Round of 16: Croatia vs Denmark

[Rio_V]

4 minutes ago, TM said:

if Croatia play with some tempo, they will beat Russia

Russia will just play for pens. 

[kpain16]

1 minute ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Also, Rebić has improved immensely over the past year.

He's an absolute tank on the wing.

If he improves his first touch and decision making, will be a class player.

Indeed. It’s unreal how much he has improved. Such a different player to the ones we produce. Our system usually ditches players that lack technical quality to their game but he turned up good against all odds. Such a beast physically.

[Baptista_8]

1 minute ago, kpain16 said:

Indeed. It’s unreal how much he has improved. Such a different player to the ones we produce. Our system usually ditches players that lack technical quality to their game but he turned up good against all odds. Such a beast physically.

Looked to have a fair bit of skill as well.

[Cedrik]

Just now, Rio_V said:

Russia will just play for pens. 

Exactly this. And it will be a miracle if they would get away with that a second and a third time. It was also that they had nothing to lose against Spain that played a huge part imo. Against Croatia that aspect will play not such a big role, once you've beaten a side like Spain it gets difficult to keep crawling into the underdog position and also the people will get a certain expectation. 

Would be good for the match to see an early goal from Croatia, then Russia must come. I think in attack Russia is better than they think they are. 

[craigcwwe]

Bilic has been in a mood all broadcast really. 

Someone remind him his nation has just made the Quarter Final of a WC. 

[Darius1998]

Rebic improved a lot mentally under Kovac. Might still have the odd over the top tackle in him but he has ironed out a lot of his flaws.

[JD nawrat]

40 minutes ago, TM said:

they were showing his reactions to the penalties and he said "why did you have to show that? seriously" which led to Dixon and the presenter laughing awkwardly and then moving on to the next item for the Russia/Spain game

compare that to Drogba the other day with him, Shearer and Lineker laughing away at his recording

To be fair they were showing his Euro team failing years back, not exactly a happy memory for him, unlike Drogba celebrating France winning etc. 

[westy8chimp]

58 minutes ago, Mr Wallin said:

 

 

 

Oh for ****s sake people. There has been ridiculous amounts of complaints for years about the so called triple punishment. And now when the rules are changed you moan about that. no pleasing people is there...     

You need to sit down and have a long hard think. Tripple punishment? In that incident the defender has gained an advantage... No punishment at all. If a player is two yards out with open goal and you bring him down from behind... How is it punishment to be a penalty and no red? Evem penalty and red in that instance favours the offender. 

Crazy rule. Needs a rewrite. 

[GunmaN1905]

1 minute ago, westy8chimp said:

You need to sit down and have a long hard think. Tripple punishment? In that incident the defender has gained an advantage... No punishment at all. If a player is two yards out with open goal and you bring him down from behind... How is it punishment to be a penalty and no red? Evem penalty and red in that instance favours the offender. 

Crazy rule. Needs a rewrite. 

They should change it to be similar to offside.

Offside is two opposition players in front of you, including the goalkeeper.

This one also should be two players including the goalkeeper.

Red+penalty is dumb in situations that would end up in 1on1 shot against the keeper. So a penalty is pretty similar to a clear cut situation.

But when a goalkeeper is out of the picture and the guy is about to tap it in, there's basically no punishment for the defender. Only a potential reward if the penalty gets saved.

[Pukey]

The reason it's not a red is because a penalty is a clear goal scoring opportunity. You can't deny a clear goal scoring opportunity if you're giving away a penalty, so a red on top of that has been considered for years to be harsh and hence the change in the rule.

I know people are saying "well it was a tap in before the defender fouled him!" and perhaps it could be argued that needs to be looked into and discussed, but there's been far too many open goals missed to ever say it was a "100% goal." At this moment, with the rules as they are, it was a completely perfect decision from the referee.

[JD nawrat]

Just now, Pukey said:

The reason it's not a red is because a penalty is a clear goal scoring opportunity. You can't deny a clear goal scoring opportunity if you're giving away a penalty, so a red on top of that has been considered for years to be harsh and hence the change in the rule.

