Bolton Wanderers Fans Forum

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » The World Cup 2018 » The World Cup 2018 » Columbia v England

Columbia v England

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

31 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 13:17

Growler


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Diego Maradona didn't think it was a penalty ...

"What I saw was a monumental theft. I apologise to all the Colombian people, but they must know the players are not to blame,"
It is the man who decides who the referee is who is to blame. A man like that (Geiger) should not be put in charge of a game of that magnitude
The referee will know a lot about baseball, but he has no idea about football.
"The penalty was not a foul. In fact, it was Kane's fault.The referee is looking somewhere else and when he turns his head, Kane is on the floor. Kane used his arm to hook Sanchez and then threw himself down."

32 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 13:35

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Growler wrote:Diego Maradona didn't think it was a penalty ...

"What I saw was a monumental theft. I apologise to all the Colombian people, but they must know the players are not to blame,"
It is the man who decides who the referee is who is to blame. A man like that (Geiger) should not be put in charge of a game of that magnitude
The referee will know a lot about baseball, but he has no idea about football.
"The penalty was not a foul. In fact, it was Kane's fault.The referee is looking somewhere else and when he turns his head, Kane is on the floor. Kane used his arm to hook Sanchez and then threw himself down."
That water's under the bridge Diego and we don't give a f***.

Maybe he's is trying to ensure that none of the players get topped - or maybe he's just a bitter old England-hating twat?

33 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 13:35

rammywhite

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Growler wrote:Diego Maradona didn't think it was a penalty ...

"What I saw was a monumental theft. I apologise to all the Colombian people, but they must know the players are not to blame,"
It is the man who decides who the referee is who is to blame. A man like that (Geiger) should not be put in charge of a game of that magnitude
The referee will know a lot about baseball, but he has no idea about football.
"The penalty was not a foul. In fact, it was Kane's fault.The referee is looking somewhere else and when he turns his head, Kane is on the floor. Kane used his arm to hook Sanchez and then threw himself down."

Does anyone really care what that fat antique actually thought?

34 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 13:54

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

As for the match is there only me that believes Kane was the one who committed the first foul in the lead up to the penalty?  If you watch the England players line up for the corner in that queue of four players in a line, with the Colombian defender squeezed in, in front of Kane, the first move anyone did was Kane putting his arm behind the back of the defender then yanking him forward to put the defender off balance, which he never really recovered from in trying then to get the half yard back on Kane's run.

If I were on VAR duty I would have given a foul against England,

Good job I wasn't then!

I saw it too but I think the ref and VAR team were looking at the persistent holding and blocking in the box and were focussed on that - almost as if FIFA is on a mission to eradicate it in order to get more goals and enhance the value of corners and free kicks. There were plenty of decisions that could have gone either way TBH.

You don't half spout some utter bollocks!

There's been illegal holding and blocking in the box at every single game in this tournament (and probably every previous World Cup game ever). Indeed it was Kane who was the one doing the initial 'HOLDING' in the incident we are talking about - Christ he had his arm wrapped around the blokes head!

The World Cup powers to be aren't on some secret mission as you seem to be suggesting, if they are they'd be giving penalties at every single corner in every match because that is the name of the game, to get an advantage on the person you are marking by fair means or foul - mostly foul!

There is no doubt whatsoever that Kane initiated the first foul in the run up to the penalty and everything thereafter is irrelevant - a foul had been committed.

Why the VAR people didn't bring it to the referees attention is anyone's guess - maybe they did?

Fwiw even though the Kane incident wasn't a penalty the Lingard one definitely was (watch the defenders right leg and Lingard's left foot) - things even out I guess - but under VAR they should be getting these decisions right all of the time - otherwise why bother having it?

The bottom line is that VAR is as random at decision making as referees in normal games without VAR technology - ie they get most right but miss some obvious things (which brings the whole reason for having it into disrepute imo).  There is certainly no hidden agenda attached to it though as you think, only things like that happen in the Hypernormal world only you seem to inhabit.



