TXCityAggie said:
Really wanted a Colombia/Argentina quarterfinal. None of these matchups excite me at all.
fig96 said:
First QF for the Swiss since 1954.
The Ex Officio Director said:TXCityAggie said:
Really wanted a Colombia/Argentina quarterfinal. None of these matchups excite me at all.
France
Morocco
Spain
Belgium
Norway
England
Argentina
Switzerland
How do any of these matches not look exciting.
birdman said:
If I was manager, it's simple. If you stutter step, you don't get to take PKs. If you want to get cutesy, sit on the bench.
Just get up there and blast it. Pick one of four corners, preferably the two low corners.
I'd also encourage my goalies to quit guessing. Trust your instincts and skills. React to the ball.
Peter Piper said:birdman said:
If I was manager, it's simple. If you stutter step, you don't get to take PKs. If you want to get cutesy, sit on the bench.
Just get up there and blast it. Pick one of four corners, preferably the two low corners.
I'd also encourage my goalies to quit guessing. Trust your instincts and skills. React to the ball.
What if I told you that before this World Cup, players who use the stutter step have a higher conversion rate on PKs than those who don't?
zag213004 said:
I like France Morocco and Norway england
RED AG 98 said:
The problem is, if he calls it live the counter never happens and the goal doesn't get scored anyway. I think if you have VAR erring on the side of play on and sorting it out via replay is the better choice. And I say that as someone that despises the VAR mm offside calls.
PJYoung said:Peter Piper said:birdman said:
If I was manager, it's simple. If you stutter step, you don't get to take PKs. If you want to get cutesy, sit on the bench.
Just get up there and blast it. Pick one of four corners, preferably the two low corners.
I'd also encourage my goalies to quit guessing. Trust your instincts and skills. React to the ball.
What if I told you that before this World Cup, players who use the stutter step have a higher conversion rate on PKs than those who don't?
I think keepers are adjusting
zgolfz85 said:RED AG 98 said:
The problem is, if he calls it live the counter never happens and the goal doesn't get scored anyway. I think if you have VAR erring on the side of play on and sorting it out via replay is the better choice. And I say that as someone that despises the VAR mm offside calls.
I totally understand that, but just feel like there needs to be a limit to how far back (yardage wise and/or time wise) that they can go. Like what if Egypt had made 4 more passes before the scorer shoots? How far back to we allow for VAR to check for a foul that led to a counter opportunity? I'm all for refs playing advantage on either side and not stopping play unless it's blatant, but there has to be some reason to it.
LouisHerbertWong said:
Cards per fouls for countries in World Cup QuarterFinals:
England: Card per every 7 fouls
Morocco: Card per every 9.8 fouls
Belgium: Card per every 10 fouls
Switzerland: Card per every 11.5 fouls
France: Card per every 12.2 fouls
Norway: Card per every 13.6 fouls
Spain: Card per every 17.5 fouls
Argentina: Card per every 22 fouls
FIFA continues to be a transparent joke.
YokelRidesAgain said:zgolfz85 said:RED AG 98 said:
The problem is, if he calls it live the counter never happens and the goal doesn't get scored anyway. I think if you have VAR erring on the side of play on and sorting it out via replay is the better choice. And I say that as someone that despises the VAR mm offside calls.
I totally understand that, but just feel like there needs to be a limit to how far back (yardage wise and/or time wise) that they can go. Like what if Egypt had made 4 more passes before the scorer shoots? How far back to we allow for VAR to check for a foul that led to a counter opportunity? I'm all for refs playing advantage on either side and not stopping play unless it's blatant, but there has to be some reason to it.
I hate it. The only things VAR has made better are:
1) Whether a ball crossed the goal line (rare)
2) Possession on corner kicks (and for some mystifying reason they don't even do that right, should go both ways)
I guess mistaken identify (ref cards wrong player) is OK, too.
Having VAR decide if there was a foul on the other side of the pitch makes no more sense than having a review official "buzz down" to indicate a holding penalty that was missed before a 90 yard touchdown run., Breaking down still frames of a play like it's the freaking Zapruder film to decide on ejections is equally stupid.
LouisHerbertWong said:
Cards per fouls for countries in World Cup QuarterFinals:
England: Card per every 7 fouls
Morocco: Card per every 9.8 fouls
Belgium: Card per every 10 fouls
Switzerland: Card per every 11.5 fouls
France: Card per every 12.2 fouls
Norway: Card per every 13.6 fouls
Spain: Card per every 17.5 fouls
Argentina: Card per every 22 fouls
FIFA continues to be a transparent joke.
zgolfz85 said:
At some point in respect to VAR, I think we have to ask ourselves sure we can do it, but should we do it? There has to be some relevance to a ref doing what they're supposed to be doing, no matter how bad they might be at it.
And, for another idea…have a ref responsible for each side of the pitch instead of the entire pitch, so that they're not having to cover as much ground and miss so much. If there's a dispute, whoever is the head ref can overturn. Use VAR for the things it was initially designed for and not subjective foul calls. Red cards, sure. Standard fouls that happen 100x a game, nah.
JDUB08AG said:
Would VAR have stepped in had Egypt not scored? I'm inclined to say yes based on the Balogun card, but it presents the question. Is there a time limit for VAR to step in?
If football had VAR, games would last 8 hours.
JDUB08AG said:
Would VAR have stepped in had Egypt not scored? I'm inclined to say yes based on the Balogun card, but it presents the question. Is there a time limit for VAR to step in?
If football had VAR, games would last 8 hours.
BartInLA said:
Why were the Switzerland fans rooting for Switzerland????
I thought Switzerland was always neutral.
fredfredunderscorefred said:YokelRidesAgain said:zgolfz85 said:RED AG 98 said:
The problem is, if he calls it live the counter never happens and the goal doesn't get scored anyway. I think if you have VAR erring on the side of play on and sorting it out via replay is the better choice. And I say that as someone that despises the VAR mm offside calls.
I totally understand that, but just feel like there needs to be a limit to how far back (yardage wise and/or time wise) that they can go. Like what if Egypt had made 4 more passes before the scorer shoots? How far back to we allow for VAR to check for a foul that led to a counter opportunity? I'm all for refs playing advantage on either side and not stopping play unless it's blatant, but there has to be some reason to it.
I hate it. The only things VAR has made better are:
1) Whether a ball crossed the goal line (rare)
2) Possession on corner kicks (and for some mystifying reason they don't even do that right, should go both ways)
I guess mistaken identify (ref cards wrong player) is OK, too.
Having VAR decide if there was a foul on the other side of the pitch makes no more sense than having a review official "buzz down" to indicate a holding penalty that was missed before a 90 yard touchdown run., Breaking down still frames of a play like it's the freaking Zapruder film to decide on ejections is equally stupid.
exactly. As someone new to becoming a fan, these VAR reviews seem like a touchdown getting called back because they decided to go back to see if a receiver was lined up offsides, even though no whistle was blown (and then using minute detail and electronic chips to make the determination). The inconsistency of the red and yellow cards and having to need a hyper technical explanation for things that make no apparent sense to the observer make it difficult to really enjoy. And I otherwise enjoy watching the games and especially the atmosphere surrounding the games (at least while in other countries that enjoy the sport).
zgolfz85 said:
That Egyptian goal that was wiped out still doesn't sit right with me. I think there should be a rule that to wipe out a goal for a foul, that the foul at least has to take place on the goal side of the pitch. The ref didn't call a foul during the play, so VAR essentially credited like 90 yards of progression by way of that foul…a progression that if memory serves, included a steal, several passes, a few jukes, a nutmeg and a cross? That's wild.
It wasn't outright cheating, it was just like Argentina was tu or bama during CFB season. Egypt was playing Argentina plus 1
AggieEP said:fredfredunderscorefred said:YokelRidesAgain said:zgolfz85 said:RED AG 98 said:
The problem is, if he calls it live the counter never happens and the goal doesn't get scored anyway. I think if you have VAR erring on the side of play on and sorting it out via replay is the better choice. And I say that as someone that despises the VAR mm offside calls.
I totally understand that, but just feel like there needs to be a limit to how far back (yardage wise and/or time wise) that they can go. Like what if Egypt had made 4 more passes before the scorer shoots? How far back to we allow for VAR to check for a foul that led to a counter opportunity? I'm all for refs playing advantage on either side and not stopping play unless it's blatant, but there has to be some reason to it.
I hate it. The only things VAR has made better are:
1) Whether a ball crossed the goal line (rare)
2) Possession on corner kicks (and for some mystifying reason they don't even do that right, should go both ways)
I guess mistaken identify (ref cards wrong player) is OK, too.
Having VAR decide if there was a foul on the other side of the pitch makes no more sense than having a review official "buzz down" to indicate a holding penalty that was missed before a 90 yard touchdown run., Breaking down still frames of a play like it's the freaking Zapruder film to decide on ejections is equally stupid.
exactly. As someone new to becoming a fan, these VAR reviews seem like a touchdown getting called back because they decided to go back to see if a receiver was lined up offsides, even though no whistle was blown (and then using minute detail and electronic chips to make the determination). The inconsistency of the red and yellow cards and having to need a hyper technical explanation for things that make no apparent sense to the observer make it difficult to really enjoy. And I otherwise enjoy watching the games and especially the atmosphere surrounding the games (at least while in other countries that enjoy the sport).
The worst part about the VAR today was that the foul committed by the Egyptian player that got the goal called back was less egregious than the no call and no VAR review on Mo Salah as he was dispossessed by Argentina on what ended up being the play that led to the deciding goal for Argentina.
If you are going to argue that VAR was right to step in and take the goal from Egypt, they certainly should have at least called the Ref over for a review of the Argentina goal as well.
I think the reason they didn't step in though was because not only would that have wiped away the Argentina goal, but it would have awarded a PK to Egypt that likely decides the outcome. Can you imagine the furor if Messi goes out of the WC on a VAR overturn?
Which all takes us back to the main issue, VAR is too intrusive and needs to be scaled back. No real soccer fan can feel good about VAR overturning a goal for action that took place 100 yards from the goal 30 seconds earlier. Let these teams play soccer and trust the on field ref to adjudicate the action consistently.
