Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
World Cup 2026 - USA/Canada/Mexico
Comments
-
FIFA have taken all the ticket revenue, so the stadium are making their profit on refreshments...bobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
I’ll never forgive fifa for taking the latter stage knockout experience away from so many of the proper England fans for this tournament.Lincsaddick said:
Even in the supporters group the category 2 tickets for the quarters and onwards were completely unaffordable for most. A disgrace
Can @bobmunro give examples on the costs of refreshments and souvenirs inside the ground?Three bottles (each just over half a pint) of Michelob (weak piss water) £45! That's in the stadiums. The only souvenirs I got were presents for the Mrs from Macy's in thanks for the two week pass! And a thank you in advance for the return trip to the final (if England get there).We went to the darts at MSG the night before the Panama game - bet365 main sponsor so lovely table next to the stage - all drinks included. It's who you know of course!! My eldest decided to get a drink at the auditorium bar before we took our seats - three double Jack & cokes - £140! He wasn't too impressed!Found bars in Dallas, Boston and New York - happy hour all day! $4 a pint for Modelo (lovely stuff!).0 -
Paid $25 Canadian plus sales tax (so about £15) for a can of Stella in stadium in Toronto.
You could buy it while still in your seat and drink in view of the pitch so that was something.2 -
agree with the post in general but this bib needs A LOT more scrutiny IMO - we had a whole extra minute for absolutely no reason added in the Mexico game just because they forced an extra corner -it's an outrageous overstretch of the laws of the game that has ZERO merit and it happens ALL the timePragueAddick said:
Well as @killerandflash says above, it's an "unofficial rule", whatever that is, but I have certainly heard it confirmed by several journalists who have been talking to VAR officials. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm in very good company in this among the commentariat, a foul is a foul. So what if a sly tug on the shirt results in a penalty kick? If the players know perfectly well that that's going to be the punishment, then you won't get the tug on the shirt any more (as also said earlier).CAFCTrev said:
The reason for that is the punishment for a foul in the penalty area is a free shot at goal with only the goalkeeper to beat, giving the attacking team an extremely high chance of scoring. Because the reward is so significant, the threshold for awarding a penalty should be much higher than it is for giving a free kick anywhere else on the pitch.killerandflash said:The problem is the unofficial rule that fouls in the penalty box need to be stronger to be given, than anywhere else on the pitch. That slight nudge on the half way line is given as a foul, whereas you wouldn't award a penalty for it if the same offence was in the box, or else you'd have 10 penalties a game.
There were 2 very minor fouls on Egyptian players before the 3rd goal. If they had been done elsewhere on the pitch they might have been given, but no way were the 2 enough to give a penalty.
The ideal scenario would have been to disallow the 3rd goal, but also not award a penalty, but that's not allowed!
If we've got "unofficial rules", we're in big trouble. it means that the game's administrators are trying to run things surreptitiously without us noticing or telling us. If this is what is happening, higher thresholds for fouls in the penalty area, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if unofficially refs are allowed or even encouraged to play a few seconds more than the allotted time just to see what happens at that corner, or whatever. That's not on either.
edit to add because I am legitimately so mad about this one - if a mm or two is so important in an offiside, if a slight touch in the penalty area triggers a VAR check, then play to the god damn time that is added unless there is an actual reason other than a corner kick or there's a team attacking in the final third2 -
The reason is that it's a minimum amount of time given, not a set amount. All it takes is a stoppage of 30 seconds to a minute and the ref is justified in playing on past the amount givenManic_mania said:
agree with the post in general but this bib needs A LOT more scrutiny IMO - we had a whole extra minute for absolutely no reason added in the Mexico game just because they forced an extra corner -it's an outrageous overstretch of the laws of the game that has ZERO merit and it happens ALL the timePragueAddick said:
Well as @killerandflash says above, it's an "unofficial rule", whatever that is, but I have certainly heard it confirmed by several journalists who have been talking to VAR officials. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm in very good company in this among the commentariat, a foul is a foul. So what if a sly tug on the shirt results in a penalty kick? If the players know perfectly well that that's going to be the punishment, then you won't get the tug on the shirt any more (as also said earlier).CAFCTrev said:
The reason for that is the punishment for a foul in the penalty area is a free shot at goal with only the goalkeeper to beat, giving the attacking team an extremely high chance of scoring. Because the reward is so significant, the threshold for awarding a penalty should be much higher than it is for giving a free kick anywhere else on the pitch.killerandflash said:The problem is the unofficial rule that fouls in the penalty box need to be stronger to be given, than anywhere else on the pitch. That slight nudge on the half way line is given as a foul, whereas you wouldn't award a penalty for it if the same offence was in the box, or else you'd have 10 penalties a game.
