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 3 of 4]

61 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:15

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:Its almost as if you didn't want England to win Sluffy......

Are you mad?

Of course I want us to win.

We should have had a penalty when Lingard was fouled but it wasn't given.

Kane fouled the defender BEFORE the defender fouled him - it's there on video for all to plainly see - (there's non so blind that those who will not see - or so they say).

My point I originally raised (post 23) was how fecking useless the VAR system has been -

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 don't blame the referee missing the initial incident, I fully agree from what he did see that the defender did foul Kane but if they really are using the VAR system to prevent incorrect decisions being made, then they clearly got it wrong.

If the game was played without VAR it would just be one of those things but giving a penalty when it wasn't and not giving one when it was, undermines completely the reason for having VAR.

I mean what's the point of it if it can't give the correct information for the referee to act upon?

62 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:16

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Just looked at the video again and Kane was blocked off to start with, is he just supposed to stand there and say oh well i can't get to it? He got past his man which wasn't a foul and then the defender rugby tackled him to the ground.

63 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:19

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I have to disagree again Sluffy, VAR has been excellent in general in the World Cup, it's not perfect but to me has been a success.

64 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:25

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:Just looked at the video again and Kane was blocked off to start with, is he just supposed to stand there and say oh well i can't get to it? He got past his man which wasn't a foul and then the defender rugby tackled him to the ground.

He grabbed the defender at the back of the neck and forced it down to his waist.

And you don't think that's a foul???

65 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:26

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy, you seem to have a real problem with people who don't agree with you. Let it go.

I'm definitely right though.

66 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:29

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
Norpig wrote:Just looked at the video again and Kane was blocked off to start with, is he just supposed to stand there and say oh well i can't get to it? He got past his man which wasn't a foul and then the defender rugby tackled him to the ground.

He grabbed the defender at the back of the neck and forced it down to his waist.

And you don't think that's a foul???

As i said he has a legitimate right to attack the ball, the defender was blocking him off. He did use some force to get past him but not enough for a foul and nowhere near as much force as the defender used to bring him down.

67 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:31

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Norpig wrote:
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
Sorry Mr Pig. I'll tell him the ST are right behind him on this one.

68 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:31

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
boltonbonce wrote:I must say,I have to agree with Sluffy on this one.

Sluffy, this statement alone should tell you you're wrong.

69 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:34

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
You bitch. I'm not worried by your insults.

By the way,you don't sweat much,for a big girl.

70 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:41

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
Norpig wrote:Just looked at the video again and Kane was blocked off to start with, is he just supposed to stand there and say oh well i can't get to it? He got past his man which wasn't a foul and then the defender rugby tackled him to the ground.

He grabbed the defender at the back of the neck and forced it down to his waist.

And you don't think that's a foul???

As i said he has a legitimate right to attack the ball, the defender was blocking him off. He did use some force to get past him but not enough for a foul and nowhere near as much force as the defender used to bring him down.

"Some force..."!!!

It would be considered an assault by the police if he did that in the street!

I know you're pro-England, so am I, but dear God it's obvious to all who watch the video replays that Kane fouled the defender.



Last edited by Sluffy on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:44; edited 1 time in total

71 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:44

Boggersbelief

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

England are through, the suns shining.

#itscominghome

72 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:46

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Boggersbelief wrote:DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

England are through, the suns shining.

#itscominghome
For once i agree with Walter  Very Happy

73 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 11:55

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Boggersbelief wrote:DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

England are through, the suns shining.

No it doesn't and I've said as much a number of times already but one or two want to have a bit of fun trying to yank my chain (and one or two are simply blind to anything that isn't pro-England!).

74 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 12:14

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I agree with both.
Yes it was potentially a foul and no it doesn't matter now.
Where's the conflict in that?

75 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 12:15

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I'm still right.

76 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 12:35

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
I agree with Norpig, he was getting blocked so pushed past him using little force, certainly wasn’t trying to get a piggy back

77 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 12:39

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
Boggersbelief wrote:DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

England are through, the suns shining.

