UEFA Euro 2021 But Yet Somehow Still Euro 2020 Finals

[PeterJB]

Scoring two minutes in threw everyone off a bit I think cause I was going into that expecting us to lose rather than then having to play the waiting game for the entire match. In short, Italy were better. They made far more substitutions because they could. As well as this England team is working, most of the best players get used up in the starting line-up. Sterling and Kane were nowhere today, which is unsurprising since they played every minute in the tournament. England improved in extra time but those really were some questionable choices for penalties. If you're gonna have Saka don't put him on last!

It's disappointing obviously but these past few years England has exceeded everyone's expectations. The World Cup is only a year away so we reset and go again. It was a good pick-up for the nation, and Lord knows we need it.

 

[andrea]

God saw the engerlish celebrating some poor german kid crying in the stadium

God never forgets

 

[Famine]

Chielini pulling Saka is not a red card. It would be if it was closer to the box, next to the midfield is not.

Violent conduct doesn't care where you are on the pitch.

 

[Brend]

Bonucci and Chellini were incredible all tournament. What a terrifying duo.

 

[Gas12]

God saw the engerlish celebrating some poor german kid crying in the stadium

God never forgets

If that were true (i don't believe in God) then Germany would be in far worse shape...you know...history..

As of the time of this reply... I'm still trying to explain my dad why Southgate put both Rashford and Saka in the team being afro-english using the WHOLE French team as an example... 🙄🙄

Nerves got them... As simple as that...

We don't say 'afro English', they ARE English.

 

[StPeterMartyr]

WOOOOO-HOOOOO!!!

 

[girabyt3]

We don't say 'afro English', they ARE English.

I know that ... I said it like that since they are african-descendant, and I don't want to sound racist by calling them black or anything ✌️

Unlike some idiots who are going to harass them due to the pens...

 

[Jezza819]

What is the procedure for penalty shootouts? Does the manager submit a list to the officails of who's taking penalty shots and in which order are they going in?

 

[DK]

Even more so because the three of them are Black...

You just know that morning talk shows are trying to get hold of Farage so he can recite catchphrases like "less knees, more patriotism!" for gammons to regurgitate.

 

[daan]

Violent conduct doesn't care where you are on the pitch.

True, but pulling someone's shirt is not violent conduct.

What Chiellini did there was a ****house professional foul and was deserving of a yellow but it certainly wasn't a red.

 

[Whitestar]

And so it ends

 

[dacc10]

Exactly.

 

[Moglet]

I know that ... I said it like that since they are african-descendant, and I don't want to sound racist by calling them black or anything ✌️

Unlike some idiots who are going to harass them due to the pens...

Calling someone black isn't racist. If it was then Black Lives Matter would be a very badly worded group.

 

[Famine]

True, but pulling someone's shirt is not violent conduct.

What Chiellini did there was a ****house professional foul and was deserving of a yellow but it certainly wasn't a red.

It pretty much depends on perspective. The official IFAB direction on violent conduct is:

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

The problem is how one defines excessive, and there isn't really applicable guidance to that - but an earlier piece of guidance on denying a goal-scoring opportunity in the penalty area does give us a line:

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

That would suggest that pulling a player back by their shirt with no attempt made to play the ball should be considered violent conduct; either would be a dismissal in the event of a penalty being awarded, so both stacked together should meet the test of what violent conduct is. And it's not like it was a straightforward shirt pull either - he fully collared him, and that's assault if you do it in the street to someone.

I'm surprised Saka didn't end up with whiplash.


And then there's Jorginho, who was very lucky to be able to have Pickford save his penalty:

​

 

[redhed17]

Can someone explain why players still stop before kicking the ball for the penalty? Every time they stop, the keeper saves it. All tournament.

Players are not allowed to stop on their 'run up' whilst taking a penalty. I think it is has to be a 'continuous forward movement'. The theory for stuttering the run up is to entice the keeper to move first, to give the kicker the option of then kicking the opposite side. Jorginho was being hailed as one of the best penalty takers of all time after the Semi Final with his 'great technique'. Just shows how the hyperbole is nowadays. If he had never missed a penalty maybe, but that wasn't the case, and is certainly not after this tournament.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[redhed17]

A disappointing result for England fans, if few else. Southgate being hailed a technical genius one minute, and castigated for his decisions, or lack of, after the final emphasises the extreme, (imho) opinions from fans and media at the moment. Some media can sometimes flip flop their pov during a game.