There were 2 very minor fouls on Egyptian players before the 3rd goal. If they had been done elsewhere on the pitch they might have been given, but no way were the 2 enough to give a penalty.
The ideal scenario would have been to disallow the 3rd goal, but also not award a penalty, but that's not allowed!
If we've got "unofficial rules", we're in big trouble. it means that the game's administrators are trying to run things surreptitiously without us noticing or telling us. If this is what is happening, higher thresholds for fouls in the penalty area, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if unofficially refs are allowed or even encouraged to play a few seconds more than the allotted time just to see what happens at that corner, or whatever. That's not on either.
edit to add because I am legitimately so mad about this one - if a mm or two is so important in an offiside, if a slight touch in the penalty area triggers a VAR check, then play to the god damn time that is added unless there is an actual reason other than a corner kick or there's a team attacking in the final third1 -
Bring in some different rules, stop the clock on subs and injuries, or lengthy set pieces (penalties, stuff like that) and once the play goes dead after the allotted time (maybe 80 mins, 40 mins a half) then the game is over0
-
Modelo's a cracking pint. Not very popular over here, but it's a lovely beer. If you can find it, Modelo Negro is even betterbobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
I’ll never forgive fifa for taking the latter stage knockout experience away from so many of the proper England fans for this tournament.Lincsaddick said:
Even in the supporters group the category 2 tickets for the quarters and onwards were completely unaffordable for most. A disgrace
Can @bobmunro give examples on the costs of refreshments and souvenirs inside the ground?Three bottles (each just over half a pint) of Michelob (weak piss water) £45! That's in the stadiums. The only souvenirs I got were presents for the Mrs from Macy's in thanks for the two week pass! And a thank you in advance for the return trip to the final (if England get there).We went to the darts at MSG the night before the Panama game - bet365 main sponsor so lovely table next to the stage - all drinks included. It's who you know of course!! My eldest decided to get a drink at the auditorium bar before we took our seats - three double Jack & cokes - £140! He wasn't too impressed!Found bars in Dallas, Boston and New York - happy hour all day! $4 a pint for Modelo (lovely stuff!).3 -
That's what he was trying for, with his Oscar winning performance in the Canada game. Overreacted like a total tit.Callumcafc said:Michael Oliver has been appointed to the Spain v Belgium quarter final.0 -
Happy to carry on with Modelo until the 19th!Leroy Ambrose said:
Modelo's a cracking pint. Not very popular over here, but it's a lovely beer. If you can find it, Modelo Negro is even betterbobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
I’ll never forgive fifa for taking the latter stage knockout experience away from so many of the proper England fans for this tournament.Lincsaddick said:
Even in the supporters group the category 2 tickets for the quarters and onwards were completely unaffordable for most. A disgrace
Can @bobmunro give examples on the costs of refreshments and souvenirs inside the ground?Three bottles (each just over half a pint) of Michelob (weak piss water) £45! That's in the stadiums. The only souvenirs I got were presents for the Mrs from Macy's in thanks for the two week pass! And a thank you in advance for the return trip to the final (if England get there).We went to the darts at MSG the night before the Panama game - bet365 main sponsor so lovely table next to the stage - all drinks included. It's who you know of course!! My eldest decided to get a drink at the auditorium bar before we took our seats - three double Jack & cokes - £140! He wasn't too impressed!Found bars in Dallas, Boston and New York - happy hour all day! $4 a pint for Modelo (lovely stuff!).