I know people are saying "well it was a tap in before the defender fouled him!" and perhaps it could be argued that needs to be looked into and discussed, but there's been far too many open goals missed to ever say it was a "100% goal." At this moment, with the rules as they are, it was a completely perfect decision from the referee.

A clear scoring opportunity being 4 yards out with the GK lying on the deck 10 yards behind is not the same as taking a shot from the pen spot with the GK on his feet. 

[Pukey]

As I said earlier, that's a debate regarding the intricacies of the rule. The referee still made the correct decision in this instance.

[georginho_juventusygr]

Red card and a penalty means going back to the previous rule. Which everyone had problems with.

[Cedrik]

So Kasper Schmeichel thinks they referee did not like Denmark?  Wtf? Strange and unnecessary comments after such a heroic performance. 

[HUNT3R]

3 minutes ago, Cedrik said:

So Kasper Schmeichel thinks they referee did not like Denmark?  Wtf? Strange and unnecessary comments after such a heroic performance. 

He was asking one of the assistant referees (during the shootout) "why is he against us?", just after that stutter step penalty.

[Orzelek]

So close, Denmark  

 

In general it's been a much better tournament for Denmark then I had expected - Åge Hareide has really done an amazing job since he took over two years ago. I don't understand though why Jørgensen got to take the last penalty, as he's been dreadful the Whole tournament. Was watching the games with some amtes and even before the shootout started, I did call that Jørgensen will miss if he got to take a penalty.

 

And Kasper Schmeichel - what a brilliant game and generally a great tournament from his side  

[Cedrik]

I also did not really understand why Dolberg wasn't given a minute to show something. Jørgensen was indeed pretty average this tournament even though he had one nice assist on Eriksen against Australia. I think Denmark did okay, but they played pretty defensive when I think that wasn't always necessary seen the interesting players they have in attack. You also saw yesterday evening that when Sisto came up Eriksen started to have a better game. 

Seems to be a bit of a Scandinavian thing that defensive football (even though in general it's getting more and more popular), not completely sure why that is so appealing to those countries. 

[Razzler]

Ah, man, Denmark, that shoot out was there for the taking. It was England level throwing away an advantage in a shoot out!

[georginho_juventusygr]

Should have let Denmark through just for Peter Schmeichel's passion.

[Shortie]

17 minutes ago, georginho_juventusygr said:

Should have let Denmark through just for Peter Schmeichel's passion.

Was nice to see, him in the stands watching his boy do good! 

[Barry Cartman]

10 hours ago, Mr Wallin said:

 

 

 

Oh for ****s sake people. There has been ridiculous amounts of complaints for years about the so called triple punishment. And now when the rules are changed you moan about that. no pleasing people is there...     

Come on, its a different matter when its an open goal, at least in a normal situation they've still got to beat the goalie

It should have been a Red

[Bunkerossian]

10 hours ago, DB08 said:

Rebic improved a lot mentally under Kovac. Might still have the odd over the top tackle in him but he has ironed out a lot of his flaws.

Overdribbling is a massive issue, still. To be honest though, Perišić was also guilty of it, when quick, low crosses were the right choice. Mental effects of fatigue? I personally didn't want Modrić playing vs. Iceland, and I was right. Fatigue set in him early, and we were outrun by the Danes. Outmuscled as well.

Props to Hareide for going for that Knudsen guy. After this WC, throw-ins will be taken more seriously.

[The_jagster]

2 hours ago, Cedrik said:

I also did not really understand why Dolberg wasn't given a minute to show something. Jørgensen was indeed pretty average this tournament even though he had one nice assist on Eriksen against Australia. I think Denmark did okay, but they played pretty defensive when I think that wasn't always necessary seen the interesting players they have in attack. You also saw yesterday evening that when Sisto came up Eriksen started to have a better game. 

Seems to be a bit of a Scandinavian thing that defensive football (even though in general it's getting more and more popular), not completely sure why that is so appealing to those countries. 

Sisto was awful Vs Australia though, I can understand why he wasn't starting. Jørgensen looked like he'd never score but he had a bit more about him in hold up play, I think really Eriksen is the only player of any class in the team which explains the defensive football, although they did at least venture forward yesterday.

