Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cym on Den!! The first game in the round of 16

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

  • Bordeaux Education
    replied
    Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
    Did they ask him about the foul on Kieffer Moore he ignored in the build up to Denmark's crucial second goal?
    Also, Moore got a completely unwarranted yellow card from, I think, before that which pissed me off massively at the time. Not that that made much difference in the long run neither (unless he has to serve a suspension as well).

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    Originally posted by imp View Post
    (I fear this closure thing is going to take longer than I thought...)
    Rake over the coals and chuck more wood on. Complain the fire isn't out yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kowalski
    replied
    Originally posted by imp View Post
    For any Welsh supporters still suffering from chronic post-tournament injustice, there's an interview in kicker this week with referee Daniel Siebert, including a very specific question:

    Kicker: For your three Euro games we twice gave you grade 2 [1 being best, 6 the worst], and a 3 for the round of 16 game, because the red card you gave Harry Wilson didn't really correspond to your liberal approach. Are you okay with that?

    Siebert: I opted for red because I judged it to be a revenge foul where the player [Wilson] had no chance of playing the ball. When you look at the replays, then you can certainly say that a yellow would not have been a wrong decision.

    There you go. Closure.
    That seems alright to me, in hindsight the match feels like one of those matches that you were destined not to win. Anyway there will always be 2016.

    Leave a comment:


  • imp
    replied
    Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
    Did they ask him about the foul on Kieffer Moore he ignored in the build up to Denmark's crucial second goal?
    No, they did not. And he didn't bring it up. (I fear this closure thing is going to take longer than I thought...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    Yeah good point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    It will make a difference when Wilson's ban is being served.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    Yeah looking back through the thread there's no real complaints about the Wilson red card. There's a salient point from Simon G about the way the ref treated Kieffer and that's about it.

    I think the consensus on the day was that Cymru were well beaten by a team that capitalised on their mistakes and created some great goals as well.

    I mean it's interesting (and rare) to hear a ref admit he could have done something differently but it wouldn't have made much of a difference if he had only given a yellow. Wales were out by then.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    Did they ask him about the foul on Kieffer Moore he ignored in the build up to Denmark's crucial second goal?

    Leave a comment:


  • imp
    replied
    For any Welsh supporters still suffering from chronic post-tournament injustice, there's an interview in kicker this week with referee Daniel Siebert, including a very specific question:

    Kicker: For your three Euro games we twice gave you grade 2 [1 being best, 6 the worst], and a 3 for the round of 16 game, because the red card you gave Harry Wilson didn't really correspond to your liberal approach. Are you okay with that?

    Siebert: I opted for red because I judged it to be a revenge foul where the player [Wilson] had no chance of playing the ball. When you look at the replays, then you can certainly say that a yellow would not have been a wrong decision.

    There you go. Closure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fussbudget
    replied
    The Ben Mee interview after that Burnley game with the plane banner incident was good, but yes agree that they're usually a complete waste of time for everyone

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    To be clear, I don't think any of that circus is worthwhile - mics stuck in athletes noses second after competing or press conferences hours after the match/during off days in international tournaments.

    I've can't think of one example of any of them that have really added to my experience of or knowledge about sport. They are spurious soundbite fests.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean of the Shed View Post

    The style of interview is not the issue, it's the fact that the losing player or manager is expected to answer questions that range from banal through to intentional trip up when they are emotionally and physically in no condition to deal with it. It's just a shitty thing to do to them.
    Possibly. But that is a different issue from what Osaka has said she particularly struggles with, which is the bank of anonymous journalists grilling her, and her knowledge that this is coming up. And the trouble isn't around talking after defeats but includes pressers after wins (mostly after wins in her case). She doesn't work as a comparison point therefore, especially seeing as she did the post-match interview following the one match she played in Paris, same as normal.
    Last edited by Janik; 27-06-2021, 17:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • Belhaven
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post

    I saw this earlier and just remembered to ask about it. Are the Danish government enacting racist policies, or is it something she's said personally?

    Hi, I saw this first now. If you still wonder Mette Fredriksen makes my blood boil for reasons outlined below.

    The Social Democrats did well in the latest election in Denmark by pretty much doing
    a copy and paste of the far right-wing Dansk Folkeparti's immigration policies and adopting
    them as their own.

    This includes a deal with Rwanda to locate a "reception centre" (or a refugee camp) in Rwanda
    where asylum seekers to Denmark will be sent while they are waiting for their application of entrance
    to Denmark to be processed.

