Kickoff Legends: FIFA World Cup 2026 T2 (July 9 p 130) - Page 132

Originally posted by: Nostalgia-02

I really wanted to pick Norway as one of my top 2 but ended up going with Argentina instead France vs Argentina

Settled for France & Norway as my last two. Quickly go and change it. Argentina's defense is suspect! ⚽

Argentina had a drag out with Egypt. 🤔

France and Morocco later today is going to be CraayZeeee!

Originally posted by: Minionite

This year there's a lot of backlash because FIFA just went completely nuts. Hydration breaks even in games that don't need it, overuse of VAR and in some cases not using VAR properly, red card overturn, political interference in which teams can and cannot enter USA and when, etc.

They need to do a major overhaul of their leadership and return to true football of 10 years ago.

FIFA had to treat every match equally.. that is why we had hydration breaks even in matches where the stadiums were air conditioned or the temperature was only 20 C. Otherwise, some teams would have gained an unfair advantage by being able to replan their strategies during the breaks.

Regarding which teams can enter the USA and which cannot, FIFA had already clarified that this does not fall under its jurisdiction to decide.

Trump wanted to show the world that anyone can dance to his tunes. I'm interested to know how much of a bribe the FIFA president received.

VAR will always be controversial. In front of the media, Portugal manager Martínez was explaining the VAR decision to rule out Croatia's goal in detail only bcoz that decision favoured his team.

Originally posted by: rckRadhe

France and Morocco later today is going to be CraayZeeee!

Originally posted by: -Sunshine

FIFA had to treat every match equally.. that is why we had hydration breaks even in matches where the stadiums were air conditioned or the temperature was only 20 C. Otherwise, some teams would have gained an unfair advantage by being able to replan their strategies during the breaks.

Regarding which teams can enter the USA and which cannot, FIFA had already clarified that this does not fall under its jurisdiction to decide.

Trump wanted to show the world that anyone can dance to his tunes. I'm interested to know how much of a bribe the FIFA president received.

VAR will always be controversial. In front of the media, Portugal manager Martínez was explaining the VAR decision to rule out Croatia's goal in detail only bcoz that decision favoured his team.

Yes the hydration breaks were all about being equal, but several coaches and players have come out and said that it doesn't bring equality but rather upsets the flow of the game and that they should have stuck to having it only in matches where it was required.

FIFA has, in the past, demanded a lot of exceptions and requirements from host cities and countries and gotten it. This time around it was the opposite. USA made demands and FIFA bent to it. At the minimum, FIFA could have demanded that playing countries' staff and coaches be allowed in. Fans being banned is one thing, a player being banned for a criminal case is another thing, but rejecting a full team and then only allowing the players in is politics at its best.

I am very much interested to know what Trump holds over the FIFA president. It isn't just a bribe given everything the president has done. Do the 2 know each other because of Epstein?

VAR being controversial is one thing. If VAR goes against your team, then it's wrong for you but not in general. But this time around there's been actual documented proof of it being wrong in general. In the group round, when Switzerland got a penalty and scored in it, there was adequate proof from retired professionals that it was never a penalty to begin with. The move to use VAR to disallow goals due to the "build-up" to the goal has been proven by retired professionals as being intrusive and having no objectivity to it. How do you tell if something that happened 30 seconds before a goal was a block or just a regular part of the game? Yes, of course, VAR awarding a penalty to one team will not make the other team happy, but that's different. The true pushback has been on the actual intrusive decisions. It was there in 2022 as well and the same feedback was given then, but looks like FIFA took the feedback and said "well now we're going to be even tougher".

That's utterly adorable

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaA2umNxABx/

France are favourites to win but Morocco might give them a tough game.

Originally posted by: Minionite

Yes the hydration breaks were all about being equal, but several coaches and players have come out and said that it doesn't bring equality but rather upsets the flow of the game and that they should have stuck to having it only in matches where it was required.