[Boltman]

Bilic slapping down mega-bellend Martin o'Neill 

[G-Man11]

Haven't read the thread but I assume it wasn't just me who felt like both GK's got away with a **** ton of moving off their line?

[Weiry]

1 hour ago, G-Man11 said:

Haven't read the thread but I assume it wasn't just me who felt like both GK's got away with a **** ton of moving off their line?

also came here to post about this. why didn't the liney speak up? If this rule applies in the lower reaches of Australian football then it should also apply to the biggest stage of them all!  

[Orzelek]

8 hours ago, Cedrik said:

I also did not really understand why Dolberg wasn't given a minute to show something. Jørgensen was indeed pretty average this tournament even though he had one nice assist on Eriksen against Australia. I think Denmark did okay, but they played pretty defensive when I think that wasn't always necessary seen the interesting players they have in attack. You also saw yesterday evening that when Sisto came up Eriksen started to have a better game. 

Seems to be a bit of a Scandinavian thing that defensive football (even though in general it's getting more and more popular), not completely sure why that is so appealing to those countries. 

 

Dolberg has had a poor season and has also played rather bad for Denmark lately, when given a chance. The player to put on should've been Bendtner! I know he can be a fool, but he's actually scoring goals and in general always has played well for Denmark.

[Baptista_8]

Was Bendtner injured for the WC or is he just not in the frame these days?

[westy8chimp]

14 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

Was Bendtner injured for the WC or is he just not in the frame these days?

injured.

11,000 + signed a petition for the WC to be postponed until he was fit again  

[Orzelek]

He had a small injury and was doubtful for the first game, so Hareide decided not to take him with. He got fit and has already played 2-3 games for Rosenborg since the WC started

[sebsy]

I know I'm late to the party but kept forgetting to mention it until now.

That Denmark player not bening sent off for conceding that penalty is awful. I'm not saying the ref got it wrong, but that the rules as they are are wrong. I don't want to see a player sent off any more than anyone else does, and Im all for the rule change making it a penalty and a yellow card so there isn't a double punishment as such, but I think that in situations like this one there should be room for manoeuvre to give a red card.

When the player has gone past the keeper, is in the center of the goal, 4 yards out and literally can't miss but for being brought down from behind it should be a red card imo. 

Imo Denmark were in no way punished in that situation. They went from being a definite goal down, to only being 50/50 of being a goal down and still with all their players. Croatia obviously went from a definite goal to only a 50/50 chance of scoring. In that instance it has to be a red, so that if the penalty is missed then at least Denmark have actually been punished in some way.

Denmark basically gained an advantage by giving away that penalty.

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, sebsy said:

I know I'm late to the party but kept forgetting to mention it until now.

That Denmark player not bening sent off for conceding that penalty is awful. I'm not saying the ref got it wrong, but that the rules as they are are wrong. I don't want to see a player sent off any more than anyone else does, and Im all for the rule change making it a penalty and a yellow card so there isn't a double punishment as such, but I think that in situations like this one there should be room for manoeuvre to give a red card.

When the player has gone past the keeper, is in the center of the goal, 4 yards out and literally can't miss but for being brought down from behind it should be a red card imo. 

Imo Denmark were in no way punished in that situation. They went from being a definite goal down, to only being 50/50 of being a goal down and still with all their players. Croatia obviously went from a definite goal to only a 50/50 chance of scoring. In that instance it has to be a red, so that if the penalty is missed then at least Denmark have actually been punished in some way.

Denmark basically gained an advantage by giving away that penalty.

The rule change isn't just for a penalty and yellow card, its only a yellow card if a genuine attempt was made to win the ball. He was 2 centimetres away from a perfect tackle. Very different to whoever got the red card for simply pushing the defender over in the back in the other game after. The rule is in to punish cynicism while allowing for general player

[sebsy]

I just don't agree that it should be that simple. He may have been close to making the tackle, but from what I remember the tackle was from behind anyway. He knew what he was doing and that he was never winning the ball.

