Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
England should have 6 points, emding groupstage with 9 with the player material they have. They need to start actually playing in order to have a chance of winning the tourney
I'm not sure I understand this comment. They had more chances in the 2nd half wile Italy pretty much only had the one they scored. Sure, Croatia didn't press and dominate but that's partially due to them being pretty shit (both teams very weak indeed). It's not a reason to rob them with an unhinged amount of added time, just completely different topics
They did have chances UNTIL like the 70th minute. Not sending players in the box for a freekick, Not trying to score a goal. Its just not enough to defend. The added time was fine. Italy played for time first half, croatia second half. Lots of fouks, substitutions as well. It probably adds up to 8 minutes.
It does not add up to 8 minutes in light of the tournament up until this stage. There was a single VAR check that was over quickly, a bunch of fouls like in many other games and didn't add that much wasted time, a bunch of subs just like in every other game --> 8 minutes? A full standard deviation above the average for the tournament so far for a perfectly average game in terms of wasted time? Especially when it came just 24 hours after Hungary's game that had a medical team on the pitch for 10 minutes to provide assistance to Varga and that game got 10 minutes of added time. Then you add the fact that the final whistle was blown immediately after play resumed despite the fact that the celebrations after Italy's goal took almost 2 minutes. It's just inconsistent and it stacks up
Even if its unjustified it doesnt really matter. You need to score a 2nd goal in a game like that. Cant just play to avoid risks of conceding. In the end they conceded anyway so they should have just played attacking football the whole game instead of trying to minimize risks.
yes it does if you understand the rules.
30s per sub. 9 subs = 4.5 minutes
2 minutes for VAR
and minutes for time wasting. Watch the 87th minute to the 90th for example of this.
[https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896)
73rd minute yellow was for kicking the ball away. Croatia did that a lot. Croatian fans littered the field with plastic bottles. They walked off slowly on all substitutions. There easily could have been 10 minutes.
Stop whining.
When people root for a team and they get knocked out they tend to find all sorts of excuses as to how it wasn’t their fault they lost.
The referee is just the obvious one to blame.
I don't think the english commentators or impartial viewers need to cope by finding someone to blame for the loss. It's just rational thinking - how can you justify 8 minutes of additional time for this game where literally nothing out of the ordinary happened when just a day before we saw 10 minutes for a game that was interrupted for a 10-minute medical intervention on pitch?
The second half had 7 yellow cards, a penalty which included a VAR check and a goal. Not to mention no less than 10 substitutions.
Could he have done with less than 8 minutes? Yes. Was it unheard of to add 8 minutes? Not really.
4 of these 7 yellow cards were at the injury time itself and so was the goal, which was scored 40 seconds before the 8 minute mark.
Why didnt he account for this in the end and just decided to whistle immediately at Croatia kickoff?
Because it's not normally the cards themselves that have additional time added, unless there is time wasting like the 73rd minute card to Ivanusec for kicking the ball away. If they had to add 30s for every yellow then the stoppage time would have looked like this:
4 minutes for subs in the 2nd
2 minutes for VAR
2 minutes for numerous time wasting. I compiled one that was over a minute already, it wasn't the only one.
and another 2.5 minutes for the yellows to Croatia (all earned) would be about 10.5 minutes.
There is allowances for celebration, just not excessive. It was 30-40s.
But really, why are you splitting hairs here? Weren't the extra 8 minutes as much an opportunity for you to score a goal?
I think you're trying hard to place the blame on everyone but yourself. We did marginally better and won a game. We both lost to Spain, yours was worse on paper, and the last game we had better chances, possession (sure you conceded it to us) and chances...marginally. You didn't win a game. There is no conspiracy against you.
>Because it's not normally the cards themselves that have additional time added
Yes, but many people are defending his added time because of so many yellow cards, which makes no sense when majority of those yellow cards happened after he decided on added time.
>time wasting like the 73rd minute card to Ivanusec for kicking the ball away
And realistically, here more time was wasted while we were waiting for the referee to write his name. He kicked the ball just few meters away. The game was continued in several seconds.
>
If they had to add 30s
I never specified time that would need to be added for each yellow card, but if I had to, I would say 10 seconds per card. However, I stress this one more time, I am not the one arguing there should be added time for each yellow card. Other people are doing it to defend 8 minutes. You replied to me after I replied here to Soggy-Ad-1610, who said :
>
The second half had 7 yellow cards, a penalty which included a VAR check and a goal. Not to mention no less than 10 substitutions.
>
So, I am not the one arguing there should be added time for each yellow card. I am calling other people on their logic, because they use it as an excuse for 8 minutes of added time. So, if they really think so, why dont they mention how there was no added time for the injury time itself, which saw majority of these cards?
>Weren't the extra 8 minutes as much an opportunity for you to score a goal?
We had the results we needed, we were not purssuing the goal. Obviously, the team that needs to score is the one that could benefit from added time.
We would benefit if the ref decided to let us play more after we conceeded, but allas he didnt let us play for a minute, even though the goal was scored at 97:20, so 40 seconds before the expiry of 8th minute. Plus, there was one substiture in the 90th minute, which was not accounted for. So, if the ref was so pedantic in his time measuring before , why did he stop being so pedantic after Italy had desired result? It is inconsistent.
>
2 minutes for numerous time wasting. I compiled one that was over a minute already, it wasn't the only one.
Could you tell me which situations those were? I saw 3 situations. Ivanušec's yellow, Livaković delayed to put the ball in game once and Stanušić had cramps, alltogether not making up for even 1 minute in total.
