Netherlands vs England - Wednesday, 10th July @ 20:00

[foxes_rule1978]

4 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

It was a foul. Forget whether it should’ve been a penalty as it skews opinion. It was a clear foul, late to the ball and impacted Kane challenging fairly for it. 

Yep for similar challenges by an attacker on a defender clearing it we have seen them given a lot including getting a yellow for being late and dangerous. A foul is the same anywhere on the pitch 

Edited 11 July by foxes_rule1978

[Leeds Fox]

4 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one mate. Think we'd be livid if that was given against us

 

About time we had some luck though, had enough bad luck over the years

I wouldn’t. I’d not blame the defender because they have to go for it, but if you’re late and the player can’t play a ball fairly, it’s a foul. That happens in the middle of the pitch and it’s borderline red card. Kane was lucky not to be injured. 
 

I know this sounds soft, but that’s the laws of the game and it was genuinely dangerous play. 

[foxfanazer]

Just now, Leeds Fox said:

I wouldn’t. I’d not blame the defender because they have to go for it, but if you’re late and the player can’t play a ball fairly, it’s a foul. That happens in the middle of the pitch and it’s borderline red card. Kane was lucky not to be injured. 
 

I know this sounds soft, but that’s the laws of the game and it was genuinely dangerous play. 

Yeah I get this. It's just not for me

Football is becoming less and less a contact sport

 

Like I said so long as everyone applies the same sentiment if we have one go against us. 

[Leeds Fox]

Just now, foxfanazer said:

Yeah I get this. It's just not for me

Football is becoming less and less a contact sport

 

Like I said so long as everyone applies the same sentiment if we have one go against us. 

Absolutely. You can’t put your studs up when someone’s playing the ball, not get the ball and make contact with the opponents shin. It’s dangerous and impacts the player playing the ball. If that was given against us, I’d have no qualms.

 

I watched abroad, with neutrals and loads of Dutch. I said it was a penalty as soon as Kane took the shot. Was laughed at by almost everyone but it was a clear foul.

 

As you say though, swings and roundabouts. 

[foxes_rule1978]

3 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

Yeah I get this. It's just not for me

Football is becoming less and less a contact sport

 

Like I said so long as everyone applies the same sentiment if we have one go against us. 

We are always bitter when things go against us especially at the moment, but after analysis I would look at it and say why has the defender gone in so dangerously and accept it because it is correct 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Had to deal with some Dutch today at work. "Maybe if you get schame ref on Schunday you will win"

I've got one word for you pal – "schtonewall penalty"

Edited 11 July by Miquel The Work Geordie

[Plastik Man]

4 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

Absolutely. You can’t put your studs up when someone’s playing the ball, not get the ball and make contact with the opponents shin. It’s dangerous and impacts the player playing the ball. If that was given against us, I’d have no qualms.

 

I watched abroad, with neutrals and loads of Dutch. I said it was a penalty as soon as Kane took the shot. Was laughed at by almost everyone but it was a clear foul.

 

As you say though, swings and roundabouts. 

His studs were facing away from Kane.

 

The contact happened after Kane had made contact with the ball (and blazed it over).

 

You can have contact in the penalty area without it being foul. Just watch every single corner, ever. Something they clumsily call a "coming together".

 

In realtime I wondered whether the challenge was studs up, which should mean a penalty. But on replay it simply wasn't. 

 

So for me, never a penalty. Are you going to give a penalty every time a defender touches an attacker, after they've taken a shot?

[CosbehFox]

Interesting point amongst the post match stuff was there was a lot about Watkins waiting for his chance. That makes me think they’ve either been extremely close to starting him over Kane at some point or the players have the feeling he deserves the spot 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Plastik Man said:

His studs were facing away from Kane.

 

The contact happened after Kane had made contact with the ball (and blazed it over).

 

You can have contact in the penalty area without it being foul. Just watch every single corner, ever. Something they clumsily call a "coming together".

 

In realtime I wondered whether the challenge was studs up, which should mean a penalty. But on replay it simply wasn't. 

 

So for me, never a penalty. Are you going to give a penalty every time a defender touches an attacker, after they've taken a shot?

I didn't think it was a foul either but the thing for me is, even if it was, there is absolutely no way a penalty is a proportionate punishment. I'm biased because I don't like penalties at all but there are so many minor incidents like the one last night, or really unavoidable "deliberate" handballs where the defender just gets the ball blasted at them, where I think it's insane that because it's taken place inside the box the outcome is essentially an 80% chance of a goal. Obviously I have no idea what the alternative would be and for situations like DOGSO then it's fair enough.

[Samilktray]

1 hour ago, Plastik Man said:

His studs were facing away from Kane.

 

The contact happened after Kane had made contact with the ball (and blazed it over).

 

You can have contact in the penalty area without it being foul. Just watch every single corner, ever. Something they clumsily call a "coming together".

 

In realtime I wondered whether the challenge was studs up, which should mean a penalty. But on replay it simply wasn't. 

 

So for me, never a penalty. Are you going to give a penalty every time a defender touches an attacker, after they've taken a shot?

Violent and aggressive, should have been a red imho 

 

looking forward to the final though aren’t we, come on England 

[Royston.]

yes it was a foul and it was in the box so penalty but we are lucky it was in the box and it went to VAR and the ref changed his mind.

 

there are lots of occasions where player A is endangering player B and nothing comes of it.

