Wasn't a nailed on penalty. Could that have been not given? Yes. Have similar penalties been given before? Yes. Should perhaps the Danish defenders have been a bit more careful? Yes. Was the 'foul' on Kane possibly a penalty? Yes. Could the free kick award to Denmark have been not given? Yes.
Did Sterling force the referee to give the penalty knowing he was cheating or was there a third party (such as VAR) employed to decide on whether to award the penalty? Seems like the latter.
That's football. These things tend to even out and even in this match they probably evened out in so far as for the 2 fouls on Sterling and Kane, you'd expect 1 to be given. 1 was. Evened out. You can't expect to be lucky one side and then complain when you are perhaps unlucky on the other.
Denmark played well and I was rooting for them throughout the tournament. Did England deserve to win that match? Yes - if it wasn't for Schmeichel it could have been a similar scoreline to the Ukraine match.
Do England fans moan excessively about 'foreign' cheats' Absolutely.
Last edited by ryanb741; 9th July 2021 at 08:03.
That's nonsense. Whether he was already going down is completely irrelevant, Jensen clearly fouled him. Show me the rule that says it's not a foul if the player may or may not be going down already.Originally Posted by JeppeRober
If Denmark had been given a pen like this you'd be defending it. It's clear why VAR didn't overrule it because it was a pen.
Last edited by watchcollector1; 9th July 2021 at 08:23.
Sour grapes.
You didnt read the post. I wrote that it CAN be called, but I dont think it should. A significant amount of retired referees (unaffected by UEFA), experts etc. agree. Sterlings only goal was to get the referee to whistle. I dont think that should decide a European semifinal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You wouldnt believe how sour they are!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
F**k me, all this pontification is utter nonsense. Sterling went down, ref gave a penalty and was confirmed by VAR. The keeper saved the penalty but Kane did what most strikers do and followed up the shot and scored. The Danes had the opportunity to win the game several times yet they failed to make any impression the last 45 minutes of the game. The best team won and England are through to the final.
Jepperobber- get over it, you lost, theres always next time etc etc, learnt loads or whatever most teams say when theyve been dumped out of a competition.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh we would!
No, I think weve a pretty good idea each time you post here.
I respectfully think you need to move on a little Jeppe.
No mention of the equally soft (if not more so) free kick that led to the Danish goal where the no.6 just fell over all by himself. Or the pass-back which Schmeichel picked up in the third minute which went unpunished. The ref didnt have a great game but it wasnt just due to the penalty decision.
In time. Football is not rational, its about feelings. Ill stop posting here though. Luckily Ive long ago decided to boycott the Qatar World Cup, so thatll give me a break. Good luck in the final.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very good.
Better luck to Denmark next time, even though I understand how it feels for a smaller country because this 'next time' may well be 30 years out.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Just one final point about the penalty: all those who write that the VAR confirmed the penalty have clearly not understood how the VAR system works.
The VAR can only interfere when the penalty award was clearly wrong. If there was the slightest touch, neither the referee nor the VAR can change the decision, even if it is clear to both when watching the pictures that the penalty shouldn't have been granted. The VAR may well be of the opinion that the penalty should not have been granted but will not cancel it unless there was no touch at all.
This is why a good referee will let the scene play out and rely on the moving pictures later in order to determine if a penalty should be given or not. This has already developed into best practice when it comes to offside and should be strictly implemented for penalties as well.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
You said the slightest touch can be called (presumably meaning the first contact on Sterling's knee) but the 2nd contact from Jensen wasn't slight at all, he took Sterling out and made no attempt to play the ball. It was cynical, deliberate and a definite penalty.
You said Sterling was already going down so 2nd contact is irrelevant, that's not the case, a foul is a foul and looking at the pictures of the incident Sterling is at the same height for the 1st contact and the 2nd contact anyway.
From other angles the penalty looked dubious but from this one it is clear. This angle doesn't seem to have been seen by many except once when it was was shown a few minutes after the penalty.
Last edited by watchcollector1; 9th July 2021 at 09:07.
