As much as I was surprised at VAR not looking at the pen incident, there wasn’t a review for the goal. It was close, bearing in mind the goals that Lukaku has had chalked off.
Who said it wasn’t checked?
If it was it wasn’t communicated, they told us there was a potential pen check when the Hungry player was knocked out.
Every single goal is checked, just like the PL. Semi-automated offsides + the chip in the ball means it can be done incredibly quickly
As much as I was surprised at VAR not looking at the pen incident, there wasn’t a review for the goal. It was close, bearing in mind the goals that Lukaku has had chalked off.
Who said it wasn’t checked?
If it was it wasn’t communicated, they told us there was a potential pen check when the Hungry player was knocked out.
Every single goal is checked, just like the PL. Semi-automated offsides + the chip in the ball means it can be done incredibly quickly
The Scotland player did step across in front of the defender but he was within playing distance of the ball and therefore it’s not obstruction. He has the right to take that option if he chooses. This happens all the time when defenders are letting the ball run off for a goal kick and if the attacker clatters into them like that it’s a foul.
Therefore for me it’s an absolute penalty.
If there’s any doubt it has to go to VAR surely?
Seriously, we have VAR ruling out several goals for offsides not apparent to the naked eye, and yet when a defender brings down an opponent in the box with no attempt to play the ball the VAR team go to sleep.
But the defender also has the right to run in a straight line towards the ball. As you say, the Scotland plays stepped (jumped actually) across the line of the defender whilst having a handful of his shirt and caused the collision. So no penalty for me.
This principle is never applied in the modern game. Maybe 30 years ago but nowadays anywhere else on the pitch and possibly with a more esteemed player shielding the ball, it would be given as a foul. As for holding for holding the shirt, this happens after contact with his leg so it’s irrelevant.
I think there’s a lot of bias against Scotland. If that was against Charlton or England everyone would be screaming ’stonewall penalty. ’
He wasn't shielding the ball, he just jumped across the other players path.
Nope, he grabs hold of his shirt whilst he's jumping across him and just before the legs collide.
Both Ally Mccoist and Chris Sutton commentating, as well as numerous Scottish fans across social media, have said it wasn't a penalty. So not all about anti Scottish bias.
Just scrap VAR . VAR was meant to put an end to "controversial" decisions but its simply created new controversies by making incorrect decisions, not reviewing when it should and having no consistency. If its not reviewing yesterdays penalty claim but is giving a penalty to Qatar early on in the first game in the World Cup and not intervening when the Arsenal player picks the ball up in his own penalty area v Bayern Munich with the ball in play then its turning itself into a laughing stock and isnt fit for purpose. Numerous other farcical examples of it too numerous to mention as well. If it did review yesterdays pen claim why wasnt it communicated as such ? We cant just assume they did review it - no consistency in communication and execution plus it makes incorrect decisions when it does get involved. Before VAR a "controversial" ref decision would be put to bed by the mantra that "it was a penalty because the referee awarded it" - end of arguement / end of story move on - the authourity of the ref as the person in charge was there. Now, the authourity of the ref has been eroded by VAR and the authourity of VAR has been eroded by its own incompetence and lack of consistency meaning that Scotland fans can quite justifiably claim they were robbed/cheated last night by a flawed system that isnt fit for purpose and isnt working.
There are very few if any Scotland fans shouting “robbed/cheated” this morning. The views on social media and the press are simply lamenting the abject whimper with which Scotland exited the tournament. Sentiment is turning pretty rapidly against Steve Clarke for his ultra negative tactics and cringeworthy comments about the ref post match. I doubt he will survive this. Very good article by Ton English on the bbc sport website this morning if anyone can be bothered.
There are very few if any Scotland fans shouting “robbed/cheated” this morning. The views on social media and the press are simply lamenting the abject whimper with which Scotland exited the tournament. Sentiment is turning pretty rapidly against Steve Clarke for his ultra negative tactics and cringeworthy comments about the ref post match. I doubt he will survive this. Very good article by Ton English on the bbc sport website this morning if anyone can be bothered.
It’s funny, before we got beaten 3-0 away to Spain in October it was almost sacrilege to talk of Clarke in anything but wildly positive terms. But the run since then was awful such that even coming into the tournament the shine had worn off. The tournament itself was always going to be tough - we don’t have a deep pool of players to select from and are subsequently one of the weaker squads at the Euros. However, it feels as though Clarke is playing a bad hand badly.
If you have a weak squad it’s vital that you have a manager that can come up with a strategy to make you better than the sum of your parts. If we look at the sum of our parts we basically lived up to them - awful defence = 7 goals conceded in three games (and it could have been more), no real goal threat = 2 goals scored (at least 50% of which were OGs).
Again, it feels harsh to criticise too much given how long we went without qualifying, but in the cold light of day that was a really disappointing tournament for us and I don’t think too many tears will be shed if Clarke goes.
The Scotland player did step across in front of the defender but he was within playing distance of the ball and therefore it’s not obstruction. He has the right to take that option if he chooses. This happens all the time when defenders are letting the ball run off for a goal kick and if the attacker clatters into them like that it’s a foul.
Therefore for me it’s an absolute penalty.
If there’s any doubt it has to go to VAR surely?
Seriously, we have VAR ruling out several goals for offsides not apparent to the naked eye, and yet when a defender brings down an opponent in the box with no attempt to play the ball the VAR team go to sleep.
But the defender also has the right to run in a straight line towards the ball. As you say, the Scotland plays stepped (jumped actually) across the line of the defender whilst having a handful of his shirt and caused the collision. So no penalty for me.
