Am I remembering correctly that I thought there was a back pass last night. Any replays?
What has England battering Denmark got to do with it? No guarantees a goal would of been scored either. It's a very soft penelty though but let's be honest, if Sterling did not throw himself to the ground, there would never be any penelty regardless what contact there is. Therefore the same old line gets trotted out of its basically encouraging players going down under any contact because your increasing your chances of a penelty being given for you if you do.
Would love too see the reaction if it was given at the other end though. It does leave with a bit of a bad taste because a semi final got decided on that decision and I think Danny Makkelie is a top official but I think he got that wrong and most fans would probably agree with that if they were looking as a neautrul.
No guarantees a goal wouldn't have been scored either. Why would it leave a bad taste in your mouth (unless you're a Dane)?
The fact remains, there was definite contact and the referee gave it. England have fallen foul of terrible refereeing decisions on numerous occasions at tournaments in the past. Denmark's goal being allowed to stand after a clear "wall" offence by their players was possibly another example.
Swings and roundabouts fella. If the penalty decision ruined an otherwise controlled and gutsy performance from England's players for you on the night then so be it ...
There was a shout for one early on - didn't think it was at the time and haven't seen any replays of it!Am I remembering correctly that I thought there was a back pass last night. Any replays?
What makes you think it was a clear and obvious error?I dont think we can use the flow of the game as justification for the penalty award.
Looking at both sides of the arguments here...
@Kes had that penalty been the other way, how would you have felt about it? My guess is you'd be pretty unhappy (of course I might be wrong)
From a refereeing perspective it was disappointing to see it awarded, although I can see how the ref gave it. For me it's a C&O and the referee should have been asked to look at it (that's my opinion). It's a VAR failure more than anything.
And from a fan boy point of view its flipping fantastic to finally be on the other side of a bad decision.
Did we deserve to win the game? Yes. Certainly our performance post 60 min mark. Thought Danes were better in the 1st period.
Does it make it less enjoyable that we got through on a bad decision? No as a fan, as a ref yes.
Is it coming home? TBC
It was simulation (in my opinion).What makes you think it was a clear and obvious error?
From the replays I’ve seen it looked like there was a enough there for it to go either way albeit a very soft penalty.
I don’t think I would have been complaining if it hadn’t been awarded.
It was simulation (in my opinion).
There is very little, if any, contact from the first player and sterling is horizontal before the 2nd player is even close.
I'm usually one to back faster players, being reasonably quick myself, but I think the ref, and the VAR, have been had off on this one.
Nobody is claiming justification, just a question of probabilityI dont think we can use the flow of the game as justification for the penalty award.
Is it coming home? TBC
I disagree.
Penalty or Simulation is not a binary decision.
For me, had Sterling gone down with absolutely zero contact, it's simulation.
In this instance, there was contact on Sterling, the big question is "was that contact enough to warrant a PK?" If the answer to that is no, then it doesn't automatically mean that it's simulation.
I don't see it as being clear and obvious that the referee got this wrong, I see it as one of those many decisions that we've all seen at FA events where you ask 100 referees for their opinion you get almost an even split between the two possible outcomes.
Nobody is claiming justification, just a question of probability
I disagree.I disagree.
Penalty or Simulation is not a binary decision.
For me, had Sterling gone down with absolutely zero contact, it's simulation.
In this instance, there was contact on Sterling, the big question is "was that contact enough to warrant a PK?" If the answer to that is no, then it doesn't automatically mean that it's simulation.
I don't see it as being clear and obvious that the referee got this wrong, I see it as one of those many decisions that we've all seen at FA events where you ask 100 referees for their opinion you get almost an even split between the two possible outcomes.
It's not binary, but in this specific instance looking at the replays I don't think the contact has caused the fall - Sterling has pretended to be tripped. As you say, depending on who the VAR is one person might say it's not a clear and obvious error due to the contact, another might say that they thought it was simulation and to review it.I disagree.
Penalty or Simulation is not a binary decision.
For me, had Sterling gone down with absolutely zero contact, it's simulation.
In this instance, there was contact on Sterling, the big question is "was that contact enough to warrant a PK?" If the answer to that is no, then it doesn't automatically mean that it's simulation.
I don't see it as being clear and obvious that the referee got this wrong, I see it as one of those many decisions that we've all seen at FA events where you ask 100 referees for their opinion you get almost an even split between the two possible outcomes.
It does if the referee gives a penalty. If you look at the definition of simulation in the book, this is it.For me, had Sterling gone down with absolutely zero contact, it's simulation.
In this instance, there was contact on Sterling, the big question is "was that contact enough to warrant a PK?" If the answer to that is no, then it doesn't automatically mean that it's simulation.