Match 50: England vs Denmark - 8pm (bst) ITV1 LIVE FROM WEMBLEY !!!!!!!!!!

[Weezer]

People getting their money’s worth out of the penalty debate I see.

For me, meh, the ref gave a penalty so it’s a penalty. It’s a soft one and it’s annoying when it goes against you but is it significant enough to still be banging on about 2 days later? I wonder how many of these users arguing either way will completely flip flop once the club season starts and something similar goes for or against their team?

[Rob1981]

31 minutes ago, VP. said:

Just watch the highlights on the BBC football site

Pretty much four straight minutes of England peppering the Danish goal and running rings round them after their legs had gone

Denmark only getting into our final third twice in the whole two hours

But it woz the penalty wot won it

[Barry Cartman]

1 minute ago, Rob1981 said:

Pretty much four straight minutes of England peppering the Danish goal and running rings round them after their legs had gone

Denmark only getting into our final third twice in the whole two hours

But it woz the penalty wot won it

Don't forget the laser pen, that distracted him enough that he saved the penalty 

oh and another ball on the pitch, that no one reacted to 

[Lucas]

2 minutes ago, Weezer said:

People getting their money’s worth out of the penalty debate I see.

For me, meh, the ref gave a penalty so it’s a penalty. It’s a soft one and it’s annoying when it goes against you but is it significant enough to still be banging on about 2 days later? I wonder how many of these users arguing either way will completely flip flop once the club season starts and something similar goes for or against their team?

105 minutes of play before hand to score goals and Denmark couldn't score from open play and England's only other goal was Kjaer's own goal (which probably would have gone in via Sterling). 

I get being frustrated by refereeing decisions but you have all this other time in the match to score from open play anyway. If you're going to rest and depend on refereeing decisions then I don't see how you can argue what a team deserves from a result. 

[Federico]

13 ore fa, Marius_R ha scritto:

Last I heard, there over 200,000  signatures for the France - Switzerland game to be replayed, because Sommer didn't stay on the goal line for Mbappe's penalty. 

We're still laughing hard at that here in Italy

[Federico]

42 minuti fa, Weezer ha scritto:

People getting their money’s worth out of the penalty debate I see.

For me, meh, the ref gave a penalty so it’s a penalty. It’s a soft one and it’s annoying when it goes against you but is it significant enough to still be banging on about 2 days later? I wonder how many of these users arguing either way will completely flip flop once the club season starts and something similar goes for or against their team?

There is people I don't want to mention the name but only the nickname like Gunman who still cries for penalties given or not from 30 years ago (and one could wonder how's possible to even remember it)

A couple of days is nothing.

[Wiggins Top Boys]

I just think it's more reasonable for people to come out and say "I can't stand England, I didn't want them to win no matter what and I hate that they won" you don't need to justify that if that's your opinion. But to try and talk about cheating, the fans, the media, easy draw, games at Wembley etc I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that England dont deserve to be in the final on merit other than yourself. I have no doubt should England lose the final the same people will be crowing about some kind of moral Victory even though despite obvious disappointment about not being able to win 99% of England fans will be proud of what we've achieved. More fool you though because whether we win or lose we are going to be even more insufferable next year in Qatar 

[Baptista_8]

There are things Matterface says that proves he doesn't understand the basics of football.

Trippier's misplaced cross as an example: "He's tried to chip the keeper!"

[GunmaN1905]

10 hours ago, ajw10 said:

Big fan of Gunman mistaking Doyle for an Englishman and instead of owning up to it, decided to double down and make himself look more of a fool.

Bottle job imo

Yeah, because the most imprtant thing about that was that one specific tweet is from an Irishman.

Doesn't matter every single English media personality is saying the same thing.

Get a grip.

[Federico]

5 minuti fa, Wiggins Top Boys ha scritto:

I just think it's more reasonable for people to come out and say "I can't stand England, I didn't want them to win no matter what and I hate that they won" you don't need to justify that if that's your opinion. But to try and talk about cheating, the fans, the media, easy draw, games at Wembley etc I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that England dont deserve to be in the final on merit other than yourself. I have no doubt should England lose the final the same people will be crowing about some kind of moral Victory even though despite obvious disappointment about not being able to win 99% of England fans will be proud of what we've achieved. More fool you though because whether we win or lose we are going to be even more insufferable next year in Qatar 

True. At the same way I think it would be more reasonable if people here say that the penalty was just a gift, Sterling dived and they were lucky. Just admit it instead of defending a bad decision to death.

I think this is football, sometimes things go right, sometimes go wrong. Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not. There are matches where ref's decisions are for you, some other matches are not. England deserves a final and it'll be a great final you're gonna win surely, because it's your time.

[Baptista_8]

23 hours ago, Barry Cartman said:

I never thought it was a pen until seeing this, and noticing the two points of contact properly thanks to Doyle's explanation.

