World Cup 2022 thread (football only)

[GrahamC]

Think it is a bit of a stretch to find a conspiracy theory after a game where England were awarded as many penalties as we have had in the last 2 years of league games.

Edited December 10, 2022 by GrahamC

[And Its Smith]

Blimey. We lost because we missed one of two penalties and missed a fair few good chances. Time to get over it RR

[Gazred]

Spare a thought for me sat with my French Mrs of 20+ years watching that. Not heard from the distant in-laws for while but oh hello, here they are!. Can't wait to pop over for Xmas.

[shelts]

1 minute ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

But if the ref himself gives the foul on Saka, or the clear foul on Kane, from behind, in the box, it's a different game. England were done by the ref, not by var

The Saka foul the line is yards away . Kane has contact and not even a foul … something stinks . All the officials involved could’ve done better on key match decisions.  Dreadful . Good luck to France I think they’ll win it 

[Sheltons Army]

22 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

I also told you what you are and you know it

Time for bed Grandad. Shake your walking stick on the way upstairs you utter manual manipulator

Ha ha ha

The overweight pizza munching Middle aged nobody pretending to be cool with the kids 

The original gimp , a yellow one

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Were I a believer in the conspiracy side, I'd say that FIFA want a lot of shocks but ultimately.

Not the Messi v Ronaldo final that many state but France v Argentina aka Mbappe v Messi final.

Passing of the torch to the new greatest player from the last. (Arguable, granted).

Where do both play? PSG.

Who owns PSG? Qatar.

Where is the tournament? Qatar.

Passing from the old to the new in the World Cup final would truly reflect the glory of Qatar- and perhaps by association, PSG.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[And Its Smith]

Childish arguing. OTIB 

[redkev]

12 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Ah......can i just point out that the referee gave us the penalty...........he didn't take the penalty?  The reason on this occasion, that we got knocked out of the tournament was because we failed to take our opportunities, we have   no one to blame but ourselves.

Why he needed var to determine that was a penalty gods knows .

just goes to show how poor the officials / var officials have been right from the start 

[Smokey]

36 minutes ago, Robbored said:

All down to FIFA.

They hate us because we invented the beautiful game. England despite plenty of magnificent stadiums haven’t been awarded a WC since 1966………….

The referees England have been allocated have been diabolical culminating in the Latino oaf we had tonight. It’s all part of wider plan to stop England winning the WC again.

We won’t win it once more until it’s held once again in the UK.

No. It's all down to ITV.

[Rob k]

14 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I know it won’t be a popular view but I think some of the reaction to the referee on here has been over the top. He wasn’t the reason we lost, and I think talk of plots and deliberate bias is ridiculous.

Let me say at the start that I don’t think he was great: he was inconsistent, never showed any real authority over the game, but in terms of the “big” decisions:

First French goal; the foul on Saka was a long way back and we had plenty of opportunity to stop what happened subsequently. Personally I thought it was a foul, but others (including on here) didn’t - and it was suggested that VAR would have looked at it - and if that’s the case then they decided not too.

First half penalty shout: again, I thought it was a foul, but arguably outside the box. I’d imagine VAR judged that to be the case, and so that decision was theirs, not the referees. He wasn’t given the opportunity to review it.

Second penalty: yes he missed it first time, but we don’t really know what his view/angle was. Today at Rotherham there was an almost identical barge into the back of a City player that went unpunished by the ref - and he didn’t have the benefit of VAR. In this instances the ref did have that benefit, took advantage of it, made the right decision. He didn’t give a red card because the attacking player didn’t have the ball under control so it wasn’t a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Overall, really frustrating because we were good enough to have won tonight, things just didn’t go for us. We matched one of the worlds best sides and on another day could have won. That’s massive strides from where we were  a decade  or less ago. And with young players who’ll only get better. 

But he was absolutely awful, no free kick for their goal, no free kick or pen on Kane, no pen given by him on mount, he gave it as he had made such a howler in the beginning, stopping the game for a non head injury, he was atrocious. 
 

There so much money in the game i also think it would be naive to not think some refs can’t be influenced. 

