Fifa World Cup 2026

Fulcrum29 said:
You have watched it six times, and not once did you notice that white never intended to play the ball? First, but without touch?
Click to expand...
Was white aimed at the player or at the ball ? Sure it was high... but is that the reason for it being controversial ?

So if he touches the ball first then the other guy is at fault ?

Man I thought rugby was a bit gay
 
Nerfherder said:
Was white aimed at the player or at the ball ? Sure it was high... but is that the reason for it being controversial ?

So if he touches the ball first then the other guy is at fault ?

Man I thought rugby was a bit gay
Click to expand...

He wasn't even on both of his feet. Even Wayne Rooney agrees.

www.bbc.com

World Cup 2026: Should Ghana have had penalty against England for Ezri Konsa tackle??

England fans have been left frustrated by the goalless draw against Ghana, but were Thomas Tuchel's side fortunate not to have given away a penalty?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

BBC pundits watching the game were largely in agreement that Konsa and England were fortunate not to have been punished.

"I think that's a penalty," former Three Lions and Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney said on BBC One.

"Konsa takes a huge risk. His feet are off the floor when he comes flying in and he gets the man, not the ball.

"That could easily have been given in my view."

Fellow former England international and ex-Manchester City defender Micah Richards added: "England were chasing the game, they were trying to score the goal but you still need that protection behind you.

"On another day, that could have been a penalty."
Click to expand...

Also, in rugby, that would have been an obstruction (a deliberate foul). Gay for not knowing those rules.
 
Nerfherder said:
I have said before i'm a casual.
Click to expand...
I rest your honour, I could see something was very off with your question.

So I'm saying that I don't understand what the issue is here.

In other cases its been obvious and makes sense, I just don't see what people are making an issue about.
I understand why they would relook at it... I just don't see how this contact makes people want to question the entire tournament ?

Earlier on in that game two players jumped and bumped their heads... looks like exactly the same situation to me.
Click to expand...

I will explain why I am questioning the whole tournament, football, just like any sport is played on rules, the consistency of applying the rules is what gives credibility, as soon as the application of rules is inconsistent, the whole tournament is not credible.

VAR was introduced to ensure the rules are applied consistently, realising the referee is only human, VAR is meant to assist by having the benefit of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th look.

The question is why was VAR not used to assist the referee, on both incidents? There is also a red card incident there, if that cannot be explained then we have a problem.
 
TheChamp said:
I rest your honour, I could see something was very off with your question.



I will explain why I am questioning the whole tournament, football, just like any sport is played on rules, the consistency of applying the rules is what gives credibility, as soon as the application of rules is inconsistent, the whole tournament is not credible.

VAR was introduced to ensure the rules are applied consistently, realising the referee is only human, VAR is meant to assist by having the benefit of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th look.

The question is why was VAR not used to assist the referee, on both incidents? There is also a red card incident there, if that cannot be explained then we have a problem.
Click to expand...

I won't say that the decision is reflective of the whole tournament. Inconsistencies are everywhere, in every sports code. A decision was made by the match official, and that decision stands. Sadly it wasn't referred when it should have been referred, but I don't know those exact rules of FIFA.

If there is one thing of sports officiating that I can tell you, the referee tends to favour the team that is moving the game forward. That statistic highly favoured the England team. From a neutral point of view, I just think that the referee wanted to move the game forward without stoppage.

Sure, there is always some unfairness in refereeing, bias is a thing. Sometimes it is homeground advantage, sometimes it is grassroots advantage, and sometimes it is the choice of officiating. All FIFA can do now is take it under review, and deem whether the referee should, again, be involved in an England match during the tournament.

This incident happened in the box, it should have been referred, but that is just an opinion of mine.
 
FIFA is so corrupt that even Italy still have an outside chance!





/s
 
Fulcrum29 said:
I won't say that the decision is reflective of the whole tournament. Inconsistencies are everywhere, in every sports code. A decision was made by the match official, and that decision stands. Sadly it wasn't referred when it should have been referred, but I don't know those exact rules of FIFA.

If there is one thing of sports officiating that I can tell you, the referee tends to favour the team that is moving the game forward. That statistic highly favoured the England team. From a neutral point of view, I just think that the referee wanted to move the game forward without stoppage.