    Exactly how this is supposed to go about I am not fully certain. I think they still have to make their
    way to Denmark and then they will be sent to Rwanda from there. Possibly, refugees will have to go
    straight to Rwanda and apply for asylum to Denmark while there. Either way, it does not take much
    intelligence to see that the actual goal is to make Denmark as unattractive as possible for potential
    asylum seekers.

    Futhermore, they have toughened up the criterions for getting a Danish citizenship, excluding everyone
    with a criminal record, even for minor breaches of the law. Again, theuy fully know that newl°y arrived refugees
    are particularly at risk here, which is the underlying motivation for this.

    Finally, and worst of it all, Denmark has decided that there is no such thing as a war in Syria, and,
    along with Hungary, have started to send Syrian refugees back. There is no deal between Denmark and
    the Syrian government about this, indeed Denamrk does not even recognise Assad's regime as legitimate.
    Thus, they can not guarantee for the safety of the refugees they are sending back. No other
    democracies considers it safe to return refugees to Syria, nor do the UN, rather the contrary.

    These are the policies of a so-called centre-left government. The complete and utter betrayal of left-wing
    ideas of right or wrong carried about by these bastards is really really depressing.
    Last edited by Belhaven; 27-06-2021, 13:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    I'm seeing a lot of self-criticism from Wales fans (not particularly here) but to me it looked like they ran out of steam and were up against a side that has to be a solid bet to reach the final. Denmark feel a lot like Croatia in 2018 - looking at the six teams remaining in that half of the draw and I reckon they should have no fear of any of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean of the Shed
    replied
    Originally posted by Janik View Post
    Except it was press conferences later the same day that Osaka wanted out of, not on court interviews. And it wasn't about the sort of questions asked, but more that she is shy so hates being sat up there in front of a load of people there to interrogate her. A one-to-one interview on court is easier to cope with.
    The style of interview is not the issue, it's the fact that the losing player or manager is expected to answer questions that range from banal through to intentional trip up when they are emotionally and physically in no condition to deal with it. It's just a shitty thing to do to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Except it was press conferences later the same day that Osaka wanted out of, not on court interviews. And it wasn't about the sort of questions asked, but more that she is shy so hates being sat up there in front of a load of people there to interrogate her. A one-to-one interview on court is easier to cope with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sporting
    replied
    Originally posted by Janik View Post
    VAR must only be used for big decisions like goals, sending offs or penalties if it isn't to absolutely destroy the game (if it isn't doing that already!)
    It isn't. There are teething problems, but in general VAR leads to more fairness and yes I do know only a handful of posters here agree with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean of the Shed
    replied
    Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post

    Luckily I saw nothing of the coverage after the final whistle as I had to shoot off the Wembley and, frankly, wasn't in the mood.

    I wanted to say this though, post-match interviews with sportspeople are bullshit and have absolutely nothing to do with sport itself.

    Naomi Osaka has the right idea and all athletes should follow her, stop shoving mics in their faces right after they've spent hours competing because it achieves nothing of value.
    We had exactly the same opinion on the Roland Garros thread. It's all about getting a controversial response from someone who is really not in the best frame of mind to give it for a cheap talking point and Internet hits.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capybara
    replied
    Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
    I wanted to say this though, post-match interviews with sportspeople are bullshit and have absolutely nothing to do with sport itself.

    Naomi Osaka has the right idea and all athletes should follow her, stop shoving mics in their faces right after they've spent hours competing because it achieves nothing of value.
    I agree with that absolutely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post

    The interviewer asked him about his future plans and he just knocked the mic away and walked off.
    Luckily I saw nothing of the coverage after the final whistle as I had to shoot off to Wembley and, frankly, wasn't in the mood.

    I wanted to say this though, post-match interviews with sportspeople are bullshit and have absolutely nothing to do with sport itself.

    Naomi Osaka has the right idea and all athletes should follow her, stop shoving mics in their faces right after they've spent hours competing because it achieves nothing of value.
    Last edited by Ray de Galles; 27-06-2021, 11:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • ooh aah
    replied
    Ok, so you either make it work consistently, which they haven't even tried, or get rid of it. I'm happy either way, but not with an inconsistent, frustrating half way house.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Originally posted by ooh aah View Post
    I want clear and obvious mistakes to be rectified.
    There are probably double figures worth of those in any game of Football, refs and assistants being humans. Having VAR look at every single one would destroy the spectacle by having constant stoppages and lots of 15 seconds bursts of phantom play that happen between the missed incident and even an ultra-quick review being conducted.

