What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

⚽ Soccer Match-day Thread (19 Viewers)

On a somewhat related note...in the history of soccer, has there ever been a blown call (or even highly questionable call) at the end of an important game that favored a smaller team against one of the giants? Feels like there's about a zillion game streak of questionable calls always favoring the biggest teams.
 
zoobird said:
NewlyRetired said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Seems like a terrible ruling on Alvarez penalty.
Click to expand...
I have watched a ton of different angles and I could not tell. But this one angle finally showed me it was absolutely touched twice. You can see the ball ever so slightly start to spin from the left foot hitting it a tiny bit before the right foot does

Click to expand...
Still not at all clear to me
Click to expand...
It is REALLY close either way. Here is a snap shot at the time of impact


Interestingly though, some one found an unknown to me rule that states (see the highlighted text):



I think this rule above would cover this specific case if it did hit effectively simultaneously and the PK should have been good.
 
NewlyRetired said:
zoobird said:
NewlyRetired said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Seems like a terrible ruling on Alvarez penalty.
Click to expand...
I have watched a ton of different angles and I could not tell. But this one angle finally showed me it was absolutely touched twice. You can see the ball ever so slightly start to spin from the left foot hitting it a tiny bit before the right foot does

Click to expand...
Still not at all clear to me
Click to expand...
It is REALLY close either way. Here is a snap shot at the time of impact


Interestingly though, some one found an unknown to me rule that states (see the highlighted text):



I think this rule above would cover this specific case if it did hit effectively simultaneously and the PK should have been good.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the planted foot touched it, but if it DID touch it, then I think it touched it well before the other foot
 
There's an article in the Athletic about it. Basically that it's pretty inconsistent that if a GK moves early and the referees see it, it results in a retake, but in this case, with an accidental touch, it doesn't.

I can see both sides.
 
zoobird said:
NewlyRetired said:
zoobird said:
NewlyRetired said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Seems like a terrible ruling on Alvarez penalty.
Click to expand...
I have watched a ton of different angles and I could not tell. But this one angle finally showed me it was absolutely touched twice. You can see the ball ever so slightly start to spin from the left foot hitting it a tiny bit before the right foot does

Click to expand...
Still not at all clear to me
Click to expand...
It is REALLY close either way. Here is a snap shot at the time of impact


Interestingly though, some one found an unknown to me rule that states (see the highlighted text):



I think this rule above would cover this specific case if it did hit effectively simultaneously and the PK should have been good.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the planted foot touched it, but if it DID touch it, then I think it touched it well before the other foot
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't see that from the video. I see the plant foot touch the ball barely an instant before the kicking foot. In real time, IMO, this is effectively simultaneous. I doubt the people who wrote the rule was intending to differentiate between fractions of a second. I don't even understand why the rule was written the way it was to be honest.

These things are so subjective though, so your eyes may simply be better than my old eyes.
 
gianmarco said:
There's an article in the Athletic about it. Basically that it's pretty inconsistent that if a GK moves early and the referees see it, it results in a retake, but in this case, with an accidental touch, it doesn't.

I can see both sides.
Click to expand...
I would have been ok with a retake from a fairness point of view since it was so close either way, but I assume that retake possibility is not listed in the rules any where for this weird situation?
 
NewlyRetired said:
gianmarco said:
There's an article in the Athletic about it. Basically that it's pretty inconsistent that if a GK moves early and the referees see it, it results in a retake, but in this case, with an accidental touch, it doesn't.

I can see both sides.
Click to expand...
I would have been ok with a retake from a fairness point of view since it was so close either way, but I assume that retake possibility is not listed in the rules any where for this weird situation?
Click to expand...
The rule states that if Real Madrid is playing in the CL, no adverse ruling can be applied against them. It's in the unprinted portion in the Appendix.

For real though, how can they make a call like this in such a situation. It's not clear cut and the stakes couldn't have been higher. Sad.
 