For me, Southgate did a great job overall. I hoped to do well beforehand, but I did not think we would have got to the final, so to get there and lose on penalties is a great result, if not the best result.

I thought the final was lost because of Southgate's lack of use of the bench. Mancini was seemingly making changes to win the game, whereas Southgate didn't seem to want to make changes in case it turned out negative. I get the same feeling with Klopp sometimes. That England lost it, the lack of positive changes becomes more significant as a reason the game wasn't won in 90, or 120 mins, but if we had won, it would not have been seen as as much of a problem. Winning covers a lot, including some game decisions, or lack of when it comes to substitutions, earlier in the tournament.

If he was "bringing on Rashford and Sancho on for the penalties" as the commentator on ITV said, then he brought them on wayyy too late, and both barely got a touch before being asked to take a penalty. There were essentially taking penalties 'cold'.

Outside of the game I am once again ashamed of the trouble caused by supposed England supporters, who with no other fans to fight with decided to fight themselves and cause trouble, violence and damage for no reason other than being a***holes as far as I can see, and all need to be found and prosecuted for what they have done.

The same has to happen for anyone who has racially abused any on the England players online. Find then, name them, prosecute them, ban then from all social media.

It has to be said that the 'subtle' messages sent out by the UK Government does nothing does nothing to discourage racists, and indeed can be seen as 'encouragement' of those views by some. But that is for a different thread on a different forum.

 

[Team THRT Drift]

fully collared him, and that's assault if you do it in the street to someone.

Go slide tackle someone on the street and see what happens. I love this logic

I'm surprised Saka didn't end up with whiplash.

Of course he wouldn't, part of the game is diving into someone's challenge. So while it was a hard pull, Saka's lean into the challenge made it look even more violent.

Why do you think Chiellini immediately came back to check on him? He was just as surprised as the rest of world watching. Had he seriously meant to do harm he would run off and cheer with his team.

 

[Famine]

Go slide tackle someone on the street and see what happens. I love this logic

This is nonsensical reasoning.

Go slide tackle someone in football without any attempt at playing the ball and see what happens. It's an act of assault stripped of the purpose of the game - which is violent conduct and a sending-off offence. As above, so below.

Of course he wouldn't, part of the game is diving into someone's challenge. So while it was a hard pull, Saka's lean into the challenge made it look even more violent.

He was being prevented from moving by his neck. What a play-acting baby, right?

Why do you think Chiellini immediately came back to check on him?

To kid the officials into not sending him off.

 

[redhed17]

What is the procedure for penalty shootouts? Does the manager submit a list to the officails of who's taking penalty shots and in which order are they going in?

For most penalty shoot outs I have seen the list of players taking penalties is drawn up after the game because of the need to take into account who is still on the pitch, their physical condition, their confidence levels, and it seems in England's case, how well the players had been taking penalties in training.

The initial 5 names from each team at least will have to be given to officials. Not sure about the players after number five, if it gets that far. But all players on the field at the end of the game will take one kick if needed until the game is won in 'sudden death' after the initial five penalties. And I and think it starts going going back through those that were on the pitch at the end until a winner is produced. No doubt there are rules and regs as to when names have to be given beyond that initial five names.

 

[Team THRT Drift]

This is nonsensical reasoning.

On par with your hyperbole.

Go slide tackle someone in football without any attempt at playing the ball and see what happens. It's an act of assault stripped of the purpose of the game - which is violent conduct and a sending-off offence. As above, so below.

Right. Chiellini played for the ball, got on the wrong side and conceded a foul. No assault evident.

He was being prevented from moving by his neck. What a play-acting baby, right?

He was prevented from moving by his shirt being grabbed. It's better to give up the run and fall into the pull then fight it and get hurt.

It would've been a good counterattack and I feel for him, especially after making him take the last penalty but a tactical foul is a tactical foul.

To kid the officials into not sending him off.

Possibly. Still a yellow, as far as that run is concerned, not a red. Nowhere near 16yd or the penalty box, and Chiellini was not the last man.

 

[Famine]

On par with your hyperbole.

