World Cup match chat

[m]

Really enjoyed this: Croatia v England: 'Maybe, just maybe, this time it will be different' http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44785165

"Any neutral watching England 2-0 up against Sweden could tell they were not going to lose. Many England fans were convinced that remarking "we're the better team here" to the person next to them would be to guarantee an immediate Swedish goal. "

Heh!

 

[makv]

Written by a man who has been to many a football match

 

[unification]

So that’s that. An end to a World Cup that surpassed everybody’s expectations. No headlines about violence, lots of goals, a solitary 0-0 in the 64 games, surprises, spills, own goals, VAR controversies and England showing a lot of promise. It’s been a really good World Cup and probably surpasses 2014.

For all of Croatia’s positive play in the final, they failed to create anything definitive to get past the French defence. Whilst Mbappe will deservedly win a lot of the headlines (the kid is rapid), the French defence including Umtiti, Varane and Pavard look something else. They’ll be a good bet for the Euros in two years as they’re still a young squad.

Savour this moment now. The last decent World Cup, I feel. We have the nonsensical Qatari World Cup in four and a half years and then the expansion begins in the USA, Mexico and Canada to dilute the tournament like the Euros.

 

[Concretebob]

Congratulations France. Very deserved champions.

 

[makv]

Congratulations France. Very deserved champions.

Can’t disagree with that. Also, Lloris’ howler was comedy gold. And they still won.

 

[Foley]

A great World Cup. Agree with Unification, the football is far more interesting than the violence.

Some great games, excellent entertainment and England did pretty well too.

Did they say that France's squad is younger than England's? Could they do a Spain and Germany and win 2-3 tournaments in a row?

 

[tonyw]

I'd actually go so far as to say that it was the best World Cup since they went to 32 teams in 1998. '98 itself probably being the only other candidate for that title.

Also should note that there were only four red cards all tournament as well. The worry with the introduction of VAR was that the referees would take centre stage and we'd spend the whole time talking about them. For the most part, though, they got out of the way and let the players play, and it made all the difference.

 

[Concretebob]

Bit depressing the next World Cup is in the winter. In Qatar. At least it's only two hours ahead.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Bit depressing the next World Cup is in the winter. In Qatar. At least it's only two hours ahead.

In November and December. If people think I am miserable about this World Cup. Just wait for Qatar.

 

[Foley]

I'd actually go so far as to say that it was the best World Cup since they went to 32 teams in 1998. '98 itself probably being the only other candidate for that title.

Also should note that there were only four red cards all tournament as well. The worry with the introduction of VAR was that the referees would take centre stage and we'd spend the whole time talking about them. For the most part, though, they got out of the way and let the players play, and it made all the difference.

I think that over all VAR worked well.
Thing that I don't like however is the penalties for the ball striking a defenders hand when it is clearly not deliberate.
I also wonder about a couple of corners which were given as goal kicks. Both were obvious immediately and why didn't VAR simply correct those and get them right?

 

[tonyw]

I think that over all VAR worked well.
Thing that I don't like however is the penalties for the ball striking a defenders hand when it is clearly not deliberate.
I also wonder about a couple of corners which were given as goal kicks. Both were obvious immediately and why didn't VAR simply correct those and get them right?

So the second part is easy - they decided that VAR would only be used for goals, penalties, red cards and cases of mistaken identity. Not for corners, free kicks or anything else. Which makes sense to me, as I think you only want to use it for the highest profile errors. Over the course of the tourney, VAR only intervened about once every four games. Expand it to lesser decisions, and you're going to see that multiply in a hurry.

On the former issue.....I'm actually not sure it's a reflection on VAR, as how subjective the handball rule is at the moment. I mean I've heard dozens of opinions on whether yesterday's incident was indeed a penalty, and it seems to be divided about 50:50. The ref clearly didn't see the incident in real time, because when he did see it, he gave the penalty......

Did Perisic move his hand towards the ball? If not, why was his hand out in front of his body if he wasn't intending to use it to block the ball?

Frankly, there's only one person in the world who knows for sure if he deliberately - even if only for a split-second - tried to handle that cross. And he ain't exactly impartial.

Until we have mind-reading technology, perhaps the guidelines need to be simplified a bit i.e. if your hand is away from your body, and it diverts the ball, then it's a handball.....force players to keep their hands down by their sides if they don't want to be at risk.....

 

[Foley]

I get your points Tony.

I just disagree especially re the penalty. The ref is supposed to have made a clear and obvious error. On the basis that he looked at it a number of times and as you said the view is 50/50 as to whether it was a penalty then in my view the ref made a howler. In a WC Final.

With regards to hand ball, if the ball hits the arm and it is going at a fast pace at a very short distance I am not sure how it can be deemed as deliberate. The "penalty' and odds on goal for blasting the ball at an arm (which sometimes seems to be claimed) is in my view not a fair punishment.

 

[horseman]

if the ref did not see it how has he made an obvious error?

 

[tonyw]

With regards to hand ball, if the ball hits the arm and it is going at a fast pace at a very short distance I am not sure how it can be deemed as deliberate. The "penalty' and odds on goal for blasting the ball at an arm (which sometimes seems to be claimed) is in my view not a fair punishment.

Well, in that case all full backs should be defending crosses with their arms spread wide and high at all times....because if the cross is then thumped into their arm at short range, it's not their fault?

I'd argue that there's an obligation for defenders to keep their arms down by their sides.

Perisic wasn't as bad as, say, Ramos for Spain against Russia but it's about the same thing - it's not just a matter of is it hand to ball, or ball to hand. It's a matter of where your hand is in the first place.

 

[Foley]

Mmm have to agree to disagree Tony.

I do note lots of defenders now have their arms behind their back in the penalty area if they are trying to stop the ball. This to me shows the way that things have changed and not in a good way.

 

[Foley]

if the ref did not see it how has he made an obvious error?

I am not sure that he didn't see it?

When he went over to the TV he was there an age and clearly took quite a long time to make his decision. This does not suggest that it is a clear penalty?

VAR certainly has not stopped opinions. I am with the BBC panel who I think were unanimous in suggesting that it was not a penalty. Some obviously disagree!

 

[Yellow River]

I suspect we are moving towards a change in the handball rule and VAR is the main reason for the change.

If the the ball hits the hand deliberate or not a free kick will be awarded and therefore a penalty if in the box.


Personally I would be against such a change of rule but this is the direction the football authorities appear to favour.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Lineker read the handball rule out on the BBC coverage yesterday. The Ref treated the Croaitan player very, very harshly by giving it. The rule is clear, and the Ref, I guess, saw the slo mo and decided it was real speed.

 

[tonyw]

For what it's worth, the current handball rule is below.

From that definition (i.e. if it really doesn't matter where the hand is) then actually I don't think any of the penalties given for handball this World Cup were correct, even the ones where the defenders were jumping with their hands above their head (e.g Ramos vs. Russia, Umtiti vs. Australia, Sanchez vs. Japan), because in no instance was the hand moving towards the ball. They just happened to be holding their arms out in ridiculous, unnatural fashion.

Although several players do think they saw Perisic drop his hand to make contact with the ball on purpose (mostly forwards, like Ian Wright & Chris Waddle) and think therefore that it was a pen yesterday even under the strict definition.

Current application of the handball law = subjective. And that, for me, is a bad thing.



“Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)

• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)

• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement

• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement

• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement”

 

[The Forgotten Highlander]

VAR only worked well when it wasn't operated by utter imbeciles. It corrected some decisions but conversely I believe it overruled some original correct decisions. The penalty decision on Sunday was an utter joke.....