The World Cup

[LBA_Blade]

What about Bayern Munich? That's the weirdest example for me as we've only Anglicised half of their name. Surely it should either be Bayern Munchen or Bavarian Munich?

Yep another great example

 

[Uganda Blade]

Some interesting views on the apparent penalty claim for Ghana last night, being a referee albeit not at FIFA level or professional, it can help to understand why it shouldn't have been a penalty rather than going with the press narrative that England dodged a bullet. Firstly I don't think the referee had full control of the game and was happy to let a lot go, which sets out your stall and threshold for contact. In the first half with a trigger happy card referee, Ghana would have picked up 3 or 4 yellows for fouls where they didn't play the ball and played the man. The referee last night wasn't one of them, which is fair enough.

A few things on the decision, the referee was caught out by the quick break and was approx 30-40 yards away when it occurred, he was still mulling over the shoulder charge that happened. However I think that is the key as to why the penalty wasn't given and why VAR didn't step in. Although shoulder charges are allowed in football, they can be ruled that one player has used too much force like sprinting at a stationary player, in the shoulder charge on Eze that was seen and deemed ok by the referee, I would say it was a at a high threshold of whether or not it should have been a foul. It's in that category of "I have seen them given"

Fast forward 10 seconds or so, (the advice given to referees and VAR for the World Cup is that the threshold for which you give a foul for contact has to be consistent), Adu wasn't in possession of the ball as he played a heavy touch forwards into the penalty area, although this isn't a fully consideration factor as fouls can happen out of possession it does allow Konsa to compete for the ball. The problem the referee has got he is miles out of position so is relying on his assistant or VAR, the problem both of them have got is that the referee has set a high threshold for contact, and with penalties (in all games) the threshold is even higher with it being a potential match changing decision.

Konsa, although he doesn't make contact with the ball initially is allowed under the Laws of the game to compete especially as he has the opportunity to do so , and basing on the shoulder charge contact seconds before that the referee has allowed and that you haven't given a foul for, the threshold is that much higher, Konza made a genuine attempt to get the ball, the opportunity was there for him to do so and the threshold for contact was high. The coming together of the players was going to happen because of the runs each were making, which brought both of them down, it was deemed a football related contact and play on. The offside was spot on as obvious he was interfering with play and behind the 2nd to last defender.

A great analysis — thanks.
Can you do that for when there are contentious moments in United games as well, please?

 

[LBA_Blade]

A great analysis — thanks.
Can you do that for when there are contentious moments in United games as well, please?

Will try, usually have to do that on a non match day without my blades tinted specs but I usually find watching a game more frustrating when you know the referee is correct but you don’t want him to be. I tend just to sit and be quiet in the moment.

 

[Uganda Blade]

Will try, usually have to do that on a non match day without my blades tinted specs but I usually find watching a game more frustrating when you know the referee is correct but you don’t want him to be. I tend just to sit and be quiet in the moment.

I'll look forward to it, when you get the chance

 

[Silky Sabella]

Really thought Senegal with the huge amount of attacking talent they have would be a major force at this year's world cup

 

[mattbianco1]

Jesus christ, is there an alternative commentary for this Scotland game ?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Jesus christ, is there an alternative commentary for this Scotland game ?

If Liam McLeod makes it through 90 minutes l’d be amazed. Let’s see how many times he says “legends” for the rest of the game

He’s already talking about Marino and the Dolphins, motor racing and tennis tournaments

 

[Silky Sabella]

This was the PROPER TARTAN ARMY Era !

 

[Silky Sabella]

This was the PROPER TARTAN ARMY Era !

 

[Sean Thornton]

IrnBrudemol…….

 

[Gimli]

If Liam McLeod makes it through 90 minutes l’d be amazed. Let’s see how many times he says “legends” for the rest of the game

He’s already talking about Marino and the Dolphins, motor racing and tennis tournaments

Let’s be fair, beating Haiti is probably enough for this Scotland squad to go down as ‘legends’ in the Tartan Army archives.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Let’s be fair, beating Haiti is probably enough for this Scotland squad to go down as ‘legends’ in the Tartan Army archives.

