England v Netherlands

[Snowflake Royal]

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.

Given it's word for word a tweet that I've seen shared, chinny reckon.

[Snowflake Royal]

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.

Tell us you don’t understand the laws without actually saying it St Pauli

[NathStPaul]

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.

Given it's word for word a tweet that I've seen shared, chinny reckon.

Some of us just have a sense of humour, Ian.

[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.

Tell us you don’t understand the laws without actually saying it St Pauli

I’m saying the laws need updating.

Or changing to allow reflect the new way the game is officiated.

I’m suggesting that on pitch refs throughout history have had to be, or simply have been, far more flexible with the rules than perhaps the rule book intends. IE they’ve more often gone with ‘the spirit of the rules’ rather than a literal interpretation of the rules.

VAR refs have far more time and camera angles to make decisions, and so as a result intentionally or unintentionally are tipping the balance more in favour of the literal rules than the ‘spirit of the rules.’

And before loling at the difference between literal and spirit, in law, judges are supposed to interpret the ‘spirit’ of a law, even if this means going against the literal wording of a law.

[Snowflake Royal]

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.

Tell us you don’t understand the laws without actually saying it St Pauli

I’m saying the laws need updating.

Or changing to allow reflect the new way the game is officiated.

I’m suggesting that on pitch refs throughout history have had to be, or simply have been, far more flexible with the rules than perhaps the rule book intends. IE they’ve more often gone with ‘the spirit of the rules’ rather than a literal interpretation of the rules.

VAR refs have far more time and camera angles to make decisions, and so as a result intentionally or unintentionally are tipping the balance more in favour of the literal rules than the ‘spirit of the rules.’

And before loling at the difference between literal and spirit, in law, judges are supposed to interpret the ‘spirit’ of a law, even if this means going against the literal wording of a law.

The spirit of the law is that anything that unfairly or unreasonably impedes or endangers a player is a foul. Intent is, was and always will be irrelevant.

The exception is handball, which is totally unworkable, and why it keeps getting changed to try to fix that.

[Brogue]

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

It’s not a case of biting. I’m not trying to be a pcunt here- Appreciate that’s a break from the norm . but I was genuinely asking, and you have answered very well. I guess the final paragraph is the situation in which I was questioning.

[St Pauli]

Tell us you don’t understand the laws without actually saying it St Pauli

I’m saying the laws need updating.

Or changing to allow reflect the new way the game is officiated.

I’m suggesting that on pitch refs throughout history have had to be, or simply have been, far more flexible with the rules than perhaps the rule book intends. IE they’ve more often gone with ‘the spirit of the rules’ rather than a literal interpretation of the rules.

VAR refs have far more time and camera angles to make decisions, and so as a result intentionally or unintentionally are tipping the balance more in favour of the literal rules than the ‘spirit of the rules.’

And before loling at the difference between literal and spirit, in law, judges are supposed to interpret the ‘spirit’ of a law, even if this means going against the literal wording of a law.

The spirit of the law is that anything that unfairly or unreasonably impedes or endangers a player is a foul. Intent is, was and always will be irrelevant.

Ignoring intent then, like with all rules, the inclusion of the words ‘unfairly’ and ‘unreasonably’ are open to interpretation and as such the rule is open to interpretation.

And interpretation means needing to think about what the spirit of the rules is. Which is ‘don’t cheat’. Which inevitably will involve considering a bit of intent….

[Franchise FC]

I’m saying the laws need updating.

Or changing to allow reflect the new way the game is officiated.

I’m suggesting that on pitch refs throughout history have had to be, or simply have been, far more flexible with the rules than perhaps the rule book intends. IE they’ve more often gone with ‘the spirit of the rules’ rather than a literal interpretation of the rules.

VAR refs have far more time and camera angles to make decisions, and so as a result intentionally or unintentionally are tipping the balance more in favour of the literal rules than the ‘spirit of the rules.’

And before loling at the difference between literal and spirit, in law, judges are supposed to interpret the ‘spirit’ of a law, even if this means going against the literal wording of a law.

The spirit of the law is that anything that unfairly or unreasonably impedes or endangers a player is a foul. Intent is, was and always will be irrelevant.

Ignoring intent then, like with all rules, the inclusion of the words ‘unfairly’ and ‘unreasonably’ are open to interpretation and as such the rule is open to interpretation.

And interpretation means needing to think about what the spirit of the rules is. Which is ‘don’t cheat’. Which inevitably will involve considering a bit of intent….

Do the laws say that, or is that simply inferring a spirit ?
I don’t recall seeing much in them about the spirit of the law, although I haven’t looked in detail at the last lot of ‘tweaks’

[Royal Rother]

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.

Hmm, yeah, I can see that.

Just really really don't want to see us try to stifle them and still lose!

[St Pauli]

The spirit of the law is that anything that unfairly or unreasonably impedes or endangers a player is a foul. Intent is, was and always will be irrelevant.

Ignoring intent then, like with all rules, the inclusion of the words ‘unfairly’ and ‘unreasonably’ are open to interpretation and as such the rule is open to interpretation.

And interpretation means needing to think about what the spirit of the rules is. Which is ‘don’t cheat’. Which inevitably will involve considering a bit of intent….

Do the laws say that, or is that simply inferring a spirit ?
I don’t recall seeing much in them about the spirit of the law, although I haven’t looked in detail at the last lot of ‘tweaks’

Interesting point, I guess there’s also a debate to be had about which rules are to prevent cheating, and which are to prevent injury. Complicated further by the fact that one way to cheat is by injuring an opponent.

[Snowflake Royal]

I’m saying the laws need updating.

Or changing to allow reflect the new way the game is officiated.