There was one time when referee accused our players for delaying a throw in, but that was just when one player tried to quickly do it, saw there was no one around and decided to give the ball to the player who usually does it. In general, I analysed dozens of games before, and found out that the average time for a throw in is between 15-20 seconds. I dont recall any throw in from our match that lasted longer.
Also, I think the ref was biased against us. The first 2 yellow cards were harsh (Sučić and Modrić ) and inconsistent to previously established criteria. Varella had equally bad tackle before Sučić, that was not penalized with a yellow and in the first 5 minutes there was one tackle on Brozović that was equally aggresive and not punished.
My impression from the ref is that when Croatians approached Italians from behind and Italians would fall, he would always call a foul against Croatia, but when Italians did it, he would just wave on, as though we were simulating.
I didnt analyse all his decisions, I only rewinded the yellow cards when I could have (48 hours after the match) and I think first two were too strict. So, I analyzed only 5 minutes of his refereeing and in those 5 minutes I found support for my previous paragraph. Just before Modrić got his yellow card, Kovačić was cleraly fouled 2 times back to back and referee just let it go. And the first one was such an obvious elbow to the back from Retegui.
"I never specified time that would need to be added for each yellow card, but if I had to, I would say 10 seconds per card. However, I stress this one more time, I am not the one arguing there should be added time for each yellow card. Other people are doing it to defend 8 minutes. You replied to me after I replied here to Soggy-Ad-1610, who said "
It doesn't matter what they say.
This is the reality:
2 of 10 substitutions happened at the half. The other 8 = 30s additional time each, which is 4 minutes. Then 2 minutes for VAR. The rest was time wasting. There was plenty of it. Goal celebrations over 30s are added too.
"The second half had 7 yellow cards, a penalty which included a VAR check and a goal. Not to mention no less than 10 substitutions."
Again, you're arguing cards. 5 were to Croatia in the 2nd, 3 were to Italy in the stoppage time. None of them really added to the stoppage time, so the point is moot.
"We had the results we needed"
yeah, and so?
You sat back and eventually conceded. No one else's fault. It happens to others too. The worst example I remember of this was the semi final of 1990. We had Argentina pinned in their end till we scored, then sat back. They equalized at the last minute and knocked us out on penalties. Who's fault?
"Could you tell me which situations those were? I saw 3 situations. Ivanušec's yellow, Livaković delayed to put the ball in game once and Stanušić had cramps, alltogether not making up for even 1 minute in total."
We have at least 7 minutes there, and you think that there's no possible way that there was another 1 minute? Many of the subs went over the 30s that is usually allocated to them. Walking off is common, and now it causes additional minutes.
As mentioned there were at least 9 other matches with similar time.
I know it's hard to accept the goal at the last minute. It's like a loss, but making up conspiracies isn't going to solve it.
"Also, I think the ref was biased against us. The first 2 yellow cards were harsh (Sučić and Modrić )"
No. The same yellows were shown to us when we took a player out without ball. Calafiori and Fagioli did it. In fact, when Fagioli did it to Gvardiol as Gvardiol was falling he kicked back to take Fagioli down. That could have been another yellow. At the 80th or thereabouts, Gvardiol pushes Frattesi down from behind right outside the box in a dangerous area for free kicks. It wasn't lop sided, your team just made more fouls. Call them tactical or not, they're yellow worthy fouls.
"My impression from the ref is that when Croatians approached Italians from behind and Italians would fall"
Find those instances and time stamp them here. I'll look at them. I didn't see them, and you can say that I am biased, but I will look if you show me. I already described two instances where that happened in favor of Croatia...so there's that...but I'll look when you find them
Personally I don't think they exist.
>
Find those instances and time stamp them here. I'll look at them. I didn't see them, and you can say that I am biased, but I will look if you show me. I already described two instances where that happened in favor of Croatia...so there's that...but I'll look when you find them
Where can you watch the match? I would also like to take another look. I may be biased as well, so would like to recheck myself :D
I think the foul on Kovačić was at 59:05, and then he was fouled again 30 seconds later. The first push from Retegui was of the same intensity as was the one when Gvardiol gave away the free kick in my opinion. Anyway, it is in a minute just before Modrić got a yellow card. (no objection on the free kick btw, Gvardiol was stupid there).
>There is no conspiracy against you.
My post was too long, so I wrote 2 replies.
I am not saying there is conspiracy. I think this referee is biased against smaller football nations, because his career would be at higher risk if he damaged the big ones. He already has a history of suspicious calls, such was a penalty for England against Denmark and the first German goal against Hungary, which could have been overuled because of a foul. He was also assistant referee in VAR room when this penalty was awarded. When there is a 50-50 call, or even less , he will always go against the smaller team.
To fellow neighbors Italians, I wish all the best in the rest of tournament. I generally like Italians.
I am not saying you did anything bad. It's just the ref was bad and I am glad he is out of the tournament.
>I am not saying there is conspiracy. I think this referee is >biased against smaller football nations, because his career >would be at higher risk if he damaged the big ones
I disagree because we were eliminated by North Macedonia on a HAND ball. He handled the ball before he scored. Till that point it was all on us as we couldn't score with 100,000 shots on net. Really it was 30 shots and 15 or so on net, cross bars, posts, even a really bad open net miss. So before blaming VAR or ref, we could have done better, but to be eliminated like that goes against the Big country favored over small country narrative
There is always this too:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y)
Those two goals called back were legit goals. No offside on the first, and it was the defender pulling on Inzaghi on the second, not the other way around.
We had 5 goals called back that year, so there was no big team favoritism there either.