2 -
Yeah but that doesn't justify adding on extra time on top just because a team happens to be attacking - if there are no injury stoppages during the added on time then the ref should blow up at the minimum amount - not add on a minute because a team gets a cornerfenaddick said:
The reason is that it's a minimum amount of time given, not a set amount. All it takes is a stoppage of 30 seconds to a minute and the ref is justified in playing on past the amount givenManic_mania said:
agree with the post in general but this bib needs A LOT more scrutiny IMO - we had a whole extra minute for absolutely no reason added in the Mexico game just because they forced an extra corner -it's an outrageous overstretch of the laws of the game that has ZERO merit and it happens ALL the timePragueAddick said:
Well as @killerandflash says above, it's an "unofficial rule", whatever that is, but I have certainly heard it confirmed by several journalists who have been talking to VAR officials. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm in very good company in this among the commentariat, a foul is a foul. So what if a sly tug on the shirt results in a penalty kick? If the players know perfectly well that that's going to be the punishment, then you won't get the tug on the shirt any more (as also said earlier).CAFCTrev said:
The reason for that is the punishment for a foul in the penalty area is a free shot at goal with only the goalkeeper to beat, giving the attacking team an extremely high chance of scoring. Because the reward is so significant, the threshold for awarding a penalty should be much higher than it is for giving a free kick anywhere else on the pitch.killerandflash said:The problem is the unofficial rule that fouls in the penalty box need to be stronger to be given, than anywhere else on the pitch. That slight nudge on the half way line is given as a foul, whereas you wouldn't award a penalty for it if the same offence was in the box, or else you'd have 10 penalties a game.
There were 2 very minor fouls on Egyptian players before the 3rd goal. If they had been done elsewhere on the pitch they might have been given, but no way were the 2 enough to give a penalty.
The ideal scenario would have been to disallow the 3rd goal, but also not award a penalty, but that's not allowed!
If we've got "unofficial rules", we're in big trouble. it means that the game's administrators are trying to run things surreptitiously without us noticing or telling us. If this is what is happening, higher thresholds for fouls in the penalty area, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if unofficially refs are allowed or even encouraged to play a few seconds more than the allotted time just to see what happens at that corner, or whatever. That's not on either.
edit to add because I am legitimately so mad about this one - if a mm or two is so important in an offiside, if a slight touch in the penalty area triggers a VAR check, then play to the god damn time that is added unless there is an actual reason other than a corner kick or there's a team attacking in the final third2 -
Understand from who? Do you know anybody in Argentina? If you weren’t born when the Falklands Malvinas war took place, don’t you think this is true for many Argentinians? Don’t you also think that many Argentinians were against the government that started the war?se9addick said:
I don’t really get it either (but I wasn’t born when the Falklands took place). I understand it’s a waaaaaay bigger thing in Argentina than it is here though.fenaddick said:
I'm 27 and I don't really get it either but for me international football doesn't really need rivalries anyway. That said, I understand why Côte d'Ivoire might have extra motivation to beat France etc.DamoNorthStand said:fenaddick said:
I suspect these two stories contributeChris_from_Sidcup said:That is pretty crazy, i mean how far do you go back before deciding it doesn't really matter? Oliver probably wasn't even alive when the Falklands war took place.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/07/08/watch-argentina-players-taunt-england-with-falklands-chant/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28498909
In my lifetime, it is probably by far the most emotive of football rivalries but then again I was alive for the Falklands, Hand of God, Simeone etc...... ask my 18 year old son and he doesnt get the Argie hate.
Of course there remains a rivalry but I think people want to exaggerate it by going back to this conflict which most Argentinians consider a folly by the dictatorship. Don’t forget that people generally are against dictatorships in their own country.