No, it's not even close. The fact you think it's hyperbolic underlines how badly you misunderstood the concept.

The point of football is in the name. It's the round, usually white thing. If you aim for the round white thing and miss, it's typically regarded by the laws of the game as bad, but not awful. If you don't aim for the round white thing and instead commit an act that would, in the street, qualify as assault (or worse), it's regarded as awful. That includes collaring someone to choke them or - to use your odd example - slide tackling them without an attempt to play the ball.

Chiellini committed an act that would, in the street, qualify as assault (or worse), while not aiming for the round white thing. This is what makes it violent conduct, and that's the concept, top to bottom.

Possibly. Still a yellow, as far as that run is concerned, not a red. Nowhere near 16yd or the penalty box, and Chiellini was not the last man.

Violent conduct does not care where you are on the pitch, and IFAB makes no reference whatsoever to the "last man", only that "the location and number of defenders" should be considered if the offence is regarded as denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity:

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES
A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
• serious foul play
• biting or spitting at someone
• violent conduct
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)
• receiving a second caution in the same match
• entering the video operation room (VOR)

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.


DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence

The following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

The only question here is whether you regarding yanking a kid back by his neck to be "excessive force". If you don't, fine.

 

[Woodybobs]

That would suggest that pulling a player back by their shirt with no attempt made to play the ball should be considered violent conduct;

I don't think it does. A red card issued for those offences would be because the offender has denied a goal scoring opportunity by committing a foul, not for violent conduct. In the event of it happening in the penalty area the punishment has been deemed excessive (penalty, red card, and suspension), so the rule changed to the one you quoted which meant that an attempt to play the ball would be punished with a yellow card. This rule does not apply to offences committed outside the box.

Of course it could still be deemed violent conduct, but it's totally at the referee's discretion. I thought yellow was fair.

 

[daan]

It pretty much depends on perspective. The official IFAB direction on violent conduct is:

The problem is how one defines excessive, and there isn't really applicable guidance to that - but an earlier piece of guidance on denying a goal-scoring opportunity in the penalty area does give us a line:

That would suggest that pulling a player back by their shirt with no attempt made to play the ball should be considered violent conduct; either would be a dismissal in the event of a penalty being awarded, so both stacked together should meet the test of what violent conduct is. And it's not like it was a straightforward shirt pull either - he fully collared him, and that's assault if you do it in the street to someone.

I'm surprised Saka didn't end up with whiplash.


And then there's Jorginho, who was very lucky to be able to have Pickford save his penalty:

​

But it was a hilariously blatant, pantomime foul. It wasn't excessive or brutal. Saka just got back up and carried on, and you know what footballers are like for milking "injuries". It also didn't deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity as there were still 2 Italian defenders in the way. Yellow card was the fairest and obvious outcome.

Chiellini was just employing the old (mostly Italian) defender mantra. The ball can pass. The player can pass. But they are not passing together.

Jorginho should have been off though.

 

[Famine]

This rule does not apply to offences committed outside the box.

Indeed, but it creates a line where IFAB considers what a yellow and what a red should be which isn't explicit in the Violent Conduct section.

The line there is shown as holding/pulling/pushing rather than attempting to play the ball. That shows us that IFAB considers attempts to hold back players without playing the ball as worse than fouls wherein the ball was played.

In Violent Conduct there's no line shown, just "excessive force", which is very much open to interpretation. However, if we apply IFAB's own interpretation of the previous section it should be clear that pulling a player back (by his neck, no less) without any attempt to play the ball should meet IFAB's standards for excessive force.

There's also a section that deals with this under "Direct Free Kick" that seems to draw the same line between foul play and violent conduct:

If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

Which raises the question of whether Chiellini's... "challenge" was conducted with disregard to Saka's safety (and cautionable) or actually endangering it (and dismissable).

Going for the ball without caring if you hurt your opponent would seem to be the former, but not going for the ball and performing a separate action you know could hurt your opponent would seem to be the latter.

But it was a hilariously blatant, pantomime foul. It wasn't excessive or brutal. Saka just got back up and carried on, and you know what footballers are like for milking "injuries". It also didn't deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity as there were still 2 Italian defenders in the way. Yellow card was the fairest and obvious outcome.