 

If the same thing happens in the centre circle its a freekick and will be instantly forgotten.

 

shock horror fans angry about penalty decision that went against them

 

 

 

 

[UniFox21]

What's absolutely incredible is the raw emotion in the celebrations, nothing pre planned or choreographed. We don't see enough of that in modern football anymore 

 

 

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, Plastik Man said:

His studs were facing away from Kane.

 

The contact happened after Kane had made contact with the ball (and blazed it over).

 

You can have contact in the penalty area without it being foul. Just watch every single corner, ever. Something they clumsily call a "coming together".

 

In realtime I wondered whether the challenge was studs up, which should mean a penalty. But on replay it simply wasn't. 

 

So for me, never a penalty. Are you going to give a penalty every time a defender touches an attacker, after they've taken a shot?

You’ve completely skewed my comment there. I think it was a foul, dangerous play and impeding an opponent. Of course all contact in the penalty area isn’t a foul, I never suggested that.
 

Kane did blaze it over, possibly because he was expecting contact on the follow through and it affected his action (although granted, maybe not).

 

If that was me, I’d have expected a foul to be given against me. Never won the ball, it was a desperate attempt to block but ultimately unsuccessful and a foul IMO.

 

It’s subjective and that’s the beauty of football I suppose. I’m glad it was given either way!

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, Guest said:

I didn't think it was a foul either but the thing for me is, even if it was, there is absolutely no way a penalty is a proportionate punishment. I'm biased because I don't like penalties at all but there are so many minor incidents like the one last night, or really unavoidable "deliberate" handballs where the defender just gets the ball blasted at them, where I think it's insane that because it's taken place inside the box the outcome is essentially an 80% chance of a goal. Obviously I have no idea what the alternative would be and for situations like DOGSO then it's fair enough.

That’s a great post. DOGSO or denying a potential GSO should be a penalty, but as you say, some infringements aren’t deserving of a penalty.

[Plastik Man]

14 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

You’ve completely skewed my comment there. I think it was a foul, dangerous play and impeding an opponent. Of course all contact in the penalty area isn’t a foul, I never suggested that.
 

Kane did blaze it over, possibly because he was expecting contact on the follow through and it affected his action (although granted, maybe not).

 

If that was me, I’d have expected a foul to be given against me. Never won the ball, it was a desperate attempt to block but ultimately unsuccessful and a foul IMO.

 

It’s subjective and that’s the beauty of football I suppose. I’m glad it was given either way!

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I didn't skew your comments. 

 

You referenced it as studs up, coming into contact with an opponents shin, and described it as dangerous.

 

But none of that actually happened. He was just trying to block. Kane got his shot in and then there was contact.

 

It didn't intimidate Kane or put him off. I'd agree if it was a threatening tackle, but it just wasn't. 

 

I normally side with the attacker in challenges and decisions, it's easy to put an attacker in possession off their stride or shot with some cynical contact. But in this instance Kane's shot wasn't affected by the contact that came after.

[Mike Oxlong]

4 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

Had to deal with some Dutch today at work. "Maybe if you get schame ref on Schunday you will win"

I've got one word for you pal – "schtonewall penalty"

Two words 

[st albans fox]

Maybe it was a penalty

maybe it wasn’t a penalty 

 

but what it 100% wasn’t was a clear and obvious error not to give it 

 

the var overstepped his role by recommending a review 

 

 

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, Plastik Man said:

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I didn't skew your comments. 

 

You referenced it as studs up, coming into contact with an opponents shin, and described it as dangerous.

 

But none of that actually happened. He was just trying to block. Kane got his shot in and then there was contact.

 

It didn't intimidate Kane or put him off. I'd agree if it was a threatening tackle, but it just wasn't. 

 

I normally side with the attacker in challenges and decisions, it's easy to put an attacker in possession off their stride or shot with some cynical contact. But in this instance Kane's shot wasn't affected by the contact that came after.

It was given as a foul whichever way you look at it.

 

Just because, as you said previously, the studs weren’t facing Kane, it’s irrelevant. They were facing the plain of his foot after striking the ball, which to me is dangerous play. You could say, Kane could’ve avoided it, but that’s impeding him. There’s no way of knowing that Kane wouldn’t have struck the ball differently if the defender hadn’t stuck his leg out. Subconsciously, it may have had an effect on his shot. Anticipating a challenge can certainly have an effect on the outcome of a shot.

 

Nobody except Harry Kane will know, but basing it on him getting is shot off and the contact happening after isn’t definitive.

 

The part I bolded, is what happened. The forward motion doesn’t have to be from the defender to make it a foul or be the cause of the contact. Kane played the ball, the defender failed to block it and caused the contact.

 

It’s not worth debating really but I’m being stubborn and sticking to my opinion  no harm done eh 

Edited 11 July by Leeds Fox

[Royston.]

2 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

That’s a great post. DOGSO or denying a potential GSO should be a penalty, but as you say, some infringements aren’t deserving of a penalty.

WHA?

 

Infringment in the penalty area. What should the ref have done, drop ball??

[Leeds Fox]

Just now, Royston. said:

WHA?

 

Infringment in the penalty area. What should the ref have done, drop ball??

No  I’ve no idea and it’s not going to change. I just was agreeing with @Guest really. I wasn’t talking about any instance in particular. 

 

I think the crux of it was, some infringements don’t warrant an 80% (or whatever it is) chance of a goal.