Semifinal: England v Denmark

[Werthead]

My understanding is that the definition of a "soft penalty" is "absolutely 100% not a penalty, the wrong decision." People - here and in general, including pro commentators - seem to be using it as "oh, it's questionable, 50-50, maybe it is, maybe it isn't," with a gradient of how soft the penalty can be or is.

That may explain the confusion that's going on with people saying "yeah, it was a soft penalty" followed by "oh well, fair enough," rather than "that should have been disallowed."

[Consigliere]

 

[a free shadow]

I am embarrased for the referee, as I suppose he will not be and somebody has to.

First, to skip over a second ball that appeared next to the main one as Sterling was coming in from the right. It should have stopped the game.

And them just seconds later to award a non-existing penalty, even when he has VAR available to him.

And then to allow Kane to score when the Danish goalkeeper had a laser shone into his eye during the penalty.

I am also embarassed for the English narrative today. Yes, at least it is largely admitted there was no penalty. But then the follow up is that it "does not matter totally and completely as we were so much better than them". Which, no. If you were, then why could you not win without the help from the blind referee.

I am not sure if I am even interested in the final anymore, although I hope at least English will get annihilated, fairly.

And just in general, why are the false penalties so often awarded in decisive moments and always in favour of the team favoured to win? Do the referees just want to "help make things right"? It ruins everyone and everything, especially the game.

[Heartofice]

I think if you are concerned about fairness , watching England play Italy will give you basically nobody to root for.

Maybe to cheer you up have a clip of Mason mount giving his shirt to a young girl who very much appreciated it

 

 

[Corvinus85]

No matter who won this match, I was going to root for them against Italy. But English fans perhaps don't deserve nice things after their boorish behavior.

But hey, if England wins, Scotland will get the badge of honor of being the only team to not lose to them in this tournament. 

[mormont]

6 hours ago, Consigliere said:

the on field ref also allowed Denmark players to get away with persistent and cynical fouling.

England players, I think you mean?

[Denvek]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

My understanding is that the definition of a "soft penalty" is "absolutely 100% not a penalty, the wrong decision." People - here and in general, including pro commentators - seem to be using it as "oh, it's questionable, 50-50, maybe it is, maybe it isn't," with a gradient of how soft the penalty can be or is.

That may explain the confusion that's going on with people saying "yeah, it was a soft penalty" followed by "oh well, fair enough," rather than "that should have been disallowed."

I've always understood "soft penalty" to mean a decision that could have gone either way, where you could see why some refs would give it but also see why some refs wouldn't - see Belgium's penalty in the quarter-final as an example. And a soft penalty under that definition is something VAR can't overturn - even if it's something the VAR ref wouldn't have given themself, it's not a clear and obvious error by the on-field ref.

[Dolorous Gabe]

52 minutes ago, Denvek said:

I've always understood "soft penalty" to mean a decision that could have gone either way, where you could see why some refs would give it but also see why some refs wouldn't - see Belgium's penalty in the quarter-final as an example. And a soft penalty under that definition is something VAR can't overturn - even if it's something the VAR ref wouldn't have given themself, it's not a clear and obvious error by the on-field ref.

Same.

There are some instances when either call is justifiable, so in such cases VAR will not intervene.

6 hours ago, an alpine shadow said:

 ...just in general, why are the false penalties so often awarded in decisive moments and always in favour of the team favoured to win? Do the referees just want to "help make things right"? It ruins everyone and everything, especially the game.

This is more down to whichever team more often has the ball in the opponent's box. That team is always more likely to get a penalty, harsh or otherwise.

[Consigliere]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

England players, I think you mean?

No.

[shortstark]

It's funny how when it comes to sports we lose all objectivity. As a Jamaican my horse in this race is Sterling, so by default I want England to do well, thus I am amazed by the criticism re diving.. any competent player feeling contact there would go down, and if he didn't he is a moron imo.. I wonder if the moaning is from people who don't want England to do well..show of hands all English supporters who think it was a dive or soft penalty.

