| Ffs ref (n/t) 03:30 - Jul 6 with 708 views | LeoMuff |
|  |
| |  |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:32 - Jul 6 with 690 views | Scuzzer |
As I said earlier...South American VAR officials |  |
| |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:35 - Jul 6 with 636 views | stonojnr |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:32 - Jul 6 by Scuzzer |
As I said earlier...South American VAR officials |
the one in the BBC studio isnt, and he's agreeing with all the decisions so far. |  | | |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:36 - Jul 6 with 604 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:35 - Jul 6 by stonojnr |
the one in the BBC studio isnt, and he's agreeing with all the decisions so far. |
I can't see how anyone can argue over those decisions. VAR working exactly as it should do. Without it, England would have benefitted from two wrong on-field decisions. |  |
| |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:41 - Jul 6 with 579 views | stonojnr |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:36 - Jul 6 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I can't see how anyone can argue over those decisions. VAR working exactly as it should do. Without it, England would have benefitted from two wrong on-field decisions. |
for me on the 2nd penalty the Mexican players foot hits Kane first, before Kanes foot hits the Mexican, if the foul is for contact and not getting the ball, then really it should have been a free kick to England, imo not a penalty. | | | |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:43 - Jul 6 with 546 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:41 - Jul 6 by stonojnr |
for me on the 2nd penalty the Mexican players foot hits Kane first, before Kanes foot hits the Mexican, if the foul is for contact and not getting the ball, then really it should have been a free kick to England, imo not a penalty. |
I can't see that myself.
The Mexican is kicking the ball and Kane is slightly later and kicks the Mexican's foot without contacting the ball. 100% a penalty. | |
| |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 08:40 - Jul 6 with 428 views | BlueRaider |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:32 - Jul 6 by Scuzzer |
As I said earlier...South American VAR officials |
Even if their decisions are correct, it's a bad look, latin american spanish speaking officials for a Mexico game against a European team | |
| |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 14:36 - Jul 6 with 314 views | LeoMuff |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:43 - Jul 6 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I can't see that myself.
The Mexican is kicking the ball and Kane is slightly later and kicks the Mexican's foot without contacting the ball. 100% a penalty. |
Kane cleared the ball, and follow through with a tap to the guys foot. I don’t see how he clears it without that.
There is no disadvantage to Mexico by the guy getting a tap on the heel, the ball had gone. Unfortunately the Mexicans were on a fishing expedition ever since the refs non foul by Quansah was turned into a red by VAR.
You then have Mexicans throwing themselves all over the place and appealing everything as they know there’s a chance VAR May spot a non issue and give it. | |
| |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 14:45 - Jul 6 with 275 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 14:36 - Jul 6 by LeoMuff |
Kane cleared the ball, and follow through with a tap to the guys foot. I don’t see how he clears it without that.
There is no disadvantage to Mexico by the guy getting a tap on the heel, the ball had gone. Unfortunately the Mexicans were on a fishing expedition ever since the refs non foul by Quansah was turned into a red by VAR.
You then have Mexicans throwing themselves all over the place and appealing everything as they know there’s a chance VAR May spot a non issue and give it. |
Really wasn't a 'non foul' by Quansah now was it? He went over the top of the ball studs showing and got the guy on the shin, if the foot had been fully planted, it was a potential leg breaker. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 14:57 - Jul 6 with 244 views | LeoMuff |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 14:45 - Jul 6 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Really wasn't a 'non foul' by Quansah now was it? He went over the top of the ball studs showing and got the guy on the shin, if the foot had been fully planted, it was a potential leg breaker. |
Meaning the ref didn’t think it was a foul and played on. For me it was a foul but a yellow no intent, only reason foot was high was that it rolled over the ball as he won it.
The amount by velocity by the time he made contact was minimal but the Mexican reaction and slow mo makes it look worse. | |
| |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 15:07 - Jul 6 with 203 views | BseaBlue |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 14:57 - Jul 6 by LeoMuff |
Meaning the ref didn’t think it was a foul and played on. For me it was a foul but a yellow no intent, only reason foot was high was that it rolled over the ball as he won it.
The amount by velocity by the time he made contact was minimal but the Mexican reaction and slow mo makes it look worse. |
I thought it was a definite red at the time. He went in aggressively and caught him high. Watching it back though, I do see your point. He is very unlucky that the contact with the ball redirects his foot higher.
I think the rule now though considers 'Excessive force' which you can't argue in this instance. |  | | |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 15:59 - Jul 6 with 128 views | cressi |
| Ffs ref (n/t) on 03:32 - Jul 6 by Scuzzer |
As I said earlier...South American VAR officials |
Thought the ref and officials were OK now France v Paraguay that was bad. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