Last edited by Sluffy on Wed Jul 04 2018, 13:56; edited 1 time in total

35 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 13:55

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

36 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 14:06

Sluffy

avatar
Admin

Just the usual trolls on such media - what a surprise!

I suspect anyone seriously intending to do it would just do so, and not Facebook/tweet about it first.

The world must be full of internet nut jobs and key board warriors.



37 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 15:07

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:

Just the usual trolls on social media - what a surprise!

I suspect anyone seriously intending to do it would just do so, and not Facebook/tweet about it first.

The world must be full of internet nut jobs and key board warriors.



Yes,quite a few of them are on here!
I'll admit to the nut job,but I'm no warrior. Very Happy

38 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 15:43

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:There is no doubt whatsoever that Kane initiated the first foul in the run up to the penalty and everything thereafter is irrelevant - a foul had been committed.


There's plenty of doubt, I didn't see it that way at all.

** edited because I don't want a 100,000 word telling off **

39 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 16:22

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I didn't see it that way either, the ref clearly warned the defenders not to grab just before the penalty was given and the defender thought he could get away with it.

40 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 18:51

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:I didn't see it that way either, the ref clearly warned the defenders not to grab just before the penalty was given and the defender thought he could get away with it.

Natasha Whittam wrote:There's plenty of doubt, I didn't see it that way at all.


What, are you both for real???

Look at the link to the goal again, at about 10 seconds in Kane with his left hand loosely behind the Colombian defenders back suddenly yanks him forward by the back of the defenders neck - so much so that if you watch closely Kane's left hand ends up under his right armpit whilst the Colombian defender is doubled up in two with him almost looking as though he's sniffing Kane's right hip!!!

Clearly ALL Kane's doing with the defender being blameless at that point.

I might not go to games these days but Christ above I've played so much football in my time I know where to look to spot such a blatant foul as that - particularly when the cameras have zoomed in on the incident seventy million times!

Have another look then I dare you both and then tell me again it was no foul!

Rolling Eyes


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44705938

41 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 20:37

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sorry sluffy, you are definitely wrong. Just ask Harry Kane.

42 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 20:47

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
If Kane is classed as a foul then every single corner would result in a penalty or free kick.  There’s always a little pushing and shoving but what happened to Kane was basically a rugby tackle.

43 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 20:54

DEANO82


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Guess that any "foul" by Kane was before the corner was taken so wouldn't have been a VAR issue.

44 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 20:55

DEANO82


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Think it played a big part in Columbia's goal. It was there 1st corner and England players looked scared to touch anyone in case they conceded a penalty.

45 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 20:57

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
BoltonTillIDie wrote:If Kane is classed as a foul then every single corner would result in a penalty or free kick.  There’s always a little pushing and shoving but what happened to Kane was basically a rugby tackle.

It isn't a 'little bit' of shoving when you grab someone at the back of the neck and double him down to your waist!

That's an assault.

If someone did that to an England player in the box we'd ALL be screaming for a penalty.

Even you.

46 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 21:11

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
DEANO82 wrote:Guess that any "foul" by Kane was before the corner was taken so wouldn't have been a VAR issue.

That's a good point to raise.

It wouldn't stop the referee from giving Kane a booking though.

As far as I know if something happens before the ball comes into play - then play is recommenced the referee should stop the game, deal with the initial incident, then re-start the game (in this case with the corner kick being retaken).

Kane's action clearly effected how the defender tried to recover back to marking Kane again - which resulted in the given penalty.

It's all water under the bridge now and as I've already said above, even though Kane 'fouled' the defender before the corner was taken and as such the penalty shouldn't have been given, the Lingard incident should have been a penalty for us and was not given.  I guess things even out over time.

47 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 21:18

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I'm definitely right.

48 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 21:27

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Sluffy wrote:
BoltonTillIDie wrote:If Kane is classed as a foul then every single corner would result in a penalty or free kick.  There’s always a little pushing and shoving but what happened to Kane was basically a rugby tackle.

