England v Netherlands

[Brogue]

[windermereROYAL]

First half performance needed for 90 minutes Sunday, Spain will be huge favs, but we can do this.

[NathStPaul]

This victory is all the more remarkable given Kalvin Phillips wasn't there.

[Uke]

Obvs

[Snowflake Royal]

This victory is all the more remarkable given Kalvin Phillips wasn't there.

Well lifted from twitter

[Vision]

I for one take no pleasure in England reaching their first ever final outside of England.

We should hand our spot over to the Netherlands for fear of embarrassment.

Or. Once again we did what was needed . We’ were for most of the game the team with the ball making all of the running whilst the supposedly noble opposition sat back hoping to catch us on the break .

Substitutions clearly pure luck and nothing to do with the manager who has been bailed out by individual brilliance . As opposed to Spain of course who didn’t need to rely on Yamal and Olmo producing pieces of individual brilliance to win their semi final . The fact that Spain didn’t have a single shot at goal for 50 minutes after their 2nd goal and had fewer touches in the box than England in their semi is purely good game management and not negativity from their manager.

Hopefully the football gods will reward the team that had half the attempts on goal and fewer touches on the opposition penalty area than England in their semi final .

Or maybe we should just appreciate the current achievement of the manager of a National Team that had only won one major trophy previously in getting to back to back Euro finals.

[Loafer]

I for one take no pleasure in England reaching their first ever final outside of England.

We should hand our spot over to the Netherlands for fear of embarrassment.

Or. Once again we did what was needed . We’ were for most of the game the team with the ball making all of the running whilst the supposedly noble opposition sat back hoping to catch us on the break .

Substitutions clearly pure luck and nothing to do with the manager who has been bailed out by individual brilliance . As opposed to Spain of course who didn’t need to rely on Yamal and Olmo producing pieces of individual brilliance to win their semi final . The fact that Spain didn’t have a single shot at goal for 50 minutes after their 2nd goal and had fewer touches in the box than England in their semi is purely good game management and not negativity from their manager.

Hopefully the football gods will reward the team that had half the attempts on goal and fewer touches on the opposition penalty area than England in their semi final .

Or maybe we should just appreciate the current achievement of the manager of a National Team that had only won one major trophy previously in getting to back to back Euro finals.

Oh oxf*rd off

[Royal Rother]

The realist in me says that although we were much better (again) last night, VAR did us a massive favour with that awful penalty decision.

The pessimist in me fears that Southgate will be overly cautious in the final, allowing Spain to dictate and Monday morning we’ll be looking back on another missed opportunity.

The optimist in me says that Spain have peaked too early, Southgate will have learned from history, seize the moment, put us on the front foot from the off, not sit back when we take an early lead, and it really is CH.

It’s a struggle for me, but I’m going to let the optimist in me be the dominant force this week, (leading to likely massive disappointment on Sunday night).

(Ah, 4 days to work on it but looks like the pessimist and realist in me are still bloody strong!)

[Sutekh]

The realist in me says that although we were much better (again) last night, VAR did us a massive favour with that awful penalty decision.

Looking at it again and again, I have to agree that that is a free kick anywhere else on the pitch, therefore it should also be penalised in the penalty area. Players just aren't allowed to go studs up any more and although it's harsh that are the rules these days. Even if it wasn't England deserved to at least be level at half time so no real harm done.

The pessimist in me fears that Southgate will be overly cautious in the final, allowing Spain to dictate and Monday morning we’ll be looking back on another missed opportunity.

The optimist in me says that Spain have peaked too early, Southgate will have learned from history, seize the moment, put us on the front foot from the off, not sit back when we take an early lead, and it really is CH.

It’s a struggle for me, but I’m going to let the optimist in me be the dominant force this week, (leading to likely massive disappointment on Sunday night).

(Ah, 4 days to work on it but looks like the pessimist and realist in me are still bloody strong!)

Probably we all expect another anti climatic outcome, but one day it won't work out like that. Certainly think it wouldn't be a surprise to see Southgate set up to frustrate rather than taking the game to the Spanish but hoping that perhaps he and his management team might be really positive and look to analyse the Spanish for weaknesses and build a team to exploit them. Really hope it can be settled in open play and not penalties.

[Stranded]

Anyone who doesn't think that was a penalty clearly subscribe to the view that a foul is somehow different outside of the box than in. Easy for the ref to miss but simple question is, if seen, would that have been a free kick on say the halfway line - if the answer, as it is here, is a simple yes then it is a penalty. None of this it was soft rubbish, it was a clear foul.