Well Im sorry the controversies involved Denmark. We like Denmark and the Danes!
I have no idea why the Danish anthem was booed, you expect booing in the cases of some national anthems (not something I condone), but Denmark?
Personally, I would prefer to see the playing of national anthems stopped. Its sport, something distasteful, bellicose about them, blaring out, clenched fist on heart, that sort of thing, makes me shudder slightly.
I liked this scene, peace, although I expect Chiellini and Bonnuci to give our attacking midfield thoroughbreds a good going over on Sunday.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by BillyCasper; 9th July 2021 at 09:09.
One ball or two on the pitch, Denmark looked unlikely to score using either of them. England cranked up the pressure in the first 15 of extra time and despite the penalty, they probably would have scored the winner anyway. Instead of going for the jugular in the second 15, Southgate replaced Grealish with a defender and the team cruised to the final whistle without much of an attempt to score a third goal.
A 2-1 defeat is very respectable whereas a 3 or 4-1 thumping would be making other headlines...
Well done to the Danes for a great tournament, but on this occasion, the better team won.
As for grapes, they have been very sour in this country on many occasions...let us enjoy our moment and hope that the final brings us a great game game of football and may the best team win on the night. (No penalties please!!!)
Just move on it’s done and dusted but i still have the hump big time over this game
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...pe/8010840.stm
I FEEL LIKE I'M DIAGONALLY PARKED IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE
No work for me Monday. Factory is closing and we're all having an extra days holiday. Woop woop
As a Chelsea fan I never got over the injustice of this game and you've gone and dredged up those feelings again!
Why, when the whole country is involved and Royalty is present. There's nothing distasteful at all sharing passion for your country.
What's distasteful is the booing of a teams passion by a minority of ignorant supporters.
You'll want to see it banned at the Olympic games too?.... when an athlete wins a gold medal and their country is watching.
There's that type of fan from every country, and in every sport to some degree.
I was very close to the McNish accident at LeMans a few years. Heavy contingent of flag waving Danish fans, rightfully proud of Kristensen. When it became clear that it was McNish that crashed, the Danes began cheering, before it was clear McNish was ok.
Human nature, folks get tribal in that sort of arena. It's not right, but it is what it is.
As for the penalty, and talking about losing that way? By any metric England were the superior team that day. The best team won, the penalty award was totally correct. And I hope someone pointed out to Kasper that there's 1 thing that's certainly going home. Him.
Somewhere on the forum, someone posted a short video of an Indian gentleman singing It's Coming Home, and then twatting a young oik. Does anyone know where it is?
I watched that live, dodgy ref 100% with the non-awarded Chelsea pens
Don't let it eat you up. Denmark did so well to get the Semis, savour the great victories and relief that Ericsson was saved. The fairytale ending was not to be.
The penalty was very fair, Sterling did so well to get to any extremely dangerous position and he was stopped by 1 or even 2 clear foul/s.
2 balls on then pitch doesn't automatically mean play stops, it's up to the ref to decide if it is affecting play. The ball had been there a while Sterling got close to it but it didn't affect Denmark in any way and would have been harsh for the ref to blow to stop a promising attack.
Denmark did very well in the circumstances but they were playing for penalties for the last hour and England were much the better team. It would've been unfair if Denmark had won on penalties.
It doesn't bother me so much when there is an unfair decision when my team didn't deserve to win anyway. For example I didn't dwell on Lampard's goal that wasn't given in 2010 because Germany were by far the better team.
Unfortunately a minority of mindless idiots boo every opposition anthem in every game even friendlies. These are the same people that boo the knee, cause trouble at games or just generally and are really unpleasant people. The majority of English people despise these ignorant t**ts but they don't represent us any more than neo nazi groups represent Germany, or Le Pen voters represent France or Fascists represent Italy. Sadly for us these idiots seem to attach themselves to the national team.
England is far from perfect but we're actually a more tolerant society than a lot of Europe, America and (puts hard hat on) the other home nations.
But was it a "clear foul" on Sterling?