Atleti didn't have the horses to go 120 mins. They should have pushed harder for a game winner in the 70-90 min span. Real's defense was tiring but Atleti sat back and absorbed, slowing the game down.
 
There was a VAR rep of some sort interviewed on the post game - a young American woman - who spoke for a long time using highly technical language which seemed like complete nonsense to me. I can't believe they would award that penalty and put it up on the board at 2-2 then take it away from the home crowd based on that video.
 
To me, if you have to look at 27 different angles to find a reason to chalk off a goal, then that is the opposite of "clear and obvious". Like drawing the lines on offside to find a toe or fro off, they are looking at the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.


They are also saying they are using the semi-auto offside tech that can tell when a ball is touched, so they are confirming the double touch. But still......
 
Also, I wonder if the he didn't actually touch the ball, but his plant foot slipping moved the turf enough for the ball to begin motion. Is that against the rules too?

I honestly don't know what it will take to get past these Real Madrid ****faces in CL. Just gutted. My son woke up crying this morning when I told him what happened. I told him lots of times to pick another team to support, but not when he was crying.
 
B Maverick said:
To me, if you have to look at 27 different angles to find a reason to chalk off a goal, then that is the opposite of "clear and obvious". Like drawing the lines on offside to find a toe or fro off, they are looking at the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.


They are also saying they are using the semi-auto offside tech that can tell when a ball is touched, so they are confirming the double touch. But still......
Click to expand...
I don't think the VAR rules state anything about "clear and obvious" though. They applied the letter of the law when it should have been a re-kick at a minimum.
 
The Z Machine said:
B Maverick said:
To me, if you have to look at 27 different angles to find a reason to chalk off a goal, then that is the opposite of "clear and obvious". Like drawing the lines on offside to find a toe or fro off, they are looking at the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.


They are also saying they are using the semi-auto offside tech that can tell when a ball is touched, so they are confirming the double touch. But still......
Click to expand...
I don't think the VAR rules state anything about "clear and obvious" though. They applied the letter of the law when it should have been a re-kick at a minimum.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I thought everything except offside was to be held to the clear and obvious error when reviewing? PKs do not get applied to this standard?

Or is it just something everyone talks about when a decision goes to VAR?
 
B Maverick said:
The Z Machine said:
B Maverick said:
To me, if you have to look at 27 different angles to find a reason to chalk off a goal, then that is the opposite of "clear and obvious". Like drawing the lines on offside to find a toe or fro off, they are looking at the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.


They are also saying they are using the semi-auto offside tech that can tell when a ball is touched, so they are confirming the double touch. But still......
Click to expand...
I don't think the VAR rules state anything about "clear and obvious" though. They applied the letter of the law when it should have been a re-kick at a minimum.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I thought everything except offside was to be held to the clear and obvious error when reviewing? PKs do not get applied to this standard?

Or is it just something everyone talks about when a decision goes to VAR?
Click to expand...
I believe the original intent of VAR was suppose to be clear and obvious mistakes but that went out the window the minute they started measuring offside by the width of a pubic hair.
 
NewlyRetired said:
B Maverick said:
The Z Machine said:
B Maverick said:
To me, if you have to look at 27 different angles to find a reason to chalk off a goal, then that is the opposite of "clear and obvious". Like drawing the lines on offside to find a toe or fro off, they are looking at the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.


They are also saying they are using the semi-auto offside tech that can tell when a ball is touched, so they are confirming the double touch. But still......
Click to expand...
I don't think the VAR rules state anything about "clear and obvious" though. They applied the letter of the law when it should have been a re-kick at a minimum.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I thought everything except offside was to be held to the clear and obvious error when reviewing? PKs do not get applied to this standard?

