Mexico and South Africa start off the World Cup tonight at 8 pm, and that's followed by South Korea v Czechia at 3 am. Both games are in Group A.

I think a home win and a draa in those games.

Need to be pretty keen to watch the second game. 

4 minutes ago, Kowalski said:

Need to be pretty keen to watch the second game. 

I have to be up at 4 for work, so I'll catch some of the second half.

¡Viva Mexico!🇲🇽 

Roy Keane making Ian Wright look like a champion of rationale and level headedness.

How the fuck does this nugget get a gig on ITV 🤔

Had to do a double take when I saw the lad called “Sithole”

Christ these wee plaaar intros have gotten even worse -  each one wi an individual video now, waggling their hands or staring moodily at the camera. Poovery o the highest order.

1 hour ago, BigAl said:

Roy Keane making Ian Wright look like a champion of rationale and level headedness.

How the fuck does this nugget get a gig on ITV 🤔

Fucking three of them (incl Neville) are terrible. 

Reckon we could take both these teams. 

Water breaks are fucking gash, get them in the sea. "Referee view" is an abomination.

Just now, RicoS321 said:

Reckon we could take both these teams. 

 

100% this 

Literally just said this to the missus.

Admittedly she just gave me a vacant look but she knows feck all about the glorious game and was complaining about Corrie not being on 

1 hour ago, STFU_Donny said:

Had to do a double take when I saw the lad called “Sithole”

Apparently his house is a right mess. 

What a fecking joke that red card is

South Africa down to nine men

Game ruined. Aye, all of football. That is shite.

And another red card

That is seriously questionable as well I think 🤔 

That game, if played in 1982, would have had 2 yellow cards.

How were there 3 red cards in that game. There were hardly any fouls. Can see me not bothering with many games if this is how they are going to ref the tournament. 

8 minutes ago, BigAl said:

And another red card

That is seriously questionable as well I think 🤔 

Yep, but not ridiculous for a ref to give that in real time. At least it was a proper foul.

Nobody in the entire world wanted VAR to intervene for that second red. It's anti football shite. There's no way on earth that player would have been given a retrospective red in times past for that. 

The second red was a complete and utter farce. If anything, the mexican should have been done for obstruction. It was completely unnecessary. 

Wasn't the greatest game, Mexico definitely deserved it and there was some noise coming through. I doubt the yanks will be anywhere near as vociferous. Too busy sat at tables eating their burgers on the side of the pitch 😂

10 hours ago, Kowalski said:

Need to be pretty keen to watch the second game. 

It's been a cracking game.

Korea are a great attacking side, but defend set pieces about as well as Aberdeen.

1 hour ago, Nellie The Don said:

It's been a cracking game.

Korea are a great attacking side, but defend set pieces about as well as Aberdeen.

Typically I missed all the goals in this one.

Just watched the highlights. South Korea looked decent and Czech Republic looked like a Robinson St Mirren side. Interesting that the BBC commentators weren't up to speed with the VAR offside for the disallowed goal. It's clear that the linesmen/lady are waiting for the quicker offside decision from VAR rather than raising their flags. It's clearly a good bit offside but the problem we have now is that the linesmen are waiting for, say, four to five seconds for the VAR indication before flagging just to avoid confusion. The gap is now much shorter but still takes away the spontaneity suppressed by the immediate flag of old. It's obviously a large improvement on what we had in the SPFL last season. 

I'm probably alone but I can see why the second red was given. It isn't a push or a pull, and it isn't the guy just trying to get his arm in front of the Mexico defender. He leans over, swings his hand and hits the guy in the face. Modern football but not especially controversial beyond that imo.

6 minutes ago, wee toon red said:

I'm probably alone but I can see why the second red was given. It isn't a push or a pull, and it isn't the guy just trying to get his arm in front of the Mexico defender. He leans over, swings his hand and hits the guy in the face. Modern football but not especially controversial beyond that imo.

Well, aye, when asked to, it's quite simple to make a case for a red. The point is that you, nor the VAR team, have any idea whether it was an intentional arm across the face or not. Flailing arms are a part of football. There is no clear and obvious deliberate, forceful hit, that's just an entirely subjective call with context removed. The ref's view, in context, appears to show an arm being used to get himself past the player. It also shows a face that isn't at face level, it's lower down, making it far more likely to get caught by accident. There was nothing about the situation, and the game in general, that suggested the player would have intentionally struck the opponent. The ref's call should have stood. 

I was playing fives a couple of weeks back, a friendly kick about*, and I got an arm in the face. The lad immediately apologised, and I pointed out that I'd gone in very low on the tackle and basically shouldn't have had my face in the way of his arm. We played on without a problem, because football is a contact sport. It happens almost every week (not just to me!). I hit someone this week too, and a quick apology and it's done. I have absolutely no doubt that these incidents could be construed as aggressive with a few well placed cameras, but it's not football at any level anywhere, even at the level of my shitey kick about among friends. 

There was no place for a red there, it was pure projection of intent. 

 

*I'm never friendly 

5 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

Well, aye, when asked to, it's quite simple to make a case for a red. The point is that you, nor the VAR team, have any idea whether it was an intentional arm across the face or not. Flailing arms are a part of football. There is no clear and obvious deliberate, forceful hit, that's just an entirely subjective call with context removed. The ref's view, in context, appears to show an arm being used to get himself past the player. It also shows a face that isn't at face level, it's lower down, making it far more likely to get caught by accident. There was nothing about the situation, and the game in general, that suggested the player would have intentionally struck the opponent. The ref's call should have stood. 

I was playing fives a couple of weeks back, a friendly kick about*, and I got an arm in the face. The lad immediately apologised, and I pointed out that I'd gone in very low on the tackle and basically shouldn't have had my face in the way of his arm. We played on without a problem, because football is a contact sport. It happens almost every week (not just to me!). I hit someone this week too, and a quick apology and it's done. I have absolutely no doubt that these incidents could be construed as aggressive with a few well placed cameras, but it's not football at any level anywhere, even at the level of my shitey kick about among friends. 

There was no place for a red there, it was pure projection of intent. 

 

*I'm never friendly 

It's all about opinions but it wasn't a tackle situation, neither player had the ball. I don't see what the South Africa player was trying to achieve by sticking his arm across the defender and there are a couple of replays where you could make an argument that he did swing his hand at his face.

27 minutes ago, wee toon red said:

It's all about opinions but it wasn't a tackle situation, neither player had the ball. I don't see what the South Africa player was trying to achieve by sticking his arm across the defender and there are a couple of replays where you could make an argument that he did swing his hand at his face.

Exactly, you're making my point for me. You can make an argument for almost all contact if you choose to. It just shouldn't be anywhere near the threshold for VAR to get involved and it certainly wasn't the type of challenge that those idiots that insisted we need video replays were talking about when VAR was introduced. There was another challenge earlier in the game where there was a clash of knees and the South African player also hit the opponent in the face. You could make an argument for a red for that one too. Because you can make an argument for anything really.

In response to your other point, the player was trying to get to the ball and the Mexican was deliberately obstructing him. In order to get beyond the player, his hand had to be involved in some manner. He was clearly looking at the ball, and it wasn't some frustrated swipe. That, of course, is my opinion, but there is a fact here, and that's that VAR cannot confirm whether you or I am right in this instance, and it is exactly those type of subjective instances where it has no right being involved. We should never be saying the phrase "you could make an argument" when talking about VAR decisions. That was its point.