[JonB]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 12:23 PM, said:

On the contrary, relative to the defender's standing foot, the number 6 has gone left. Also, we can't just brush off the handball. The whole point of VAR is to highlight what the officials don't see. This should be the subject of a huge protest from Holland.

Kanes foot is planted as he strikes the ball and the number 6 is in the same position on both images relative to Kanes standing foot. If you watch the replay here at 45 seconds in you can see the defender jumps forward landing on the same foot he took off from so he has moved forward not Kane or the number 6 moving positions.

[Tylerdurdencfc]

clarevoyant., on 11 July 2024 - 11:15 AM, said:

Did we see what the ref was shown when he went to the screen? I don't recall.

How do you conclude he was trying to block the shot and not clear the ball?

You can quite clearly see the screen on the TV and the images shown on the screen. At no point did they show the other angle to the ref.

If he was trying to clear the ball, his other foot would move and his leg would move towards the ball, it doesn't and he puts his leg up to block the shot.

[Tylerdurdencfc]

JonB, on 11 July 2024 - 12:43 PM, said:

Kanes foot is planted as he strikes the ball and the number 6 is in the same position on both images relative to Kanes standing foot. If you watch the replay here at 45 seconds in you can see the defender jumps forward landing on the same foot he took off from so he has moved forward not Kane or the number 6 moving positions.

He clearly hasn't moved, look a the angle between the Dutch players legs, it is a right angle in the first and exactly the same in the second picture so therefore he hasn't moved.

His leg right leg has crumpled up a bit due to the impact from Kanes foot.

[clarevoyant.]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 11 July 2024 - 04:16 PM, said:

You can quite clearly see the screen on the TV and the images shown on the screen. At no point did they show the other angle to the ref.

If he was trying to clear the ball, his other foot would move and his leg would move towards the ball, it doesn't and he puts his leg up to block the shot.

I'll cede to your observation on what the ref was shown on the screen, but he clearly saw enough to convince himself to award a pen.

After all your forensic analysis I'm not convinced by your conclusions and I'll stick with my in the moment thought, pen. Dumfries was going for the ball was late and got the man. If this had happened in midfield and acted on correctly ie free kick and yellow card, it wouldn't have got a mention.

[Bonnyman]

Nobody watching the game thought it was a penalty, if they did they are lying ( in real time), I understand how the ref did not give it but with further angles I believe it?s a penalty, not the refs fault, he just followed the protocols of the modern game

[clarevoyant.]

Bonnyman, on 11 July 2024 - 06:33 PM, said:

Nobody watching the game thought it was a penalty, if they did they are lying ( in real time), I understand how the ref did not give it but with further angles I believe it?s a penalty, not the refs fault, he just followed the protocols of the modern game

Wrong. I did.

[JonB]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 11 July 2024 - 04:22 PM, said:

He clearly hasn't moved, look a the angle between the Dutch players legs, it is a right angle in the first and exactly the same in the second picture so therefore he hasn't moved.

His leg right leg has crumpled up a bit due to the impact from Kanes foot.

He does move watch the replay at 45 seconds in on the link I posted. He hops forward on his left foot with his right foot raised to make the challenge.

Bonnyman, on 11 July 2024 - 06:33 PM, said:

Nobody watching the game thought it was a penalty, if they did they are lying ( in real time), I understand how the ref did not give it but with further angles I believe it?s a penalty, not the refs fault, he just followed the protocols of the modern game

I said after the incident before the replay that it could be worth another look then on the first replay said it was a pen.

[Tylerdurdencfc]

clarevoyant., on 11 July 2024 - 06:28 PM, said:

I'll cede to your observation on what the ref was shown on the screen, but he clearly saw enough to convince himself to award a pen.

After all your forensic analysis I'm not convinced by your conclusions and I'll stick with my in the moment thought, pen. Dumfries was going for the ball was late and got the man. If this had happened in midfield and acted on correctly ie free kick and yellow card, it wouldn't have got a mention.