    Originally posted by ooh aah View Post
    The foul in question was also a heavier foul, in a more attacking part of the field than the one Rodon got booked for, so there was, by that referees own standards, a potential yellow card to look at too.
    Yellow cards are not reviewable. Again, because there are plenty of such calls in any game of Football (yellows given or potential yellow card-worthy fouls for which no card is shown) so reviewing each would also be totally disruptive.

    VAR needs to be less involved in Football, not vastly more so.
    Last edited by Janik; 27-06-2021, 11:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • ooh aah
    replied
    I want clear and obvious mistakes to be rectified. It was pretty clearly a foul, would have taken very little time for the VAR team to review and the game could have been stopped much earlier, during that phase of play. If it takes any longer than one quick viewing then it isn't an obvious mistake, and you keep playing. Rugby's TMO communicates with the onfield ref during the game in order to keep such reviews within the one phase limit. It could be done, without the 'end of football as we know it' concerns, but that would require some thought on how to make it work, and the people making such decisions think it's a good idea to send two teams from W.Europe half way to China during a global pandemic, to play group games in an empty stadium in a country that didn't even qualify, so my hopes aren't high

    The foul in question was also a heavier foul, in a more attacking part of the field than the one Rodon got booked for, so there was, by that referees own standards, a potential yellow card to look at too, which has an impact beyond that one game. A similar thing happened in the Italy game where Dan James committed a foul that I thought was a possible red, but was completely missed and not reviewed, while Ampadu got sent off for a lesser challenge. So, these aren't isolated incidents. VAR has been with us now for around 5 years, and it still isn't rectifiying clear mistakes, but is mostly used to see whether the hairs on a forwards knee are offside or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Originally posted by ooh aah View Post

    There is no reason whatsoever why VAR can't be used to inform the referee that a foul has been committed at the time, or shortly after, rather than waiting however long until a break in play. If VAR was used properly a foul would have been awarded before the goal had even been scored, thus rendering your objections completely moot.
    So you want every decision during a game reviewed by VAR, and the game stopped and reset whenever the ref makes a mistake??? Because that is what you are suggesting, and it's just utterly ludicrous. If you want an improper use of VAR, your suggestion here of how it might work (and saved Wales yesterday) is about the worst it's possible to conceive of.

    VAR must only be used for big decisions like goals, sending offs or penalties if it isn't to absolutely destroy the game (if it isn't doing that already!). For that, there has to be a realistic limit to scope. That limit is one 'phase of play'. And however you try and swing it, the non-called foul on Moore was not in the same phase of play as Dolberg's goal.

    Rugby's TMO has the same restriction on one phase of play, of course. And a similar restriction to only reviewing tries or incidents of serious foul play. If the ref misses a bog standard penalty in the other half that took place before possession has been regained for a move that led to a try, then Rugby's TMO gets no more involved in 'righting' that than yesterday's TV officials were.
    Last edited by Janik; 27-06-2021, 10:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • ooh aah
    replied
    Originally posted by Janik View Post
    The VAR system was used right, if it wasn't used at all on the second goal. Play that took place in the opposite half of the field, with possession swapping back and forth between the sides at least twice more prior to the relevant action is way too far removed to be open to VAR considering - it's a completely different phase of play, VAR can only consider incidents in the phase that included the goal/penalty/sending-off offence. The ref on the field got it wrong (clearly), but VAR isn't used and above all shouldn't be used on something that takes place so far dissociated from a goal. If that was allowed (it's not), we could likely found some foul or other not given to a conceding team in just about every goal there is.
    There is no reason whatsoever why VAR can't be used to inform the referee that a foul has been committed at the time, or shortly after, rather than waiting however long until a break in play. If VAR was used properly a foul would have been awarded before the goal had even been scored, thus rendering your objections completely moot. All that is required is prompt communication between video and on field officials. This happens in other sports, such as rugby union, and it works well. The only reason isn't being used in this way is because UEFA decided they didn't want to use it that way. Hence my statement that it isn't being used properly.

    This is one of the reasons why I was dubious about VAR, not because of the principle of it, but simply because I just knew that the arrogance, stubbornness and incompetence of football administrators would result in entirely arbitrary sets of rules governing the thing which would, as it did in rugby, take 15 years to fucking sort out.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X