"Contact" and "slightest touch" are not reasons to award a penalty. And that's the problem with the Ref's rapid decision (and without the benefit of all the camera angles), and the assessment made by VAR. Neither constitute a foul - it is the manner and extent of contact that determines a direct free kick.
Was there contact? Yes. Was the contact enough to foul the player or prevent them from playing the ball? No.
No grown man falls over with such a light touch, otherwise we'd all be on the ground whenever the wind blows.
Watching the video clip of Sterling several times it appears that before first Danish player comes in he is beginning to tip up, and by the time of the hip contact he is already off balance and tipping downwards. Worth watching a few times. I don't think the VAR looks at these things in the forensic detail that rugby's TMO does.
But hair-splitting aside, I think we'd all agree that we'd love to see an end to soft free kicks and diving, whoever does it.
Football is a contact sport. Contact is allowed.
Sterling is a great player, especially when he's winding up the gammons, but that was a dive and we all know it.
The rules clearly say that in the even of two ball on the pitch the game is stopped. There's no doubt about it.
The goal should not have stood.
Whether Sterling was starting to go down or not after the first contact the hip charge for the 2nd contact would've prevented him from continuing his run with the ball. I don't really see how it's not a foul, Sterling would've been clear of both defenders so Jensen knocked into him enough to prevent him getting the ball.
The rules are quite clear, if "an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match, the referee must stop play (and restart with a dropped ball) only if it interferes with play..."
+1
Wrong.
R
Edit: has already been pointed out by PickleB.
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
An Asian Scotland fan was assaulted by a fellow Scotland fan in London. He was later thrown in the fountain by a group of Scotland fans while a few others cheered on.
Jose Mourinho had his say about it. Possibly sums up everyone's view in some way or other.
“I say the way I see it, not the way it is. Maybe you don’t like my opinion this time….
“It’s never a penalty. The best team won, England deserve to win. England was fantastic, but for me it’s never a penalty.
“The best team won, England are a better team than Denmark. Denmark played the way I was expecting them to play on to their limits.
“England was really, really good and no doubt they deserved to win that match.
“But, for me, it’s never a penalty. At this level, a semi-final of a Euro I don’t understand really the referee’s decision.”
Jason Cundy on TalkSport:
"Is it a dive? Yeah. Do I think it's a penalty? No. Do I care? Not one bit."
Last edited by OldHooky; 9th July 2021 at 13:44.
Jose is bang on. The penalty was a terrible way to decide the game - no amount of favourable freeze frames or super slo mo analysis is gonna change it. But to pretend that some kind of robbery occurred is ridiculous - Denmark made no attempts to win once it was headed for extra time, players time wasting, barely even mustered a token attack. They gambled everything on getting to penalties and it didnt pay off - so justice was done overall
Freeze frames and slow mo show there was double contact. Sterling has probably chosen to go down (yes he has form there) but if he carries on the hip charge from Jensen was probably enough to make him lose control of the ball. So fair enough to go down in those circumstances as he would've been past them and in control of the ball otherwise. The way I see it, no contact = no pen so Denmark only have themselves to blame.
Blocking a run with a hip charge with no attempt to get the ball would be a foul elsewhere on the pitch so why not in the box? I'm just interested to hear an alternative view on it.
Fully agree on your last point though, it was a deserved win and I think a pretty good performance given the early setback. Can't wait for Sunday!
Coming from the biggest hypocrite in football, thats a pretty funny statement .
Didnt he tell his players to go down in the box at the slightest touch ?
He spent two seasons defending Drogba but the minute Jose was out of the club , he labelled Drogba a diver.
His players antics at Inter were some of the worst types of gamesmanship ever seen .
Didnt Denmark knock England out of a competition last year via a highly questionable Penalty?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Quidditch?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
A pretty well known ex premier league footballer plays for a local cricket team. In his words, the general public don't have a clue. These aren't the players of the 80's, they're stronger, much faster, and genuine athletes. Try running at full pelt, then going through a slalom that's trying to foul you. Let's see how many are able to keep their balance.
Again, a referee on the pitch, the var team, and a referee watching from afar (all of whom have a much deeper understanding of the game) have all gone with the decision. That sort of consensus, makes it a correct decision.
