Look - it's going to be a subject of controversy. Yes, I saw the play transpire. Yes, I still think that Kane was fouled - a penalty. No I don't think that the Sterling penalty call was meritted.
Sterling "foul" - not a penalty
It's been a woman finding the exact Kane foul replay - and indeed I have no replay for you to watch.
However, rewatching YoutubeTV this is the sequence:
Minute 73:19 - Defender against Kane goes to ground. Maybe Kane kicks him - not clear. Doesn't seem to be a foul for me.
Minute 73:21 - Kane is in the box. Clear foul on Kane.
I wish I could show video of this but I cannot - if you can rewatch the game go to the timespots I've posted above and make your own decision.
===
After your pushback, I once again rewatched the game around these controversial decisions to make sure that I wasn't missing something.
After re-review - I stand by my observations.
Kane didn't appear to me to foul prior to the penalty. Video on YoutubeTV wasn't the greatest at all and there's no slow motion replay of this - so I might be wrong.
If however Kane did commit a foul there, why didn't the ref immediately blow his whistle? As Kane had the ball after this incident, there was clearly no advantage accruing to Denmark - and hence, if the ref thought that Kane had fouled, he should have immediately blown. Instead the play progress for at least 2 more seconds during which time Kane is fouled in the box... maybe this is in the realm of reaction time... beats me. Either way, I didn't see a foul by Kane whereas I did see a clear foul on Kane.
For me:
Kane was fouled in the box - clear penalty. And I see nothing to indicate that Kane committed a foul previous to this (again, no slow motion replay available so I might change my mind if such video became available).
Sterling went down after soft contact - not enough for me to award a penalty but not a dive. Maybe this was a makeup call for the above?
===
In the end, say you're right - Kane not a foul, Sterling a foul. Or I'm right - Kane an foul, Sterling not a foul.
Either way a penalty kick would have been awarded.
In the actual game, a penalty kick was awarded. So... controversy aside both you and I agree that England deserved 1 penalty kick - and indeed they got one.
And scored.
I think that England were the better side in this match - and so deserved to advance.
===
Good luck to England in the finals... but I'm from the USA and really like Mancini and Italy. I'll be a fan of the game during this match, not routing for either side.
But the match should be good - and I very much look forward to it.