That said, most Argentinians think that the Malvinas should belong to them, and I agree with them.10 -
Sponsored links:
-
True but there wasn't a stoppage that justified it. It was just giving Mexico a bit more of a chance. Nothing major but these things can make a difference. The Egypt disallowed goal? The problem is who can be certain there would be the same outcome the other way round. Maybe there would but there is enough doubt to be a real issue IMO. This could be solved by more consistency in how these things are done. It isn't about wrong or right decisions but consistency. The USA red card issue has also helped to blow all of this out of the water. FIFA is a closed shop. Otherwise the incompetents that allow this state of affairs would be sacked.fenaddick said:
The reason is that it's a minimum amount of time given, not a set amount. All it takes is a stoppage of 30 seconds to a minute and the ref is justified in playing on past the amount givenManic_mania said:
agree with the post in general but this bib needs A LOT more scrutiny IMO - we had a whole extra minute for absolutely no reason added in the Mexico game just because they forced an extra corner -it's an outrageous overstretch of the laws of the game that has ZERO merit and it happens ALL the timePragueAddick said:
Well as @killerandflash says above, it's an "unofficial rule", whatever that is, but I have certainly heard it confirmed by several journalists who have been talking to VAR officials. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm in very good company in this among the commentariat, a foul is a foul. So what if a sly tug on the shirt results in a penalty kick? If the players know perfectly well that that's going to be the punishment, then you won't get the tug on the shirt any more (as also said earlier).CAFCTrev said:
The reason for that is the punishment for a foul in the penalty area is a free shot at goal with only the goalkeeper to beat, giving the attacking team an extremely high chance of scoring. Because the reward is so significant, the threshold for awarding a penalty should be much higher than it is for giving a free kick anywhere else on the pitch.killerandflash said:The problem is the unofficial rule that fouls in the penalty box need to be stronger to be given, than anywhere else on the pitch. That slight nudge on the half way line is given as a foul, whereas you wouldn't award a penalty for it if the same offence was in the box, or else you'd have 10 penalties a game.
There were 2 very minor fouls on Egyptian players before the 3rd goal. If they had been done elsewhere on the pitch they might have been given, but no way were the 2 enough to give a penalty.
The ideal scenario would have been to disallow the 3rd goal, but also not award a penalty, but that's not allowed!
If we've got "unofficial rules", we're in big trouble. it means that the game's administrators are trying to run things surreptitiously without us noticing or telling us. If this is what is happening, higher thresholds for fouls in the penalty area, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if unofficially refs are allowed or even encouraged to play a few seconds more than the allotted time just to see what happens at that corner, or whatever. That's not on either.
edit to add because I am legitimately so mad about this one - if a mm or two is so important in an offiside, if a slight touch in the penalty area triggers a VAR check, then play to the god damn time that is added unless there is an actual reason other than a corner kick or there's a team attacking in the final third
0 -
How do most Falklanders feel about the Falklands?jimmymelrose said:
Understand from who? Do you know anybody in Argentina? If you weren’t born when the Falklands Malvinas war took place, don’t you think this is true for many Argentinians? Don’t you also think that many Argentinians were against the government that started the war?se9addick said:
I don’t really get it either (but I wasn’t born when the Falklands took place). I understand it’s a waaaaaay bigger thing in Argentina than it is here though.fenaddick said:
I'm 27 and I don't really get it either but for me international football doesn't really need rivalries anyway. That said, I understand why Côte d'Ivoire might have extra motivation to beat France etc.DamoNorthStand said:fenaddick said:
I suspect these two stories contributeChris_from_Sidcup said:That is pretty crazy, i mean how far do you go back before deciding it doesn't really matter? Oliver probably wasn't even alive when the Falklands war took place.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/07/08/watch-argentina-players-taunt-england-with-falklands-chant/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28498909
In my lifetime, it is probably by far the most emotive of football rivalries but then again I was alive for the Falklands, Hand of God, Simeone etc...... ask my 18 year old son and he doesnt get the Argie hate.
Of course there remains a rivalry but I think people want to exaggerate it by going back to this conflict which most Argentinians consider a folly by the dictatorship. Don’t forget that people generally are against dictatorships in their own country.