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Blimey. We lost because we missed one of two penalties and missed a fair few good chances. Time to get over it RR

To support my conspiracy theory - there was a clear foul on Saka at the start of the move leading to the first goal - the Brazilian oaf failed to give anything. It should have been a free kick to England.

The two spot kicks were both stone walls but the second was awarded only by VaR - how could the referee not have seen such a blatant push?

It’s all part of FIFA’s plan to prevent us winning the ultimate prize in football.

[italian dave]

8 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

It was a clear foul on Saka for first goal for them.

I thought ref was really poor - stopping game for non head injuries etc. But I don’t believe he was corrupt etc - just awful. 

I agree he wasn’t great, but awful is what we get at City, and he wasn’t that bad in my view. I thought it was a foul too, but others didn’t (including posts on here at the time) and presumably the VAR officials either didn’t think it a foul or didn’t think that the first goal was a direct consequence. So it wasn’t that clear cut.

7 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

But if the ref himself gives the foul on Saka, or the clear foul on Kane, from behind, in the box, it's a different game. England were done by the ref, not by var

As above. And you say ‘in the box’ as though that’s a given, but it was debateable. We don’t know what the view of the VAR officials was, but I’d guess that they were more likely to see the first touch as outside the box than to see there being no foul. 

Yes, we could have had two free kicks on another day, but that’s football. I’d still maintain that England were done not by the ref but by missing a penalty, by failing to force a goal from open play when they’d were on top, by allowing a world class centre forward to get in front of the defender. 

[italian dave]

1 minute ago, Rob k said:

But he was absolutely awful, no free kick for their goal, no free kick or pen on Kane, no pen given by him on mount, he gave it as he had made such a howler in the beginning, stopping the game for a non head injury, he was atrocious. 
 

There so much money in the game i also think it would be naive to not think some refs can’t be influenced. 

First two (free kicks) as above. Pen on Mount - he DID give it. Agree there was no need to stop for that injury. 

[And Its Smith]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

To support my conspiracy theory - there was a clear foul on Saka at the start of the move leading to the first goal - the Brazilian oaf failed to give anything. It should have been a free kick to England.

The two spot kicks were both stone walls but the second was awarded only by VaR - how could the referee not have seen such a blatant push?

It’s all part of FIFA’s plan to prevent us winning the ultimate prize in football.

Haha yeah course it is. If it makes it easier to think that then go ahead. 

[glynriley]

2 minutes ago, Rob k said:

But he was absolutely awful, no free kick for their goal, no free kick or pen on Kane, no pen given by him on mount, he gave it as he had made such a howler in the beginning, stopping the game for a non head injury, he was atrocious. 
 

There so much money in the game i also think it would be naive to not think some refs can’t be influenced. 

I agree that the ref was absolutely shocking. Got so much wrong. 
 

But corrupt? Not sure about that. We had our chances and didn’t take them. 

[Alex_BCFC]

It’s no conspiracy but ref was poor tonight. No foul on Saka or Kane in first half is poor. He was stopping play for non head injuries etc. 

But England should score the pen and had other chances. You can’t win if you don’t convert your chances. 

[glynriley]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

First two (free kicks) as above. Pen on Mount - he DID give it. Agree there was no need to stop for that injury. 

He DIDNT give it though. He waved it away until VAR told him to check the monitor (told him he was wrong basically)

[italian dave]

The “blatant push” was pretty much identical to one at Rotherham today. Are we suggesting that ref was corrupt, paid etc. too

Refs don’t always get the best view of an incident like that - even the views we saw on TV (and we had the benefit of multiple views) looked far more convincing from some angles than others. And when he was given the opportunity to get a better view he gave it. 

We are beginning to come across like every sore losers. 

Edited December 10, 2022 by italian dave

[italian dave]

1 minute ago, glynriley said:

He DIDNT give it though. He waved it away until VAR told him to check the monitor (told him he was wrong basically)

And then he gave it. So, I repeat, he DID give it. It was his decision. 

[Rob k]

Just now, italian dave said:

And then he gave it. So, I repeat, he DID give it. It was his decision. 

He couldn’t not have to be fair….he didn’t even get the chance to check the first Kane one either 

[Rob k]

6 minutes ago, glynriley said:

I agree that the ref was absolutely shocking. Got so much wrong. 
 