I like the way they roar through their fairly recent discovery Flower of Scotland. When Rangers were the SFA’s favourites years ago it was probably The Sash My Father Wore. If the SFA’s current choice of Celtic gets any worse they’ll have to sing The Fields Of Athenry

 

[JT89]

Some interesting views on the apparent penalty claim for Ghana last night, being a referee albeit not at FIFA level or professional, it can help to understand why it shouldn't have been a penalty rather than going with the press narrative that England dodged a bullet. Firstly I don't think the referee had full control of the game and was happy to let a lot go, which sets out your stall and threshold for contact. In the first half with a trigger happy card referee, Ghana would have picked up 3 or 4 yellows for fouls where they didn't play the ball and played the man. The referee last night wasn't one of them, which is fair enough.

A few things on the decision, the referee was caught out by the quick break and was approx 30-40 yards away when it occurred, he was still mulling over the shoulder charge that happened. However I think that is the key as to why the penalty wasn't given and why VAR didn't step in. Although shoulder charges are allowed in football, they can be ruled that one player has used too much force like sprinting at a stationary player, in the shoulder charge on Eze that was seen and deemed ok by the referee, I would say it was a at a high threshold of whether or not it should have been a foul. It's in that category of "I have seen them given"

Fast forward 10 seconds or so, (the advice given to referees and VAR for the World Cup is that the threshold for which you give a foul for contact has to be consistent), Adu wasn't in possession of the ball as he played a heavy touch forwards into the penalty area, although this isn't a fully consideration factor as fouls can happen out of possession it does allow Konsa to compete for the ball. The problem the referee has got he is miles out of position so is relying on his assistant or VAR, the problem both of them have got is that the referee has set a high threshold for contact, and with penalties (in all games) the threshold is even higher with it being a potential match changing decision.

Konsa, although he doesn't make contact with the ball initially is allowed under the Laws of the game to compete especially as he has the opportunity to do so , and basing on the shoulder charge contact seconds before that the referee has allowed and that you haven't given a foul for, the threshold is that much higher, Konza made a genuine attempt to get the ball, the opportunity was there for him to do so and the threshold for contact was high. The coming together of the players was going to happen because of the runs each were making, which brought both of them down, it was deemed a football related contact and play on. The offside was spot on as obvious he was interfering with play and behind the 2nd to last defender.

Never read so much nonsense. It’s a penalty.

 

[Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou]

Jesus christ, is there an alternative commentary for this Scotland game ?

Awful commentary. The excitement of a set piece or potentially losing 3-1 (better for the 3rd place) was so tinpot.

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

Let’s be fair, beating Haiti is probably enough for this Scotland squad to go down as ‘legends’ in the Tartan Army archives.

If only they had had Bannon.

 

[LBA_Blade]

Never read so much nonsense. It’s a penalty.

I will always counter that argument with the childish version of Who took it and when was it given as I didn’t see a penalty given.

But also point you into the article written on 10th June, FIFA not only are trialling 11 different tweaks to the Laws of the game for the World Cup but a certain Pierluigi Collina (head of FIFA referees) has given advice on for the tournament https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce8jv326d7vo

As BBC write on 22nd June the day before the England vs Ghana game “Collina's ethos is that football is a contact sport, and not all contact is a foul. He wants to see free-flowing games at a higher tempo” … “If you let more tackles go on the field, you must have fewer VAR interventions”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy06881596wo

At any major tournament the referees are selected and briefed and then sat down after each day of fixtures where key points are analysed within the group, chatting to Howard Webb who went to 2 World Cups (quite easy through the local association) he is open and honest and this was pre VAR days but precision and detail are key. At this one Collina, has briefed the referees on thresholds and how to manage games accordingly with VAR. The referee was in no position to make the decision as was too far away from play, due to the counter attack, the assistant had a good view and decided against it and VAR didn’t intervene.

