World cup fred
- Thread starter Libby
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You honestly don’t think it’s just a little bit suspicious, Tom? All just a big coincidence?
These images could easily be doctored btw.
It looked onside to me anyway before these images were released. What on earth would FIFA have to gain by doctoring the images or covering up the truth? On field decision was onside was it not? So the absolute worst case scenario would be the technology failing and due to how tight it is they go with the on field decision. There is no reason to doctor images or lie. FIFA should have released the images sooner though to quash these ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Just funny I guess how the decision goes in favour of Switzerland in their must-win game, while Infantino is watching from the stands. What are the chances?
And? If there really was anything funny going on they would have found a way to disallow Qatar's goal.Just funny I guess how the decision goes in favour of Switzerland in their must-win game, while Infantino is watching from the stands. What are the chances?
In reality, the game should have been abandoned as it was awful
TBH I was convinced it was going to VAR for the 'push' on the defender.
I guess after getting away with the first dodgy decision, they didn't want to push their chances!!
At half time they showed a replay of the live coverage and the angle that gave a false impression, which looked offside when it actually wasn't, as proved by the later image.
Just finished watching the Scotland game. I'm pleased they won, but I'm not sure it'll be enough to qualify. Three points and a zero GD I'm sure will send sides through, and very likely three points and a -1 GD will be enough too. But once it gets down to three points and a -2 or -3 GD, then it looks much less likely. Which means Scotland are vulnerable.
It's the story of Clarke's time in charge of them. He's just far too conservative. His subs were more focused on holding onto the win, rather than scoring more, despite a very limited opposition. I thought Haiti were very athletic, but technically awful.
It's the story of Clarke's time in charge of them. He's just far too conservative. His subs were more focused on holding onto the win, rather than scoring more, despite a very limited opposition. I thought Haiti were very athletic, but technically awful.
Yep.
Also Australia have Mo Toure up front. He scored 9 goals in 11 games for Norwich last season. Just turned 22, definitely a player to watch next season. Unfortunately Norwich only just bought him in Jan, so doubt he's for sale.
The Aussies have some great youngsters though.
So we're agreed that the latest image doesn't prove he was onside? Cool.
Thing is they've not said it was too close so stuck with onfield, they've said it was definitely off but conveniently lost the evidence.
The technology has failed in the PL in the past as well and presumably other leagues around the world. And it was onside. The media have turned a complete non-story into a ****ing conspiracy.
Wasn't the media though. Me and my step-dad were asking where the graphics were right after the pen was given. Didn't need a bunch of pundits to tell me that was f*cking dodgy.
So er, apparently Scotland fans are the 'antidote to the ills of world football'.
Jesus wept
Jesus wept
Well, regardless of why the technology was unavailable there is nothing dodgy about the penalty or the goal. The penalty was given on field with the attacker being judged onside and the evidence available suggest the right decision was made. There is no proof at all the technology didn't fail.