[Barry Cartman]

Just now, Baptista_8 said:

I never thought it was a pen until seeing this, and noticing the two points of contact properly thanks to Doyle's explanation.

Even clearer here

but let the bitters carry on, its hilarious 

[Wiggins Top Boys]

6 minutes ago, Federico said:

True. At the same way I think it would be more reasonable if people here say that the penalty was just a gift, Sterling dived and they were lucky. Just admit it instead of defending a bad decision to death.

I think this is football, sometimes things go right, sometimes go wrong. Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not. There are matches where ref's decisions are for you, some other matches are not. England deserves a final and it'll be a great final you're gonna win surely, because it's your time.

Loads of people have said that about the pen though and even that can't be said to be the definitive opinion and VAR basically confirmed that

[Baptista_8]

7 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Yeah, because the most imprtant thing about that was that one specific tweet is from an Irishman.

Doesn't matter every single English media personality is saying the same thing.

Get a grip.

They're not though? Plenty have said it wasn't a pen?

Anyway, we've had several key decisions go against us in major tournaments, way more against us than for us.

[Rob1981]

1 minute ago, Barry Cartman said:

Even clearer here

but let the bitters carry on, its hilarious 

Yeah if you ignore the guy that steps into his path and look at how his hip is bashed (and he only goes down at that point)... don't think it's even that debatable.

Absolutely ridiculous that this has become the main talking point when England played so well again... basicaly dominated for all but about 15 of the 120 minutes.

[themadsheep2001]

5 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

I never thought it was a pen until seeing this, and noticing the two points of contact properly thanks to Doyle's explanation.

This is what we were saying on the night I was personally more on about Jensen than anything. He could definitely be seen to being careless, and by body checking him, could be seen as impeding him by contact. Soft? In my view yes. But by the laws those two things means it can be deemed a direct free kick, which obviously becomes a penalty in the box

[SouthCoastRed]

54 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

But it woz the penalty wot won it

No Rob, you've carried the Nation this far, take the glory and the credit you deserve, you won it 

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

They're not though? Plenty have said it wasn't a pen?

Anyway, we've had several key decisions go against us in major tournaments, way more against us than for us.

A lot of his arguments have been entirely made up. 

[Baptista_8]

Another point: Sterling had dribbled (at speed) leading him to that position, and was then darting past defenders in tight spaces, he's going to be a little off balance by that point.

[skybluedave]

I'm of the opinion it's a very soft pen. But I can't keep up with the rules these days. I see things all the time which I think are never pens in a million years but apparently they are. 

Saying that it's a soft pen but it isn't the worst decision of all time.  And certainly not the travesty or injustice or tainted result some people think it is. If you are going to throw those words it needs to be something a fair bit worse then this. Something like Hand of God/Henry or whatever. Where there is literally no grey area

[Pukey]

6 minutes ago, Barry Cartman said:

Even clearer here

but let the bitters carry on, its hilarious 

I just don't know how people can still cry about VAR after these replays. Why on earth would it overturn that? 

Carry on thinking it's not enough for a pen if you want, but how is it a clear and obvious error? 

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, skybluedave said:

I'm of the opinion it's a very soft pen. But I can't keep up with the rules these days. I see things all the time which I think are never pens in a million years but apparently they are. 

Saying that it's a soft pen but it isn't the worst decision of all time.  And certainly not the travesty or injustice or tainted result some people think it is. If you are going to throw those words it needs to be something a fair bit worse then this. Something like Hand of God/Henry or whatever. Where there is literally no grey area

We've seen things like that given all season as well. So I don't understand this false sense of conspiracy and injustice. 

[Barry Cartman]

4 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

Another point: Sterling had dribbled (at speed) leading him to that position, and was then darting past defenders in tight spaces, he's going to be a little off balance by that point.

The travesty of all this is people are seemingly ignoring the incredible run and touches in the box, I mean, look at that touch at speed with his left foot to push it back into the middle away from the line before he is fouled, all at speed, its filthy 

Player of the Tournament by far

[Constantine]

1 minute ago, Rob1981 said:

Yeah if you ignore the guy that steps into his path and look at how his hip is bashed (and he only goes down at that point)... don't think it's even that debatable.

Absolutely ridiculous that this has become the main talking point when England played so well again... basicaly dominated for all but about 15 of the 120 minutes.

That's how Bayern played against Chelsea in a final few years back. And they lost. Because there were no easy given penalty to push them toward well deserved victory. Because that's football. You don't always get what you deserve. You can't guarantee that England would score and get to the Final had that penalty hasn't been awarded.