As explained in my first attempt of the original article and football does bring healthy debate at times but also other comments “It was a Burrows goal at Wembley” being the fine example when it was clearly offside by Souza. VAR can only step in when it was clear and obvious and they have been briefed to speed things up, what you have in this situation is a ball at least 1 yard in front, 2 players coming together and both going down, after both attempting to compete for the ball, not clear and obvious from one quick view. If the attacker gets tripped from behind rather than a collision from the side it would have been a different story.

 

[Gimli]

Something about him being called English makes this seem like a hilariously patronising article.

Take away that small amusement and it’s the usual vomit inducing Scotland fan wankfest…

 

[Rodders]

View attachment 239251

Something about him being called English makes this seem like a hilariously patronising article.

Take away that small amusement and it’s the usual vomit inducing Scotland fan wankfest…

Any reference to "we won the singing!" is always 100% tin-pot. And for that to be just all what an entire nation has is beautiful.

 

[Blade In Flame]

Any reference to "we won the singing!" is always 100% tin-pot. And for that to be just all what an entire nation has is beautiful.

Scotland, the international version of Wednesday.

 

[mattbianco1]

View attachment 239251

Something about him being called English makes this seem like a hilariously patronising article.

Take away that small amusement and it’s the usual vomit inducing Scotland fan wankfest…

View attachment WhatsApp Video 2026-06-25 at 08.25.29.mp4

 

[JT89]

I will always counter that argument with the childish version of Who took it and when was it given as I didn’t see a penalty given.

But also point you into the article written on 10th June, FIFA not only are trialling 11 different tweaks to the Laws of the game for the World Cup but a certain Pierluigi Collina (head of FIFA referees) has given advice on for the tournament https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce8jv326d7vo

As BBC write on 22nd June the day before the England vs Ghana game “Collina's ethos is that football is a contact sport, and not all contact is a foul. He wants to see free-flowing games at a higher tempo” … “If you let more tackles go on the field, you must have fewer VAR interventions”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy06881596wo

At any major tournament the referees are selected and briefed and then sat down after each day of fixtures where key points are analysed within the group, chatting to Howard Webb who went to 2 World Cups (quite easy through the local association) he is open and honest and this was pre VAR days but precision and detail are key. At this one Collina, has briefed the referees on thresholds and how to manage games accordingly with VAR. The referee was in no position to make the decision as was too far away from play, due to the counter attack, the assistant had a good view and decided against it and VAR didn’t intervene.

As explained in my first attempt of the original article and football does bring healthy debate at times but also other comments “It was a Burrows goal at Wembley” being the fine example when it was clearly offside by Souza. VAR can only step in when it was clear and obvious and they have been briefed to speed things up, what you have in this situation is a ball at least 1 yard in front, 2 players coming together and both going down, after both attempting to compete for the ball, not clear and obvious from one quick view. If the attacker gets tripped from behind rather than a collision from the side it would have been a different story.

Not all contact is a foul, but if you can’t just bring down an opponent and be nowhere near the ball. If you make contact with the opponent but also make contact with the ball then you have a point, but he was nowhere near the ball.

Why it wasn’t checked by VAR I’ve no idea, it should have been.

The issue most players have with referees is that they don’t understand fully understand the game having never played it.

A lot of referees understand the written rules, but not the game.

 

[LBA_Blade]

Not all contact is a foul, but if you can’t just bring down an opponent and be nowhere near the ball. If you make contact with the opponent but also make contact with the ball then you have a point, but he was nowhere near the ball.

Why it wasn’t checked by VAR I’ve no idea, it should have been.

The issue most players have with referees is that they don’t understand fully understand the game having never played it.

A lot of referees understand the written rules, but not the game.