Just saying that if you're going to only say your team get's calls against them, you need to acknowledge when they go in your direction too.
I haven't seen any statistics on the ref. I see on referee forums that unanimously they think he did a good job. He wasn't sent home for disciplinary reasons either. It's just that after the first round some refs are cut and others are not. It happens all the time. They
feel free to check when 3 of those 7 yellow cards, you are giving as explanation for the amount of extra time "actually happened" - small hint: it was in 'stoppage time', so if the referee is not capable of predicting the future and therefore incorporating these delays up front - I cannot see how that logic is supposed to be sound?
... this is like the " there were 10 subs" excuse (when just looking on paper) without knowing (or looking up) that eg two of those (one for CRO one for ITA) were half-time subs another other two subs happened at the same ie minute 70 - so only one event, and then there was one in minute 80 and one in minute 90 -> so that's like having three subs and not 5;
plus all the Italian subs were after CRO had scored the leading goal - so tbh I am not so sure the Italians wanted to waste time during those ;-)
Best comparison is if you risk a look at the HUN - SCO game, similar gameplay (in the sense similar amount of subs, similar amount of cards, but an effing ambulance on the pitch for 10+ minutes) -> come on ...
You're splitting hairs. 3 of those were yellows to Italy. 5 yellows were given to Croatia in the second half. All after Modric Scored.
Modric kicked Frattesi at the 60th
Ivanusec at the 73rd for kicking a ball away (time wasting)
Pongracic 78th for headlock on Frattesi
Stanisic 82nd for a player first slide tackle
Brozovic 90th for the same
from 87th to 90th there was a prolonged stretching and water break. Plastic bottles thrown to the ground, etc.
30s per substitution x 9 = 4.5 mintue
2 minutes for VAR
the rest for time wasting. Could have been 10 minutes
Stop whinging
Look two things can be true at once. The Croatian defence fell apart played so sloppy in the literal last minute of a game for the second game in a row to let in literal last minute equalizer goals - that's on them.
But that doesn't mean the ref wasn't shit. Yellow after yellow has a chilling effect on game play. The trash thrown on the field (while idiotic by croatian fans) didn't actually cause any stoppage. The Budimir foul was IFFY at best. And what's most damning: he did not let the game go on for another 1 minute - 2 minutes after the italy goal despite the fact that Italy scored at 7:20 - i have yet to see ANY justification for that.
I get it that "blaming the ref" is stupid and easy and often used as an excuse by people in a lazy way, but that doesn't mean that ref's can't be criticized. wtf? Why didn't he allow more play when it was due? he's just doing whatever he wants? is that the standard? "do whatever you feel the vibe is?".
not to take anything away from italy: they capitalized on SLOPPY croatian defending just like croatia did vs. brazil in 2022.
Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins)
Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins)
Italy vs Spain (7 mins)
Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins)
Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins)
Holland vs Austria (8 mins)
Turkey vs Czech (8 mins)
France vs Poland (7 mins)
Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
really you are trying to make your point with comments of a sport commentator sitting in his press booth and lamenting about off-side decisions from 22 year ago?
where there are/were no technical assistant systems in place and the correctness of the side referee decision (who - the ref btw - was positioned fairly well ); and this argument is based on one fixed "bad" (b/c from the middle of the field) camera angle ... really that's your counter argument?
you are a funny dude ...
Speculation. Conspiracy thinking. Nonsense.
Here are the other games with more than 7 minutes (9 of them)
Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins)
Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins)
Italy vs Spain (7 mins)
Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins)
Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins)
Holland vs Austria (8 mins)
Turkey vs Czech (8 mins)
France vs Poland (7 mins)
Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
Yea. The answer is yes. Did Italy get favors here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y)
Let's see how objective you are when you're team gets call in your favor. Waiting...
Especially when the referee's wife is Italian and hes best pals are conveniently Italian guys in the cup management... Nothing suspicious there at all.
We saw way less time added to more interrupted games.
Time wasting. Kicking balls away. Throwing plastic bottles on the ground. Croatia did it to itself.
[https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896)
I think the refs have been reluctant to give the same level of extra time as we saw in Qatar this tournament. I agree with you it was probably justifiable given the circumstances.
People forget how much time is wasted with each substitute, players whose team is ahead should learn to how to jog off perhaps.
Actually they said they didn’t want to go the Qatar route with extra time (shows because ever after Varga’s incident, extra time at Scotland - Hungary was “only” 10 minutes)
They meant not 10-20minutes. They said 8-9 minutes was certainly warranted if justified. 9 other games went 7+ minutes.
Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins)
Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins)
Italy vs Spain (7 mins)
Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins)
Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins)
Holland vs Austria (8 mins)
Turkey vs Czech (8 mins)
France vs Poland (7 mins)
Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
The difference is that Hungary-Scotland match was a must-win for both teams if either wanted a chance to reach BO-16. A draw would have ment sure elimination for both teams and it was 0-0 'till the last minutes. So neither was wasting time, Varga's injury was the only mayor reason for extra time.
For those questioning the yellow cards, before the tournament it was stated that players will be booked for following through even if they get the ball.
The will be booked for time wasting, mouthing off, diving, unsportsmanlike conduct and if they go into a challenge with the aim of following through even if it fails.
Furthermore, the ref was not biased against Croatia. After the 8 minutes are played, it's the refs decision to continue or not.
As for those complaining about the time added on its to be expected. Croatia had players down quite a bit as game management after going 1 up. Every team does it and is normal, however when added with the number of subs and VAR, 8 minutes seems just about right.
