I would suspect it was because the center ref didn't see it in real time, and the VAR could see it to send it down as a missed incident.

Had he seen it and not given the call, the conversation would have been something like:

VAR: "there was contact with the hand in the box:
CR: "Yeah, I saw that. not enough for me."
VAR: "Oh, Ok."

and no on field review ensues.

I called handball realtime. But what I don't understand is when the ref didn't initially give it why was VAR called upon at all? Hardly clear and obvious. Had he initially given the penalty, as I would have, would there have been a VAR? Presumably not.

Not sure why swatting down a ball is a questionable call. The instant I saw the replay it was totally obviously a penalty. And yes, I am a (low grade) referee.

Griezman dove, but having a free kick outside the box didn't force Mandzukic to head it into his own net. That was a freak accident that the referee had little to do with.

In the final match. The first and the second goals resulted from a questionable interpretation of the referre concerning a fault on Griezmann (1) and a penalty (2). Football is played this way, depending too much on referee judgements. The continuation of the match was only the consequence of these two interpretations.

France is the winner, they deserved. Croatia could have won, they would also deserve. The two best teams in the Cup.

Well done, France. It's a shame about the VAR penalty controversy, but on balance the result went the right way.

All in all, an excellent tournament. Couldn't really ask for one better. A shame the template is being scrapped, to be honest.

France is a worthy and expected World Champs! Congratz France. Vive la France!

I’m going to cry

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:14 pm

I thought they came across as a decent team long before the world cup started.

Of course. For everyone who follows soccer, Belgium was among the favorites, at the contrary of eg France. And that's also a reason why the strategy of France was legitimate even if frustrating.

Let's not also forget some statistics such as :
- they scored 15 goals (1st) by 10 different players (team)
- they won 6 out of their 7 games
- they defeated Brazil and England (2 times)

That was the question? I don't recall any one asking it... France, certainly. Even England... but Belgium? I thought they came across as a decent team long before the world cup started.

Anyway, today's the day! C'mon Croatia!

Ooh Belgium made it! They managed to create a team and make it 2-0 against England after all. Belgium had the individual qualities, but the question was all the time if they would be able to form a "team". This was the first time they got a medal in a World Cup.

Congratz Belgium!!

Bronze medal play-off games, Rogan. A bronze in a 100m race is fair enough. But forcing people who have achieved a semi final to play again for the sake of seeing which has failed to make the final the least is insulting, and exists purely for the finances of the organisers. That's why boxing doesn't have a bronze medal fight. They have more respect for the competitors and award both non finalists a medal.

Oh - and I thought you were saying that English fans doesn't care about this bronze medal game, despite England playing in it. But maybe you were talking about bronze medal games in general.

Yeah, my mistake was that I though "England doesn't value bronze" was a statement about England or English fans in general.

Time will tell, I guess. How much extra money does a team get for third over forth?

Things change this year, of course. International friendlies are largely being killed off for the sake of that European League nonsense. I dare say it'll make a huge impact on rankings too.

Octavius,
Netherlands punctuated what was clear from the Germany debacle - Brazil was at sixes and sevens in defence. But as you pointed out, a strong Netherlands side (arguably a better Final opponent to Germany than Argentina) only put 3 past them, and a couple of the goals were later on counterattack.

Nevertheless, the more important aspect is the FIFA money - 3rd gets more than 4th. And it is substantial money for any FA.

The friendlies comment I really meant for lower tier countries that do get through into the semis, like past Turkey / South Korea teams. They did indeed enjoy better friendlies in the following cycles than otherwise by making it into the semis.

You are right in that neither England nor Belgium will get any different potential friendly partners from the result, but they will still look at (1) FIFA money and (2) FIFA ranking points (good for next cycle group formation) as incentives to win the 3rd / 4th playoff. Also, both countries enjoyed huge support through the tournament, so they will feel compelled to perform well in their final game.

BismarckAlive wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:56 pm

Good teams do care about the 3rd/4th playoff. Those players know the value to their nations (and for their own commercial values) of strong performances in these FIFA rated games. To come 3rd instead of 4th means a lot in terms of future friendlies / warmup games, not to mention the money coming from FIFA which will help the national competition. Hence Brazil's strong performance to come 3rd last time around.

In what sense does it matter for friendlies? Top tier teams can pretty much pick and choose whatever friendlies they want. Germany had an awful tournament, but they can still get whatever warm up game takes their fancy. Belgium have earned the same right based on a strong tournament and having a team full of household names. Do you seriously think forth instead of third will make any odds?

I suppose getting thrashed 3-0 by the Netherlands is strong relative to being humiliated 7-1 by Germany

Good teams do care about the 3rd/4th playoff. Those players know the value to their nations (and for their own commercial values) of strong performances in these FIFA rated games. To come 3rd instead of 4th means a lot in terms of future friendlies / warmup games, not to mention the money coming from FIFA which will help the national competition. Hence Brazil's strong performance to come 3rd last time around.

Nobody cares about 3rd/4th play off.

TrPrado wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:35 am

EDIT: As a true American, I also don’t value consolation rounds. As a wise man once said “If you’re not first, you’re last.”

Do you view it as a consolation? At best I see it as an irritation, and at worst an insult to both sides.

“England doesn’t value bronze” is an observational statement whereas “no one should value bronze” is a normative statement. Basically he wants to make it clear he’s from England.

EDIT: As a true American, I also don’t value consolation rounds. As a wise man once said “If you’re not first, you’re last.”