WoodallServices
Well-known member
There in lies the argument, everything you’ve written is valid but could have been copied and pasted from the same scenario at the other end of the pitch.
Argentina 🇦🇷 v Egypt 🇪🇬 kick off 1700 ITV 1
- Thread starter Cliveroadender
- Start date
WoodallServices
Well-known member
That’s not a fcuking foul in a million years.Sliding his foot under?
Skinned him?
Give over.
The Argentina player still had the ball, and he was stepped on.
People are honestly baffling with their bias just because they wanted the other team to win.
That is a foul.
A player flinging himself to the ground a mile away from the ball because somebody lightly touched his back his not.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Nothing he's written there is relevant to the other scenario?
It wasn't in the box, it wasn't a penalty shout, the Argentina player had the ball, it wasn't disallowed for a shirt pull.
So what about that could be copied and pasted?
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Yet you come across as bafflingly biased as well.Sliding his foot under?
Skinned him?
Give over.
The Argentina player still had the ball, and he was stepped on.
People are honestly baffling with their bias just because they wanted the other team to win.
That is a foul.
A player flinging himself to the ground a mile away from the ball because somebody lightly touched his back his not.
It's one of those situations where people just see an incident differently. It's a subjective call. It should be left to the on field ref, leaving VAR well out of it.
TeaCider
Well-known member
How?
Genuinely, tell me how somebody getting their foot stamped on when they're in possession of the ball isn't a foul?
Egypt then immediately counter attacked from that foul and had scored within 10 seconds.
I was disappointed the goal was disallowed, as it was a brilliant team move after the foul, but it just was a foul.
WoodallServices
Well-known member
Are shirt pulls not a foul now?
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
First of all, it's not a 'stamp'. That makes you sound biased.
It's a coming together where martinez is already going to ground, that is how the ref saw it.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Not all shirt pulls are fouls, no.
They've actually got to have a material impact.
A player flinging themself because their shirt is touched is not a material impact.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Or, the far more likely answer, the referee didn't see that his foot was stepped on.
Hence the review.
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Nero
Well-known member
I said to my son if Argentina score one they will win. Shame I don’t bet!
Ravshoutsatbeck
Well-known member
I wish people would be more civil when they disagree on here - there are a lot of borderline decisions footballs laws are subjective.
Don't make judgements on people due to disagreement.
The Egyptian player had hold of Martinez's shirt and there was contact on his foot - fact
Whether you think that impeded him is the decision on it being a free kick.
(I think it was normal contact that didn't impede)
Mcallister pulled the shoulder of the Egyptian off the ball (slightly more contact than Malanda on Hirst). Fact
Is that normal contact - or did it impede the progress of the Egyptian.
(Normal incidentally contact in my opinion).
After Salah was initially tackled the Argentinian kicked his foot. Fact
Was is marginal normal contact? Or did it impeded Salah?
(I think it was normal incidentally contact).
I would have given nothing -
The most likely foul to me was the one the one that was given, then the salah one, then the pull.
Don't make judgements on people due to disagreement.
The Egyptian player had hold of Martinez's shirt and there was contact on his foot - fact
Whether you think that impeded him is the decision on it being a free kick.
(I think it was normal contact that didn't impede)
Mcallister pulled the shoulder of the Egyptian off the ball (slightly more contact than Malanda on Hirst). Fact
Is that normal contact - or did it impede the progress of the Egyptian.
(Normal incidentally contact in my opinion).
After Salah was initially tackled the Argentinian kicked his foot. Fact
Was is marginal normal contact? Or did it impeded Salah?
(I think it was normal incidentally contact).
I would have given nothing -
The most likely foul to me was the one the one that was given, then the salah one, then the pull.
Three Lions
Active member
From my humble refereeing I can say that material impact is not part of law 12. Virtually all shirt pulls are an offence because there is no legitimate reason to pull an opponents shirt. What you are referring to there is shirt pulls leading to stopping promising attacks etc but shirt pulls can have no impact on play but they are pulls, holds and sustained and these are offences.
The Egypt player clearly held onto an opponents shirt in the build up to a goal, and that pulling of a shirt was an offence.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Shirt pulling isn't mentioned in Law 12.
It's called for either holding or impeding an opponent, so it needs to have an actual impact.
He wasn't being impeded, he just flung himself to the ground.
Otherwise we're calling a foul every single time an opposition player is touched with a hand.
Three Lions
Active member
Yes shirt pulling is a holding offence and there is specific guidance on shirt pulling provided for referees from IFAB supporting law 12. Shirt pulling is an offence the shirt pulls does not have to have an impact to be an offence.
Ravshoutsatbeck
Well-known member
I actually think there is a really issue with the laws not being fit for purpose.
The "expert referee" on ITV and on The Athletic interpreted the incidents last night slightly differently.
ITV - stood on foot impeded player - disallowed goal correct
Athletic - normal contact, didn't impede player, definitely didn't meet threshold for review.
BBC - out of keeping with Collina statement to allow normal incidentally contact (they also felt the salah contact was similar, but didn't meet threshold for review because penalties have a higher threshold)
So everyone arguing here.... it is all a little broken
The "expert referee" on ITV and on The Athletic interpreted the incidents last night slightly differently.
ITV - stood on foot impeded player - disallowed goal correct
Athletic - normal contact, didn't impede player, definitely didn't meet threshold for review.
BBC - out of keeping with Collina statement to allow normal incidentally contact (they also felt the salah contact was similar, but didn't meet threshold for review because penalties have a higher threshold)
So everyone arguing here.... it is all a little broken
TeaCider
Well-known member
Every single bit of guidance for shirt pulling is related to it preventing them reaching the ball, stopping a promising attack or goalscoring opportunity, i.e having an impact.
I can't find a single line that says shirt pulling in and of itself is an offence.
Fancy sharing the bit you're referring to?
afcb_acklam
Well-known member
I heard that tommy tickle gets the players to clutch tennis balls when training, so they cant grab people, or grapple in the box. Maybe this could be introduced into footy, or they could wear special mittens?
).parnabyscrosses
Well-known member
Why do people keep using the arguement ‘take *insert best player name* out of the team and…’, it’s not a good way of gauging how good a team is.
I can’t agree they were the worst ever or even close, worst/most boring in my lifetime is Brazil 2002. Argentina beat Netherlands, Croatia, then France in the final, and dominated all of them, France included until about 70 minutes.