From the angle shown on the monitor that the ref saw it looks a nailed on penalty. They didn't show the other angle to him as they influenced him to change his mind to what they wanted. This is why very few refs go against the VAR as they are not shown all of the angles on the screen.

This is exactly why the VAR is spoiling the game. The ref did absolutely nothing wrong, he didn't think it was a foul, neither did any England players appeal, the Dutch players had no thought that it was a penalty and the ref who ITV drags out to try and justify and back up the VAR stated it wasn't a penalty.

The ref got it spot on and it wasn't a clear and obvious error as after seeing it numerous times, with videos pictures and freeze frames loads of people are arguing for and against it. The pundits didn't think it was and neither did the fans in the ground. Therefore, it shouldn't have even been mentioned to the ref.

[Bonnyman]

clarevoyant., on 11 July 2024 - 06:47 PM, said:

Wrong. I did.

We don?t all have the eagle eyes of a time served notorious barstool in the black like yourself Michael

[dim view]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 11 July 2024 - 07:10 PM, said:

From the angle shown on the monitor that the ref saw it looks a nailed on penalty. They didn't show the other angle to him as they influenced him to change his mind to what they wanted. This is why very few refs go against the VAR as they are not shown all of the angles on the screen.

This is exactly why the VAR is spoiling the game. The ref did absolutely nothing wrong, he didn't think it was a foul, neither did any England players appeal, the Dutch players had no thought that it was a penalty and the ref who ITV drags out to try and justify and back up the VAR stated it wasn't a penalty.

The ref got it spot on and it wasn't a clear and obvious error as after seeing it numerous times, with videos pictures and freeze frames loads of people are arguing for and against it. The pundits didn't think it was and neither did the fans in the ground. Therefore, it shouldn't have even been mentioned to the ref.

The BIG talking point should be why nobody in the Holland team or VAR spotted Saka's handball.

[60s 70s Spireite]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 08:17 PM, said:

The BIG talking point should be why nobody in the Holland team or VAR spotted Saka's handball.

Luck?

[clarevoyant.]

Bonnyman, on 11 July 2024 - 08:15 PM, said:

We don?t all have the eagle eyes of a time served notorious barstool in the black like yourself Michael

True!!!

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 08:17 PM, said:

The BIG talking point should be why nobody in the Holland team or VAR spotted Saka's handball.

No Dave.

The BIG talking point is England being in a second consecutive Euro final.

For eff's sake - me 'n' thee are old enough to remember us suffering a succession of humiliating results meaning we didn't even qualify for tournament after tournament!

Then how many times have we been kicked in the crown jewels by an act of refereeing buffoonery? A 'Hand of God' moment of some sort or another?

Yet here're folk dissecting whether or not Harry Kane should've gone all Corinthian Casual and deliberately missed a debateable penno.

Jaysus blindin' Ker-yst.

We deserved the win. We outplayed a traditionally top outfit. We did enough to earn a twenty twenty four 'David Platt moment'*.

And maybe we've become the 'new' Germany - doing the bare minimum to reach latter stages but then getting another star above their badge one way or another...


*

[60s 70s Spireite]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 11 July 2024 - 08:56 PM, said:

No Dave.

The BIG talking point is England being in a second consecutive Euro final.

For eff's sake - me 'n' thee are old enough to remember us suffering a succession of humiliating results meaning we didn't even qualify for tournament after tournament!

Then how many times have we been kicked in the crown jewels by an act of refereeing buffoonery? A 'Hand of God' moment of some sort or another?

Yet here're folk dissecting whether or not Harry Kane should've gone all Corinthian Casual and deliberately missed a debateable penno.

Jaysus blindin' Ker-yst.

We deserved the win. We outplayed a traditionally top outfit. We did enough to earn a twenty twenty four 'David Platt moment'*.

And maybe we've become the 'new' Germany - doing the bare minimum to reach latter stages but then getting another star above their badge one way or another...