And this Danish team picked up a lot of sympathies this tournament. Most of the people cheered for them to get past England. Because people like underdogs. So it's kinda understandable for people to be annoyed after they were knocked out after dubious and very soft penalty that's only given to Juventus in Serie A. (Yes, i'm petty. Sue me. )

I like your squad. It feels to me that they weren't used to their full potential, mostly because of Gareth but he has results going for him and good for the lad for that. Still, reading this thread had me rethinking "loyalties" and going to back Italy in the final. Coming from a person who hate (maybe a strong word; can't stand perhaps) Mancini, that's something...

 

[Rob1981]

9 minutes ago, SouthCoastRed said:

No Rob, you've carried the Nation this far, take the glory and the credit you deserve, you won it 

Win or lose on Sunday, I am just happy that Gareth has proved the doubters wrong.

Give him the job for life imo

[VP.]

7 minutes ago, Pukey said:

I just don't know how people can still cry about VAR after these replays. Why on earth would it overturn that? 

Carry on thinking it's not enough for a pen if you want, but how is it a clear and obvious error? 

Certain VAR only overrules clear and obvious referee mistakes which that decision is not. The one on Kane could just as easily gone our way but none of us (English) were crying over it. 

And I know its only hindsight but I'm fairly certain we would not have spent the last 15mins just playing the ball around at 1-1 so who's to say we wouldn't have gone on and got a goal anyway.

[The_jagster]

20 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Yeah if you ignore the guy that steps into his path and look at how his hip is bashed (and he only goes down at that point)... don't think it's even that debatable.

Absolutely ridiculous that this has become the main talking point when England played so well again... basicaly dominated for all but about 15 of the 120 minutes.

It's ridiculous that the one big chance we had after half time is being talked about?

Fwiw I do think that sitting that deep since half time is asking for trouble and I think the Danish free kick is about as soft but it's obvious why it's a talking point.

[The_jagster]

6 minutes ago, VP. said:

Certain VAR only overrules clear and obvious referee mistakes which that decision is not. The one on Kane could just as easily gone our way but none of us (English) were crying over it. 

And I know its only hindsight but I'm fairly certain we would not have spent the last 15mins just playing the ball around at 1-1 so who's to say we wouldn't have gone on and got a goal anyway.

We would if we lost on pens imo

[Rob1981]

Just now, The_jagster said:

It's ridiculous that the one big chance we had after half time is being talked about?

If it had gone the other way and not been given, do you think England fans would still be bleating on about it "deciding the game" days later?  Or the Kane one?

More likely rueing all the other missed chances.

[Darren Moores Mum]

1 minute ago, The_jagster said:

We would if we lost on pens imo

Maybe it would be a bit of annoyance, maybe a little upset. It wouldn't be ranting and raving 24+ hours later like the supposed neutrals have been doing. Next level crazy.

I don't think I've ever come close to that nonsense with any team I support, let alone a game that i'm 'neutral' for.

[VP.]

12 minutes ago, The_jagster said:

We would if we lost on pens imo

Na we'd have gone on the attack more and won before then, the Danes were there for the taking in extra time.

[Darren Moores Mum]

1 minute ago, VP. said:

Na we'd have gone on the attack more and won before then, the Danes were there for the taking in extra time.

Yeah, it's an impossible argument to have because none of us know how it would turn out, but I feel we'd have still scored before pens. That 2nd half of ET was a procession and limited attempts to get shots away, apart from right at the end with Sterling. There were gaps aplenty but we were running to the corners, or passing it around for 2 minutes. The Danes were dead on their feet.

Edited July 9, 2021 by ginnybob

[The_jagster]

19 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

If it had gone the other way and not been given, do you think England fans would still be bleating on about it "deciding the game" days later?  Or the Kane one?

More likely rueing all the other missed chances.

The football media do about that Lampard goal tbh, all that Ronaldo wink ***** so a definite yes.

7 minutes ago, VP. said:

Na we'd have gone on the attack more and won before then, the Danes were there for the taking in extra time.

We might have done, but Denmark would have defended deeper. Even though they still had 11 men the Spain Switzerland game followed a similar pattern and it still went to pens.

[Marius_R]

4 minutes ago, The_jagster said:

The football media do about that Lampard goal tbh, all that Ronaldo wink ***** so a definite yes. 

That Lampard goal was disgraceful tbf, you can shout daylight robbery about that. Sterling's penalty doesn't come close to that.

[Baptista_8]

16 minutes ago, VP. said:

Na we'd have gone on the attack more and won before then, the Danes were there for the taking in extra time.

That wasn't his point though. He's saying IF we'd have gone out, we'd be talking about the decision.

I agree that we'd still have won in ET.

[The_jagster]

4 minutes ago, Marius_R said:

That Lampard goal was disgraceful tbf, you can shout daylight robbery about that. Sterling's penalty doesn't come close to that.

I agree that's black and white, I can also reference two disallowed Sol Campbell goals. We always talk about refereeing decisions when we go out.