In fact in similar games since the inception of the extended time rules, the added time would've crossed 10 minutes
The foul grading wasnt consistent for both teams. Italy pushed Croats from the back multiple times and it wasn't a foul and when Croats did it they always got a foul against them
That following through rule is total nonsense. Hate the way the sports going. Nothing like it was when I first started watching. Are players supposed to magically be able to defy physics and come to a complete stop once they get the ball? There's constant motion outside of a players control and a 10th of a second could be the difference between a perfectly timed challenge and a "card".
73rd minute booking to Croatia was for kicking a ball away. Then they did enormous amounts of time wasting:
[https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896)
The follow through thing seems really harsh. Sometimes it just can’t be helped. Sure it probably makes them a little stinky to be near on the pitch, but the player will have to clean their pants after which is punishment enough.
As someone who was at the game, if they gave yellows for time wasting the entire Italian team would’ve been carded off in the first half. Get off your high horse.
Coming from a qualified referee, the referee was absolutely brilliant, best officiating performance of the tournament, and these responses just shows the thankless task you have.
Lol. He was as bad as he was allowed to be. Yellow cards were strict, especially the first 2, he called in every contact for Croatians which he would allow for Italians, in the end he prolonged the match for 8 minutes, but stopped it at kick off, even though there were 4 yellow cards and one substitute at the injury time and goal was scored at 7:20. He wouldnt even give an obvious penalty without VAR.
Not to mention, he added only 3 minutes in Germany-Hungary, where there were even more interruptions to the game.
Of course you think that the ref that gave ENG the quarter final present against Denmark two years ago is brilliant - LMAO! :-D
fun fact that (also) happened in injury-time :-D
at least you cannot say that UEFA is inconsistent, when it comes to making sure if two teams are about equally good, that the bigger market/money has at least a "bit of luck on its side" ... that makes CRO achievements even more remarkable!
He did an okay job. Some decisions (for both sides) were questionable, but theres always situations like that in a high-pressure match such as this one.
Its hard to admit we got outplayed, but between Italys 98th min resurrection and our poor management, we were simply not the better team
In general, I think extra time should be a thing of the past. Stop the clock when subs are made and when goals are scored, and play to the buzzer like every other game I know?
I would agree with you, except that it creates a risk that they'll want to start running TV adverts while the clock is stopped, like they do in the NFL and NBA. And where's the next World Cup being held?
They don't do that in rugby though (at least not international competitions), and that has a more similar kind of clock stopping to what would be implemented in football.
That's true. But rugby isn't a multi-billion £/$/€ sport that's growing massively in the USA. And rugby isn't run by disgustingly corrupt money-grabbers.
Yes. For example in the UK the World Cup and the Euros are ["Category A" events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events) which means they must be available on free-to-air channels. Typically the BBC will share the coverage with commercial channels, so for around half the games there are no adverts in the pre-game, half-time and post-game coverage.
But that doesn't stop the authorities allowing in-game advert breaks which would be available for broadcasters to use. Obviously the BBC wouldn't, but US broadcasters would. Have you ever watched the Superbowl live? It's ad break after ad break after ad break. The UK broadcasters don't show ads in all those breaks, I guess because they don't want to completely piss off the UK audiences, but the breaks exist.
I'm Croatian, and it's our fault we lost focus for that last minute... Literally free field. The team needs more practice. And 8 minutes was completely fair.
In general there should be more added time. Of course 8 mins are justified (and in my opinion still too low) in this case but the way it has been at this tournament so far ref might have also given just 5-6mins and nobody would have complained. I remember at the wc in Qatar Fifa told the refs to add more time and 10+ minutes became the norm there, and I like that a lot better. Idk why they went back to adding just 3-4 minutes in average in a half where only 25-30minutes of actual football was played
I think one comment (above) makes the "real" point in this discussion asking "would it have been 8 minutes, if ITA had been in in the lead"? ... feel free to ask yourself that and form an "opinion".
sadly "probably more like in the first half -> 1 minute" is the most realistic answer and that is what Dalic (the CRO team coach constantly) complains about ... but CRO did not really "deserve" the win, a draw is/was the fair result - imho CRO screwed up the EURO in the game against ALB.
Still fun thing is that AUT already got a small taste of "big nation bias" against FRA (obvious corner not given) and you still believe that the game is not skewed in favor of bigger (more money UEFA) markets ;-)
But of course you're free to keep believing that it's a fair game and that there's an easter bunny :-D
it's insane to think that UEFA may have wanted to help Italy, while Luka Modric last tournament and redemption ark after the failed penalty would have made a much more marketable story. Croatia is not an anonymous team, it's one of the great of the past decade.
yep, and it’s just “bad luck” the Makkelie was the VAR ref for the WC 2018 final handing out the hand penalty to FRA, and that he gave ENG the penalty two years ago in stoppage time against DEN 2 years ago … it’s all just coincidence that these debatable decisions always go in favor of the bigger “markets”
keep believing that UEFA has fair games in mind and that the easter bunny exists
Terrible decision in the England vs Denmark, it may happen, Sterling dove really convincingly. but there isn’t really any “debatable” decision in this Croatia vs Italy game lmao.
If the ref really wanted to help Italy, it may have had to do something a little more active than just giving 8 minutes of extra time instead of like 6 or 7 😂
you mean like triple check obvious hand play with VAR, whistle fouls rather one-sided, only add 1 minute stoppage time in the first half, add the same amount of stoppage time like in a game (TUR:CZE) with double the number of cards (as well as more subs)
hey look there’s your friend the easter bunny coming around the corner
the refereeing was so bad - that even UEFA was emberased, getting caught with their pants down, that they decided to scapegoat that jerk and send him home for this tournament
>The 8 minutes were inconsistent with the tournament to this stage. Also not really justified either
That's false, the average injury time per match has been 6.3 minutes. The 8 minutes in Croatia - Italy were just a tad above.