That said, most Argentinians think that the Malvinas should belong to them, and I agree with them.9 -
jimmymelrose said:
Understand from who? Do you know anybody in Argentina? If you weren’t born when the Falklands Malvinas war took place, don’t you think this is true for many Argentinians? Don’t you also think that many Argentinians were against the government that started the war?se9addick said:
I don’t really get it either (but I wasn’t born when the Falklands took place). I understand it’s a waaaaaay bigger thing in Argentina than it is here though.fenaddick said:
I'm 27 and I don't really get it either but for me international football doesn't really need rivalries anyway. That said, I understand why Côte d'Ivoire might have extra motivation to beat France etc.DamoNorthStand said:fenaddick said:
I suspect these two stories contributeChris_from_Sidcup said:That is pretty crazy, i mean how far do you go back before deciding it doesn't really matter? Oliver probably wasn't even alive when the Falklands war took place.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/07/08/watch-argentina-players-taunt-england-with-falklands-chant/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28498909
In my lifetime, it is probably by far the most emotive of football rivalries but then again I was alive for the Falklands, Hand of God, Simeone etc...... ask my 18 year old son and he doesnt get the Argie hate.
Of course there remains a rivalry but I think people want to exaggerate it by going back to this conflict which most Argentinians consider a folly by the dictatorship. Don’t forget that people generally are against dictatorships in their own country.
That said, most Argentinians think that the Malvinas should belong to them, and I agree with them.
0 -
I mean it’s plainly a bigger thing for Argentinians than it is for English people:jimmymelrose said:
Understand from who? Do you know anybody in Argentina? If you weren’t born when the Falklands Malvinas war took place, don’t you think this is true for many Argentinians? Don’t you also think that many Argentinians were against the government that started the war?se9addick said:
I don’t really get it either (but I wasn’t born when the Falklands took place). I understand it’s a waaaaaay bigger thing in Argentina than it is here though.fenaddick said:
I'm 27 and I don't really get it either but for me international football doesn't really need rivalries anyway. That said, I understand why Côte d'Ivoire might have extra motivation to beat France etc.DamoNorthStand said:fenaddick said:
I suspect these two stories contributeChris_from_Sidcup said:That is pretty crazy, i mean how far do you go back before deciding it doesn't really matter? Oliver probably wasn't even alive when the Falklands war took place.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/07/08/watch-argentina-players-taunt-england-with-falklands-chant/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28498909
In my lifetime, it is probably by far the most emotive of football rivalries but then again I was alive for the Falklands, Hand of God, Simeone etc...... ask my 18 year old son and he doesnt get the Argie hate.
Of course there remains a rivalry but I think people want to exaggerate it by going back to this conflict which most Argentinians consider a folly by the dictatorship. Don’t forget that people generally are against dictatorships in their own country.
That said, most Argentinians think that the Malvinas should belong to them, and I agree with them.
- it’s relatively recent that Argentinian players held a “Malvinas son Argentinos” flag before a game
- the Falkland Islands feature on Argentinian currency alongside some
- there’s some sort of song/hymn that kids sing at school which refers to the islands. I believe signing this hymn is actually a legal requirement in some parts of Argentina.- Argentina fans still have songs about hating the English originating from Falklands stuff that they sing to this day.Absolutely none of this stuff occurs in England and anyone who got particularly het up about the Falklands here would appear demented. Doesn’t mean that every Argentinian person spends all day thinking about the Falklands and the injustice of them not being in Argentinian hands, I agree that most done. But clearly it’s a much more prominent feature of Argentine society than it is English.4 -
-
Ref Missed the foul before the disallowed goal so he got that completely wrong!The Red Robin said:Just seen the other Egypt claim on Mac Allister. I'm not sure he even touches him. As much as I dislike Argentina and do think they, and Messi get an easy ride, the referee has got everything right that game. Egypt fell apart. Really poor for the third goal especially.
VAR got that one right but didn't actually look at everything! It's weird and difficult to watch!
0 -
Bad news for Morocco, their leading scorer Saibari has been ruled out of tonights game.0
-
love the England video of Crouchy getting his legacy cap from the players.4
-
9 -
So Messi and Infantino are against a 70 year old Kane? Weird.SantaClaus said:0 -
Sponsored links:
-
The Viking that was born in Leeds.jimmymelrose said:
So Messi and Infantino are against a 70 year old Kane? Weird.SantaClaus said:2 -
Seeing the price of final tickets on the black market (if we get there) are steadily creeping up
We took the plunge once we qualified but the next games are gonna be torture to watch 🙏
Good as well that BA are putting on flights from heathrow about every 5 minutes all through the Saturday, I wonder what happens when they have thousands of people looking rebook if we lose one of these next two 😂. Do they cut their losses knowing they will be flying empty planes ?
