Match 50: ENG : DEN - MAKKELIE (NED)

Mostly agree with this and what @MassachusettsRef posted above. It feels soft--but we wouldn't be questioning the call if it happened at midfield or by the corner flag. A foul is a foul . . . but, not really . . . And besides, we all know that England was certain to win if it went to KFTM.

 

Don't go on Twitter.

 

That’s good advice under any circumstances.

 

I only go on Twitter for tactics stuff, never for refereeing stuff.

 

FWIW, can you imagine any other team in this tournament being as classy about the PK call as Denmark was, regardless of whether you liked the call or not?

In any other match, you'd have a mob scene around Makkelie.

 

Several days ago, a NY Post TV critic posted on Twitter "how much he enjoys listening to Clattenburg". The responses were overwhelmingly in agreement with the post. Yes, non-referees enjoy listening to him (admittedly, it's not a large sample size).

Sometimes it's nice to see what other folks are saying and thinking.

 

Sterling certainly isn’t selling it very well.

"I went into the box, he stuck his right leg out, and he touched my leg so it was a penalty," Sterling added.

 

I’ve really liked Clattenburg except for this game.

I found an interesting take on Reddit — the play looked like a PK from the ref’s angle, and VAR couldn’t overturn it because, soft or not, the letter of the Laws would say “foul.”

I agree - VAR shouldn’t be used to determine how hard one player makes contact with another. That’s judgment.

 

I gave the thumbs up, but not for liking Clattenburg

 

I made a wrong turn and wandered into the fan section. They are talking of wanting to do away with the “clear and obvious” standard for VAR. Hope IFAB isn’t reading any of the rule change threads on here...

 

Any talk of the two balls on the field?

 

I really enjoy having him or another referee there. Former players or whoever might be knowledgable, but they don't get refereeing right and don't have that perspective. It is a separate skillset obviously

 

I believe the first defender did get the ball, but I also believe getting the ball is no defense, mostly. (Do I remember rightly a guidance that it isnt tripping if you get the ball cleanly and the opponent subsequently trips over you?)

 

For what it is worth, I think the PK law needs a review. While a foul in the box by definition removes a promising attack, a small proportion of attacks pinging around the box even result on shots of goals, much less goals. A PK converts a low probability play into a 90% one. That is disproportionate difference which is why players like Sterling drop like flies at contact. That is the tactically rational play. Move the spot back two yards or so, the proportion of PKs scored drops and the tactical calculus will shift to it being better to keep your feet and try to score the traditional way. Fouls would still be a stupid thing to give, but not instantly fatal. (And I wont even begin on the handling rule these days)

anyway, a topic for another time.

 

Derek Rae passed along a tweet which commented on it. (It is NOT from an account officially connected to Collina, unless I'm mistaken). Sounds a bit bunkum to me but what do I know?

Some have asked about the 2nd ball on pitch, @CollinasErben says
- from ref‘s point of view it didn’t influence the game or any players. No one annoyed by it, so game allowed to continue.
Just relaying what refs are instructed go by rather than what we as fans might think. https://t.co/ecU7AnYEul

— Derek Rae (@RaeComm) July 7, 2021

 

Was of no consequence.

 

So I thought this afternoon, but these evening I have learned much of VAR's various failures to intervene. (I failed to heed good advice and went and looked at the Twitter.)

 

I can't help but think that this penalty gets overturned in the Premier League. I **think** - and admittedly may be wrong - I remember seeing pens that had some contact on them, like that, get overturned.

 

A restart where the penalty taker is actually in an off side position (with lots of meters of advantage in regards to almost all other players), as only the goalkeeper stands between him and the goal line, before the penalty kick is taken.

In the case of rebounds from penalty kicks, the penalty kick taker shouldn't be allowed to kick the rebound (just my humble opinion on the issue)

 

They're behind the ball to start with, so it's not really offside position even in a technical sense.

 

Collinas Erben is a German refereeing podcast, which has a fairly large twitter following in Germany because they have a regular slot on Bundesliga broadcasts, and also comment on decisions online. They're in no way affiliated to Collina, but I've found them to be quite good.

What they've said in this case is hardly controversial - of course Makkelie decided the second ball didn't impact anyone, or else he would have stopped play.

 

Don't want to start "a storm in a teacup", but......

Almost all offside ofenders in regular play, actually touch the ball while being behind it. They only became offside, if at the moment the play started, there were less than two defending players in front of them. An issue that doesn't happen in a pk, where there is only 1 (the goalkeeper).

In a pk, the play starts with the pk.

 

Yeah, Twitter is making a big deal of it, in part because ESPN FC posted the picture at least twice. And The Telegraph did a clickbait headline because the English media love to wear that hair shirt.

The laser incident is awful, but that’s one person. Not fair to say it reflects poorly on England.