[ASAP]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

French fans didn't take the defeat lying down.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/20797...-final-defeat/

to be fair... that also happened when they won 4 years ago

i think Argentina played a very solid game, so congrats to them... I would have wanted to see a different winner and France truly showed some talent but Messi had the better team yesterday. Oh well... back to corny MLS soccer Maybe Messi will come to InterMiami

[happyjack]

late to the comments, but WOW! what an unbelievable match!

great tournament overall. thanks for all the banter in this thread. see you gents in 4 years!

USA! USA! USA!

[lens]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

French fans didn't take the defeat lying down.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/20797...-final-defeat/

I'd be mad too, considering Argentina had 5-6 matches in a row with a penalty given to them.


Either way, the French woke up after the 80th min and made this world cup the best there ever was.

[UncleWede]

So, you guys think I did a good job as ref? Family kept texting me saying I was calling a very fair game.

TECHNICALLY, Arg just had the distinct advantage in ball control, and sheer hustle, for 80+ minutes. The passing was out of this world (cup)

Do goals scored during shots from the mark count for the golden boot?

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Obeiluki

If D-maria plays for the entire 90 minutes, I believe the outcome is possible in 90minute.

Can someone please grade this suspected retro-edit SEO spambot's post content for me?????

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

Can someone please grade this suspected retro-edit SEO spambot's post content for me?????

di Maria played about 60 minutes, he scored. He's been injured previously, only playing very limited time.
When they announced him in starting line-up, I started texting that he would be the deciding factor in the game,

[UncleWede]

Lol

[happyjack]

Not to be pedantic…and I may be wrong anyway…but I don’t think the hand or arm of the attacking player counts as offsides? I think it must be a “playable” body part, e.g. foot, head, etc.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by happyjack

Not to be pedantic…and I may be wrong anyway…but I don’t think the hand or arm of the attacking player counts as offsides? I think it must be a “playable” body part, e.g. foot, head, etc.

Just one of the things that has made the game more complex in refereeing all coming down from the fluke 'hand of God' Maradona touch back in '86 that put England out of the World Cup. Use of hand AND offside for Maradona.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ha...id:-ccNkksrfls

[Rnegade]

i am happy for messi

[floridaorange]

Speaking of Messi, watch this dbag harass him

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmWuM...d=MDJmNzVkMjY=

[M5Rick]

It appears technically Messi's second goal should not have been allowed under FIFA rules.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...-FA-rules-IFAB

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

It appears technically Messi's second goal should not have been allowed under FIFA rules.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...-FA-rules-IFAB

I am not saying this is right or wrong but the French are coming up in the world's most sore loser rankings...

They complained about the ref's calls EVEN AFTER he gave them pretty much a free goal in another play lol.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

It appears technically Messi's second goal should not have been allowed under FIFA rules.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...-FA-rules-IFAB

Absolutely, a few substitutes 50 yards away with 1 ft inside the pitch would have totally affected the game

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

Absolutely, a few substitutes 50 yards away with 1 ft inside the pitch would have totally affected the game

Rules are rules, what's the point of having them if they are not used.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Rules are rules, what's the point of having them if they are not used.

It should be enforced to the spirit of the rule
If you went back and looked at 100 games , I am certain that there will be more than a few with subs, managers, trainers etc who had a toe in the pitch during a goal score

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

It should be enforced to the spirit of the rule
If you went back and looked at 100 games , I am certain that there will be more than a few with subs, managers, trainers etc who had a toe in the pitch during a goal score

That would be tough to call agreed and the referee's safety would need to be considered.

[tranquility]

This thread is still going?

Exactly, should be enforced on actual purpose not a crazily absurd technicality. Amazing a Brit wants to argue this, you know damn well it didn't cross the line in '66. "It's Coming Home", 'twas never there lmao.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by tranquility

This thread is still going?

Exactly, should be enforced on actual purpose not a crazily absurd technicality. Amazing a Brit wants to argue this, you know damn well it didn't cross the line in '66. "It's Coming Home", 'twas never there lmao.

Exactly what, 1966? What's that got to do with it, you don't know what you're talking about.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Exactly what, 1966? What's that got to do with it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Naw, it's funny but you dunno what you're talking about, they did some computer analysis and argued that the ball didn't cross the line, so the only WC England had ever won was most likely a fraud...but, hey, ironically attempt some revision re WC 2022 and argue about a technicality against Argentina, which in that case actually did *not* have any bearing on the match.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Naw, it's funny but you dunno what you're talking about, they did some computer analysis and argued that the ball didn't cross the line, so the only WC England had ever won was most likely a fraud...but, hey, ironically attempt some revision re WC 2022 and argue about a technicality against Argentina, which in that case actually did *not* have any bearing on the match.

If you're talking about the '66 final, which I presume you are, England won 4-2 so I guess it wouldn't have been a fluke if one goal was found to be in error after modern day tech was used as you claim.

Right now the rules are clear mate, no player on the side allowed a step on the pitch during play which the French fans are disputing after the match and if it was enforced France would have won 3-2, so don't get carried away with your sentiments.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

If you're talking about the '66 final, which I presume you are, England won 4-2 so I guess it wouldn't have been a fluke if one goal was found to be in error after modern day tech was used as you claim.

Right now the rules are clear mate, no player on the side allowed a step on the pitch during play which the French fans are disputing after the match and if it was enforced France would have won 3-2, so don't get carried away with your sentiments.

I assume that you knew what happened in that match, but apparently not. The disputed goal broke the tie and obviously affected how each team played afterwards, i.e. the Germans had to open up looser and England got that insurance 4th goal. Anyway, since you don't acknowledge that, there's no pt discussing w you, and I think it's laughable you wanna conduct a revision on something that really had no effect on this year's final (to use a hyperbole, the whole freaking stadium could've flooded Argentina's end, so what?), vs that 3rd goal in '66 which did. Arguing technicalities is quite petty when they had no bearing on the game and saying "rules are rules" is just a copout, as the very reason rules were made is to try to make things fair, so try not to be robotic and instead use your brain to look at the actual spirit of why rules were invented in the first place and if it indeed should be applied in this case. Apparently, FIFA decided to go w the more logical decision because that's what reasonable ppl do.