Breaking them down, that was the initial point that I was making, neither player was in possession of the ball due to the heavy touch into the penalty area, Konsa had the opportunity from the left to compete for the ball, it was judged as a man-on-man contact and took them both to the floor. VAR didn't intervene as the referee and his assistant that was up with play didn't see anything wrong with it, they don't get the benefit or multiple angle slow mo's and repeats, it happens and you make a decision based on your experience and knowledge.

On the points in bold, from knowing plenty of professional referees in both the current era and ex-referees turned observers, you need to get yourself on a refereeing course to make that type of comment. The biggest perception of referees not fully understanding the game is false, they prepare for each fixture (even at semi-pro level) with pre-match analysis of videos, players, formations etc so they can best prepare themselves for what they might expect. At a higher level this is then followed by in-depth post match analysis. There are also constant Continuing Professional Development (CPD) days at several levels of the pyramid. The part about a lot of referees understand.... (all understand at every step of promotion and even at first training has a Laws of the Game test to be completed and passed). The part about not playing it also applies to people like Guy Mowbray, he has never played professional football but has a regular job in commentary.

 

[Ron_Justice]

Apologies if that has been discussed elsewhere (I'll post the same thing in the COH Investment thread) but do we think a successful WC in the US will directly benefit United? Hype, amongst US Football fans must be at an all time high - National Team doing well, the overall event being very well received, average Americans engaging with other cultures in ways never seen (Boston putting in the hard yards.)

If there are US investors who are fans of the game, who COH etc. can connect to an opportunity with United, surely we're in a good spot to benefit from the good will of the WC?

 

[Kenilworth]

Apologies if that has been discussed elsewhere (I'll post the same thing in the COH Investment thread) but do we think a successful WC in the US will directly benefit United? Hype, amongst US Football fans must be at an all time high - National Team doing well, the overall event being very well received, average Americans engaging with other cultures in ways never seen (Boston putting in the hard yards.)

If there are US investors who are fans of the game, who COH etc. can connect to an opportunity with United, surely we're in a good spot to benefit from the good will of the WC?

No

 

[dexter101]

Apologies if that has been discussed elsewhere (I'll post the same thing in the COH Investment thread) but do we think a successful WC in the US will directly benefit United? Hype, amongst US Football fans must be at an all time high - National Team doing well, the overall event being very well received, average Americans engaging with other cultures in ways never seen (Boston putting in the hard yards.)

If there are US investors who are fans of the game, who COH etc. can connect to an opportunity with United, surely we're in a good spot to benefit from the good will of the WC?

I don't think the SUFC 'brand' is particularly appealing to americans in general. We are too understated. They want big, loud, shouty.

 

[JT89]

Breaking them down, that was the initial point that I was making, neither player was in possession of the ball due to the heavy touch into the penalty area, Konsa had the opportunity from the left to compete for the ball, it was judged as a man-on-man contact and took them both to the floor. VAR didn't intervene as the referee and his assistant that was up with play didn't see anything wrong with it, they don't get the benefit or multiple angle slow mo's and repeats, it happens and you make a decision based on your experience and knowledge.

On the points in bold, from knowing plenty of professional referees in both the current era and ex-referees turned observers, you need to get yourself on a refereeing course to make that type of comment. The biggest perception of referees not fully understanding the game is false, they prepare for each fixture (even at semi-pro level) with pre-match analysis of videos, players, formations etc so they can best prepare themselves for what they might expect. At a higher level this is then followed by in-depth post match analysis. There are also constant Continuing Professional Development (CPD) days at several levels of the pyramid. The part about a lot of referees understand.... (all understand at every step of promotion and even at first training has a Laws of the Game test to be completed and passed). The part about not playing it also applies to people like Guy Mowbray, he has never played professional football but has a regular job in commentary.

Oh right, so because the other player didn’t kick the ball it’s fine for Konsa to just hack him down from behind?

Honestly you sound more clueless with every reply.

Yes I’m aware how referees are trained and prepare for games, but none of that gives them the understanding that actually having played the game would give them.

Everyone I’ve spoken to about this decision agrees that it should have been a penalty, those people range from fans to current and ex pros.