It isn't a 'little bit' of shoving when you grab someone at the back of the neck and double him down to your waist!

That's an assault.

If someone did that to an England player in the box we'd ALL be screaming for a penalty.

Even you.


I disagree, wasn’t a foul by Kane.

We’ll agree to disagree, even you can do that Laughing

49 Re: Columbia v England on Wed Jul 04 2018, 21:47

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
BoltonTillIDie wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
BoltonTillIDie wrote:If Kane is classed as a foul then every single corner would result in a penalty or free kick.  There’s always a little pushing and shoving but what happened to Kane was basically a rugby tackle.

It isn't a 'little bit' of shoving when you grab someone at the back of the neck and double him down to your waist!

That's an assault.

If someone did that to an England player in the box we'd ALL be screaming for a penalty.

Even you.


I disagree, wasn’t a foul by Kane.

We’ll agree to disagree, even you can do that Laughing

Just so I understand you, say we are in the World Cup Final, with the scores level and 90 minutes plus almost up and we have won a corner with the whistle about to blow for a further 30 minutes of extra time.

An England striker is set for the ball to be kicked and one of their defenders grabs him in a head hold and all but throws him to the ground (because that is what Kane did to the Colombian defender) - you wouldn't claim for the penalty - and be quite happy when the ref doesn't give it and we go on to lose the match in extra time?

I know I'd be fuming - and I think most of the rest of the country would be too!

50 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 08:08

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
It was definitely a penalty, it was about as clear cut as it gets.

51 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 08:34

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Come on Nat you know you can't win, Sluffy is always right and writes a 10 page essay every time to prove it  Razz

52 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 09:07

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Natasha Whittam wrote:It was definitely a penalty, it was about as clear cut as it gets.

Kane fouled the defender BEFORE the defender fouled Kane. He did it in the initial moment he moved when he was the last player in the queue of the four England players in a line - not during his run.

The first foul should have been dealt with and the game brought back to that point - thus no subsequent penalty incident, and no penalty.



53 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 10:10

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Sluffy, you’re in the minority here who thinks it shouldn’t have been a penalty.

You, Maradona and Colombia.

54 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 10:45

Boggersbelief

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
The whole of Columbia is hardly a minority

55 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 10:48

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
BoltonTillIDie wrote:Sluffy, you’re in the minority here who thinks it shouldn’t have been a penalty.

You, Maradona and Colombia.

People were in a minority when they thought the Earth was round and the Sun was the centre of the solar system too.

Being in a minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong.

Anyway Maradona's talking about the 'tussle' the referee gave the penalty for - I'm not.  I'm pointing out the clear foul Kane committed previous and separate to that.

56 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 10:56

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Its almost as if you didn't want England to win Sluffy......

57 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:04

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I must say,I have to agree with Sluffy on this one. However,we were due a break. Let's face it,we haven't really had one since 1966.
The draw and the way the tournament has progressed,has been kind to us this year,so we need to make the most of it.
At the end of the day,even if we win the whole thing,we'll get no credit for it.
Much like poor old Leicester City,it'll be all about it being a poor World Cup,and the big names not turning up.
Just like us beating manure was never about how good we were. That's life I suppose.

58 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:07

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Boggersbelief wrote:The whole of Columbia is hardly a minority
in comparison to the world it is

59 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:11

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
They produce very nice coffee beans.

60 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:13

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
boltonbonce wrote:I must say,I have to agree with Sluffy on this one. However,we were due a break. Let's face it,we haven't really had one since 1966.
The draw and the way the tournament has progressed,has been kind to us this year,so we need to make the most of it.
At the end of the day,even if we win the whole thing,we'll get no credit for it.
Much like poor old Leicester City,it'll be all about it being a poor World Cup,and the big names not turning up.
Just like us beating manure was never about how good we were. That's life I suppose.
Don't encourage him for God's sake  Very Happy

Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum