Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's 1870 and 1982 all over again - France v Germany

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DCI Harry Batt
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    I realise that, but was trying to enable a broader discussion.
    Oh for sure, the English second division is awash with cash (and with clubs spending way beyond their means, of course, so awash with debt). And in a way I'm not aware of anywhere else in the world - though just because I'm not aware of it...

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    Uefa aren't going to take action against rudiger. They may be struggling on the pitch, but Germany can't complain about not getting the bounce of the ball with the decisions that's for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amor de Cosmos
    replied
    Does anyone else think Low was really late with his subs? I can't recall for certain but I think they were around 75" which doesn't leave a lot of time to get a feel for the game. And it was pretty clear long before then that Germany were getting their asses handed to them and something needed to change.

    Leave a comment:


  • imp
    replied
    Clear penalty, yellow for Hummels as he attempted to play the ball.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by imp View Post
    Not sure: Kimmich - first yellow was harsh, then to see the kick in the head as an intentional act was almost impossible in real time as he was falling when it happened. Plus, he should have had the free-kick as that was the first offence. But a friend of mine who played at a relatively high level many years ago said it was definitely intentional, and "anyone who's played football at a higher level knows it", which put me in my place, but then he's also pretty much a French national these days so he's not completely neutral in the matter.
    I thought it was a booking for hernandez. It was pretty cynical, but the ball was on the ground. the only thing where kimmich put his foot was hernandez's face.

    what did you think of the mbappe/hummels incident?

    Leave a comment:


  • imp
    replied
    Agreed: Gosens - straight red, no discussion. Fuck knows why he's in the team.
    Not sure: Kimmich - first yellow was harsh, then to see the kick in the head as an intentional act was almost impossible in real time as he was falling when it happened. Plus, he should have had the free-kick as that was the first offence. But a friend of mine who played at a relatively high level many years ago said it was definitely intentional, and "anyone who's played football at a higher level knows it", which put me in my place, but then he's also pretty much a French national these days so he's not completely neutral in the matter.
    Agreed: Rudiger - straight red, but huge credit to Pogba for not being a dick about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by john the revelator View Post
    Innocently I thought that any reference to the Pavard incident would be about Gosen's assault and lack of sanction but turns out to be condemnation of French failure to remove concussed player -

    Weirdly redolent of victim blaming
    Yeah. I've seen next to no mention anywhere other than maybe a couple of people on here, that Gosen should have been sent off. Not a whole heap of mention of how kimmich should at least have got a second yellow for kicking hernandez in the face, or that rudiger should have been sent off for fucking biting paul pogba. Throw in the hummels penalty and I kind of found myself wondering if Uli Hoeness was on the VAR.

    I was listening to a certain podcast today and it was absolutely hilarious. There was reference to the widespread notion that it wasn't a proper bite because rudiger couldn't get proper purchase on the flat of pogba's back, as though there's a requirement to break the skin for it to be problematic, similarly pogba's failure to fall to the ground screaming like chielini or ivanovic or bakkal. Instead he just stood there pointing to his back telling the linesman that rudiger bit him. Now that is victim blaming. The issue here is that rudiger clearly bit him while giving him nipple cripplers. It not being as bad as a full suarez is kind of neither here nor there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nocturnal Submission
    replied
    Originally posted by john the revelator View Post
    Innocently I thought that any reference to the Pavard incident would be about Gosen's assault and lack of sanction but turns out to be condemnation of French failure to remove concussed player -

    Weirdly redolent of victim blaming

    Well, it's hardly that, is it. There's criticism of the way that the French medical staff dealt with the situation, and rightly so. But you're right that the brutality of Gosens's challenge isn't getting quite the attention that it warrants.
    Last edited by Nocturnal Submission; 16-06-2021, 15:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • john the revelator
    replied
    Innocently I thought that any reference to the Pavard incident would be about Gosen's assault and lack of sanction but turns out to be condemnation of French failure to remove concussed player -

    Weirdly redolent of victim blaming

    Leave a comment:


  • Nocturnal Submission
    replied
    The Pavard incident: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57501729

    Leave a comment:


  • Felicity, I guess so
    replied
    Originally posted by TonTon View Post

    Oh sure - it's just that that is the promotion we would be looking for, so it's directly relevant to me.
    I know a song about that (Smithers-Jones)

    Leave a comment:


  • anton pulisov
    replied


    How this isn't a penno is beyond me.