Now if you want to try and find a reason for it not to be given, the ball did find its way to Kane off of Saka's arm but this may well just have been luck for England as it was not intentional. If Kane had scored with his shot, then it would have been a free kick to the Netherlands but as he missed and was fouled, it was not handball under the rules, so the foul was given.

Anyway, England played like a different team for a lot of that and even when they sat back more in the 2nd half, looked much more incisive on the counter. If they play like that, they will have a chance more than a decent chance on Monday.

[Brogue]

Saw a reply last night and saka clearly hand balled it twice in the run up to the penalty. Missed by everyone it seems hmmm

https://x.com/sundeto91/status/18111557 ... zleRCWjxvA

[Sanguine]

The thing is, Rothers, if Southgate sets up to 'take the game to Spain', we'll probably get twanked 4-0 and the manager will rightfully get pelters for his naivety. If we win on Sunday, it's unlikely to be a pretty game, as it may likely involve Conor Gallagher and packing the midfield to try to stifle them. Not all caution is bad.

[Snowflake Royal]

Saw a reply last night and saka clearly hand balled it twice in the run up to the penalty. Missed by everyone it seems hmmm

https://x.com/sundeto91/status/18111557 ... zleRCWjxvA

That angle doesn't show clear contact, the ball could just be travelling near to the arm along the same plane.

And as Stranded pointed out, it only matters if Kane scored the shot.

[Brogue]

Saw a reply last night and saka clearly hand balled it twice in the run up to the penalty. Missed by everyone it seems hmmm

https://x.com/sundeto91/status/18111557 ... zleRCWjxvA

That angle doesn't show clear contact, the ball could just be travelling near to the arm along the same plane.

And as Stranded pointed out, it only matters if Kane scored the shot.

Not sure I understand stranded or your point. For arguments sake let’s say it did hit his hand. But you’re saying it’s not handball even though it hit his hand because we didn’t score? I’m just making sure I understand what you’re saying. You are allowed to handball it, as long as you don’t score? I was not aware of this rule

[NathStPaul]

This victory is all the more remarkable given Kalvin Phillips wasn't there.

Well lifted from twitter

No, just have a memory of Southgate claiming Phillips was that integral to the team it was making us play badly with him not being there.

[St Pauli]

Anyone who doesn't think that was a penalty clearly subscribe to the view that a foul is somehow different outside of the box than in. Easy for the ref to miss but simple question is, if seen, would that have been a free kick on say the halfway line - if the answer, as it is here, is a simple yes then it is a penalty. None of this it was soft rubbish, it was a clear foul.

Now if you want to try and find a reason for it not to be given, the ball did find its way to Kane off of Saka's arm but this may well just have been luck for England as it was not intentional. If Kane had scored with his shot, then it would have been a free kick to the Netherlands but as he missed and was fouled, it was not handball under the rules, so the foul was given.

Anyway, England played like a different team for a lot of that and even when they sat back more in the 2nd half, looked much more incisive on the counter. If they play like that, they will have a chance more than a decent chance on Monday.

If the Saka hand ball isn’t a handball it’s because it’s not intentional.

Was the intent of the defender to bring Kane down or to block the shot? Imo he’s clearly trying to block the shot, not foul Kane.

[Franchise FC]

Saw a reply last night and saka clearly hand balled it twice in the run up to the penalty. Missed by everyone it seems hmmm

https://x.com/sundeto91/status/18111557 ... zleRCWjxvA

That angle doesn't show clear contact, the ball could just be travelling near to the arm along the same plane.

And as Stranded pointed out, it only matters if Kane scored the shot.

Not sure I understand stranded or your point. For arguments sake let’s say it did hit his hand. But you’re saying it’s not handball even though it hit his hand because we didn’t score? I’m just making sure I understand what you’re saying. You are allowed to handball it, as long as you don’t score? I was not aware of this rule

Go on, I’ll bite, since I’ve got nothing planned for this morning
The rules around handball are very specific when a goal is scored
If the ball hits an arm, accidentally or otherwise, leading directly to a goal (i.e. going straight in ir dropping fir someone to finish) then the goal is disallowed and the defending team awarded a direct free kick
If the ball hits an arm without a goal being scored it is entirely the responsibility of the onfield referee to decide a) whether the ball has hit the arm and b) whether it was considered deliberate
There is no recourse to VAR in that instance since VAR is only involved if a goal is scored from the said incident

In this case, either the referee didn’t see Saka’s arm touch the ball, or he deemed it accidental, in which case it was not handball

Then comes the however … if an incident is reviewed for a penalty and the referee has missed a handball in the build up, then I would assume that it would be checked prior to review of the penalty incident

[Franchise FC]

Anyone who doesn't think that was a penalty clearly subscribe to the view that a foul is somehow different outside of the box than in. Easy for the ref to miss but simple question is, if seen, would that have been a free kick on say the halfway line - if the answer, as it is here, is a simple yes then it is a penalty. None of this it was soft rubbish, it was a clear foul.