0 -
robroy said:
The Viking that was born in Leeds.jimmymelrose said:
So Messi and Infantino are against a 70 year old Kane? Weird.SantaClaus said:
St George, who got the gig( had a good agent) to be patron saint of England was born in modern day Turkey, never set foot in England, became a Roman soldier and was martyred in AD 303 because he wouldn't recant his Christian faith.
The pub landlord must be mad that this could happen 😤1 -
I’m talking about Haaland mate.soapboxsam said:robroy said:
The Viking that was born in Leeds.jimmymelrose said:
So Messi and Infantino are against a 70 year old Kane? Weird.SantaClaus said:
St George, who got the gig( had a good agent) to be patron saint of England was born in modern day Turkey, never set foot in England, became a Roman soldier and was martyred in AD 303 because he wouldn't recant his Christian faith.
The pub landlord must be mad that this could happen 😤1 -
Obviously it would have been great for us if he had declared for England, but Haaland is clearly Norwegian. Born to Norwegian expats who happened to be living in the UK at the time, but who returned home when he was 3, where he grew up and learned the game.
If Gary Lineker had a boy who played football, it would be bizarre to say he wasn't English, just because he was born in Barcelona or Japan when Lineker was playing there.6 -
Jeez the last page or so. Been a great 200+ pages so far and enjoyed hearing about games I’ve missed and peoples experiences at the games, then people just have to start including rants about nationalities, Falkland’s war etc. Yes, some things are more important than football, but let’s keep this thread to football, please.6
-
Sounds like a member of the Clive Thomas Fan Club.Manic_mania said:
Yeah but that doesn't justify adding on extra time on top just because a team happens to be attacking - if there are no injury stoppages during the added on time then the ref should blow up at the minimum amount - not add on a minute because a team gets a cornerfenaddick said:
The reason is that it's a minimum amount of time given, not a set amount. All it takes is a stoppage of 30 seconds to a minute and the ref is justified in playing on past the amount givenManic_mania said:
agree with the post in general but this bib needs A LOT more scrutiny IMO - we had a whole extra minute for absolutely no reason added in the Mexico game just because they forced an extra corner -it's an outrageous overstretch of the laws of the game that has ZERO merit and it happens ALL the timePragueAddick said:
Well as @killerandflash says above, it's an "unofficial rule", whatever that is, but I have certainly heard it confirmed by several journalists who have been talking to VAR officials. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm in very good company in this among the commentariat, a foul is a foul. So what if a sly tug on the shirt results in a penalty kick? If the players know perfectly well that that's going to be the punishment, then you won't get the tug on the shirt any more (as also said earlier).CAFCTrev said:
The reason for that is the punishment for a foul in the penalty area is a free shot at goal with only the goalkeeper to beat, giving the attacking team an extremely high chance of scoring. Because the reward is so significant, the threshold for awarding a penalty should be much higher than it is for giving a free kick anywhere else on the pitch.killerandflash said:The problem is the unofficial rule that fouls in the penalty box need to be stronger to be given, than anywhere else on the pitch. That slight nudge on the half way line is given as a foul, whereas you wouldn't award a penalty for it if the same offence was in the box, or else you'd have 10 penalties a game.
There were 2 very minor fouls on Egyptian players before the 3rd goal. If they had been done elsewhere on the pitch they might have been given, but no way were the 2 enough to give a penalty.
The ideal scenario would have been to disallow the 3rd goal, but also not award a penalty, but that's not allowed!