FIFA has, in the past, demanded a lot of exceptions and requirements from host cities and countries and gotten it. This time around it was the opposite. USA made demands and FIFA bent to it. At the minimum, FIFA could have demanded that playing countries' staff and coaches be allowed in. Fans being banned is one thing, a player being banned for a criminal case is another thing, but rejecting a full team and then only allowing the players in is politics at its best.

I am very much interested to know what Trump holds over the FIFA president. It isn't just a bribe given everything the president has done. Do the 2 know each other because of Epstein?

VAR being controversial is one thing. If VAR goes against your team, then it's wrong for you but not in general. But this time around there's been actual documented proof of it being wrong in general. In the group round, when Switzerland got a penalty and scored in it, there was adequate proof from retired professionals that it was never a penalty to begin with. The move to use VAR to disallow goals due to the "build-up" to the goal has been proven by retired professionals as being intrusive and having no objectivity to it. How do you tell if something that happened 30 seconds before a goal was a block or just a regular part of the game? Yes, of course, VAR awarding a penalty to one team will not make the other team happy, but that's different. The true pushback has been on the actual intrusive decisions. It was there in 2022 as well and the same feedback was given then, but looks like FIFA took the feedback and said "well now we're going to be even tougher".

Whatever I saw on social media, it was only former players and coaches who said that air conditioned stadiums were not needed and that hydration breaks were unnecessary. How on earth will France and Morocco be okay with not having any breaks to restrategize, while Spain and Belgium will have them?

FIFA seems powerless in front of the U.S. president. And I didn’t even think about Epstein.. who knows?!

Apparently, the rule says that if there is a foul before the buildup to a goal, the goal should be disallowed regardless of how far away the foul happened or how much time passed afterward. The debate regarding Egypt’s second goal was, why did VAR intervene when the referee saw the foul but chose not to stop play? Jo Cole rightly said that, the majority of the time, VAR intervenes when a bigger team plays against a weaker team, as FIFA has to protect the big ones. Ghana did not get a penalty against England. A clear foul in the box was overlooked by the referee, and VAR conveniently chose not to intervene.

Originally posted by: -Sunshine

Whatever I saw on social media, it was only former players and coaches who said that air conditioned stadiums were not needed and that hydration breaks were unnecessary. How on earth will France and Morocco be okay with not having any breaks to restrategize, while Spain and Belgium will have them?

FIFA seems powerless in front of the U.S. president. And I didn’t even think about Epstein.. who knows?!

Apparently, the rule says that if there is a foul before the buildup to a goal, the goal should be disallowed regardless of how far away the foul happened or how much time passed afterward. The debate regarding Egypt’s second goal was, why did VAR intervene when the referee saw the foul but chose not to stop play? Jo Cole rightly said that, the majority of the time, VAR intervenes when a bigger team plays against a weaker team, as FIFA has to protect the big ones. Ghana did not get a penalty against England. A clear foul in the box was overlooked by the referee, and VAR conveniently chose not to intervene.

I believe that a few of the current coaches also said that hydration break wasn't needed or that it should be decided with the coaches just before the match starts if that match needs a break or not.

I agree that it wouldn't be fair, but at the same time, as one of the former coaches said, "this isn't American football, the point and strategy is to be played out over 45 minutes, not 22 minutes".

Oh definitely on VAR. VAR was supposed to help when the referee misses something, but it's more and more becoming another biased referee. I understand that referees are overlooking more simple fouls to keep the game moving, but they are only doing that when the bigger teams are making them, not when the newer teams are making them.

I was wondering yesterday how different the top 8 could have looked if proper fouls were given. Ghana would have won against England. Egypt would have won against Argentina. Germany would have made it top 16 (and how knows maybe won against France). Cape Verde might have had the first and proper chance to defeat Argentina.

Right now the only "underdogs" left are Morocco, Norway, and Switzerland and they aren't the proper underdogs and neither do I expect any of them to make it to the semi-finales with the VAR and refereeing we're seeing (though I'll be rooting for them). Even Belgium over Spain.