 

[Heartofice]

29 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

No.

Danish players were very niggly and that doesn’t even include Kane falling over at the slightest touch. 

[Dolorous Gabe]

3 hours ago, shortstark said:

It's funny how when it comes to sports we lose all objectivity. As a Jamaican my horse in this race is Sterling, so by default I want England to do well, thus I am amazed by the criticism re diving.. any competent player feeling contact there would go down, and if he didn't he is a moron imo.. I wonder if the moaning is from people who don't want England to do well..show of hands all English supporters who think it was a dive or soft penalty.

I'm English and I'd call it a soft penalty. I'd say Sterling has gone down easily under minimal contact.

However, in these cases there's usually an ill-advised challenge from a defender's outstretched leg. If said defender doesn't touch the ball and makes even the slightest contact with the attacker, he only has himself to blame if a pen is awarded.

If Kyle Walker had done that at the other end, as he is quite capable of, he'd get the blame for conceding a penalty. Just imagine the Roy Keane hourlong rant that would have followed!

[Soylent Brown]

Yeah, it was more stupid defending- Sterling looked up and saw he had no options, so decided just to go fishing for a bad tackle, and the first two defenders bit.

[mormont]

 

44 minutes ago, Bale's Bald Spot said:

Yeah, it was more stupid defending- Sterling looked up and saw he had no options, so decided just to go fishing for a bad tackle, and the first two defenders bit.

No defenders bit and no, he wasn't fishing for a bad tackle. He decided to go to the ground and did so prior to any contact. 

If that was a penalty, soft or otherwise, then basically defenders cannot challenge for the ball or even go near attackers in the box. Don't engage in this sort of post-hoc justification: the game's won. Just admit it was a dive, folks, because it was. 

[ljkeane]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

No defenders bit and no, he wasn't fishing for a bad tackle. He decided to go to the ground and did so prior to any contact.

I mean, Jensen definitely bit and if Sterling had taken an extra step I don't think there'd be any doubt it was a stonewall penalty. From all the replays that've been put out now you can see that there was contact knee on knee with Maehle's challenge but, no, I don't think it was enough for a penalty.

[Heartofice]

Honestly does it even matter? I realty don’t care. I can’t count the amount of times it’s happened against us down the years, one of my earliest memories was the ‘hand of god’ goal. 

[baxus]

How funny would it be if Italy were awarded a similar penalty in the final?

[Soylent Brown]

50 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

No defenders bit and no, he wasn't fishing for a bad tackle. He decided to go to the ground and did so prior to any contact. 

If that was a penalty, soft or otherwise, then basically defenders cannot challenge for the ball or even go near attackers in the box. Don't engage in this sort of post-hoc justification: the game's won. Just admit it was a dive, folks, because it was. 

I'm not sure it should have been a penalty either, but the defenders definitely gave him the opportunity to go down. The first chap lunges in and misses the ball by a mile. He makes minimal contact and Sterling goes flying, but that's sometimes enough for referees.

Here's the incident from another angle.

[mormont]

This will be my last comment, because as HoI points out at the end of the day it was given and that's not going to change - but again, if what Jensen is doing in that video is giving Sterling the opportunity to go down, then what you're really saying is that defenders should not even attempt to get to a ball in the box. Defending is over once an attacker enters the area.

That would be ludicrous. But fortunately, those aren't the rules.

[ljkeane]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

if what Jensen is doing in that video is giving Sterling the opportunity to go down, then what you're really saying is that defenders should not even attempt to get to a ball in the box. Defending is over once an attacker enters the area.

Er, what? I don't think there's much debate that what Jensen's doing is going to result in a penalty in normal circumstances? He piles into the Sterling's side. The argument people are making, as I understand it, is that it doesn't matter because Sterling has already gone down under minimal contact from Maehle.