You seem to think VAR doesn’t look at incidents because the ref has seen them, which is just completely wrong and would defeat the whole point of it

As for your random mention of Guy Mowbray, that’s completely irrelevant, the commentators role is to describe the action and atmosphere etc, and they are normally paired with at least one ex-pro who’s role it is to give more insight/opinions of the game and decisions.

The best referees I’ve ever seen/had officiated games I’ve played in are the ones who are open to discussion with players and able to admit when they’ve made a mistake.

 

[Grey Blade]

I like the way they roar through their fairly recent discovery Flower of Scotland. When Rangers were the SFA’s favourites years ago it was probably The Sash My Father Wore. If the SFA’s current choice of Celtic gets any worse they’ll have to sing The Fields Of Athenry

I like 'Flower of Scotland'. I wish we could belt out a more uplifting anthem than 'God save the King' - difficult getting used to it not being 'Queen'.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I like 'Flower of Scotland'. I wish we could belt out a more uplifting anthem than 'God save the King' - difficult getting used to it not being 'Queen'.

Fair comment about GSTK.

I always think it’s a shame that the best two national anthems, by far, are wasted on the French and Welsh

 

[LBA_Blade]

Oh right, so because the other player didn’t kick the ball it’s fine for Konsa to just hack him down from behind?

Honestly you sound more clueless with every reply.

Yes I’m aware how referees are trained and prepare for games, but none of that gives them the understanding that actually having played the game would give them.

Everyone I’ve spoken to about this decision agrees that it should have been a penalty, those people range from fans to current and ex pros.

You seem to think VAR doesn’t look at incidents because the ref has seen them, which is just completely wrong and would defeat the whole point of it

As for your random mention of Guy Mowbray, that’s completely irrelevant, the commentators role is to describe the action and atmosphere etc, and they are normally paired with at least one ex-pro who’s role it is to give more insight/opinions of the game and decisions.

The best referees I’ve ever seen/had officiated games I’ve played in are the ones who are open to discussion with players and able to admit when they’ve made a mistake.

To cover VAR quickly as a protocol mention is best to be clarified

Laws of the game regarding VAR and it's use, https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles
Covered under point "4. Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee"

Point 3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’. Which leads into point 10. If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).

Point in 10 is there, as the referee blew for offside (stopped play), the indirect free kick was taken (restart play), after the referee blew his whistle to stop play for the offside it was restarted 44 seconds later, VAR couldn't intervene after this point. To summarise that part, the VAR team had 44 seconds to make a decision if to recommend a review or not to the referee. As there isn't a TV crew sat in the bunker, we don't know what was being discussed or potentially was being looked at. They could have looked at it and said there isn't an obvious error as the referee/assistant has justified it.

If you actually look at the incident properly, Konsa didn't "hack him from behind" he has come in at the side, Konsa's right thigh has made contact with Adu's left knee/thigh which has off balanced Konsa and brought them both down. Adu went down forwards, Konsa ended up on his back. The Law you are looking for is Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct,

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless....

• tackles or challenges (is the most relevant one here)

The term often overlooked by the media and pundits etc is the phrase of "considered by the referee". It is in the Laws of the game, does the referee consider that to be the case, if he doesn't then he is right, if he does he is also right. Regardless what anyone says as long as the referee has seen and considered such a situation he is right, by the written Laws of the Game he can't be incorrect.

The best referees I’ve ever seen/had officiated games I’ve played in are the ones who are open to discussion with players and able to admit when they’ve made a mistake.

What makes a referee (also covered on a refereeing course) is not about making mistakes/admitting to them, its about being able to justify and have the confidence in yourself as to why you have given that decision, using your knowledge of the Laws of the Game and positioning on the field to read the game (yes referees do that too).
Mr Billy Big centre forward is never going to admit he missed an open goal or fired 6 shots over the bar and it was "his mistake" why they lost, it will be also because they believe the referee has done something.

