Jambomo Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 2 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said: Listening to that, I can't imagine what's going through the head of the misogynistic racist Reform-voting football fan right now. Joey Barton would be turning in his grave, if he were in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarapoa Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Used as the.theme tune to Deutschland 83, which was simply wunderbar. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudia Gentile Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: I think this relates to the fact that a player eligible for England in this way is, under the UEFA / FIFA rules, eligible for any and all of the Home Nations as they are part of the UK. The agreement I'm sure is that Scotland (for example) would not select a player who became eligible through living in England. England could select them, though. Cheers. That rings a bell now you mention it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroundskeeperWillie Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Putting all the VAR controversies to one side briefly, Germany well worthy winners tonight and if they had a proper finisher up front they'd have probably been home and hosed far earlier and far more comfortably. With home advantage it's clear Germany have every chance of progressing, they have the majority of the personnel needed to win the competition, it's obviously going to be interesting (assuming Spain don't have a major meltdown and lose tomorrow night) in the QFs as it really is a battle of the two major nations without a number 9. It's an area where England, if Harry Kane can get firing, clearly have a chance of winning the competition, because in Kane they have someone who can bang them in regularly and has enough support in Foden, Saka, Bellingham etc to trouble defences. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chripper Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) Christina is brilliant at her job and she's very cute, especially when she's explaining the nuances if the rules. The main issue is that the rules change literally every year. It's no surprise that ex players, pundits and fans don't know the rules. The rules are changed by people who are paid to change football rules. Edited June 29 by Chripper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 37 minutes ago, BukyOHare said: How can you pull somebody's shirt and by definition not impede their ability to play the ball? I can't imagine pulling their shirt helps them to play the ball in anyway! Defenders do it all the time, especially at free kicks and corners, to keep track of where they are when looking towards the ball. Having a hold of an opponent's shirt isn't automatically a foul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Just now, Spyro said: Was thinking that, she's done well in a tricky spot That's lawyers for you. Sounding good but actually contributing nothing of value when you break it down. Meanwhile, back in the real world, offside is not in fact 'factual' as claimed. See the France v Netherlands game: was Dumfries active when a shot beat Magnan? We also now apparently have magical 'limb-tracking technology'. Which seems a massive upgrade on the previous 'draw squinty lines on an image' approach, that the same lawyer brigade insisted was an objective and factual measurement of offside calls when VAR was introduced. Curious that they've decided to abandon one entirely legitimate process for another in a handful of years! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Just now, virginton said: That's lawyers for you. Sounding good but actually contributing nothing of value when you break it down. Meanwhile, back in the real world, offside is not in fact 'factual' as claimed. See the France v Netherlands game: was Dumfries active when a shot beat Magnan? We also now apparently have magical 'limb-tracking technology'. Which seems a massive upgrade on the previous 'draw squinty lines on an image' approach, that the same lawyer brigade insisted was an objective and factual measurement of offside calls when VAR was introduced. Curious that they've decided to abandon one entirely legitimate process for another in a handful of years! Leave Christina alone you monster... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Just now, virginton said: That's lawyers for you. Sounding good but actually contributing nothing of value when you break it down. Meanwhile, back in the real world, offside is not in fact 'factual' as claimed. See the France v Netherlands game: was Dumfries active when a shot beat Magnan? We also now apparently have magical 'limb-tracking technology'. Which seems a massive upgrade on the previous 'draw squinty lines on an image' approach, that the same lawyer brigade insisted was an objective and factual measurement of offside calls when VAR was introduced. Curious that they've decided to abandon one entirely legitimate process for another in a handful of years! Yes. He was between the goalkeeper and the ball thus impeded the GK's ability to play the ball. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 England camp on, tv off… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Yes. He was between the goalkeeper and the ball thus impeded the GK's ability to play the ball. That's not an objective judgment though. It's a subjective one - which is part and parcel of the game. But according to our big mate Christina, IFAB and VAR have in fact got all offside calls wrapped up as an objective and factual process. Because Limbs get Tracked (just like Lines were Drawn two minutes ago, but it's definitely correct now because reasons). Edited June 29 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 The explanation given of the decision was good, but it's a further indication of the utter bullshit the game is being boxed into by VAR. Quite how the player is supposed to get his arm out of the way there is beyond me, and no amount of Christina Unkel telling me the handball took place outside of the silhouette is convincing me that this is how we want the game to be played. Why have we changed the handball rule to suit pernickety VAR operators so that they can feel important, rather than just implementing the rule objectively as we do without VAR? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 6 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said: Leave Christina alone you monster... Down with Christina and down with the causes of Christina. Peter Walton would have done a far worse white knighting effort for such nonsense, but he's bald so that's to be expected really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloPerth Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 51 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: It’s probably Ally McCoist being so good, but I don’t think he’s that bad any more. And if Vicky Sparks ends up getting the gig… I don’t mind Tyldesley outwith the England references when they’re not playing. He’s miles better than Sam wankerface and a screeching vicky sparks. I’d say he’s the best itv have got. 16 minutes ago, Jambomo said: The American ref (I missed her name) is explaining this pretty well to be fair. Christina Unkel. I don’t always agree with her and think she often appears to just back the refs decision, but she talks really well and clearly. She obviously knows her subject, and compare how well she communicates and makes her point compared to Lee Dixon, Martin Kepwn, Rio Ferdinand, Eniola Aluko, Micah Richards, Alex Scott and many others. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Just now, PauloPerth said: Christina Unkel. I don’t always agree with her and think she often appears to just back the refs decision, but she talks really well and clearly. She obviously knows her subject, and compare how well she communicates and makes her point compared to Lee Dixon, Martin Kepwn, Rio Ferdinand, Eniola Aluko, Micah Richards, Alex Scott and many others. It was the best bit of coverage I've seen at the tournament so far, in that she was put under a fair bit pressure by Pougatch and explained the reasoning calmly and clearly. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Kite Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 13 minutes ago, Spyro said: Was thinking that, she's done well in a tricky spot I think Christina is sound and knows what she is talking about. However, it is starting to feel like football is just another part of life that is becoming over-complicated by technology. The simplicity of the game is one of the main reasons for its popularity. Roy Keane has an expression like my Dad trying to avoid having to do anything online. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 2 minutes ago, virginton said: That's not an objective judgment though. It's a subjective one - which is part and parcel of the game. But according to our big mate Cristina, IFAB and VAR have in fact got all offside calls wrapped up as an objective and factual process. Because Limbs get Tracked (just like Lines were Drawn two minutes ago, but it's definitely correct now because reasons). I would argue it is objective. His position was directly between the GK and ball. The subjective part would be whether or not he would have been able to save it if he wasn't there, however that is irrelevant in the Laws of the Game. I'm not saying this to you directly but a lot of people seem to be unable to come to terms with "modern football" and pretend not to understand why decisions are reached because they don't agree with the Laws behind them. You can disagree with them whilst still understanding why decisions are reached. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloPerth Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 minute ago, Darren said: It was the best bit of coverage I've seen at the tournament so far, in that she was put under a fair bit pressure by Pougatch and explained the reasoning calmly and clearly. Agree. It was like he was playing to the gallery. You’re just the presenter you fanny, nobody wants your opinions. She just swatted him away like the irritating bluebottle he is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudia Gentile Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Was she not backing up the referee's original decision then changed tact when PGMO overturned the original decision? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.