Euro: Semifinals - England v. The Netherlands - July 10

[SeawaterOnIce]

Why are you so obnoxiously anti-English? I don't know where you're from but you're giving off Scottish fumes.

 

[All Mod Cons]

That has to be the quietest 60,000 Dutch fans they've ever had. All you could hear was the England fans.

 

[hatterson]

The issue IMO is quite obvious... they changed the call on the field. If the referee called a foul then VAR would not have overturned it but in this specific case there was no obvious error that warranted a penalty. Both went for the ball and Kane was caught on the follow through not when his feet was in the air before he could take his shot, therefore it was a normal contact (even outside the box). It was a very very weak penalty to call, especially in the context of that game and the whole tournament (where they were very strict toward PK call from VAR).

It absolutely wasn't normal contact outside of the box. Outside of the box blocking a shot with studs out like that is a foul 100% of the time and a yellow 99% of the time. Referees just almost always don't call it in the box.

Similar to how sliding in to block a pass in midfield, missing it, and catching the player after the pass will get you called for a foul, but doing the same thing in the box to block a shot, missing the block, but taking the player out after, will basically never get a pen called against you.

 

[maclean]

It absolutely wasn't normal contact outside of the box. Outside of the box blocking a shot with studs out like that is a foul 100% of the time and a yellow 99% of the time. Referees just almost always don't call it in the box.

Similar to how sliding in to block a pass in midfield, missing it, and catching the player after the pass will get you called for a foul, but doing the same thing in the box to block a shot, missing the block, but taking the player out after, will basically never get a pen called against you.

I think the point being made is to what extent it's a clear and obvious error. Like if there are plenty of situations where it isn't called as a pen, then should VAR really be overturning the on-field decision. It's more about the overactive role of VAR, which is supposed to only step in when the error is egregious, not when it is more of a judgment call. This is how I understand the argument, I don't have a particular stance myself.

 

[hatterson]

I think the point being made is to what extent it's a clear and obvious error. Like if there are plenty of situations where it isn't called as a pen, then should VAR really be overturning the on-field decision. It's more about the overactive role of VAR, which is supposed to only step in when the error is egregious, not when it is more of a judgment call. This is how I understand the argument, I don't have a particular stance myself.

Oh I totally agree that VAR shouldn't have overturned it (or more technically, asked the ref to take another look). I said at the time I didn't think it was a pen based on normal calls and then that I was shocked VAR was acting.

 

[maclean]

Oh I totally agree that VAR shouldn't have overturned it (or more technically, asked the ref to take another look). I said at the time I didn't think it was a pen based on normal calls and then that I was shocked VAR was acting.

Ah, my bad, misread the intent

 

[Evilo]

His hand wasn’t in an unnatural position, the ball came back to him incredibly fast off a deflection, and he wasn’t the one who scored the goal.

No he assisted.

 

[hatterson]

No he assisted.

Right, and based on the rule if he's not the goal scorer it needs to be an intentional handball.

 

[Moncherry]

Right, and based on the rule if he's not the goal scorer it needs to be an intentional handball.

Does it? Because that's not what happened with Belgium against Slovakia. At least, from my perspective.

 

[hatterson]

Does it? Because that's not what happened with Belgium against Slovakia. At least, from my perspective.

Any contact with the hand/arm from the goal scorer is automatically no goal regardless of if it's accidental or intentional.

If the player isn't the goal scorer it has to be an intentional handball to nullify the goal. Intentional is defined either by an actual intentional movement of hand/arm to ball or based on the position of the arm being unnatural.

 

[bluesfan94]

Any contact with the hand/arm from the goal scorer is automatically no goal regardless of if it's accidental or intentional.

If the player isn't the goal scorer it has to be an intentional handball to nullify the goal. Intentional is defined either by an actual intentional movement of hand/arm to ball or based on the position of the arm being unnatural.

Not even that, Kane didn't score directly as a result of the handball, so would it even matter if Kane had been the one?

Or, put another way, if Saka had been the one to draw the penalty, would it be the same calculation that any handball is fatal?

 

[Moncherry]

Any contact with the hand/arm from the goal scorer is automatically no goal regardless of if it's accidental or intentional.

If the player isn't the goal scorer it has to be an intentional handball to nullify the goal. Intentional is defined either by an actual intentional movement of hand/arm to ball or based on the position of the arm being unnatural.

Yeah that's my point. Belgium's disallowed goal wasn't handled by the goal scorer, and it could hardly be considered intentional handball.

Anyway, not relevant to this, just thought that rule contradicts the call in the Belgium game.

 

[hatterson]

Not even that, Kane didn't score directly as a result of the handball, so would it even matter if Kane had been the one?

Or, put another way, if Saka had been the one to draw the penalty, would it be the same calculation that any handball is fatal?

The goal is called off if either the goal is scored directly from the hand/arm or if they score immediately after it hit their hand/arm. Immediately isn't formally defined, but usual interpretation is basically in the movement up to the goal.

I remember one against Rashford a year or two ago where the defender dove in, got part of the ball and popped it up, and it hit Rashford's arm. Rashford then sprinted another ~10-20 yards and put it past the keeper. Rashford's arm was against his body IIRC so it wasn't intentional, but it was deemed that it occurred "immediately" before he scored the goal so any touch meant it was waved off.

The rules don't explicitly state that a pen can't be earned after an accidental handball (like they do with saying a goal can't be scored), but that's the general way it's called. So yes, if Saka had drawn the penalty, likely it wouldn't be given due to it barely brushing his hand after his shot was blocked.

Yeah that's my point. Belgium's disallowed goal wasn't handled by the goal scorer, and it could hardly be considered intentional handball.

Anyway, not relevant to this, just thought that rule contradicts the call in the Belgium game.

I don't recall the goal/may not have seen a replay so I can't really comment on that specific situation.

 

[Jussi]

 

[le_sean]

We played so well today. Y'all haters are just fueling me. See you in the final. 2-0 to England. Book it.

I booked this. How did this prediction go?

Delicious HF tears. Great finish by Watkins to win it.

Mainoo excellent in the first half. Foden more like his usual self. England controlled the midfield after Simons goal until Koeman brought on Veerman. The game was more even after that.

I’m tearing up, with laughter now.

 

[cgf]

I booked this. How did this prediction go?


I’m tearing up, with laughter now.

British fans are the most fun part of watching british teams play. It's a shame all of their teams play such dire football, or I would've been rooting for England to stop Spain from getting to 4 Euro titles first.

 

[HeHateMeFrisbee]

I booked this. How did this prediction go?


I’m tearing up, with laughter now.

Yeah it sucks. But glad you're happy, whoever you are.