Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Semi-Final - Argentina 3-0 Croatia - Tuesday 13th December, 2022


football forums

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Devil said:

Keeper wasn't fouled, Alaverez has every right to continue his run knowing he could be taken out.

Keeper knows full well he has to make contact with the ball with any point of his body or he risks body checking the player. 

It's a penalty every time for me, no idea why Neville was so over the top in the BBC coverage then. 

Should Liverpool have had a penalty vs Newcastle?

here Mane's leg was being grabbed while the ball's actually right in front of him and I was told numerous times it was "never a pen" ... so after that I am of the school of thought that: it doesn't matter if the keeper's literally raping the attacker and tearing the arsehole apart - not a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, El Profesor said:

Yep. As much as I dislike Argentina, that is clear penalty for me. Livakovic intentionaly blocks Alvarez.

Intentional or not he didn't make contact with the ball.

Crazy how they can claim otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Should Liverpool have had a penalty vs Newcastle?

here Mane's leg was being grabbed while the ball's actually right in front of him and I was told numerous times it was "never a pen" ... so after that I am of the school of thought that: it doesn't matter if the keeper's literally raping the attacker and tearing the arsehole apart - not a penalty.

Messi is a better player than Mane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Idk I remember when Karl Darlow grabbed Mane... while the ball was right there and take him down in the box... and that wasn't given as a penalty. And so many people on here said it was "never a penalty" - so using that logic I fail to see how this would be a penalty. :what:

I'm not sure if the incident you're describing or this Karl Darlow fella actually exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
1 minute ago, Spike said:

I’d be more amiable to a penalty if Alvarez hadn’t already taken the shot. I hate it when penalties are given after the fact

So it's okay for keepers to take out players just because the shot has already been taken and they miss the ball? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stan said:

So it's okay for keepers to take out players just because the shot has already been taken and they miss the ball? 

 

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

it doesn't matter if the keeper's literally raping the attacker and tearing the arsehole apart - not a penalty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stan said:

So it's okay for keepers to take out players just because the shot has already been taken and they miss the ball? 

He didn’t take him out. It was a collision, you can see he was trying to move his right leg out of contact but Alvarez intentionally looked for it. Collisions happen all the time and aren’t called as fouls. The play had been made, there was a collision, not a penalty. If he hadn’t shot already, then yes, I’d say penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
4 minutes ago, Spike said:

He didn’t take him out. It was a collision, you can see he was trying to move his right leg out of contact but Alvarez intentionally looked for it. Collisions happen all the time and aren’t called as fouls. The play had been made, there was a collision, not a penalty. If he hadn’t shot already, then yes, I’d say penalty.

Sorry but any time that kind of collision happens on the pitch, it'd be given as a foul. So it's no different in the box. 

The play has been made, you're correct. And in doing so Livakovic was late to it and impeded Alvarez. 

He's played the ball before Livakovic. Basically what you've just said is that it's a foul if it's not a shot, but not a foul because it is a shot. Sorry, but that's now how rules of football are used... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

Sorry but any time that kind of collision happens on the pitch, it'd be given as a foul. So it's no different in the box. 

The play has been made, you're correct. And in doing so Livakovic was late to it and impeded Alvarez. 

He's played the ball before Livakovic. Basically what you've just said is that it's a foul if it's not a shot, but not a foul because it is a shot. Sorry, but that's now how rules of football are used... 

I don’t think collisions are given as fouls at all. After the shot for the second goal Alvarez knocked Livakovic over, is that not the same in reverse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stan said:

The ref is shite if he's not giving that as a foul anywhere on the pitch xD

 

I've seen fouls like that not given outside the box in this tournament tbh.

The ref is probably shit just because he's a ref and 9/10 refs are shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
1 minute ago, Spike said:

I don’t think collisions are given as fouls at all. After the shot for the second goal Alvarez knocked Livakovic over, is that not the same in reverse?

Did he? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Devil said:

Imagine trying to get back into a game and having to bring Vlasic on. 

He's awful.

I think Croatia are fucked tbh. They're good everywhere on the pitch except the final third and now they've got to score at least 2 goals.

I just can't see it happening. Especially not if Lovren's going to be having one of those games where he just makes silly errors like playing the entire stadium onside right before that penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...