But corrupt? Not sure about that. We had our chances and didn’t take them. 

There’s corruption everywhere, i have no reason to belive football is exempt, betting syndicates etc 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Rob k

[glynriley]

Just now, italian dave said:

And then he gave it. So, I repeat, he DID give it. It was his decision. 

Naive. 
When a ref is told to go and look at the monitor, they always change their original decision. They’ve basically been told they got it wrong. 

Just now, Rob k said:

There’s corruption everywhere, i have no reason to belive football is exempt 

You may be right, I hope not but who knows. 

[ScottishRed]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Were I a believer in the conspiracy side, I'd say that FIFA want a lot of shocks but ultimately.

Not the Messi v Ronaldo final that many state but France v Argentina aka Mbappe v Messi final.

Passing of the torch to the new greatest player from the last. (Arguable, granted).

Where do both play? PSG.

Who owns PSG? Qatar.

Where is the tournament? Qatar.

Passing from the old to the new in the World Cup final would truly reflect the glory of Qatar- and perhaps by association, PSG.

Just to add fuel to your flames @Mr Popodopolous I see the BBC are reporting that today a European Parliament VP has been arrested on suspicion of bribery by a Middle East state......take a wild guess at which country is being implicated?

[italian dave]

Just now, Rob k said:

He couldn’t not have to be fair….he didn’t even get the chance to check the first Kane one either 

I’m not sure how VAR affects referees and their willingness to make calls like that immediately. They know that VAR will provide a second chance, so maybe, even if unconsciously, they’re more likely to pass on the immediate decision and leave it to VAR? I don’t know, just a thought. 

[TonyTonyTony]

20 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Ha ha ha

The overweight pizza munching Middle aged nobody pretending to be cool with the kids 

The original gimp , a yellow one

 

Desperate as usual. Go change your Tena pads cuntbubble

[italian dave]

2 minutes ago, glynriley said:

Naive. 
When a ref is told to go and look at the monitor, they always change their original decision. They’ve basically been told they got it wrong. 

 

But, it’s still the case that he did give it, which is what you’re trying to argue isn’t the case. 

See my comment above to Rob - I genuinely don’t know if it’s the case but wouldn’t be surprised. 

Andthat is the whole point of VAR, so let’s not complain when it does actually work. 

The ref doesn’t always have the best view ‘in the moment’ and there were angles on the TV replays of that incident that looked far less convincing than others. Like todays ref at Rotherham who made an identical call, perhaps that was the case here.

Just a thought - and I’d suggest that it’s a more likely explanation than that he was bribed. 

[1960maaan]

54 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

Doesnt work like that though

If he gave the foul on Saka  Everything after that would have been different

I totally agree, but it's consequences .
Saka get's the foul and we don't go 1-0 down, plus we get a free kick in a threatening area. Where the game goes from there , who knows?
But that one decision makes a massive difference.

[glynriley]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

But, it’s still the case that he did give it, which is what you’re trying to argue isn’t the case. 

See my comment above to Rob - I genuinely don’t know if it’s the case but wouldn’t be surprised. 

Andthat is the whole point of VAR, so let’s not complain when it does actually work. 

The ref doesn’t always have the best view ‘in the moment’ and there were angles on the TV replays of that incident that looked far less convincing than others. Like todays ref at Rotherham who made an identical call, perhaps that was the case here.

Just a thought - and I’d suggest that it’s a more likely explanation than that he was bribed. 

For clarity, I don’t think he was bribed. Just not very good. That decision was just one of many he got wrong. 

[italian dave]

Just now, glynriley said:

For clarity, I don’t think he was bribed. Just not very good. That decision was just one of many he got wrong. 

Fair enough, and as I said initially, I didn’t think he was great either! 

Just out of interest, do you think VAR, and the knowledge that it’s there, might affect a referees inclination to give potentially controversial decision straight off? 

[1960maaan]

1 minute ago, glynriley said:

For clarity, I don’t think he was bribed. Just not very good. That decision was just one of many he got wrong. 

I don't think all the blame can be put solely on the Ref, VAR is there to right, wrongs. They looked at the Saka free kick, at the Kane trip, as a unit they are not fit for purpose.