They should have had two pens,isn't that why var is there,so deserved win.

England were shocking second half. Were playing as if they were going through the motions in a pre match warm up session until Loftus Cheek came on. Post match comments because of the late goal were hilarious. This was Tunisia not Germany or Spain. Hope Southgate forces them to watch that second half.

Will be glad to see the back of teams who try to park the bus ( or in this case, the camel ) for 90 minutes. Roll on the knockout games. England were woeful after such a bright start, though as we found out you can’t afford to let Kane get unmarked in the box.

lowandhard wrote:Will be glad to see the back of teams who try to park the bus ( or in this case, the camel ) for 90 minutes. Roll on the knockout games. England were woeful after such a bright start, though as we found out you can’t afford to let Kane get unmarked in the box.

On what I have seen thus far an average team with one superb player has a chance. England are average and Kane is superb.

VAR is a farce if in the same tournament it can rule in favour of the French penalty against Australia and against the two for England last night.

Apart from that and too many cards in the Panama-Sweden game I'm very impressed by the refereeing.

Panama v Belgium, you mean. That ref looked like he was bricking it about the very real possibility of having to use his red card (for a second booking) when actually if he'd done that very early in the second half it may have made his job easier.

Yes, Panama-Belgium.

Only the English can go from saying VAR has been brilliant to saying its crap when decisions apparently don’t go their way.

The first is a penalty. If it’s the other end the English are screaming for a pen. When it went to VAR this was confirmed.

My favourite moment is everyone saying harry kane should have had a pen for being wrestled to the ground. Do we just forget about John stones pushing someone over in the box just before the harry kane incident? Therefore VAR looked at incident and seen there was a foul before the harry kane incident. Perfect use of VAR again.

The last incident is a dive. He holds the guys arm throws himself to the floor and the ref shouts at him to get up. Even kane didn’t appeal after that.

Bush wrote:Only the English can go from saying VAR has been brilliant to saying its crap when decisions apparently don’t go their way.

The first is a penalty. If it’s the other end the English are screaming for a pen. When it went to VAR this was confirmed.

My favourite moment is everyone saying harry kane should have had a pen for being wrestled to the ground. Do we just forget about John stones pushing someone over in the box just before the harry kane incident? Therefore VAR looked at incident and seen there was a foul before the harry kane incident. Perfect use of VAR again.

The last incident is a dive. He holds the guys arm throws himself to the floor and the ref shouts at him to get up. Even kane didn’t appeal after that.

Bush
Got a feeling that you do not want England to do well.
IMO totally ridiculous to try and state they were not blatant pens.
Unbelievable in fact.

George Street-Bridge wrote:VAR is a farce if in the same tournament it can rule in favour of the French penalty against Australia and against the two for England last night.

Apart from that and too many cards in the Panama-Sweden game I'm very impressed by the refereeing.

VAR isn't a farce. The way it is being used is.

In cricket, tennis a player can appeal. If that were the case in football in my view England would have been given two penalties. As both were clear fouls. Where the decision is borderline then the view of the referee stands as he does have the advantage of being close up. In my view therefore Tunisia's penalty would have stood. I wouldn't myself have given it but there was contact.

Video technology can be a great boost to the game. Where it is not being used properly it would be a great shame if the dinosaurs had their way and it was dispensed with. The proper course is to see how it can be improved. As it wasn't utilized in the England v Tunisia game the farce was not in it's use but in it's non use.

If you see the prime purpose of VAR as being to give so called pundits more to talk about. It seems to be doing that job just fine.

jollysuperstar wrote:

Bush wrote:Only the English can go from saying VAR has been brilliant to saying its crap when decisions apparently don’t go their way.

The first is a penalty. If it’s the other end the English are screaming for a pen. When it went to VAR this was confirmed.

My favourite moment is everyone saying harry kane should have had a pen for being wrestled to the ground. Do we just forget about John stones pushing someone over in the box just before the harry kane incident? Therefore VAR looked at incident and seen there was a foul before the harry kane incident. Perfect use of VAR again.

The last incident is a dive. He holds the guys arm throws himself to the floor and the ref shouts at him to get up. Even kane didn’t appeal after that.

Bush
Got a feeling that you do not want England to do well.
IMO totally ridiculous to try and state they were not blatant pens.
Unbelievable in fact.

Do you understand football? Serious question. When John stones fouls the Tunisian player before kane is fouled the VAR picks that up first. The Tunisian player could have punched harry kane in the face. It doesn’t matter because the first foul was conceded by England.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

George Street-Bridge wrote:VAR is a farce if in the same tournament it can rule in favour of the French penalty against Australia and against the two for England last night.

Apart from that and too many cards in the Panama-Sweden game I'm very impressed by the refereeing.

VAR isn't a farce. The way it is being used is.

In cricket, tennis a player can appeal. If that were the case in football in my view England would have been given two penalties. As both were clear fouls. Where the decision is borderline then the view of the referee stands as he does have the advantage of being close up. In my view therefore Tunisia's penalty would have stood. I wouldn't myself have given it but there was contact.

Video technology can be a great boost to the game. Where it is not being used properly it would be a great shame if the dinosaurs had their way and it was dispensed with. The proper course is to see how it can be improved. As it wasn't utilized in the England v Tunisia game the farce was not in it's use but in it's non use.

I think we may be concentrating too much about the England game and VAR. I haven't much too add there to what has been discussed already.

In my opinion it was not used correctly in the Brazil v Swiss game either. It is far too important a topic for FIFA not to get it right. If we have the availability of modern technologies to 'assist' the referees in decision making, then surely the way we go about that 'assistance' is paramount.

Unfortunately, I think that the discussion about VAR and its use/misuse will live long after this World Cup is finished. Get it sorted FIFA.

I’m with Pembs on this. Surely it shouldn’t just be an aid to the referee when he’s unsure about the incident, it should actively draw his attention to an incident that he has entirely missed or misconstrued.

lowandhard wrote:I’m with Pembs on this. Surely it shouldn’t just be an aid to the referee when he’s unsure about the incident, it should actively draw his attention to an incident that he has entirely missed or misconstrued.

Absolutely. However what if an incident is missed by the referee and the video referee? My view is to allow a team a limited number of appeals. Perhaps two. If the appeal is upheld it's not lost. In those circumstances I doubt many teams would risk appealing a throw in on the halfway line. But for me England should have had two penalties last night.

Lest anyone think that I am biased towards England, I am firmly in the camp of there are 31 teams I can support in this world cup. However I try to call things as I see them.