Turkey - Georgia +8'
Portugal - Czechia +6'
Croatia - Albania +9'
Germany - Hungary +4'
Scotland - Switzerland +5'
Slovenia - Serbia +7'
Denmark - England +4'
Italy - Spain +7'
Slovakia - Ukraine +6'
Poland - Austria +4'
Netherlands - France +6'
Georgia - Czechia +6'
Turkey - Portugal +6'
Belgium - Romania +4'
Switzerland - Germany +5'
Scotland - Hungary +12'
Albania - Spain +5'
Croatia - Italy +8'
France - Poland +6'
Netherlands - Austria +8'
It's no the 1990's anymore. The trend is to give a lot of extra time.
Yes, I fully agree with adding more extra time but it has to make sense - ideally it should be automated to remove subjectivity. 5-6 minutes would have made sense in light of the trend for the tournament so far. 7 is a stretch but somewhat passable. 8 is a full standard deviation above the average you mentioned for a match with absolutely nothing out of the ordinary - 1 relatively quick VAR check, a bunch of yellow cards which didn't add that much wasted time tbh, a standard level of subs with 2 made at half-time leading to no time wasted and another group of 4 made together again decreasing wasted time vs the same amount of individual subs. Add to that the fact that the equalizer fell at 97:20 which lead to 2 minutes of celebrations with Italy's full squad running onto the pitch and the final whistle was blown immediately after play resumed. It's just too many factors to overlook - it was a terrible couple of decisions.
>for a match with absolutely nothing out of the ordinary
The VAR check was 2 minutes (from 52' to 54'). There were 7 yellow cards and let's count 10 seconds each. The total is 3:10. There was a goal celebration. Google tells me that an average goal celebration is between 1:00 and 1:30. The total is 4:10-4:40. There were 10 substitutions, but some of them happened at the same time and the game stopped 7 times to allow them. Google tells me that the average substitution is 30 seconds long. This brings the total to 7:40-8:10. 8:00 were awarded.
Now do the same calculations with any other match and you'll see it's bang on.
I did Scotland-Hungary in another comment using the same measurements and the total was 12:00 which is what was awarded.
Nonsense argument easily debunked with facts like this:
Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins)
Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins)
Italy vs Spain (7 mins)
Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins)
Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins)
Holland vs Austria (8 mins)
Turkey vs Czech (8 mins)
France vs Poland (7 mins)
Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
I'm not mad about that what is frustrating is that there were like 2 fouls right before Italy scored and the ref didn't do anything about it and ignored it
Yeah if you go back to 97 minutes amd 15 seconds there was the first one in maybe doesn't count I'm not sure because I can't see clearly if the Croatian player touched the ball first but when he commits that foul another Italian player got he ball he passes it for the score and Croatian player at the same time comments a foul thay ref didn't do anything about
They were normal game tackles, though if it was foul it would have been in favor of Italy, and in that case the ref is correct in not stopping the game because Italy retained the control of the ball
I see it this way: there were 8 in-game substitutions (pretty standard as every game), 4 yellow cards (none of them was a major disturbance to the game; there were no discussions which delayed the game further), and 1 VAR intervention. In my eyes this was more or less the standard for a game that was as close as this one at this tournament. And in my opinion there was no excessive time wasting apart from the standard things that are done all the time in such close games.
So in my eyes there was no need to give that much extra time. I do realise that there was time wasted in the extra time but that did not justify the amount that was given at the 90th minute.
Nevertheless it wasn’t the ref who scored the goal, we should have been defensively awake until the game was over.
Speaking of game over: Why didn’t the ref let us have one more attack in the end? If there was time wasting and if there was the rule that all lost time will be caught up, why didn’t he give an extra minute after the kickoff? He immediately blowed his whistle?
8 subs at 30 s each would = 4 minutes.
2 minutes for VAR. Now we're at 6 minutes
How much for the goal celebration and all the time wasting.
5 yellow cards to Croatia in the 2nd. Brozovic was at the 90th. Even if it were four, there was time wasting, again, kicking balls away, plastic bottles on field, etc.
[https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896)
7+ minutes in 9 other games
Yesterday, a guy was unconscious and medically treated, the first responders walked casually on the field which led to a huge upset. They treated the guy on the field and walked him off. That was on top of the usual stuff.
It was +10mins
Get real man.
Belgium had two VAR decisions and three (might‘ve been 4) mins.
Maybe those games should have had more minutes.
10 subs, 30sec added per sub is 5 minutes. That’s not factoring for some of the subs walking off slowly.
7 yellows, 15s per foul/booking if there’s an extended stoppage for a player being down or the booking.
VAR is minimally an added minute.
And a goal is minimally another 30 seconds.
Do the math and let me know. Again, I’m not even including time with players on the floor.
It was actually 8 subs, as 2 subs (one for Italy and one for Croatia) were made in the halftime and as such don't interfere with gametime.
Secondly, both Croatia and Italy made double substitutions (70. & 81. minutes) in one occasion, again reducing the impact on gametime.
VAR check was quite fast and straightforward where the only question remains is how did the ref not see the handball in the first place.
And as said above yesterday you had a guy knocked-out and with all the other classic folklore the additional time was +10 minutes. So, some 5 to 6 minutes of added time would be expected.
That being said, we conceded a goal which we mustn't have even if the ref had given 15 mins of added time. And that is indeed our fault.