The only downside point on this, is we do not get to hear the conversations being said in real time with the match officials. The best person to make penalty decision who was in the best position (literally level) was the near-side assistant referee, we do not know, what if anything, he has said to the referee, as he didn't flag for a penalty which he could have done, he even could have asked the referee for VAR to intervene, noting the referees on-field position. VAR didn't step-in within, in this case the 44 seconds that they had.

And to be honest my favourite comment on day as below
"Honestly you sound more clueless with every reply"
Have mentioned this countless times in person, get a whistle, do your course, try and pass a Laws of the game exam, and get out on a pitch, even at youth or Sunday league level and have a go. Those who play football/watch, tend to not understand the Laws of the Game (how many call them rules) or look at any changes as they think they have it nailed down. How many people still call a Reckless challenge/Caution/Yellow card a booking? (I have been refereeing for over 20 years and it was a caution when I first started). That is how out of date so many people are in the media and on commentary/pundits.

 

[JT89]

To cover VAR quickly as a protocol mention is best to be clarified

Laws of the game regarding VAR and it's use, https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles
Covered under point "4. Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee"

Point 3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’. Which leads into point 10. If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).

Point in 10 is there, as the referee blew for offside (stopped play), the indirect free kick was taken (restart play), after the referee blew his whistle to stop play for the offside it was restarted 44 seconds later, VAR couldn't intervene after this point. To summarise that part, the VAR team had 44 seconds to make a decision if to recommend a review or not to the referee. As there isn't a TV crew sat in the bunker, we don't know what was being discussed or potentially was being looked at. They could have looked at it and said there isn't an obvious error as the referee/assistant has justified it.

If you actually look at the incident properly, Konsa didn't "hack him from behind" he has come in at the side, Konsa's right thigh has made contact with Adu's left knee/thigh which has off balanced Konsa and brought them both down. Adu went down forwards, Konsa ended up on his back. The Law you are looking for is Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct,

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless....

• tackles or challenges (is the most relevant one here)

The term often overlooked by the media and pundits etc is the phrase of "considered by the referee". It is in the Laws of the game, does the referee consider that to be the case, if he doesn't then he is right, if he does he is also right. Regardless what anyone says as long as the referee has seen and considered such a situation he is right, by the written Laws of the Game he can't be incorrect.


What makes a referee (also covered on a refereeing course) is not about making mistakes/admitting to them, its about being able to justify and have the confidence in yourself as to why you have given that decision, using your knowledge of the Laws of the Game and positioning on the field to read the game (yes referees do that too).
Mr Billy Big centre forward is never going to admit he missed an open goal or fired 6 shots over the bar and it was "his mistake" why they lost, it will be also because they believe the referee has done something.

The only downside point on this, is we do not get to hear the conversations being said in real time with the match officials. The best person to make penalty decision who was in the best position (literally level) was the near-side assistant referee, we do not know, what if anything, he has said to the referee, as he didn't flag for a penalty which he could have done, he even could have asked the referee for VAR to intervene, noting the referees on-field position. VAR didn't step-in within, in this case the 44 seconds that they had.

And to be honest my favourite comment on day as below
"Honestly you sound more clueless with every reply"
Have mentioned this countless times in person, get a whistle, do your course, try and pass a Laws of the game exam, and get out on a pitch, even at youth or Sunday league level and have a go. Those who play football/watch, tend to not understand the Laws of the Game (how many call them rules) or look at any changes as they think they have it nailed down. How many people still call a Reckless challenge/Caution/Yellow card a booking? (I have been refereeing for over 20 years and it was a caution when I first started). That is how out of date so many people are in the media and on commentary/pundits.

Yes we’ve established you’ve read and understood the laws of the game as you insist we call them. But you’ve clearly never played the game at any standard let alone a decent one, so you clearly just don’t understand the game.

But good luck with your refereeing career, I’m sure you’ll piss off many players with your arrogant approach and constantly regurgitating the laws without understanding the game.