Group D: ENG-SCO-ARG-JPN

[Satchmo Distel]

VAR needs to be scaled back to only include clear ref errors, which the penalty clearly was not. If the error is not obvious on the first replay, resume (or don't stop) the game.

Conversely the goal should have been disallowed that resulted from the ref subbing error.

I imagine the tabloid fury would be louder had this happened to England's brave lionesses.

[ursus arctos]

Then you are playing roulette with the order in which replays are viewed.

[Duncan Gardner]

Janik- admittedly I've only watched brief highlights but don't get this tale of woe. The Scots weren't expected to beat England and Japan and didn't. They may have unlucky with bad decisions (although my suggestion on the previous page could have helped them with that, of course).

I have some small sympathy with the team and their fans, but really- lighten up. As I said to some England fans from Dudley I met in the South of France during Euro 16. You're on holiday drinking beer in the sunshine with loads of football

[Jah Womble]

While I have a great deal of sympathy for the Scots' plight(s) during this tournament, I think that my nomination for 'most egregious error' will remain the binning-off of a three-goal lead with sixteen minutes remaining.

[Nocturnal Submission]

I imagine the tabloid fury would be louder had this happened to England's brave lionesses.

You do realise that Scotland has it's own versions of many of the "UK" tabloids?

[blameless]

Scotland is mighty proud of its WNT, for actually getting to a Euros and a World Cup (it helps that the men keep finding new ways to fail to qualify), and shite officiating won't kill all of the positive momentum that's been built up during Shelley Kerr's time in the job.

But bloody hell, last night hasn't half dumped a huge bucket of cold water on proceedings, and reminded us that football's governing bodies simply don't give a fuck about how badly we get done over by incompetent officiating.

And for those who are saying "Scotland threw away a 3 goal lead": no they didn't. They wobbled badly, then rescued themselves with Alexander's save. The rest of it - the bogus retake, the 9 minutes at the end of the game that simply didn't get played - is FIFA's doing.

[Duncan Gardner]

All right they blew 2 goals and conceded a penalty in the last 15 minutes. Not that different, and not the fault of FIFA's corruption/ incompetence.

They lacked nous and couldn't finish off weak opposition. Not a total surprise to me at least- I saw them against NI going 2-0 up but unable to cut loose. Afterwards in the Fir Park social we 3 NI fans were gently patronised by some home fans (we didn't really mind as some teenage girls arrived to invite us to dinner at their hotel )

[Sporting]

If the extra 9 minutes had been played then Argentina were looking by far the stronger team.

[imp]

@ DG: Mischief and Mithering in Motherwell - a Norniron Fan's Memoir of Lusty Lanarkshire Lassies. Coming soon?

[Janik]

VAR needs to be scaled back to only include clear ref errors, which the penalty clearly was not. If the error is not obvious on the first replay, resume (or don't stop) the game.

You are in a tiny minority in thinking the initial non-call on the penalty was not an error ('stonewall' was the consensus opinion on here at the time, and I would have been with them), but that is by the by. VAR also needs to be scaled back to only reverse clear errors, for sure. Also, a significant amount of time could be saved if they didn't insist on reviewing each incident twice! Currently we have the mad situation when the VAR booth watches the footage, sees a possible mistake, tells the ref to pause the game whilst they watch the replay again more closely, decide she was wrong and tell her that. However, rather than saying "give a penalty/send x off" we then go through the rigmarole a second time as the ref is called to a pitch side monitor to watch the replay, switch between camera views, slow down the key bit and then come to her own decision on the footage.

[Duncan Gardner]

@ Janik- easiest way to scale back VAR is to offer it to wronged teams as a strictly limited privilege with risks attached and thus an incentive for the teams not to waste it

@ Imp- the lassies keen to date me were the NI team

As I remember the Scotland team weren't so lucky. The then coach, a dour Swede called Anna, was displeased with the performance and had them all back out for an extended post-match ice bath

[Janik]

Well, yes. FIFA is against that as they think it will be a bad look. They don't want refs to be undermined by being told by a player they are wrong, and then having the player backed up off the field. Their argument is they want the refs to run the game, not the players. But it's been a miserable failure that way, so going the way most other sports do this (including American sports like Gridiron and Baseball as well as Cricket, Hockey, Tennis etc.) by having a challenge system has to be worthwhile. Rugby is the only other sport I can think of that works with the video in the way Football is trying, i.e. for the officials (on and off the field) to be the only ones with the right to call for it's use.

