UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 7 hours ago, amac said: The remaining teams in that bracket are really underwhelming. The team that toppled Spain, a team that demolished Argentina, a team that held France, a team that held Brazil and a team that almost held Germany. Names ain't everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 6 hours ago, DreamKid said: An ideal rule would've seen Croatia awarded the goal, Jorgensen sent off and suspended from future games Award the goal? Lmao. Because people never miss open goals. 6 hours ago, DreamKid said: I love the people mentioning the rule change too, like that somehow means that what took place shouldn't be mocked, criticized, and highlighted as F'n moronic. "Oop it's ah rule cant arguew it". Yea... how about we do argue it and spotlight the malignancy. I live people trying to challenge a RULE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 4 hours ago, The LBC said: The initial challenge can be negated by getting the ball or intent to get the ball, the secondary contact however - particularly if the initial challenge failed to actually win the ball, which if clearly didn't in this case - is treated as a secondary foul. I'm trying to think of an example where this isn't the case. If a defender slides in for the ball and misses an his trailing leg trips the attacker is that the second phase? People are reading far too much into this, I blame all the scrutiny after Ramos' foul on Salah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 9 hours ago, The LBC said: Actually, it doesn't. it's an entirely separate action. He attempted to get the ball, failed, caught man and ground, and by virtue of the position he put himself in (by having to lean back to keep from eating the heel of Rebic's boot) he created additional and separate instance of contact when his leg elevated (raising and exposing spikes at that). Even if you get the ball on a challenge, there is ensuring contact (i.e. trail leg, body or arms, new contact made). The initial challenge can be negated by getting the ball or intent to get the ball, the secondary contact however - particularly if the initial challenge failed to actually win the ball, which if clearly didn't in this case - is treated as a secondary foul. There was a pretty clear attempt to foul, made so clear by the fact that this wasn't a case of Jorgensen's leg just ricocheting off the ground and up at Rebic's upper legs, he raised that leg to make sure he brought down Rebic after he failed to make contact with the ball. That's a clear as day foul and intent to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity - no different than the Colombian player that was sent off early in the match against Japan for the intentional handball that saved a goal. This was a classic case of a referee wanting to have as minimal an effect on the outcome of a match late in the match and foregoing the letter of the laws of the game on account of it (and how he comes out of it looking). Except it wasn’t a separate action in terms of measuring the intent. The referee is supposed to determine whether or not there was an attempt to play the ball. Follow through or not. It’s one full action in that case. Whether it’s a foul or not is where the separate action comes into play. Whether it’s a red card offense the “separate act” does not come into play. I’ve watched the incident a number of times, and I don’t see him deliberately raising his leg. It’s by virtue of the follow through which isn’t a deliberate act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said: Except it wasn’t a separate action in terms of measuring the intent. The referee is supposed to determine whether or not there was an attempt to play the ball. Follow through or not. It’s one full action in that case. Whether it’s a foul or not is where the separate action comes into play. Whether it’s a red card offense the “separate act” does not come into play. I’ve watched the incident a number of times, and I don’t see him deliberately raising his leg. It’s by virtue of the follow through which isn’t a deliberate act. Yet the French penalty against Australia was due to a "second phase" foul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyMouse07 Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 5 hours ago, texans_uk said: Goal taken away from them? I mean it was a clear goal scoring opportunity. He could have basically walked it in before he was fouled from behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 1 minute ago, MightyMouse07 said: I mean it was a clear goal scoring opportunity. He could have basically walked it in before he was fouled from behind. People can miss those too. All part and parcel of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyMouse07 Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, texans_uk said: People can miss those too. All part and parcel of the game. I understand that, my comment was about how they basically had the W and if they lost it would have been such a horrendous feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, MightyMouse07 said: I understand that, my comment was about how they basically had the W and if they lost it would have been such a horrendous feeling. Yeah I get you. Just as horrendous for Denmark who didn't deserve to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 46 minutes ago, texans_uk said: Yet the French penalty against Australia was due to a "second phase" foul? What’s your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Just now, Kip Smithers said: What’s your point? Bit of a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, texans_uk said: Bit of a contradiction. Except I never once said that a foul did not take place in either situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said: Except I never once said that a foul did not take place in either situation... You said that the Australian won the ball, but then fouled Griezmann after so it was a correct penalty ask it was his other leg. The tackle from Jorgensen last night he missed the ball initially but then fouled him afterwards, so why don't you think they are the same? I personally think the first wasn't a penalty and the second wasn't a red card, because there's no such thing as "second phase" in a sliding tackle that lasts 0.5 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, texans_uk said: You said that the Australian won the ball, but then fouled Griezmann after so it was a correct penalty ask it was his other leg. The tackle from Jorgensen last night he missed the ball initially but then fouled him afterwards, so why don't you think they are the same? I personally think the first wasn't a penalty and the second wasn't a red card, because there's no such thing as "second phase" in a sliding tackle that lasts 0.5 seconds. Again, where did I say they weren’t? Please tell me. I have never said the Jorgensen one isn’t a foul. They’re both fouls. My contention is whether it’s a red card or not. The Australian defender barely, if at all, touched the ball and got Griezmann. He contacted him. I never said the Australian won the ball. Jorgensen got none of the ball from the looks of it and contacted Rebic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said: My contention is whether it’s a red card or not. I'm also not saying you have said it's not a foul? The argument for a red card is this "2nd phase" idea which you disagree with, yet was your argument for the Australian penalty. It's pretty obvious the Australian got the ball and I'm sure you even admitted as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.