Or is it just something everyone talks about when a decision goes to VAR?
Click to expand...
I believe the original intent of VAR was suppose to be clear and obvious mistakes but that went out the window the minute they started measuring offside by the width of a pubic hair.
Click to expand...
Agreed, although my understanding was clear and obvious was maintained for everything but offside. But therein lies the issue. No one seems to know how and when they apply VAR. Probably the biggest issue of VAR. The tech is good, but the application and usage has been poor at best.
 
Huge League One match on Paramount+ coming up in about an hour between Wrexham and Wycombe. Winner will have sole possession of 2nd place and therefore be in the final automatic promotion spot. They’re tied on points now with Wycombe holding the goal difference advantage.
 
McBokonon said:
Huge League One match on Paramount+ coming up in about an hour between Wrexham and Wycombe. Winner will have sole possession of 2nd place and therefore be in the final automatic promotion spot. They’re tied on points now with Wycombe holding the goal difference advantage.
Click to expand...
Wycombe one of the last handful of grounds in the league I've not been to, but that's getting checked off later this month
 
encaitar said:
And that's a red card for Dele Alli after his first 10 minutes in 2 years. :lmao:
Click to expand...
it is amazing. In my long years of watching the sport I never saw a player who I thought was destined for greatness drop to absolute obscurity.

He recorded a ridiculous 28 goals and 16 assists in the EPL as a midfielder over 2 seasons, by the time he was 20, and then slowly rotted away to nothing by 28.

Did he have a massive injury that led to this drop off?
 
Last edited:
El Floppo said:
encaitar said:
And that's a red card for Dele Alli after his first 10 minutes in 2 years. :lmao:
Click to expand...
Walker tried to argue against the red too.

But he stamped on the back of lower calf of other england compatriot, RLC. Didn't take long on replay for VAR to give him the heave ho
Click to expand...
Yeah. Good on Walker. He tried to appeal to the ref due to all the personal struggles Dele has been through. Didn't want to see him exit his first game back early after making it through a couple of years worth of addiction. Like you said though, the VAR was pretty clear.
 
NewlyRetired said:
encaitar said:
And that's a red card for Dele Alli after his first 10 minutes in 2 years. :lmao:
Click to expand...
it is amazing. In my long years of watching a sport I never saw a player who I thought was destined for greatness drop to absolute obscurity.

He recorded a ridiculous 28 goals and 16 assists in the EPL as a midfielder over 2 seasons, by the time he was 20, and then slowly rotted away to nothing by 28.

Did he have a massive injury that led to this drop off?
Click to expand...
He had some recurring hamstring injuries while with Spurs, but mostly I think he was a victim of his own excellence. It came so easy for him early on that he didn't put in the work needed to improve, nor even stay at the top. He had a notoriously poor work ethic with Tottenham. He also had some really bad attitude issues both on and off the pitch. Lately, he has had issues with addiction to medications he's been taking to help overcome apparent childhood trauma. He's supposedly gotten past that now and is finally fully healthy again. Really too bad to see him forced out of his first game back.

Craziest thing is that he's still only 28!
 
He was amazingly quiet today. Just never got into the game

=======

For the first time in his Liverpool career, Mohamed Salah neither attempted a shot nor created a chance in a match where he played 90 minutes.
 
Unbelievable comeback from Barcelona.

There were moments after the Lewa goal where I thought I saw some tired legs from Atelitco, but they still had chances. Rough week for them..
 
Argentina dialing up the class... ARG 4-1 BRA

The last goal is Diego Simeone's kid, short-sided from an incredible angle, but it's hit so hard you can't even blame the keeper. Smoked off the underside of the bar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

fatness
Royal Shrovetide, an athletic competition hundreds of year old. One of the rules is "no murder"
Replies
7
Views
164
matttyl
matttyl
LawFitz
PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome
14 15 16
Replies
786
Views
12K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
SwampDawg
Fanatics - How does this company stay in business?
Replies
13
Views
544
kupcho1
kupcho1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 20 (members: 0, guests: 20)
Back
Top