[enigmatic]

Think there's a difference between Danes still questioning the decision two days (or years) afterwards which is normal and non-Danes coming up with ludicrous conspiracy theories

[Rob1981]

When we talk Euro 2004, I always blame Sven's hapless substitutions and his decision to try and defend a 1-0 lead for 87 minutes.  Heskey on for Rooney instead of Vassell and we run away with it.  The disallowed goal is annoying but you don't hear people arguing we definitely would have won if not for that.  At least not in the way that people now seem to be arguing now that we definitely wouldn't have won against Denmark.

[ryan045]

1 hour ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Yeah, because the most imprtant thing about that was that one specific tweet is from an Irishman.

Doesn't matter every single English media personality is saying the same thing.

Get a grip.

Gary Neville said it wasn’t a penalty.

[enigmatic]

4 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

When we talk Euro 2004, I always blame Sven's hapless substitutions and his decision to try and defend a 1-0 lead for 87 minutes.  Heskey on for Rooney instead of Vassell and we run away with it.  The disallowed goal is annoying but you don't hear people arguing we definitely would have won if not for that.  At least not in the way that people now seem to be arguing now that we definitely wouldn't have won against Denmark.

tbh the disallowed goal would have made it 2-1 to us with a minute left to play, so if people aren't arguing we'd definitely have won if it was allowed to stand, it's only because that bit is too obvious to need pointing out  

[craigcwwe]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

People getting their money’s worth out of the penalty debate I see.

For me, meh, the ref gave a penalty so it’s a penalty. It’s a soft one and it’s annoying when it goes against you but is it significant enough to still be banging on about 2 days later? I wonder how many of these users arguing either way will completely flip flop once the club season starts and something similar goes for or against their team?

It was a soft penalty and you'd be annoyed if that went against you but there is contact, twice and ultimately it's a penalty, Sterling was fouled. 

1 hour ago, Federico said:

True. At the same way I think it would be more reasonable if people here say that the penalty was just a gift, Sterling dived and they were lucky. Just admit it instead of defending a bad decision to death.

I think this is football, sometimes things go right, sometimes go wrong. Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not. There are matches where ref's decisions are for you, some other matches are not. England deserves a final and it'll be a great final you're gonna win surely, because it's your time.

There's been many posts in this thread saying it was a soft penalty, even some England fans said it shouldn't have been given, if you've read the thread you'll know that. 

Agree with the second part. Football and decisions are always going to be subjective. You'll never please anyone with every decision. 

[Nordan]

17 minutes ago, craigcwwe said:

You'll never please anyone with every decision. 

I'm done with the penalty fwiw, shame it was so badly executed Schmeichel couldn't deflect it to the side. England were the best team overall anyway.

[skybluedave]

32 minutes ago, ryan045 said:

Gary Neville said it wasn’t a penalty.

And Shearer 

[Barry Cartman]

and Carragher 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Analog said:

The highlights skip straight to Kane's penalty.  That's all I'm saying.  It's legitimately very weird, and if there are legal reasons for it then I still think it's very stupid they've set up VAR highlights this way.  I'm just trying to remember highlights from back in the day in US sports, and how they would show replays forwards and backwards, but here they legitimately skipped over the entire incident, just straight from one highlight to a Kane penalty highlight.  

Just gone through our highlights package here and it's on there just fine. I have read a lot of Americans moaning about how contentious Footie issues are edited out frequently in the US. For instance quite a few of the managers interviews will have cherry picked comments whilst editing out things like for instance Klopps complaints about scheduling and that this frequently happens for controversial decisions too. No idea why they do it though.

[Pompeyboyz]

I see all the talk about the penalty, which in my honest opinion was contentious, but no one really talks about the stats.

England dominated Denmark and had it not been for a certain goalkeeper, we would have won much clearer with or without a penalty. 

[skybluedave]

To be fair quite a few of the fouls were Kane crumbling to the floor at the mere sight of a Dane 

[The_jagster]

4 minutes ago, Pompeyboyz said:

I see all the talk about the penalty, which in my honest opinion was contentious, but no one really talks about the stats.

England dominated Denmark and had it not been for a certain goalkeeper, we would have won much clearer with or without a penalty. 

Have you watched the Spain games?

[Barry Cartman]

7 minutes ago, Pompeyboyz said:

I see all the talk about the penalty, which in my honest opinion was contentious, but no one really talks about the stats.

England dominated Denmark and had it not been for a certain goalkeeper, we would have won much clearer with or without a penalty. 

 

2 minutes ago, The_jagster said:

Have you watched the Spain games?

[Rob1981]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

tbh the disallowed goal would have made it 2-1 to us with a minute left to play, so if people aren't arguing we'd definitely have won if it was allowed to stand, it's only because that bit is too obvious to need pointing out  

Was it?  In my head that Sol Campbell disallowed goal was midway through extra time. Shows how much I have dwelt on it definitely definitely being the reason we went out