[Football] England v Switzerland

[Weststander]

“Mistake by Walker” then, gifting Switzerland a dangerous moment. Liability.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Surely there can't be many people who care who comes 3rd or 4th in this?

Got this bollox on Sky Sports "Main Event`" (holds sides). I want the Cricket

 

[Bakero]

I've barely noticed Gomez which probably means he's having a very good game.

Walker on the other is very noticeable for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Reddleman]

Kyle Walker playing himself out a starting spot going forward. So this tournament does have a plus!!

 

[Weststander]

Kyle Walker playing himself out a starting spot going forward. So this tournament does have a plus!!

TAA’s crossing and set pieces are mainly outstanding, so he’s an improvement. (Both can be defensively frail, but TAA has time on his side to learn).

 

[Bakero]

Kyle Walker playing himself out a starting spot going forward. So this tournament does have a plus!!

TAA has to he first choice now. How many chances has he created today?

 

[Steve in Japan]

I think people got a little too caught up on the 'clear and obvious error' and how it is applied, which I think has impacted on people's views of VAR.

Letting a goal to stand when a player was offside is a clear error. It may have been offside by half an inch, but it was offside - not giving the offside was clearly an error. It is an entirely understandable error to make giving the tightness of the decision, but still wrong. So the goal can't stand if you want to eliminate such obvious errors.

Similarly with fouls, if a foul occurs in the build up to a goal and the goal is allowed to stand, a clear error has been made. When it comes to fouls, the challenge is deemed a foul if, in the opinion of the ref it is a foul - that is, it doesn't matter what the pundits think, or the fans, or the players, just the referee so it's not a matter of "well, the boys in the studio are divided about whether it's a foul, ergo not a clear error". If the referee looks at a replay and sees what he deems a foul, and your plan is to avoid clear errors, the goal has to be chalked off irrespective of the views of the pundits on the foul.


Now if the stated aim had been to avoid uncommon or unreasonable mistakes (the sort of mistake that when you see makes you think 'we shouldn't need VAR to get that right'), then tight offsides missed would be accepted as part of the game, fouls that were unnoticed remain ungiven and people can just get on with it.

As I said, cleverer people than me.....

I just don't like it, on the principle that if you give people a powerful tool, then they are going to first use it as intended, then find more ways to use it. This is the path are now heading down. Common sense need not apply. I hope I'm wrong, we have yet to hear (and see) how the PL intend to use it. But am not hopeful. Not with FIFA, UEFA, FA and the PL in charge.

 

[Mayonaise]

I don't get it with Ross Barkley at club or international level - such an overrated player for me.

 

[Weststander]

TAA has to he first choice now. How many chances has he created today?

You can bet, sadly, that Walker will be number one come the qualifiers.

Whereas, I’d thought Southgate was all about every position was up for grabs, abandoning the dogged favouritism of his predecessors.

 

[Weststander]

I don't get it with Ross Barkley at club or international level - such an overrated player for me.

Callum Wilson too. Clearly a couple of levels below the standard.

(Then goes on to score winner?).

 

[jonny.rainbow]

I think people got a little too caught up on the 'clear and obvious error' and how it is applied, which I think has impacted on people's views of VAR.

Letting a goal to stand when a player was offside is a clear error. It may have been offside by half an inch, but it was offside - not giving the offside was clearly an error. It is an entirely understandable error to make giving the tightness of the decision, but still wrong. So the goal can't stand if you want to eliminate such obvious errors.

Similarly with fouls, if a foul occurs in the build up to a goal and the goal is allowed to stand, a clear error has been made. When it comes to fouls, the challenge is deemed a foul if, in the opinion of the ref it is a foul - that is, it doesn't matter what the pundits think, or the fans, or the players, just the referee so it's not a matter of "well, the boys in the studio are divided about whether it's a foul, ergo not a clear error". If the referee looks at a replay and sees what he deems a foul, and your plan is to avoid clear errors, the goal has to be chalked off irrespective of the views of the pundits on the foul.


Now if the stated aim had been to avoid uncommon or unreasonable mistakes (the sort of mistake that when you see makes you think 'we shouldn't need VAR to get that right'), then tight offsides missed would be accepted as part of the game, fouls that were unnoticed remain ungiven and people can just get on with it.

It should be used for black and white decisions only.

Fouls and handballs are always going to be decided on a referee’s interpretation of the situation in relation to the laws. VAR fails badly here because the mere fact that the VAR has advised the referee to view an incident puts doubt in the match referee’s mind.

It’s human nature to agree with the VAR official (strength in numbers) which effectively means the ultimate referee of every match is sitting in a studio, not on the field of play.

 

[GooGull]

And folk were worried VAR was going to take the debate out of football

 

[Durlston]

Don't worry everyone. We'll win on penalties because the players haven't got any "mental baggage" from previous experiences.

 

[Weststander]

It should be used for black and white decisions only.

Fouls and handballs are always going to be decided on a referee’s interpretation of the situation in relation to the laws. VAR fails badly here because the mere fact that the VAR has advised the referee to view an incident puts doubt in the match referee’s mind.

It’s human nature to agree with the VAR official (strength in numbers) which effectively means the ultimate referee of every match is sitting in a studio, not on the field of play.

I’m fine with it, Wilson shouldn’t have completely pointlessly fouled an opponent.

We’d have been pleased if it prevented a goal against England.

Over time, intelligent players will cut out unnecessary fouls in the box.

 

[Acker79]

Sterling to hit the post?

Edit:
Nah. He buried it.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

I’m fine with it, Wilson shouldn’t have completely pointlessly fouled an opponent.

We’d have been pleased if it prevented a goal against England.

Over time, intelligent players will cut out unnecessary fouls in the box.

That is one incident which the vast majority of people would agree WAS a foul.

There will be plenty next season that will polarise opinion and I am certain they will go against the teams outside of the top six.

 

[TottonSeagull]

Can some one please end this shite game!

 

[TottonSeagull]

Thank you Jordan!

 

[Durlston]

Scenes!!!!!

"It's coming home, it's coming, bronze medals coming home!"

This is an afternoon I'll never forget!

 

[One Love]

That is one incident which the vast majority of people would agree WAS a foul.

However if you had been watching Akanji closely during the game you would have seen that he threw himself to the floor at every opportunity.

The "foul" in question was supposed to be a pull on Akanji's arm. If so why didn't he fall in the direction of the supposed pull? He just fell backwatds.

The danger is that players that cheat like Akanji will fall over every time in the box when they are in trouble, hoping VAR will get them of it.