Sure, there is always some unfairness in refereeing, bias is a thing. Sometimes it is homeground advantage, sometimes it is grassroots advantage, and sometimes it is the choice of officiating. All FIFA can do now is take it under review, and deem whether the referee should, again, be involved in an England match during the tournament.

This incident happened in the box, it should have been referred, but that is just an opinion of mine.
Click to expand...
The question is why? I mean VAR officials have one job? Why would they think that's not a big deal?

That is what is haunting me.
 
Last edited:
Nerfherder said:
Was white aimed at the player or at the ball ? Sure it was high... but is that the reason for it being controversial ?

So if he touches the ball first then the other guy is at fault ?

Man I thought rugby was a bit gay
Click to expand...
He was in on goal, about to shoot. The defender took him out.

The end
 
"Argentina Wants 13,000 Parents Who Owe Child Support Banned From Attending FIFA World Cup 2026 Games
Argentinian officials reportedly gave the United States a list of 13,000 parents who currently owe child support in the country, asking that they be banned from attending World Cup 2026 events. "
www.eonline.com

Argentina Wants 13,000 Parents Who Owe Child Support Banned From Attending FIFA World Cup 2026 Games

Argentinian officials reportedly gave the United States a list of 13,000 parents who currently owe child support in the country, asking that they be banned from attending World Cup 2026 events.
www.eonline.com www.eonline.com
 
TheChamp said:
Here you go

https://twitter.com/x/status/2069670413471220097
Click to expand...
Unnatural fall from the Ghana player even before he was touched. He starts dragging his right foot early and just collapse into contact.

100% not a penalty and a perfect example of VAR getting it correct.

Ghana player should have given another step to make the dive more believable.

This is how you fix soccer and stop these idiots from diving, the attacking player cannot just fall because someone touched him from behind.
 
Last edited:
rietrot said:
Unnatural fall from the Ghana player even before he was touched. He starts dragging his right foot early and just collapse into contact.

100% not a penalty and a perfect example of VAR getting it correct.

Ghana player should have given another step to make the dive more believable.
Click to expand...
Lol, it’s simple, really. you play the ball, not the man. If you don’t touch the ball and take the player down, it’s a foul. End of story.

The Pickford tackle was the same thing. He went straight for the player, not the ball. It should’ve been a red card. Not even a yellow card. VAR must’ve been asleep... or biased.
 
Adenoid Hynkel said:
Lol, it’s simple, really. you play the ball, not the man. If you don’t touch the ball and take the player down, it’s a foul. End of story.

The Pickford tackle was the same thing. He went straight for the player, not the ball. It should’ve been a red card. Not even a yellow card. VAR must’ve been asleep... or biased.
Click to expand...
I would agree if the defender actually takes out the attacking player.
But if the attacker goes down to try and milk a penalty it should actually be reversed.

I would like to see yellow cards for diving.
The Ghana player obviously just collapses to try and get the penalty and he doesn't even have good control on the ball, it's to close to the goalie.

There's no way that would have been a goal and there's no way it is a penalty.
 
rietrot said:
I would agree if the defender actually takes out the attacking player.
But if the attacker goes down to try and milk a penalty it should actually be reversed.

I would like to see yellow cards for diving.
The Ghana player obviously just collapses to try and get the penalty and he doesn't even have good control on the ball, it's to close to the goalie.

There's no way that would have been a goal and there's no way it is a penalty.
Click to expand...

The attacker doesn’t need to touch the ball at the exact moment of contact, he already had possession and was entitled to continue his run.

Whether he had perfect control or was guaranteed to score is irrelevant. If the defender comes flying in from behind or the side and takes him out without playing the ball, its still a foul and a penalty.

I’ve seen far softer challenges than that result in penalties.
 
Adenoid Hynkel said:
The attacker doesn’t need to touch the ball at the exact moment of contact, he already had possession and was entitled to continue his run.

Whether he had perfect control or was guaranteed to score is irrelevant. If the defender comes flying in from behind or the side and takes him out without playing the ball, its still a foul and a penalty.

I’ve seen far softer challenges than that result in penalties.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. The attacker should just wait to be taken out next time and not just fall by himself.

Clearly a dive. Had the attacker given one more step, lost balance and fall more naturally I would say penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X