Euro 2020: Semi-Charmed Life

[Philip Jeff Frye]

I think Robson is clearly the better all-around manager, but the resumes are interesting to compare - Robson reached a World Cup semifinal (out to West Germany on penalties) and a World Cup quarterfinal (out to Diego Maradona, for better and worse), but oversaw a nightmare Euro 1988 (played 3, lost 3). Southgate has now led England to a World Cup semifinal and a Euro final. I mean, of course you're only as good as your players, and international major tournament football is the king of small sample sizes, but many England managers before him had loads of talent and failed to get anything out of it. The job has to be his as long as he wants it, no?

Robson certainly had a better resume as a club manager - took small time Ipswich Town to a UEFA Cup championship (back when that meant something), an FA Cup championship, a 2nd place finish in the top English league. He developed a lot of talent in his time there. After he was hounded out of the England job by the tabloid press, he had more club success in Holland, Portugal and Spain. In Portugal, he hired a young Jose Mourinho as an assistant.

Southgate lead Middlesboro to two middle table finishes and then relegation in three seasons - not very good. He got some credit for success with the England Under 21 team, but IIRC, he got the real England pretty much because no one else wanted it. Makes his success in the last two tournaments really interesting. Certainly no one predicted this when he was hired.

 

[candylandriots]

Here's a further bit of trivia about something related that you've seen probably ten thousand times but never understood. Did you ever wonder what the arc on the top of the penalty area is all about? Every other marking on the field is pretty obvious but that one almost always goes unnoticed. During penalties players must be outside the arc and outside the penalty area until after the ball is struck or they can be called for encroaching specifically to not give anyone a head start on getting to a live ball if the penalty is missed.

As for the penalty itself, I was watching in a big room fairly far from the television and still have not seen a view that looked like there was even contact. Everyone seems to think there was, but I couldn't see it.

One VAR rule that I would change. When the VAR assistant believes there is a possible penalty, the referee is brought over to the monitor to decide whether or not a penalty should be called. I think it should work the same way where a penalty is called but there is at least a reasonable possibility that there was no actual infraction. It is unbalanced to me that the ref makes the call with video assistance to call a penalty but not to review his own calls.

The ref is the one who knows what he thinks he saw. It does not make sense to defer to the ref with a clean and obvious standard if the ref, on reviewing the play, would realize that what he thought he saw did not happen. There is this presumption of correctness that not even the ref necessarily would agree with if he could see the play. I don't understand why we allow the ref to second guess himself on a non-call by going to video but we do not allow the same thing on a penalty that is -- as I believe this was -- not obvious. (I feel the same way about the NFL -- the replay should be reviewed by the ref who made the call who may very well see it and decide "yeah, that's not what I thought happened.")

The only issue with this is professional pride and perhaps a lack of willingness for a ref to admit to a mistake in front of millions (or even billions) of spectators.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

The only issue with this is professional pride and perhaps a lack of willingness for a ref to admit to a mistake in front of millions (or even billions) of spectators.

Good point, although they don't seem to have a problem with it the other way when they don't call a penalty but then view the monitor and see the foul. But, yeah, that would have been a tough overrule in that situation.

From the ref's perspective I guess it would be better than going home and watching the play on tv and realizing "oh, man, I wouldn't have called that if I'd seen what happened."

 

[tulse_luper]

Sam Matterface on ITV (in the UK) is proving himself unworthy of the moment as a commentator. I've never been a big fan to begin with, but he's really not rising to the occasion (IMO).

Worst commentating on a big sporting moment I can recall. Absolute diarrhoea of the mouth.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Robson certainly had a better resume as a club manager - took small time Ipswich Town to a UEFA Cup championship (back when that meant something), an FA Cup championship, a 2nd place finish in the top English league. He developed a lot of talent in his time there. After he was hounded out of the England job by the tabloid press, he had more club success in Holland, Portugal and Spain. In Portugal, he hired a young Jose Mourinho as an assistant.

Southgate lead Middlesboro to two middle table finishes and then relegation in three seasons - not very good. He got some credit for success with the England Under 21 team, but IIRC, he got the real England pretty much because no one else wanted it. Makes his success in the last two tournaments really interesting. Certainly no one predicted this when he was hired.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to compare club management resumes - Robson has a decent argument as being the best English manager (as opposed to England manager) of the past 50 years. But as you note, absolutely nobody saw this coming from Southgate, which makes it all the more wondrous. I'd certainly like to think he's smart enough to stay with England and not get tempted by club management; down the latter road, madness lies.

Btw, this was a somewhat refreshing article about Southgate on BBC News earlier today - he's someone happy to break out of the hive mentality when it comes to learning new things:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57698821

 

[teddykgb]

If we must persist with Var then the refs need to go to a monitor to evaluate their decisions. The VAR check they are doing now is faster but leaves way too much room to allowing bad decisions to stand because there’s no clear way to overrule. If the ref watches that again and still thinks it’s a pen then I can evaluate him as a crap ref. As it stands there’s no actual accountability for the bad call as the ref saw something in real time and the Var simply replies that it is not so wrong as to require it to be reversed.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Worst commentating on a big sporting moment I can recall. Absolute diarrhoea of the mouth.