This principle is never applied in the modern game. Maybe 30 years ago but nowadays anywhere else on the pitch and possibly with a more esteemed player shielding the ball, it would be given as a foul. As for holding for holding the shirt, this happens after contact with his leg so it’s irrelevant.
I think there’s a lot of bias against Scotland. If that was against Charlton or England everyone would be screaming ’stonewall penalty. ’
He wasn't shielding the ball, he just jumped across the other players path.
Nope, he grabs hold of his shirt whilst he's jumping across him and just before the legs collide.
Both Ally Mccoist and Chris Sutton commentating, as well as numerous Scottish fans across social media, have said it wasn't a penalty. So not all about anti Scottish bias.
You might be right about the timing of the shirt pull but one thing I will insist on is my ’shielding of the ball’ argument.
What is ’shielding the ball’ if it isn’t ’jumping across the others player’s path?'
Most football fans nowadays don’t understand the obstruction law. If you are within playing distance of the ball you are allowed to block an opponent with your body as happens constantly in League One taking the ball into the corner at the end of matches. This is referred to now as a much lauded ’shielding the ball’.
This in fact is often obstruction however as the defender will block an attacker when the ball is a metre from his foot and therefore unplayable.
To discuss this sensibly a clarification between ’shielding’ and obstruction is necessary.
Yesterday evening, the Scot was within playing distance so it was ’shielding’ and therefore legitimate.
Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.
I was going for Hungary due to me having lived there for a while but what garbage both teams were. I celebrated the goal but my word neither should of qualified. Joke football teams.
Conor Gallagher expected to come into the team in place of Trent Alexander Arnold according to David Ornstein.
As much as i like Gallagher i think this is pretty pathetic from Southgate and not what we need at all.
Agreed - we are playing Slovenia ffs.
No idea why he can't just move Bellingham back a bit, and have Foden as the 10.
It's frustrating. It would solve so much of what we have been missing from first two games. Bellingham will still have the opportunities to come forward while Foden is in his best position. Kane will be in the game a lot more with the runs from Saka and Gordon.
Conor Gallagher expected to come into the team in place of Trent Alexander Arnold according to David Ornstein.
As much as i like Gallagher i think this is pretty pathetic from Southgate and not what we need at all.
Agreed - we are playing Slovenia ffs.
No idea why he can't just move Bellingham back a bit, and have Foden as the 10.
Not sure we even need that - a back four with Rice as defensive midfielder should be enough. the other five should be all attack minded - Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Palmer, Mainoo. I would rest Harry.
It’s all fine thinking of Rice as a defensive midfielder so just put an attack minded player next to him but Rice naturally wants to play higher up the pitch than a traditional defensive midfielder who sits in front of the back four does. Which makes things a lot more tricky.
That’s why I think putting him and Bellingham together wouldn’t work. Both would want to go forward and you’d have moments in games where one pass would cut through the entire midfield and leave our centre backs exposed to counter attacks.
Seven individual players from other nations have had more shots on target than all of Scotland’s players put together - and six of that seven have only played two games
Never mind all that....... . Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, Rabbie Burns, Nicola Sturgeon, Rab C Nebitt, Boaty McBoatface.... Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Your lads took one helluva beatin'.
Never mind all that....... . Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, Rabbie Burns, Nicola Sturgeon, Rab C Nebitt, Boaty McBoatface.... Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Your lads took one helluva beatin'.
Never mind all that....... . Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, Rabbie Burns, Nicola Sturgeon, Rab C Nebitt, Boaty McBoatface.... Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Your lads took one helluva beatin'.
Never mind all that....... . Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, Rabbie Burns, Nicola Sturgeon, Rab C Nebitt, Boaty McBoatface.... Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Your lads took one helluva beatin'.
Comments
He wasn't shielding the ball, he just jumped across the other players path.
Nope, he grabs hold of his shirt whilst he's jumping across him and just before the legs collide.
Both Ally Mccoist and Chris Sutton commentating, as well as numerous Scottish fans across social media, have said it wasn't a penalty. So not all about anti Scottish bias.
Before VAR a "controversial" ref decision would be put to bed by the mantra that "it was a penalty because the referee awarded it" - end of arguement / end of story move on - the authourity of the ref as the person in charge was there. Now, the authourity of the ref has been eroded by VAR and the authourity of VAR has been eroded by its own incompetence and lack of consistency meaning that Scotland fans can quite justifiably claim they were robbed/cheated last night by a flawed system that isnt fit for purpose and isnt working.
What is ’shielding the ball’ if it isn’t ’jumping across the others player’s path?'
Most football fans nowadays don’t understand the obstruction law. If you are within playing distance of the ball you are allowed to block an opponent with your body as happens constantly in League One taking the ball into the corner at the end of matches. This is referred to now as a much lauded ’shielding the ball’.
This in fact is often obstruction however as the defender will block an attacker when the ball is a metre from his foot and therefore unplayable.
To discuss this sensibly a clarification between ’shielding’ and obstruction is necessary.
Yesterday evening, the Scot was within playing distance so it was ’shielding’ and therefore legitimate.
Agreed - we are playing Slovenia ffs.
Fair point, well made
Not sure we even need that - a back four with Rice as defensive midfielder should be enough. the other five should be all attack minded - Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Palmer, Mainoo. I would rest Harry.
That’s why I think putting him and Bellingham together wouldn’t work. Both would want to go forward and you’d have moments in games where one pass would cut through the entire midfield and leave our centre backs exposed to counter attacks.
We look so predictable because he's cutting back inside and so is Foden.
You forgot The Crankies.