By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Such a tiny tug. Argentinian threw himself to the ground. Never a free-kick. Not all contact is a foul. Infinitesimal contact followed by a dive is still a dive. FFS. Germany and now Egypt could be dumped out by a wrong VAR decision.
[Post edited 7 Jul 18:28]
16
Nonsense cancelled Egypt second on 18:27 - Jul 7 with 1402 views
....people seem to be failing to notice the tread on his foot as well as the pull on the shirt.
Disappointing, but it was a foul.
Yeh it was a foul. Crying shame because it was an awesome goal. I let out a squeal like I was Harry Kane after a match at the Azteca, my voice was that high pitched.
4
Nonsense cancelled Egypt second on 18:30 - Jul 7 with 1345 views
Nonsense cancelled Egypt second on 18:28 - Jul 7 by Trequartista
The only law broken was that of physics. A pull back results in a fall forward (which had already commenced before the pull)
disagree. The physics are correct. If the Argentine is pulling against the tug back, when the tug is released you are propelled forward. Bit of a moot point now as it is 2-0 anyway.
0
Nonsense cancelled Egypt second on 18:32 - Jul 7 with 1302 views
Nonsense cancelled Egypt second on 18:31 - Jul 7 by mellowblue
disagree. The physics are correct. If the Argentine is pulling against the tug back, when the tug is released you are propelled forward. Bit of a moot point now as it is 2-0 anyway.
He was falling before the tug never mind when it was released, but that was because he had his foot stood on so although I stand by my physics point, it was a foul.
Considering in the PL you can practically rip someone's shirt off and slam dunk them into the ground, and get away with it, I'd say the laws of the game need to be exactly the same everywhere it's played.