Now if you want to try and find a reason for it not to be given, the ball did find its way to Kane off of Saka's arm but this may well just have been luck for England as it was not intentional. If Kane had scored with his shot, then it would have been a free kick to the Netherlands but as he missed and was fouled, it was not handball under the rules, so the foul was given.

Anyway, England played like a different team for a lot of that and even when they sat back more in the 2nd half, looked much more incisive on the counter. If they play like that, they will have a chance more than a decent chance on Monday.

If the Saka hand ball isn’t a handball it’s because it’s not intentional.

Was the intent of the defender to bring Kane down or to block the shot? Imo he’s clearly trying to block the shot, not foul Kane.

Except that a handball CAN be deemed accidental and therefore not an offence.
A trip or kick does not depend at all on whether it was accidental, indeed the laws do not make any reference to deliberate in that case
So, in attempting to block a shot if you kick or trip an opponent, it’s a foul (and that includes a studs up challenge, which last night’s clearly was)
As has been said, literally anywhere else on the pitch that is a foul, so why should it not be just because it’s inside the penalty area

[St Pauli]

Anyone who doesn't think that was a penalty clearly subscribe to the view that a foul is somehow different outside of the box than in. Easy for the ref to miss but simple question is, if seen, would that have been a free kick on say the halfway line - if the answer, as it is here, is a simple yes then it is a penalty. None of this it was soft rubbish, it was a clear foul.

Now if you want to try and find a reason for it not to be given, the ball did find its way to Kane off of Saka's arm but this may well just have been luck for England as it was not intentional. If Kane had scored with his shot, then it would have been a free kick to the Netherlands but as he missed and was fouled, it was not handball under the rules, so the foul was given.

Anyway, England played like a different team for a lot of that and even when they sat back more in the 2nd half, looked much more incisive on the counter. If they play like that, they will have a chance more than a decent chance on Monday.

If the Saka hand ball isn’t a handball it’s because it’s not intentional.

Was the intent of the defender to bring Kane down or to block the shot? Imo he’s clearly trying to block the shot, not foul Kane.

Except that a handball CAN be deemed accidental and therefore not an offence.
A trip or kick does not depend at all on whether it was accidental, indeed the laws do not make any reference to deliberate in that case
So, in attempting to block a shot if you kick or trip an opponent, it’s a foul (and that includes a studs up challenge, which last night’s clearly was)
As has been said, literally anywhere else on the pitch that is a foul, so why should it not be just because it’s inside the penalty area

Yeah but the rules of the game were written before VAR was a thing.

Ref’s made quick split second decisions based on the overall context of what happened. So like the Ref did last night, they decided ‘he’s not trying to foul or trip Kane, to get an advantage, he’s trying to block the shot, and Kane’s kicked his foot, and then tripped over because he’s kicked his foot, so it’s not a foul.’

And then some Dutch hating Kraut behind a VAR screen has got out his ‘Big Book of Outdated Football Rules’ and found a penalty.

Same goes for ‘studs up’ tackles. That rule is there to stop leg and ankle destroying studs up slide tackles. It shouldn’t mean ‘every moment where a stud makes contact with an opposition player’.

[Snowflake Royal]

Saw a reply last night and saka clearly hand balled it twice in the run up to the penalty. Missed by everyone it seems hmmm

https://x.com/sundeto91/status/18111557 ... zleRCWjxvA

That angle doesn't show clear contact, the ball could just be travelling near to the arm along the same plane.

And as Stranded pointed out, it only matters if Kane scored the shot.

Not sure I understand stranded or your point. For arguments sake let’s say it did hit his hand. But you’re saying it’s not handball even though it hit his hand because we didn’t score? I’m just making sure I understand what you’re saying. You are allowed to handball it, as long as you don’t score? I was not aware of this rule

The handball rule is different if a goal is scored, there was that one earlier in the tournament. There's no increasing your silhouette, just any touch of the hand.