World Cup 2018 | 1st July | R16: Croatia vs Denmark, KO 19:00 (BST)

[Jalfraag]

Kasper scmeichel supports the rags, Im sorry if thats upsetting to some people.

He has said so in many interviews in the danish media, he never ever haas anything good to say about City, in fact he has often expressed his disdain for us.

I will never forget the interview he gave before the euro tie against fc midtjylland expressing his desire for City to get knocked out, this while city were paying his wages.

so fuck the rag ****.

The only surprise is that city fans didn't know this about the rag twat.

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

I thought that Croatia played well in the first half in spite of conceding. And then, they seemingly ran out of gas; Denmark were better in the 2nd half and in overtime.

Why on earth wasn't the Denmark player who committed a clear-cut foul, last man in the box, not sent off? VAR should have made the correct ruling. If ever there was a clear red card, this was it for me.

I thought that Casper was across his line in the subsequent penalty.
==========
Anyhow, the better side won in the end - very lucky.
==========
Takeaway - Croatia seem to be unfit as a side. Get them to 2nd half or later and they completely run out of energy. IMO, this side will lose its next game whomever they face.

 

[inchy14]

I thought that Croatia played well in the first half in spite of conceding. And then, they seemingly ran out of gas; Denmark were better in the 2nd half and in overtime.

Why on earth wasn't the Denmark player who committed a clear-cut foul, last man in the box, not sent off? VAR should have made the correct ruling. If ever there was a clear red card, this was it for me.

I thought that Casper was across his line in the subsequent penalty.
==========
Anyhow, the better side won in the end - very lucky.
==========
Takeaway - Croatia seem to be unfit as a side. Get them to 2nd half or later and they completely run out of energy. IMO, this side will lose its next game whomever they face.

No red card awarded if a player makes a genuine attempt to play the ball as a penalty is deemed punishment enough.

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

No red card awarded if a player makes a genuine attempt to play the ball as a penalty is deemed punishment enough.

Perhaps so... but in this case, the rules failed to restore equity. There's virtually no chance that Croatia would have failed to score; meanwhile the defender is attempting to win the ball from behind the attacker lunging in in desperation, bringing the attacker down as a foreseeable consequence of the tackle.

What turns this into a red? Must some sort of injury occur?

In this case:
1) It was a foul;
2) It was from behind;
3) It was a slide tackle;
4) The attacker went down;
5) Clearly, the attacker might have been injured as a result.

To me, this is a still a clear cut red.

Unfortunately, the rules are too subjective IMO - so that reasonable people may side on either side of the red-or-not debate here.
========
To be clear, I think that a red should have been awarded - if using player safety as a reason, then yes.

Why? Equity was not restored. Croatia were robbed of a goal - and more importantly could easily have lost the match.

Slide tackling from behind as a last man trying to win the ball? - OK - but if you commit a foul, it's got to be a red. (Yes this might not be how the rules are currently written but it's how I'd rule on the field given the current rules, citing player safety to get my way. IMO, the rules need to be adjusted here for several reasons:
1) Equity was not restored;
2) Dangerous tackles are encouraged.

 

[inchy14]

Perhaps so... but in this case, the rules failed to restore equity. There's virtually no chance that Croatia would have failed to score; meanwhile the defender is attempting to win the ball from behind the attacker lunging in in desperation, bringing the attacker down as a foreseeable consequence of the tackle.

What turns this into a red? Must some sort of injury occur?

In this case:
1) It was a foul;
2) It was from behind;
3) It was a slide tackle;
4) The attacker went down;
5) Clearly, the attacker might have been injured as a result.

To me, this is a still a clear cut red.

Unfortunately, the rules are too subjective IMO - so that reasonable people may side on either side of the red-or-not debate here.

What are you talking about?

He was fouled by the last man who was making a genuine attempt to play the ball, he wasn't pulling him over or such and if he was the laws said he'd be sent off.

The rules say that awarding the penalty is sufficient punishment as why should a team be punished twice? Not Denmark's fault that Modric then missed.

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

What are you talking about?

He was fouled by the last man who was making a genuine attempt to play the ball, he wasn't pulling him over or such and if he was the laws said he'd be sent off.

The rules say that awarding the penalty is sufficient punishment as why should a team be punished twice? Not Denmark's fault that Modric then missed.

You may have missed the point about encouraging dangerous tackles to the detriment of player safety.

In other words, as a defender, if you're anywhere near a potential scorer, dive in, lunge in with force, go all out to prevent the goal while making an attempt on the ball. Worst case - you commit a foul. Yellow is no big deal.

Or other worst case - you miss your tackle and injure the attacker, perhaps badly injure him. Well worth the gamble likely and in Denmark's case, clearly so.

Little disincentive whatsoever not to lunge dangerously in under these rules

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Insane!!!