If we've got "unofficial rules", we're in big trouble. it means that the game's administrators are trying to run things surreptitiously without us noticing or telling us. If this is what is happening, higher thresholds for fouls in the penalty area, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if unofficially refs are allowed or even encouraged to play a few seconds more than the allotted time just to see what happens at that corner, or whatever. That's not on either.
edit to add because I am legitimately so mad about this one - if a mm or two is so important in an offiside, if a slight touch in the penalty area triggers a VAR check, then play to the god damn time that is added unless there is an actual reason other than a corner kick or there's a team attacking in the final third
(Kids, ask your grandparents about that one
)
2 -
stoneroses19 said:Jeez the last page or so. Been a great 200+ pages so far and enjoyed hearing about games I’ve missed and peoples experiences at the games, then people just have to start including rants about nationalities, Falkland’s war etc. Yes, some things are more important than football, but let’s keep this thread to football, please.
Totally agree, sadly like most discussion forums on the internet they end up like this.0 -
No. It does go far deeper than "football". Any self respecting nation with any moral values should pull their teams from this satanic charade. If you don't like it, may you choke on your next McDonalds. USA voted in a global threat. Need to distance ourselves as much as possible.conker said:stoneroses19 said:Jeez the last page or so. Been a great 200+ pages so far and enjoyed hearing about games I’ve missed and peoples experiences at the games, then people just have to start including rants about nationalities, Falkland’s war etc. Yes, some things are more important than football, but let’s keep this thread to football, please.
Totally agree, sadly like most discussion forums on the internet they end up like this.
0 -
Clive 'the book' Thomas.Briston_Addick said:
Sounds like a member of the Clive Thomas Fan Club.Manic_mania said:
Yeah but that doesn't justify adding on extra time on top just because a team happens to be attacking - if there are no injury stoppages during the added on time then the ref should blow up at the minimum amount - not add on a minute because a team gets a cornerfenaddick said:
The reason is that it's a minimum amount of time given, not a set amount. All it takes is a stoppage of 30 seconds to a minute and the ref is justified in playing on past the amount givenManic_mania said:
agree with the post in general but this bib needs A LOT more scrutiny IMO - we had a whole extra minute for absolutely no reason added in the Mexico game just because they forced an extra corner -it's an outrageous overstretch of the laws of the game that has ZERO merit and it happens ALL the timePragueAddick said:
Well as @killerandflash says above, it's an "unofficial rule", whatever that is, but I have certainly heard it confirmed by several journalists who have been talking to VAR officials. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm in very good company in this among the commentariat, a foul is a foul. So what if a sly tug on the shirt results in a penalty kick? If the players know perfectly well that that's going to be the punishment, then you won't get the tug on the shirt any more (as also said earlier).CAFCTrev said:
The reason for that is the punishment for a foul in the penalty area is a free shot at goal with only the goalkeeper to beat, giving the attacking team an extremely high chance of scoring. Because the reward is so significant, the threshold for awarding a penalty should be much higher than it is for giving a free kick anywhere else on the pitch.killerandflash said:The problem is the unofficial rule that fouls in the penalty box need to be stronger to be given, than anywhere else on the pitch. That slight nudge on the half way line is given as a foul, whereas you wouldn't award a penalty for it if the same offence was in the box, or else you'd have 10 penalties a game.
There were 2 very minor fouls on Egyptian players before the 3rd goal. If they had been done elsewhere on the pitch they might have been given, but no way were the 2 enough to give a penalty.
The ideal scenario would have been to disallow the 3rd goal, but also not award a penalty, but that's not allowed!
If we've got "unofficial rules", we're in big trouble. it means that the game's administrators are trying to run things surreptitiously without us noticing or telling us. If this is what is happening, higher thresholds for fouls in the penalty area, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised if unofficially refs are allowed or even encouraged to play a few seconds more than the allotted time just to see what happens at that corner, or whatever. That's not on either.
edit to add because I am legitimately so mad about this one - if a mm or two is so important in an offiside, if a slight touch in the penalty area triggers a VAR check, then play to the god damn time that is added unless there is an actual reason other than a corner kick or there's a team attacking in the final third
(Kids, ask your grandparents about that one)
I remember that incident vividly.0
https://youtu.be/Q6nYmlnKhP8?is=2I73pPiWinjwwIkv