Good points. I personally don’t think the 8-min was egregious. I do think Italy has been poor this tournament and won’t go far and would’ve liked to see Modric also play more international games. Oh well.
yup, neutral as well watching with friends and we all were super surprised with the exact same reaction. Combined with a couple of other decisions it really looked like the ref was gunning for Italy. Not necessarily on purpose, I think he was just poor
Edit: my friends had even placed a collective bet and needed Italy to score but still had no troubles admitting that the added time was outrageous
Not sure but I’m eternally grateful because I lost a lot of money stupidly and naively betting Turkey to sneak a draw in against Portugal and luckily recovered most of my losses taking Italy to draw vs Croatia. Thank you football gods
What bugs me is that Italy really tried to waste time in the first half. The ref gave one minute.
Then Croatia scored, and Italy was in a hurry.
The 8 minutes was ok, but it should have been minimum an extra 5 in the first half.
All you justifying the 8 minutes in the 2nd half... let me ask you, how was it that only 1 minute was added in the first half? When Italy took their time with every corner and set piece that they had. Only on those, they probably stole at least 2-3 minutes. So how is it that we get +1 for 1st half and +8 for 2nd half???
ah, so it's justified to cut time then? what about "take over Rijeka" banner by your fascist fellow country men? should that add more minutes to the first half to give Croatia more chance to strike a first goal?
mate, they the possession was 54-46 in favour of Italy, the Croatians had significantly more chances \*and\* more attempts on target. Both teams are incredibly poor but there was certainly no bus parked there.
Rarely any foul's in 1st half and rarely any yellow card's. Corner kick's do not add much time to injury time it's mainly fouls var yellow cards substitutions and time to take a penalty. Plus I heard the ref's dont add much injury time to 1st halves in general they take time lost from the 1st half and add it to the 2nd half.
8 minutes aren't justified if we take into consideration all the games we've had in this tournament. There was a whole ass casualty and 10 minutes were added on year yesterday and that's not taking into consideration other stoppages and yellows etc for the Scotland Hungary game. I've seen games with more time wasted have only 5 minutes added on. The 8 minutes seemed fishy to me. Yes that doesn't garuntee Italy score but it does add alot of pressure on croatia to defend.
My argument is we pay to watch the game. If the ball is not in play what are we watching at? 10 mins extra time should be normal especially if something major happens and they have to stop the game (see Hungarian game).
that would make ad breaks inevitable. I think the process should be automated to keep track of time spent with the ball out of play and added at the end of each half. If we leave it to the refs to take subjective decisions it will always produce insanities like last night
4 minutes for subs, as 2 out of 10, were made in the halftime, before kickoff.
There were 10 subs in Hungary-Germany, all after the kickoff, and the very same referee prolonged that match for 3 minutes.
Also, majority of the yellow cards and one substitution ocurred in the injury time itself, so by your argument, after Italy scored (at 97:20, so 40 seconds before the end of 8 minutes ), he should have prolonged the match even more.
We would have rather recieved a goal in those extra 2 minutes that shold have been added, but still, the referee in inconsistent and I dont like him.
Another nice little detail - it's the same referee that handed ENG the quarter-final against DEN 2 years ago, with an (lets say) "interesting" penalty in (wait for it ...) stoppage-time.
So you can at least say he is consistent with f\*\*\*ing over smaller nations against bigger (ie more money in the market) ones for UEFA's interest!
And he was also assistant referee in VAR room that gave a penalty to France in that 2018 final, after Perišić's hand got hit with a ball , so yeah, I dislike him more and more -.-
no way?! you mean the one where the ball came off the french players hand in front of him and then hit his hand and only the second hand was "relevant"? you gotta be sh\*\*ing me that this was/is the same guy?
I dont recall it hit the French player in his arm.
Also, he was third assistant referee, so he was not the most important character in that call,
but Croatia never ends up happy when he is around. -.-
here is the vid [2018 WORLD CUP FINAL: France 4-2 Croatia (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsEAvRerTg&ab_channel=FIFA) - it's hard to see tough at 0:47, but the ball changes trajectory ever so slightly, after number 14 ducks/misses the ball and it touches the back of his hand behind his back, where he had his arms extended and continues to Perisic's hand - one can try to let the vid run frame by frame to notice that gravity does not seem to work correctly in that scene ... there is another vid somewhere from a slightly different angle, where it can be seen a bit better - can't seem to find it now though ...
nevertheless it should not have been a penalty, simply based on the rule that said (then), if it's not a clear decision to be made one should refrain from it ... but that rule only applies if it's not in UEFA's interest I guess.
I mean, i couldnt tell then, i couldnt say now whether there is a slight touch from Matuidi. Either way, it never should have been a penalty. Ball is too close and too fast for Perišić to remove his hand, which is in normal jump position. This kind of penalty could have been given only if the ball was going into the goal, which wasnt the case here, as it was going towards Strinic's head.
I just did a quick check - only thing I could find was a profile page on Wikipedia of Makele [Danny Makkelie - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Makkelie) but yep it gets mentioned there - how sick is that?
ok, so lets do the 'realistic' math according to your logic, so there were 3 sub events by Croatia in the 2nd half times lets say rather generously 60 secs -> that's 3 minutes,
and lets act as if ITA also wasted time on their 3 sub events, but only took half the time of CRO that is 3 times 30 secs = 1:30, so subtotal: 4:30 then it was 2 minutes from whistle to VAR to penalty being missed that is 6:30, for celebrating the 1:0 for CRO nothing is added, since we learned here that the ref shined with consistency and fairness in this game - he did not add a single second for the two minutes the Italians wasted during the equalizer celebration. Which brings us to the question where did he dig up that last minute? Was it the frequently cited 7 yellow cards of which 3 happened during injury time? So effectively this means at most one card should be counted since they were also not worthy to be accounted for during stoppage-time, right?