*

Lineker and Richards in their podcast discussed the part luck plays, starting with the elements of bad luck we?ve had over the years.
The hand of God, Beckhams sending off, Lampard?s disallowed goal, the foul on Saka in the lead up to France?s goal in Qatar.
It seems our name may just be on the trophy this time around.

[dim view]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 11 July 2024 - 08:56 PM, said:

No Dave.

The BIG talking point is England being in a second consecutive Euro final.

For eff's sake - me 'n' thee are old enough to remember us suffering a succession of humiliating results meaning we didn't even qualify for tournament after tournament!

Then how many times have we been kicked in the crown jewels by an act of refereeing buffoonery? A 'Hand of God' moment of some sort or another?

Yet here're folk dissecting whether or not Harry Kane should've gone all Corinthian Casual and deliberately missed a debateable penno.

Jaysus blindin' Ker-yst.

We deserved the win. We outplayed a traditionally top outfit. We did enough to earn a twenty twenty four 'David Platt moment'*.

And maybe we've become the 'new' Germany - doing the bare minimum to reach latter stages but then getting another star above their badge one way or another...


*

well yep, all that...
But Var isn't fit for purpose. I thought handball spotting was semi automated, worever that is.

[JonB]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 09:27 PM, said:

well yep, all that...
But Var isn't fit for purpose. I thought handball spotting was semi automated, worever that is.

This tournament has the snicko thing via a chip in the ball to determine contact. They could have determined there was no contact first off so no point in showing that replay as there was nothing to deal with.

[dalekpete]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 09:27 PM, said:

well yep, all that...
But Var isn't fit for purpose. I thought handball spotting was semi automated, worever that is.

I am not sure how spotting hand-ball can be automated.

The laws of the game only make an absolute offence for the scorer. The tournament interpretation means any contact in the build-up is punished; this might mean England were lucky.

The challenge on Kane was a foul; late and with studs leading; the view that there is a separate balance within the box is rubbish.

In terms of the on-field officials? decision be aware that the error standard is based on their view of the action. If the ref didn?t recognise an offence because he thought the challenge was 50:50 then there was an error in his decision.

[clarevoyant.]

dalekpete, on 11 July 2024 - 09:47 PM, said:

I am not sure how spotting hand-ball can be automated.

The laws of the game only make an absolute offence for the scorer. The tournament interpretation means any contact in the build-up is punished; this might mean England were lucky.

The challenge on Kane was a foul; late and with studs leading; the view that there is a separate balance within the box is rubbish.

In terms of the on-field officials? decision be aware that the error standard is based on their view of the action. If the ref didn?t recognise an offence because he thought the challenge was 50:50 then there was an error in his decision.

Hallelujah.

[dim view]

dalekpete, on 11 July 2024 - 09:47 PM, said:

I am not sure how spotting hand-ball can be automated.

The laws of the game only make an absolute offence for the scorer. The tournament interpretation means any contact in the build-up is punished; this might mean England were lucky.

The challenge on Kane was a foul; late and with studs leading; the view that there is a separate balance within the box is rubbish.

In terms of the on-field officials? decision be aware that the error standard is based on their view of the action. If the ref didn?t recognise an offence because he thought the challenge was 50:50 then there was an error in his decision.

Morning.
I'm not sure how offside can be automated, but it's supposed to be. Do they put the sensor in the toe or the heel of a boot?

Imo, the challenge on Kane wasn't 50-50 and wasn't a foul. I'm not aware of anyone that's posted that the rules are different in the box but I might be wrong. Their interpretation is though, which might be the same as saying the rules are different. For example a raised foot or overhead kick to volley away a ball on the goal line in spite of being potentially dangerous would not be penalised.

[JonB]

dalekpete, on 11 July 2024 - 09:47 PM, said:

I am not sure how spotting hand-ball can be automated.

In terms of handball in this tournament they have a chip in the ball that can determine the ball striking something so synced up with the pictures can determine if it touched a hand etc so while not automated as such there is technology in use to assist with handball decisions. Didnt Belgium have a decision against them based on information from the chip in the ball?
https://www.sporting...226bde802160732