[GunmaN1905]

As I already wrote, it should be similar to offside.

Two players in front of the ball, including the goalkeeper.

So if you commit a foul when a goalkeeper is already beaten and it's basically a certain goal, then it should be a red.

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, sebsy said:

I just don't agree that it should be that simple. He may have been close to making the tackle, but from what I remember the tackle was from behind anyway. He knew what he was doing and that he was never winning the ball.

That's not true though. he was incredibly close to winning the ball, and his eyes were completely on the ball, he doesn't try to climb over the player at all. The fact that the tackle is from behind doesn't matter, as he could still have won it, and very nearly did. Saying he was never going to win the ball isn't a true assessment. You might disagree with the rules, but he absolutely had a decent chance to win theball

[sebsy]

I know he was very close to making the tackle, and having just watched the incident it was a little further out than I though. However, I still believe the rules should be so that a red card is given in this instance, and no matter how close he was, I don't think he could really have gotten any closer considering he was at full stretch. I always thought any tackle from behind was an illegal challenge.

As GunmaN says, and I said before, I believe that in cases where it is a certain goal but for a foul (or complete ineptness from the attacking player), it should be a red card. Denmark actually improved their position by giving away that penalty.

 

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, sebsy said:

I know he was very close to making the tackle, and having just watched the incident it was a little further out than I though. However, I still believe the rules should be so that a red card is given in this instance, and no matter how close he was, I don't think he could really have gotten any closer considering he was at full stretch. I always thought any tackle from behind was an illegal challenge.

As GunmaN says, and I said before, I believe that in cases where it is a certain goal but for a foul (or complete ineptness from the attacking player), it should be a red card. Denmark actually improved their position by giving away that penalty.

 

That's fair enough in saying the rule needs to adapt a bit, but you very rarely get moments like that where they are totally free. Tackle from behind is more about if you go through them, rather than trying to go round, Vincent Kompany style

[sebsy]

Yeah, that's all I'm saying. I agree that that a yellow was correct with the rules as they are, just that the rules should allow for a red in certain circumstances.

Still, when you still have that rule where a goalkeeper kicking a goalkick to a defender and underhitting it, and the defender playing the ball inside the box to get out of jail free, I guess we can't have everything. Actually, I'd love to see a team one day when a goal up, just constantly kick the ball and have the defender play it inside the box resulting in a never ending cycle of retaken goalkicks and coasting to a 1-0 victory...

[m_fenton]

12 minutes ago, sebsy said:

I always thought any tackle from behind was an illegal challenge.

This might be one of the interesting developments and evolution of play from VAR. The way referees have generally been applying the rules for years now has been "tackle from behind = foul (99%)". However, VAR has already been used in Colombia's favour to overturn such a decision - because it was well executed.

So long as the tackle doesn't endanger an opponent, and gets the ball cleanly as if tackling from the side, there's nothing in the rules about a tackle from behind being different to any other tackle.

 

As for the hypothetical, I'm guessing you know that that wouldn't happen 

Quote

 

Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by:

• appearing to take a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to a team-mate to take
• delaying leaving the field of play when being substituted
• excessively delaying a restart
• kicking or carrying the ball away, or provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play
• taking a free kick from the wrong position to force a retake

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

[sebsy]

Of course I know that wouldn't and couldn't happen

I'm just picturing some ridiculous Benny Hill type scenario where they just keep doing it over and over again.

[sebsy]

I just generally dislike the things players get away with, such as taking a throwin 10 yards up from where it went out.

If I was a referee I would brutally enforce that 4th bullet point. There is absolutely no reason for a player, when a throwin, free kick etc... has been given to the opposition for the player to pick the ball up, carry it away 10 yards, and then throw it back. Literally no need to do that, but it is done all the time. I would book any player that takes the ball with them even a yard. Just don't touch it, it is your opponents ball, leave it alone.

[enigmatic]

I think the main question is how you define "attempt to win the ball". Sure, he tried to get a touch on the ball after deciding to make the tackle, but I'm not sure he decides to attempt a tackle inside the box from a position with as little chance of cleanly winning the ball if there isn't an open goal.