking the shot. Kane kicked through the ball and made contact with the studs on his heel on the follow through.
It isn’t a foul anywhere on the pitch. It’s even less of a foul when you have VAR double checking what happened.
Kanes instep and Dumbrfries studs have come together after Kane had kicked the ball.
These guys have the experience of playing many games at the highest level and experienced the rule interpretations given by some of the best referees in the world. As shown last night, different referees interpret the rules differently.
The rule is the rule. It can’t be interpreted differently.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:50 pm
The last replay they showed made it look much more like a foul, would have been handy if they'd shown it earlier. Can see why it was given.
Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.
Dumfries’ leg was blocking the shot. Kane kicked through the ball and made contact with the studs on his heel on the follow through.
It isn’t a foul anywhere on the pitch. It’s even less of a foul when you have VAR double checking what happened.
Kanes instep and Dumbrfries studs have come together after Kane had kicked the ball.
Of course it's a foul.
It isn’t but I expect you to think otherwise, going by your other wrong opinions.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:59 pm
Amazed by the number of people who, even with the benefit of video footage, are determined to have a different opinion. Must be really tiring.
Does this mean I should actually watch the incident before expressing my opinion? World's gone mad when one's opinion is constantly being held to be worthless.
Holybourne Identity wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:38 pm
It was the worst VAR penalty decision I've seen. Kicks ball, connects with defender on follow through, throws himself to the floor.
It's not even close to being the worst in the tournament ffs.
Holybourne Identity wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:38 pm
It was the worst VAR penalty decision I've seen. Kicks ball, connects with defender on follow through, throws himself to the floor.
Even if you think it was a bad call, it was in the 18th minute. There is absolutely no way you could describe the decision as decisive or a robbery. Netherlands had over 70 minutes to win the game from there and failed to do as they were largely outplayed by the better team.
Holybourne Identity wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:38 pm
It was the worst VAR penalty decision I've seen. Kicks ball, connects with defender on follow through, throws himself to the floor.
I'm not questioning the 'throws himself to floor' bit.
Credit to Kane, if he'd have got straight back up and carried on, I highly doubt the VAR team would have queried it. But because he went down so dramatically and stayed down, they had to.
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:35 pm
Studs up, high challenge. Could easily have injured Kane's foot. It was a foul.
Exactly
If that studs up dangerous challenge takes place anywhere else on the pitch it would be a Free Kick, so I think it was right to award the penalty .
BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:44 pm
A panel of ex-pros are going by their interpretation, that means nothing when you put it against the rule.
These guys have the experience of playing many games at the highest level and experienced the rule interpretations given by some of the best referees in the world. As shown last night, different referees interpret the rules differently.
The rule is the rule. It can’t be interpreted differently.
Well the acclaimed tv referee interpreted it differently to the ref on the field and you can bet that if you picked a dozen top class referee's that they would not have all have come to the same decision !
These guys have the experience of playing many games at the highest level and experienced the rule interpretations given by some of the best referees in the world. As shown last night, different referees interpret the rules differently.
The rule is the rule. It can’t be interpreted differently.
Well the acclaimed tv referee interpreted it differently to the ref on the field and you can bet that if you picked a dozen top class referee's that they would not have all have come to the same decision !
The ‘expert’ always spouts some nonsense to back up the decision given.
The problem was in this case about about a minute after the incident and the ref giving nothing and the yank saying the ref was right (as she always does), VAR then announced they were looking at it. She’d have looked a total wally if she changed her opinion after that.
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:57 pm
Maybe VAR needs to be a jury of refs, with decisions put to a vote.
Jury of refs to reach a decision and then get it rubber stamped by a senior referee.
There has to be a subcommittee involved. And one where they also take a vote to issue a statement of solidarity with whatever is that week's edition of the omnicause.
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:57 pm
Maybe VAR needs to be a jury of refs, with decisions put to a vote.
Jury of refs to reach a decision and then get it rubber stamped by a senior referee.
There has to be a subcommittee involved. And one where they also take a vote to issue a statement of solidarity with whatever is that week's edition of the omnicause.
BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:27 pm
The rule is the rule. It can’t be interpreted differently.
Well the acclaimed tv referee interpreted it differently to the ref on the field and you can bet that if you picked a dozen top class referee's that they would not have all have come to the same decision !
The ‘expert’ always spouts some nonsense to back up the decision given.
The problem was in this case about about a minute after the incident and the ref giving nothing and the yank saying the ref was right (as she always does), VAR then announced they were looking at it. She’d have looked a total wally if she changed her opinion after that.
Yes that is exactly how I see it as well, sanity rules !
The thing that stands out for me is that I thought VAR was introduced to eradicate errors of refereeing and interpretation. Certainly in this example it hasn’t. In many other cases it hasn’t.
With this in mind why not go back to goal line technology and remove everything else. The game would be much better as a result.
Indeed it was a strange decision but the ''ref expert'' has given her opinions before about controversial VAR decisions and the panel of ex pros have very much disagreed with what she has ruled, its all about different interpretations of the rules which even referees themselves vary in their opinions. Put it like this, that decision would only be made in a game which had the use of VAR and even then many times a penalty would not have been given.
A panel of ex-pros are going by their interpretation, that means nothing when you put it against the rule.
It's actually worse than that. It's their interpretation of what they think the laws of the game are. Most of them don't know the Laws of the Game.
Exactly. It’s a Law of the game. It’s literally there in black and white and not open to interpretation. You can’t have an opinion on a fact.