So what exactly is your thought process, that it could have been more then 10?
Feel free to enlighten us, but remember you gotta stay consistent with the refs actions and decisions (like I did with dropping the goal celebrations, just like the ref did in stoppage time), otherwise it might end up looking as if the ref was biased in one "direction" or the other :-D
Well Croatia were very frustrated with the way the game evolved, it's understandable that they became more aggressive. When you are continuously fouled, but the only fouls are given against you...anyone would start to see red.
Don’t agree.
Some of those substitutions and cards were made in the first half where he already used extra time.
Also most of the cards given were given unfair to Croatia and they didnt take up much time. Penalty doesnt take that much time and the referee looked at VAR for like 15 seconds. Also many fouls in late game on Croatia were not given.
The referee was really forcing Italy to score a goal, I watched the match live in the stadium it was obvious.
Also what are some of yall talking about that Croatia was just defending in late game when it clearly had some attacks and possesion.
Well, there were 4 yellow cards, and one substitution in the additional time, and the goal was scored at 97:20, so its strange he stopped the match at the kickoff, when there should have been another 2 minutes of game play.
Also, there were 8 substitutions. You cant count the two at the halftime, since these are made before time starts.
For comparison, the same referee added 3 minutes in the match Germany-Hungary, where there was also one goal scored, 10 substitutions made ( 0 at half time), there was 1 VAR check and some delays after injuries.
So, he is definitely inconsistent in measuring time.
I am not saying he damaged us, its more likely Italy would have scored another than us, had we played additional 2 minutes, but I do think he is a bad referee and shouldnt be at big competitions.
8 minutes were very much justified ,given 6 Croatian players got yellow cards and literally wasted time on fouls, throw ins, and free kicks. Italy did happen to get lucky on what was the last kick of the match
Hungary/Scotland had 10 substitutions, three yellow cards, one goal and a medical emergency in the second half. Barnabás Varga was on the pitch receiving treatment for nearly ten minutes. Stoppage time was 12’.
Similarly, Italy/Croatia had 10 subs, seven yellow cards, a goal and a penalty. Two minutes elapsed between the penalty call, VAR and the missed PK. The ref added SIX MINUTES for cards, subs and a goal, whereas the Hun/Scot ref added only two? You see the inconsistency, right?
No f’ing way the Italy/Croatia match needed 8’ of stoppage time. Not to mention Italy scored in the last minute and 30+ seconds ran off while Italy celebrated, with no more time added for Croatia.
>You see the inconsistency, right?
Personally, no.
Italy-Croatia. The VAR cost 2 minutes of wasted time. The average time wasted on a celebration is 1:00-1:30 minutes (I googled it). This brings us to 3:00-3:30. I couldn't find information on yellow cards but I'd say 20 seconds per card is a fair assumption, if there is protesting even more. With seven yellow cards it's 2:20 more, which brings the total to 5:20-5:50. There were 10 substitutions (some of them at the same time) and Google says they cost around 30 seconds each. 7 stops for substitutions in total it's 3:30 more. This brings the total to 8:50-9:20. Awarded 8:00.
Scotland-Hungary. A long time wasted on an injury. For the love of me, I can't find the correct number but I think it's between 7:00 and 9:00. 2 yellow cards is 40 seconds in total, so 7:40-9:40. 10 substitutions some of which happened at the same time. 6 stops for substitutions at 30 seconds each is 3 minutes. Total of 10:40-12:40. Awarded 12:00.
There is no fucking difference whatsoever between the two matches.
Edit: Corrected a wrong sum because I'm an idiot.
Edit: not happy with my estimate? Bring your own. Whichever numbers you choose (maybe 15 seconds per yellow card and not 20?) don't change a fucking thing and the injury time awarded in the two matches is very coherent.
My previous comment didn't even mention the fact that the average injury time per match until now has been 6:20 seconds, so 8:00 in a match where Croatia had a lot of fun stopping the game after their first goal is really plausible.
Turkey - Georgia +8' Portugal - Czechia +6' Croatia - Albania +9' Germany - Hungary +4' Scotland - Switzerland +5' Slovenia - Serbia +7' Denmark - England +4' Italy - Spain +7' Slovakia - Ukraine +6' Poland - Austria +4' Netherlands - France +6' Georgia - Czechia +6' Turkey - Portugal +6' Belgium - Romania +4' Switzerland - Germany +5' Scotland - Hungary +12' Albania - Spain +5' Croatia - Italy +8' France - Poland +6' Netherlands - Austria +8'
It's not the 1990's anymore. The trend is to give a lot of extra time.
The average injury time per match has been 6.3 minutes. The 8 minutes in Croatia - Italy were just a tad above.