No it doesn't and I've said as much a number of times already but one or two want to have a bit of fun trying to yank my chain (and one or two are simply blind to anything that isn't pro-England!).
 I'm trying to have a debate with you, isn't that what we're supposed to do on here?

78 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 13:16

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
BoltonTillIDie wrote:I agree with Norpig, he was getting blocked so pushed past him using little force, certainly wasn’t trying to get a piggy back

"using little force..."???

"Pushed passed him...", no he didn't he YANKED him out of the way and forced his head to his waist.

If you can't see that then you must be blind.

79 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 13:17

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
Boggersbelief wrote:DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

England are through, the suns shining.

No it doesn't and I've said as much a number of times already but one or two want to have a bit of fun trying to yank my chain (and one or two are simply blind to anything that isn't pro-England!).
 I'm trying to have a debate with you, isn't that what we're supposed to do on here?

I'm happy to debate but you're clearly prefer to be blind to what happened.

My point had always been about the use of VAR.

It was a clear foul, even people who don't usually go out of there way to support me like Bonce and Wanderlust say so too!

If you don't want to accept what's in front of your eyes, well that's up to you.

What else do you want me to say?

80 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 13:21

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I give up,you're right as usual Sluffy. You do struggle with people having a different opinion than you don't you? Not great really for a man in charge of a forum  Rolling Eyes

81 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 13:33

DEANO82


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
I'm guessing if the Colombia player was fouled he would have gone down quicker than the Titanic (which didn't go down that fast but you know what i mean).

If the Colombia player hadn't tried to stop Kane running then there wouldn't have been any contact between the 2. So it's 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other.

82 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 13:40

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Agree to disagree like I said ages ago Very Happy

I dont think it was a clear foul by Kane, Sluffy does. The end. Doesn't mean my opinion means I'm blind, its my opinion.

83 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 13:49

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
DEANO82 wrote:I'm guessing if the Colombia player was fouled he would have gone down quicker than the Titanic (which didn't go down that fast but you know what i mean).

If the Colombia player hadn't tried to stop Kane running then there wouldn't have been any contact between the 2. So it's 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other.

The defender only had a split second to react and he probably was more concerned about staying with his man than any foul on him in that fraction of time - I know I would as a defender, it's just your natural instinct.

I'm not saying that the defender wouldn't have fouled Kane if Kane hadn't committed the original foul on him first (he may well have done) but from that moment onwards he was always struggling to get back the half step he lost on Kane - and his balance because of it- and that certainly led to holding by him and the penalty being given.

I just go back to my original point about the reason for having VAR in the first place is to remove any avoidance of doubt on such decisions and its clearly not having the effect - that was all I was ever trying to say.

84 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 13:49

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:I give up,you're right as usual Sluffy. You do struggle with people having a different opinion than you don't you? Not great really for a man in charge of a forum  Rolling Eyes

Well we both can't be right on this incident and it's all on video for everyone to see.

If you don't want to accept what's before your eyes then that's up to you.

85 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 14:06

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
The video shows we got a penalty and nothing else, anything else is your opinion and not fact.

86 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 14:23

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:The video shows we got a penalty and nothing else, anything else is your opinion and not fact.

Wrong.

The video shows what happens in the build up to the penalty being given and the goal scored.

Just because Kane was not penalised doesn't mean he didn't actually commit the foul.

Just because a foul wasn't given doesn't make my statement that he did commit the foul untrue nor that it wasn't a fact that it actually happened.

Opinions don't enter into it because everything on the video is a factual record of events - and as such the very reason why VAR is being used and subsequently failing so badly.

87 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 14:34

Boggersbelief

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
How long will this go on Very Happy

88 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 14:48

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
i give up Boggers, it's pointless. Sluffy has never been wrong about anything in his lifetime and won't start now  Rolling Eyes

89 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 14:49

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay

90 Re: Columbia v England on Thu Jul 05 2018, 15:04

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I can only assume Harry Kane is a distant relation of Owen Coyle.

Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

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

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