Didn’t realise Denmark were playing the 2nd half of extra time with 10 men… they were a little reckless with their subs, we were conservative, but you can’t leave yourself open to be left with a man down with 15 minutes to go in a semi final

Tight game, we arguably were slightly better than them, but we only won with a dive

1. Yes, it was a pen.

2. Yes, it definitely was a soft pen. Soft as in letter of the law correct but in the strictest sense.

3. Please don't advocate for VAR to determine if a potential penalty was too soft to actually give.

I heard an interview with Rene Meulensteen afew months ago that best explains my views on fouls/pens - was the player forced to the ground, or did he choose to go to ground?

Steling chose to go to ground, without any real encouragement TBH, but the overreaching point for me is choice/force

I think this is where we part ways on this issue.

Is the penalty given because Sterling chose or was forced to go to the ground in the box? Was it given because he was fouled in the box?

I think the first question is irrelevant. I don't care if the challenge was enough for him to go to the ground. And if the official did give the penalty because he went to ground than the the official made a shitty decision and should face consequences for it.

The important part is whether Sterling was fouled. Not fouled enough to reach some imaginary line that when crossed results in a penalty. I think he was fouled. He was in the box. Those two things result in a pen. The only reason I consider it soft is because I think it can only be justified by the strictest letter of the law as to whether the defender was careless or not. For me, the foul was the same whether Sterling went to ground or not. I don't see this as a dive because he was actually fouled .

And I'll disagree with that about as much as I possibly can. There are always going to be trailing legs in the box if a player chooses to drag a leg and go over like Sterling did today. Is that a foul technically - sure. If every player does it is the game gone at that point - you bet it is.

You are basically telling Denmark in that situation don't even run with or challenge Sterling because if he decides to fall over then you've lost the game. The art of defending and any physical play is basically gone (which I think is what Alex and MIJB were bemoaning on the last page, not that I agree with them entirely).

As for VAR, I think the game would be better off without it for any kind of judgement call, but if you've got the illusion that you will let the referees look to see if they made a clear and obvious error on penalties, the referee today should have been given the chance to take a look at it IMO. Otherwise I'm not sure what they are looking for... an AYSO referee can see where there's been no contact at all.

I’ll rephrase slightly, as miamifan is right that not every foul causes a player to fall.

I thought it was implicit in the post, but to make it more explicit, when a player goes down, looking at whether he chose to do so or whether he forced to is a defining factor for me.

It is what it is. "Football's coming home", but that's just the alcohol talking, what we're seeing on the field is not what the English are referring to, is it? The parking the bus philosophy that all football teams these days use (sigh) is creating this sort of drama. Euro2020 has been the tournament of teams fielding 5 defenders and 2 defensive midfielders, with wingbacks being the deciding factors. Combine that with that flopping is no longer a cultural thing, but a universal football thing, every slight touch inside the area will result in a player going down, rather than trying to score a goal, because the odds of scoring are better from the penalty kick spot.

But I don't think we are disagreeing. I feel like we are saying the same thing.


Maybe I am just misunderstanding what the disagreement is. I think it is pretty clear that according to the laws of the game today, that is a foul. I am not saying it was a bookable offense. I am not debating whether it should or should not be a foul. I am not debating whether they contact was enough to bring Sterling to the ground. Those are all different discussions. What I am saying is that whether Sterling goes down after the fact does not and should not make it any more or less of a foul compared to if he stayed on his feet. None of those questions above have anything to do with if the foul occurred.

So no, I am not saying that the Denmark defenders can't run or challenge Sterling. I am saying that if you have to make a challenge of that type in the box, it has to be spot on or you run the risk of a penalty. Denmark ran with and challenged Kane earlier in the match and according to the match official, did so legally despite Kane being on the ground in the box. Could that one have gone the other way. It could have IMO but I could see why it was not given in the same way I could see why the Sterling one was given. Whether or not the player ends up on the ground had nothing to do with whether a foul occurred had nothing to do with either for me.

I don't think it was a foul. You're allowed to touch a guy, and they didn't really impede his progress. It is not a foul inside or outside the box.

It wasn't a dive, nor was it a penalty that I would have given.

This is the same argument we see with every call like this. :D

If you wanted England to win, it was a foul.

If you didn't want England to win, this is the worst call in the history of football and the world is going to end.

My boss who is Irish is crazy nuts over it today. He hates England and readily admits his view is tainted by that but he doesn't care. :D

Both defenders took a pretty big risk making these challenges. Neither are good ones. Sterling is obviously looking to initiate contact, but that does not make it a dive.

Interesting. I agree on this, except for the specific choice of the word "dive" here.

I'm sensing that you're using the word "dive" in a context where it only applies if there is no contact with a defender whatsoever? The literal translation of "dive" in Dutch football lingo would be describing a player that goes to the ground by choice, regardless of contact. Going down without contact would not be called "to dive", although it could apply, but the norm is to use a German word here: Schwalbe (= swallow, which would in essence refer to the sudden "diving" motion in mid air of the bird).

Where is the contact with the first defender? He steps in front of him and his shin barely brushes the outside of the leg. Not enough contact to cause a fall but at that point he's decided to go down, so to me the second contact is irrelevant.

That's the way my non-soccer mind interprets that play.

In all fairness, until just now I didn’t think the first defender touched Sterling.

Looking at that slo-mo, I retract my earlier opinion - if either of the two contacts happened in isolation, there’s no way it was a pen, but the two together coming from opposite sides in quick succession would send you off balance, so it probably was the right decision in retrospect.

It looks to me like the defenders knee hits Sterling in the back of the knee which throws him off-balance.

I don't know the full details of the rules, but to me 24 clearly hip checks him, throwing him off balance. Looks like a foul to me.

As a complete neophyte here, I'm with spleen in that the second defender looks like he initiates a ton of body contact without a chance to get at the ball.

Note, I have no idea what constitutes a foul, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I see Sterling already starting to fall forward (top half of his body) to go into a fall before the hip check, based on a minimal amount of contact from the first defender. Agreed that the second guy clearly hip checks him, but I don't think he was going to attempt to make a play on the ball by that point. He was going down. But the second guy didn't give him the opportunity to go down on his own, throw his hands up, and get a wag of the finger from the ref.

For all the talk about the penalty, I somehow missed the most controversial incident of the night. How the hell did Harry Kane get the man of the match? Shaw, Sterling, Walker, Phillips were all better than Kane on the night for me.

The defender on the right of the gif clearly hits the back of Sterling's right knee with his own right knee. There and then it was potentially a foul. The second defender bounces into Sterling hip to hip, another potential foul. The thing is, in both situations it's very questionable whether those were a factor in Sterling's motion being halted. The referee did what he'd usually do here in the Eredivise: point to the spot. The VAR decided that the images can't deny it (decision was upheld, not confirmed), but failed to ask the ref to check the images himself (which would be standard in the Eredivisie in this situation) in which case he might have overturned his own decision.

Welcome to football in the 2020's? Perhaps, but before VAR there would be the exact same discussion about whether England got lucky or not.

What's really curious is that the head VAR of this semifinal was actually pulled off the referee team for the final, so somehow the UEFA's referee appointing people felt it was a blatant error.

This is the part that I would like to see more clarity when it comes to VAR both in the laws and from the individual competitions. From everything I have read and listened to, VAR can't force the ref to go to the monitor. They can tell him he has made a complete howler and he should either change the call immediately or go to the monitor to minimize the embarrassment. They can tell him that what he described to them does not match what the VAR team is seeing and ask him to take another look. Either way, it is up to the referee as to whether he changes the call exclusively on VAR's recommendation, goes to the monitor to take another look or stands by his call.

I know that different Confederations, individual FA's and leagues have their own interpretation of these rules which is another issue with clarity IMO. Are you saying that in the Eredivisie if VAR ask the refs to go to the monitor, the refs always go on their own or are you saying that VAR forces them to go when told?

Always the first, the VAR can't force the referee to check the video's, because the A still stands for Assistent. It's always on the referee to decide to check the images.

From what I can tell, last season the custom in the Eredivisie has been that in this kind of situations the VAR strongly encourages the referee to check it out just in case. Which has resulted in a lot of complaints. Quite often the referee was going to uphold his decision, complaint being that the VAR shouldn't have urged the referee to put the game on pauze for 3 minutes. Which effectively results in things going to shift to the other end: unless the VAR is 100% convinced it was a blatant error (in this situation: undeniable proof that this was no penalty kick, which there wasn't) the VAR can't/won't request the referee to check it himself.

Thanks for the clarification. The bit about the call in the England v Denmark that the decision was upheld as opposed to being confirmed is not one that I paid too much attention to but I think is an important one.

Jesus this Copa final has been so shit.

The one time Neymar should have gone to the ground. Broke through so many tackles.

Happy for Messi to finally get his first international trophy!

And right after, welcome to the Gold Cup!

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I know I am in the minority, but summers like this always remind me how much I love international sports especially soccer/football/futbol/fussball.

The English fans sure know how to set a terrible example, what a disgrace to "boo" through the national anthems of all of their opponents.

Southgate hoping this goes to penalties, so he can avoid playing football.

We were really good for 10-15 minutes, then went into our shell. Been the case most games this Euros

How is that not a red card?

If Grealish doesn't come on soon I am going to lose my mind

For who?

Now that is a red

Saved by the fact his foot rolled off the ball. If he had caught him direct red card all day long, but I agree with the yellow TBH

I am pretty sure he was talking about when Chiellini pulled Saka back. Easy answer, not the last man nor a goal scoring oppotunity.

Other than when we scored, that was my favourite moment of the final!

See I knew you liked a bit about shithouse play. LOL

He wasn’t trying to con anyone. I don’t mind a blatant foul and taking the consequences ;) :D

Of course it has to come down to penalties. The demons must be exorcised all around.

Watching family members in London on Zoom during the shootout= priceless

Did you mean exercised?

Yep. That's the most painful way for it to go for England.

The UK is about to be super racist based on who made and missed the penalties.

I’m watching it with my family
Members from England in their living room. Crazy.

Have to wonder why the 19-year old is taking one there. Sterling is ass at penalties, but grow a pair

Because the 19-year old stepped up to take one.

Well no shit

Losing on penalty kicks is harsh, but those silly walks just won't work against the best goalkeeper in the world.