I’m suggesting that on pitch refs throughout history have had to be, or simply have been, far more flexible with the rules than perhaps the rule book intends. IE they’ve more often gone with ‘the spirit of the rules’ rather than a literal interpretation of the rules.

VAR refs have far more time and camera angles to make decisions, and so as a result intentionally or unintentionally are tipping the balance more in favour of the literal rules than the ‘spirit of the rules.’

And before loling at the difference between literal and spirit, in law, judges are supposed to interpret the ‘spirit’ of a law, even if this means going against the literal wording of a law.

The spirit of the law is that anything that unfairly or unreasonably impedes or endangers a player is a foul. Intent is, was and always will be irrelevant.

Ignoring intent then, like with all rules, the inclusion of the words ‘unfairly’ and ‘unreasonably’ are open to interpretation and as such the rule is open to interpretation.

And interpretation means needing to think about what the spirit of the rules is. Which is ‘don’t cheat’. Which inevitably will involve considering a bit of intent….

No.

[St Pauli]

The spirit of the law is that anything that unfairly or unreasonably impedes or endangers a player is a foul. Intent is, was and always will be irrelevant.

Ignoring intent then, like with all rules, the inclusion of the words ‘unfairly’ and ‘unreasonably’ are open to interpretation and as such the rule is open to interpretation.

And interpretation means needing to think about what the spirit of the rules is. Which is ‘don’t cheat’. Which inevitably will involve considering a bit of intent….

No.

Yes.

Why do you think Gary Neville and Lee Dixon disagree with you Ian? Is it because you have more football knowledge and experience than they do?

[tulip]

The ref apparently said it wasn't a penalty (to Dumfries) and VAR changed the decision. Whatever the truth of the matter, I hate it when games are decided by such decisions.
Almost enough to put me off football entirely.

[Franchise FC]

The ref apparently said it wasn't a penalty (to Dumfries) and VAR changed the decision. Whatever the truth of the matter, I hate it when games are decided by such decisions.
Almost enough to put me off football entirely.

That’s clearly rubbish because HE was the one that changed the decision
All VAR did was tell him to review it … he could’ve stuck with his original decision

And the game wasn’t DECIDED by that decision
Ultimately it was decided by a superb through ball and exquisite finish

[St Pauli]

The ref apparently said it wasn't a penalty (to Dumfries) and VAR changed the decision. Whatever the truth of the matter, I hate it when games are decided by such decisions.
Almost enough to put me off football entirely.

I hate the Netherlands as a squad, country and people, but I have to say Tulip you were absolutely robbed by German officials yesterday. Despite everything that’s passed between us you have my sympathy.

[tulip]

The ref apparently said it wasn't a penalty (to Dumfries) and VAR changed the decision. Whatever the truth of the matter, I hate it when games are decided by such decisions.
Almost enough to put me off football entirely.

That’s clearly rubbish because HE was the one that changed the decision
All VAR did was tell him to review it … he could’ve stuck with his original decision

And the game wasn’t DECIDED by that decision
Ultimately it was decided by a superb through ball and exquisite finish

But it was decided by that decision, otherwise the goal at the end would have made it 1-1, into extra time and eventually penalties.

[St Pauli]

The ref apparently said it wasn't a penalty (to Dumfries) and VAR changed the decision. Whatever the truth of the matter, I hate it when games are decided by such decisions.
Almost enough to put me off football entirely.

That’s clearly rubbish because HE was the one that changed the decision
All VAR did was tell him to review it … he could’ve stuck with his original decision

And the game wasn’t DECIDED by that decision
Ultimately it was decided by a superb through ball and exquisite finish

But it was decided by that decision, otherwise the goal at the end would have made it 1-1, into extra time and eventually penalties.

This^^^

Team Tulip

[tulip]

The ref apparently said it wasn't a penalty (to Dumfries) and VAR changed the decision. Whatever the truth of the matter, I hate it when games are decided by such decisions.
Almost enough to put me off football entirely.

I hate the Netherlands as a squad, country and people, but I have to say Tulip you were absolutely robbed by German officials yesterday. Despite everything that’s passed between us you have my sympathy.

I don't need your sympathy, it's only a game and will not change my life in any way.
I do feel some sympathy for the Dutch fans, who were fantastic and really put on a show, bless 'em. They deserved better from the team and the officials.

Oh and I hope Spain win, for the sake of the game. No dodgy decisions please.

[Snowflake Royal]

Ignoring intent then, like with all rules, the inclusion of the words ‘unfairly’ and ‘unreasonably’ are open to interpretation and as such the rule is open to interpretation.

And interpretation means needing to think about what the spirit of the rules is. Which is ‘don’t cheat’. Which inevitably will involve considering a bit of intent….

No.

Yes.

Why do you think Gary Neville and Lee Dixon disagree with you Ian? Is it because you have more football knowledge and experience than they do?

[St Pauli]

The ref apparently said it wasn't a penalty (to Dumfries) and VAR changed the decision. Whatever the truth of the matter, I hate it when games are decided by such decisions.
Almost enough to put me off football entirely.

I hate the Netherlands as a squad, country and people, but I have to say Tulip you were absolutely robbed by German officials yesterday. Despite everything that’s passed between us you have my sympathy.

I don't need your sympathy, it's only a game and will not change my life in any way.
I do feel some sympathy for the Dutch fans, who were fantastic and really put on a show, bless 'em. They deserved better from the team and the officials.

Oh and I hope Spain win, for the sake of the game. No dodgy decisions please.

That is very gracious of you Tulip. I hope England win because it will be nice for them to win something as they normally never do.

But I’ll also be happy if Spain win as it shows that Germany were knocked by the champions. If you accept that Spain beat Germany of course, which I don’t.