People love talking about 'soft' free kicks. There's really no such thing, it's binary. It is, or it isn't. That was a penalty, clear and simple.
As an aside, we were amazed at how little the 5 (or was it 4 or 6?!?!?) subs that Denmark brought on added absolutely nothing to the end of the game/extra time. Not knowing the players myself I just couldn't understand such wholesale changes, late in the game unless it was a) desperation and/or b) readying players for penalties?
I read yesterday that actually the Danish goal should have been retaken because Law 13 states that when the defending team forms a wall of 3 or more players, all attacking players must remain 1m from the wall unlit the ball is kicked.
Clearly this wasnt the case.
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/...e-2021-22.ashx
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nations League 2020, but perhaps Quidditch as well in your world. .
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
This ^
I've not heard a single explanation as to why Jensen's hip barge wasn't a foul.
Saying it's definitely not a pen, it's soft, it's a contact sport, Sterling dived, etc is meaningless. The only relevant point is was it a foul (or 2 fouls) or not and why?
Jensen hip barged Sterling with no intention of getting the ball. For me it's a definite foul and that's not even taking into account the contact from the mistimed challenge of the 1st defender.
Looking at picture below how is Sterling supposed to get to and control the ball after Jensen barged him?
I don't mean this in a funny way but I'd be really interested to alternative view on exactly why this isn't a foul?
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Because if it is a foul there would be 10 penalties in every game. Still these things happen, Denmark should stop crying but that wasnt a penThis ^
I've not heard a single explanation as to why Jensen's hip barge wasn't a foul.
Saying it's definitely not a pen, it's soft, it's a contact sport, Sterling dived, etc is meaningless. The only relevant point is was it a foul (or 2 fouls) or not and why?
Jensen hip barged Sterling with no intention of getting the ball. For me it's a definite foul and that's not even taking into account the contact from the mistimed challenge of the 1st defender.
Looking at picture below how is Sterling supposed to get to and control the ball after Jensen barged him?
I don't mean this in a funny way but I'd be really interested to alternative view on exactly why this isn't a foul?
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
That's still not an explanation though is it :)
Why exactly isn't it a foul?
I don't profess to have the answer to anything tbh, but I do know that all the English contributors to this thread all prefer divers as their daily wearer. Gotta say something, or maybe nothing?
Well - his legs folded like he had been shot in the head by a .308.This ^
I've not heard a single explanation as to why Jensen's hip barge wasn't a foul.
Saying it's definitely not a pen, it's soft, it's a contact sport, Sterling dived, etc is meaningless. The only relevant point is was it a foul (or 2 fouls) or not and why?
Jensen hip barged Sterling with no intention of getting the ball. For me it's a definite foul and that's not even taking into account the contact from the mistimed challenge of the 1st defender.
Looking at picture below how is Sterling supposed to get to and control the ball after Jensen barged him?
I don't mean this in a funny way but I'd be really interested to alternative view on exactly why this isn't a foul?
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
It was a calculated fall.
You really are pushing a narrative that it was a penalty.
It wasn't and widely accepted by players and commentators on the night that it wasn't.
No matter though as England were very much on top and it seemed like a matter of time until they scored.
Denmark did have to play much of extra time with 10 men but that was as a consequence of using 5 subs in normal time due to the high energy pressing game they played.
I understand the Danes frustration as they were trying to hold on for penalties and they were out on their feet so it was a cruel way for it to finish but c'est la vie.
Lolz
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
The only people that mattered believed it was a penalty even if you dont.
Neither fo I understand where your comment about it being widely accepted that it was no penalty came from.
Again, why exactly wasn't it a penalty? Just saying it wasn't isn't a reason. Did Jensen commit a foul or not?
All the commentators I've seen who dismissed it on the night said there was no contact or virtually no contact. The angle I shared and that was used by VAR shows there was contact and that it wasn't minimal. I've not seen any commentator review this footage in detail. The opinion on the night based on other misleading camera angles seems to have stuck.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