    He manages to hit both of Mbappe's feet before touching the ball.

    Edit: or perhaps they've interpreted it as Mbappe starts to jump up and initiate the fall before being touched?

    Still, no matter what Mbappe is doing, it's dangerous tackle from behind on the ankles by the last defender, on a player broken through on goal. Red card and penalty.
    Last edited by anton pulisov; 16-06-2021, 12:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • E10 Rifle
    replied
    I oppose VAR because it ruins the spontaneity that is absolutely fundamental to the appeal of scoring a goal. And delays games needlessly. So it can be as forensic and "fair" as possible, it still wouldn't be the point. Because the former matters more to me than the latter

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post


    I'm not an expert on this, to put it mildly, but to be rendered unconscious by a blow would surely indicate a physical impact that could be exacerbated by further contact. The individual should be removed from that risk, assessed and treated. Letting Pavard play on was utterly reckless.

    When I got knocked out playing football and then saw my GP the next day when I felt a bit ropey, he said that hairline fractures at the base of the skull often result from such impacts and packed me off to hospital for an x-ray.
    Totally agree but concussion substitutes at least remove the tendency for a coach/player to have them play on as the only other option is to leave the field for good.

    It gives a third option rather than the binary choice which will sadly often result in a player staying on when he shouldn't.

    The initially temporary switch gets the player off the field and more fully checked by a doctor (ideally an independent one but not sure that's the case) to assess if they can return. I would presume that Pavard would have failed the test.
    Last edited by Ray de Galles; 16-06-2021, 11:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Bernardhinault
    replied
    I remain thoroughly opposed to VAR and think it’s rotten, but I think Janik has changed my mind here about this implementation. If you’re going to have VAR, then provided that “phase of play” is short enough it’s not much different to the advantage rule: just let play go briefly - and actually if the attack breaks down quickly then you have less disruption to the flow of the game.

    I agree with everyone about not having a margin of error built in to VAR offside, mind you. That is nonsense and also creates a false impression to many viewers (although at least it seems to be far less intrusively used here with the annoying roll back and forward of single frames on screen while play is stopped that you see in the English top flight).

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    They very well may in the developing world

    And although I am generally pro-VAR, it is unconscionable for those expenditures to come at the expense of measure to ensure the health and safety of spectators

    Leave a comment:


  • jason voorhees
    replied
    Originally posted by TonTon View Post
    If only we had a ramshackle stadium, we'd be safe.
    As far as Paraguay goes, that's not a barrier to implementation.

    Sometimes I wonder if the monitors and computers cost more than the lumber and crumbling concrete of the entire stadium.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    We all agree on that point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nocturnal Submission
    replied
    Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post

    Absolutely, I was just sure the issue was being addressed albeit with the usual tardy attitude to player welfare that associations display.

    I'm not an expert on this, to put it mildly, but to be rendered unconscious by a blow would surely indicate a physical impact that could be exacerbated by further contact. The individual should be removed from that risk, assessed and treated. Letting Pavard play on was utterly reckless.

    When I got knocked out playing football and then saw my GP the next day when I felt a bit ropey, he said that hairline fractures at the base of the skull often result from such impacts and packed me off to hospital for an x-ray.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    Yes (they were trialed in the Premier League in the spring), but that didn't help Pavard yesterday.
    Absolutely, I was just sure the issue was being addressed albeit with the usual tardy attitude to player welfare that associations display.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    I realise that, but was trying to enable a broader discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • DCI Harry Batt
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post

    This sounds right to me, though it is worth remembering that the English Second Division operates at a level (in terms of budgets, attendance, television coverage, etc.) that would be the envy of top flight clubs in most other countries.
    Oh sure - it's just that that is the promotion we would be looking for, so it's directly relevant to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Yes (they were trialed in the Premier League in the spring), but that didn't help Pavard yesterday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post


    It was obvious he was out cold before he even hit the ground.

    I thought that any period of unconsciousness meant that a player had to be substituted. I guess not.
    Aren't rugby-style "concussion substitutes" (where the change can be reversed if a player passes a ten minute head injury assessment) coming in soon or being trialled somewhere?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    So much for the "lessons learned" from Christoph Kramer in the 2014 World Cup Final or Morocco's Nordin Amrabat against Portugal in 2018. The very real risks are simply not being taken seriously at the very top level of the sport.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X