[Duncan Gardner]

Even summarised like that FIFA's argument is weak. The players would be running the game for merely 4 incidents maximum during it.

[Jimski]

Good quote from Eni Aluko on VAR: "the technology was brought in to correct obvious mistakes, not to impose perfection". (https://www.theguardian.com/football...mens-world-cup)

I remember this talk of "obvious" mistakes. Whatever happened to that? To me this means that any decision that takes more than *a few seconds* to decide upon should simply revert to the referee's original decision. The whole thing takes far too long, and has become an exercise in pedantic interpretation of the law.

[Sam]

Hats off to Argentina, Sam, and the manager’s bold subbies- it looked like he was having a go at Banini/ giving someone a runout but the fresh legs and the direct runs at a tiring defence pulled off a near miracle.
I hope the miracle happens later with 2 draws...

Sadly, of course, 'twas not to be. At least Chile thrashed Thailand, rather than stumbling to a draw, so we weren't left with Cameroon's 95th-minute winner being the only thing that sent Argentina out.

One thing I forgot to mention before, by the way, was that the Argentina manager Carlos Borello is the same chap who was managing them during their two previous campaigns. In 2003 they lost 6-0 to Japan. In 2007 they lost 6-1 to England. He seems to be the sort of person who, if asked, would just heap praise on the players, but I'd love to get his opinion on how it feels to him personally to have managed a 0-0 and a 0-1 to those opponents this time round.

And re: what someone (forget who, sorry) said about it seeming like he was castigating Banini by subbing her for Dalila Ippólito, I actually think he thought balls to it, we're out anyway so let's give some of the younger girls an experience they'll remember; Ippólito as I mentioned before is only 17 (and has been playing first-team football for four years already) and Milagros Menéndez (who replaced Sole Jaimes and scored the first goal, from Ippólito's assist) is only 22. And I totally get why he stuck throughout to the experienced players, those who'd got the team here (and in the case of Vanina Correa in goal, those who he'd bumped into as they worked as a cashier at a supermarket to support their kids, and talked into coming out of retirement because he wanted them in goal), and why he kept faith in Jaimes (who plays for Olympique fucking Lyonnais, after all, so is training at a far higher level than any of the others, even those who are fellow professionals). But in hindsight it's hard not to think, ooh, what might have happened if he'd chucked Ippólito on for a bit against Japan or England? An easy thing to wonder after she completely changes the game to help her team claim a draw from 3-0 down, of course.

One thing's for sure, professionalism is going to be good for this lot. And not only because a fair few of those who are still in Argentina right now surely won't be for much longer*. Their togetherness as a team doesn't just come from the normal places, it comes from having had to fight tooth and nail for everything including the right to continue representing their country, against even their own FA, whose badge they wear on their shirts. And that's going to ensure that the players who come in to replace the ones who drop out of the team during the next cycle, and those who come through after that, don't take anything at all for granted. Add a little more talent and the soon-to-be-granted ability to train part time without having to give up meals or sleep on friends' sofas, and I'm going to predict that they'll do even better next time around. Maybe they'll even have risen enough in the ranking to not be drawn in the same group as two of the pre-tournament favourites.

*If I were a scout for a fair-sized European or American team I'd be looking at Cometti, or Benítez, or Ippólito or Banini, and thinking, 'If she can do that after training around the day job / her studies as an amateur, how good could we make her by giving her a full-time contract and getting her to do nothing but play football all day every day?'

[Patrick Thistle]

Good quote from Eni Aluko on VAR: "the technology was brought in to correct obvious mistakes, not to impose perfection". (https://www.theguardian.com/football...mens-world-cup)
.

Exactly this. She's spot on there.