I don't get it. Both the coach and Sneijder are whining to the ref about time wasting. So the ref books Boetang, and then they complain more?! Shut Up!
Hey look The Dutch are whining after the game and getting into confrontations. Not surprising. Good game by the crew though. Nothing really critical except some no call penalties which I love to see. He kept this game even and fair and there's nothing much anyone can say about it. He wasn't perfect, he missed some things but those were mostly close challenges that are understandable. All in all, well reffed.
For the ref: a surprisingly low key game - good for him - no issues, no worries from my perspective. For the Dutch: Hello? Intensity? Hello? For the Germans: Nice win - congrats on winning the group.
Ah Jason - the voice of reason, logic and truth.... Fair point. Though I think I'll be typing the same thing after then Denmark match....
Mathematically you're right. I think the Dutch could definitely advance they've got a chance. Germany should win the group though.
I thought the first tie-breaker was head-to-head which would mean ... If Denmark beats Germany and Portugal wins, it's a three way and who knows what they do. Otherwise if Denmark wins and Portugal doesn't, Denmark and Germany advance. If Holland wins, they are still eliminated because at best they would be tied with Denmark but they lose on the h2h. Of course if I'm wrong about the h2h this goes out the window.
Head to head is the tiebreaker, but with a three way tie and each team being 1-1 against each other, it would go to the next tiebreaker which is GD in games involving the three teams.
Not me! After the first few games, I now mute the sound at half-time and post-match. They mainly talk a complete load of nonsense, especially Lalas. I only listen when Martinez comes on; he's the only one who makes any sense and provides insightful analysis. PH
I think, the end result of group B: Germany and Denmark will drawn and together next while Portugal lost Netherlands
What's the deal with this? My buddies were peppering me with questions on this after it happened and I had no response. It would have felt weird IF the Swede had called it though but it is not allowed. What am I misinterpreting ?
I get it and I agree that it would look trifleing to call it in this particular situation. So its primary intent then is too prevent time wasting? I just want to have a reasoned answer if/when some coach presses me on it.
Just to pass the time during a rain delay..... 1) Trifling is always an option. 2) "its primary intent then is too prevent time wasting?" - very likely. 3) Did he really "parry" it? Or did he just "get a hand on it any way he could, avoid a collision, then pick up the loose ball"??? Bottom line: I think this call is reserved for (very unusual, non-pressure) situations where the keeper is trying to do something he normally could not. In other words, not being just a keeper, but trying to be more than that (probably a time-waster). In this case, all common sense says, he is just being a good keeper.
Yup. BTW - I can just see me trying to explain this to some HS coach someday if a similar play happens !!
I might be having one of those moments when I remember something that never happened, but... didn't the prohibition on parrying get excised from the Laws long ago? Like a few years after the 4-step rule got changed to a 6-step rule? I know it stuck around for awhile, but I thought the IFAB scrapped it once people pointed out it became pointless when we started counting seconds rather than steps.