Quite. (I've thought this about Matterface for the entire tournament, and certainly felt he was doing poorly before extra time began, too...I can't believe that Brian Moore's chair is now being filled by him. I mean, Clyde Tyldesley is still being employed by ITV - he has his flaws, but he certainly knows how to rise to a moment.)

 

[CFB_Rules]

Here's a further bit of trivia about something related that you've seen probably ten thousand times but never understood. Did you ever wonder what the arc on the top of the penalty area is all about? Every other marking on the field is pretty obvious but that one almost always goes unnoticed. During penalties players must be outside the arc and outside the penalty area until after the ball is struck or they can be called for encroaching specifically to not give anyone a head start on getting to a live ball if the penalty is missed.

As for the penalty itself, I was watching in a big room fairly far from the television and still have not seen a view that looked like there was even contact. Everyone seems to think there was, but I couldn't see it.

One VAR rule that I would change. When the VAR assistant believes there is a possible penalty, the referee is brought over to the monitor to decide whether or not a penalty should be called. I think it should work the same way where a penalty is called but there is at least a reasonable possibility that there was no actual infraction. It is unbalanced to me that the ref makes the call with video assistance to call a penalty but not to review his own calls.

The ref is the one who knows what he thinks he saw. It does not make sense to defer to the ref with a clean and obvious standard if the ref, on reviewing the play, would realize that what he thought he saw did not happen. There is this presumption of correctness that not even the ref necessarily would agree with if he could see the play. I don't understand why we allow the ref to second guess himself on a non-call by going to video but we do not allow the same thing on a penalty that is -- as I believe this was -- not obvious. (I feel the same way about the NFL -- the replay should be reviewed by the ref who made the call who may very well see it and decide "yeah, that's not what I thought happened.")

Strictly talking about football (American) replay here: There is a lot of talk about this same thing. One of the biggest problems with replay is the play where the onfield official isn’t 100% sure and so defers to a reviewable ruling. And then replay can’t get a shot with IVE so they can’t overturn. And we have these plays where both the onfield and replay official are 80% sure the ruling on the field is wrong and we can’t change it.
Targeting is now the exception to this process for NCAA. The replay official looks at targeting calls with “fresh eyes”, the onfield ruling is irrelevant. If there is no good camera angle then targeting goes away. We will see if this expands to other calls

 

[67YAZ]

It’s flopping home.

 

[Kliq]

Delicious.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

It’s flopping home.

I don't see how anyone can say there was no contact - that second video shows clear hip-to-hip contact. Whether you think that's enough for the penalty to be called is a different story. (I don't think it should have been called, for the record.)

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Robson certainly had a better resume as a club manager - took small time Ipswich Town to a UEFA Cup championship (back when that meant something), an FA Cup championship, a 2nd place finish in the top English league. He developed a lot of talent in his time there. After he was hounded out of the England job by the tabloid press, he had more club success in Holland, Portugal and Spain. In Portugal, he hired a young Jose Mourinho as an assistant.

Southgate lead Middlesboro to two middle table finishes and then relegation in three seasons - not very good. He got some credit for success with the England Under 21 team, but IIRC, he got the real England pretty much because no one else wanted it. Makes his success in the last two tournaments really interesting. Certainly no one predicted this when he was hired.

After rekindling my interest in F1, I have the perfect analogy for coaches. Coaches are like F1 drivers. They can make a car go marginally faster or slower, but ultimately success of failure depends on the car.

However, people are obsessed with drivers and coaches, because they have the most visibility.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

This information would have been helpful to me about 20 minutes ago................................, but your point stands.

If that is how the game is played, then that's how the game is played.

You're explanation makes perfect sense, think of it like a free throw after a foul, the second one is a live ball, excellent comparison, thanks.

It's on the goalie in this case.

I always respect people who are honest enough to acknowledge a mistake or open enough to change their minds and admit it. Kudos!

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I don't see how anyone can say there was no contact - that second video shows clear hip-to-hip contact. Whether you think that's enough for the penalty to be called is a different story. (I don't think it should have been called, for the record.)

It's #24 who makes contact, right? Maybe people focus on #5.

 

[54thMA]

I always respect people who are honest enough to acknowledge a mistake or open enough to change their minds and admit it. Kudos!

As the saying goes, you learn something new everyday.

Today I learned on a PK, the ball is live.

I'll be watching on Sunday, we'll see what happens.

 

[BillWarDamnEagleJay]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would choose to get bothered by the rules of what happens after a penalty kick is saved. Are you really comparing it to a hockey penalty shot, or an after-the-game-is-really-over penalty kick in a tiebreaking shootout? The rules are what they are. If you watch enough soccer, you'll see enough incidents like this one - at the end of an English Championship playoff semifinal - where a saved penalty being a live ball is a wondrous, joyous thing:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TnKvlQ2h7s

That's the first time I had seen the clip without Ozzy Man commentary:
View: https://youtu.be/j-rmM1uQdms