It was an absolutely brutal piece of assholery, that's for sure - but it doesn't need to deny a goal-scoring opportunity to be a red. Simply being excessive force without playing the ball is enough.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Sending off a Team's Captain in a European Championship final for a tenuous Red Card offence? I doubt any referee would be brave enough to do that because it's a "get-flamed-either-way" kind of decision.

Jorginho absolutely should have gone, I think him getting the ball before all of Grealish probably just kept him on the pitch.

 

[Famine]

Sending off a Team's Captain in a European Championship final for a tenuous Red Card offence? I doubt any referee would be brave enough to do that because it's a "get-flamed-either-way" kind of decision.

Which is a problem. Where's the likes of Collina when you need them (although he wouldn't have been allowed to ref it 😄 )

Jorginho absolutely should have gone, I think him getting the ball before all of Grealish probably just kept him on the pitch.

I wasn't paying close attention, but VAR didn't even review it as far as I understand it?

 

[Team THRT Drift]

No, it's not even close. The fact you think it's hyperbolic underlines how badly you misunderstood the concept.

The point of football is in the name. It's the round, usually white thing. If you aim for the round white thing and miss, it's typically regarded by the laws of the game as bad, but not awful. If you don't aim for the round white thing and instead commit an act that would, in the street, qualify as assault (or worse), it's regarded as awful. That includes collaring someone to choke them or - to use your odd example - slide tackling them without an attempt to play the ball.

Chiellini committed an act that would, in the street, qualify as assault (or worse), while not aiming for the round white thing. This is what makes it violent conduct, and that's the concept, top to bottom.

Except you're still claiming he never played for the usually white, in this case silver, thing. He did play for it, got in front of the striker to stop a counterattack but got on the wrong side. That was his only mistake.

What happens after the initial defence is fair game.

He didn't sneak up behind Saka at a free kick position and choke him out. He grabbed his shirt. Saka took the fall to avoid injury.

Had Chiellini properly bodied him, he wouldn't have popped back up, let alone sit up and ask for a foul. He would've been out cold or gasping for air.

Violent conduct does not care where you are on the pitch, and IFAB makes no reference whatsoever to the "last man", only that "the location and number of defenders" should be considered if the offence is regarded as denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity:

It wasn't an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

The only question here is whether you regarding yanking a kid back by his neck to be "excessive force". If you don't, fine

So what is he, a kid or a professional footballer? Or do you throw labels willy-nilly to fit your narrative?

 

[Woodybobs]

However, if we apply IFAB's own interpretation of the previous section it should be clear that pulling a player back (by his neck, no less) without any attempt to play the ball should meet IFAB's standards for excessive force.

Only if the player uses excessive force. Pulling a player back without using excessive force is not violent conduct. Tactical shirt pulls are part of the game. The punishment is a free kick/penalty and a yellow card if preventing an attacking opportunity, or red if preventing a goal scoring opportunity.

In my opinion it's difficult to say a shirt pull is excessive force, but if ever one came close this was it.

 

[Famine]

Except you're still claiming he never played for the usually white, in this case silver, thing.

Nope. I'm stating that he acted violently while not playing the ball. I've at no point said he never played for it.

He did play for it, got in front of the striker to stop a counterattack but got on the wrong side. That was his only mistake.

What happens after the initial defence is fair game.

No, it's not.

You cannot do anything you like after having tried to play the ball.

He didn't sneak up behind Saka at a free kick position and choke him out. He grabbed his shirt. Saka took the fall to avoid injury.

Ah, so you agree that he acted in a manner he knew would cause injury, only avoided by Saka's self preservation. Excellent.

Had Chiellini properly bodied him, he wouldn't have popped back up, let alone sit up and ask for a foul. He would've been out cold or gasping for air.

And... that makes it not violent? It would only have been violent if Saka had allowed himself to be injured?

I don't see the relevance.

It wasn't an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

I am aware. You've missed the relevance.

So what is he, a kid or a professional footballer?

Why is an either/or question? Kids can be, and often are, professional footballers. Saka himself signed his first professional contract aged 17 - legally still a child in the UK - and that's hardly exceptional. Jude Bellingham was still 17 when he came on against Croatia three weeks back.

Or do you throw labels willy-nilly to fit your narrative?

Clearly you're spoiling for an argument for some reason. Quite why escapes me.