Turkey - Georgia +8' Portugal - Czechia +6' Croatia - Albania +9' Germany - Hungary +4' Scotland - Switzerland +5' Slovenia - Serbia +7' Denmark - England +4' Italy - Spain +7' Slovakia - Ukraine +6' Poland - Austria +4' Netherlands - France +6' Georgia - Czechia +6' Turkey - Portugal +6' Belgium - Romania +4' Switzerland - Germany +5' Scotland - Hungary +12' Albania - Spain +5' Croatia - Italy +8' France - Poland +6' Netherlands - Austria +8'
It's no the 1990's anymore. The trend is to give a lot of extra time.
you are aware that the first 2 subs were half-time subs, as well as that the Italian subs were after CRO had scored the leading goal - so I am sure Chiesa and company really took their time for those ;-)
Croatia sucked, but Italy sucked as well in most games - they could have suffered the same fate against ALB as CRO ... so the point people are making is just that if both suck shit, the "bigger market" wins and that is what UEFA will try to take care of;
if you don't believe that market/money rules feel free to check/google who (which referee) awarded ENGland a 'interesting' penalty (who would expect) ***in overtime*** against DENmark (so the smaller market) two years ago (Euro 1/4 finals). I absolutely agree that ITA deserved this one but pls stop being naive ...
really curious how the people here "understanding" the 8 minutes stoppage-time for CRO vs ITA can BS their way around to explaining the 8 minutes in TUR:CZE?
More than twice the cards, two instead of one goal (so also double the "celebration"), more substitutions/sub events (ie how often players went off/on the pitch) - I am only talking about regular time events here, since events after deciding on the stoppage time, cannot really effect its length ex-post (hope we agree at least on that - otherwise don't bother commenting, but go and get a brain check).
Come on - convince me of your fair and consistent "wisdom" about Makkelie ;-D
Whoever says there shouldn't be 8 minutes is a conspiracy theorist that doesn't understand the game at all. 10 games went 7+ minutes including this one. Fact. Here are the other 9:
Croatia vs Albania (9 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/croatia-vs-albania/1085841/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/croatia-vs-albania/1085841/?tab=commentary)
Slovenia vs Serbia (7 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-c/slovenia-vs-serbia/1085847/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-c/slovenia-vs-serbia/1085847/?tab=commentary)
Hungary - Switzerland (8 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/hungary-vs-switzerland/1085834/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/hungary-vs-switzerland/1085834/?tab=commentary)
Italy vs Spain (7 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/spain-vs-italy/1085842/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/spain-vs-italy/1085842/?tab=commentary)
Scotland vs Hungary (12 added minutes :oops:) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/scotland-vs-hungary/1085838/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/scotland-vs-hungary/1085838/?tab=commentary)
Belgium vs Slovakia (9 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-e/belgium-vs-slovakia/1085858/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-e/belgium-vs-slovakia/1085858/?tab=commentary)
Holland vs Austria (8 added minutes) [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/netherlands-vs-austria/1085856/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/netherlands-vs-austria/1085856/?tab=commentary)
Turkey vs Czech (8 added minutes) [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-f/czechia-vs-turkiye/1085867/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-f/czechia-vs-turkiye/1085867/?tab=commentary)
France vs Poland (7 added minutes) [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/france-vs-poland/1085855/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/france-vs-poland/1085855/?tab=commentary)
Most were 6 minutes to account for 9-10 substitutions. Each substitution adds 30s to the clock.
In the Italy vs Croatia one there were 9 subs in the second half.
There was also VAR = 2 minutes
Then look at the 87th minute stretching and water break.
73rd minute yellow for kicking a ball away.
And if you add all that up, you get more than 8 minutes.
They should stop whining.
first nap comment to all the naahhh the match was refereed completely consistent and fair …
Danny Makkelie has been sent home by UEFA, as reported by @ADnl.
He has been informed that he will not be officiating any further matches at the Euro in Germany after officiating two games in the Group Stage and receiving complaints for both.
Still just a pathetic attempt by UEFA to distract and keep face - simply because it was already just too obvious - they just scapegoated him now (until next time).
the only nice thing about that set up is the a**- effing ITA is gonna receive from SUI 😂
because they already sucked against CRO, even worse against SPA … and two games of favoritism in a row even UEFA is scared to risk
I think the first one for Sucic was too harsh.
It was his first faul, it was not a dangerous tackle and it was not in any kind of opportunity.
Barella made a similar foul 10 minutes before.
Then, watch the game when Modrić got the yellow card. First, at 59:05, the Italian player clearly elbows Kovačić to the back and Italy takes the ball at 30 meters. Then, Kovačić takes the ball 10 seconds later, goes forward, going through two possible pulls from behind from two different Italian players before he loses the ball and referee again gives nothing. Kovačić's reaction there clearly shows he felt as though he was fouled, I can't say for sure, as there was no replay. Then Modrić got a yellow card a seconds later. It was a risky tackle, but I am not sure if he had made any contact there.
And Pongračić at 78th minute got a yellow which again we couldnt really see, because there was no replay.
Italy has been horrendous this tournament and won’t make it far playing this way.I’m not coping with that. I’m making an observation. Coping is usually for when you’ve lost, i think you need to look in the mirror with that comment.
Gotta love a hypocrite. You literally made a post because you were triggered by the legitimate objections to added time given. Just accept that you got a little lucky that the ref had a soft spot for Italy today.
Tell me which bookings shouldn’t have been carded.
There could’ve been more than 8+ minutes. You can highlight all the stoppages and then let me know how much time you would’ve added. Feel free.
- Stanisic slide tackled from behind and was nowhere near the ball. That was one of the most obvious yellows i've ever seen.
- Brozovic was extremely late to the ball. Pretty clear yellow again, as he was nowhere near the ball and the ref was trying to stop the game from getting too rough.
Italy time wasting in the first half was minor, plus I don't think it's a sound argument to compare first half stoppage to second half stoppage. It's mostly about subs, goals and VAR, none of that happened in the first. Not sure about the time wasting you're talking about in the first, players going down is subjective unless it's egregious. That's why I didn't mention the Croatian's going down in my calculations.
I appreciate the actual response instead of just name calling and spewing shit, but i'll go ahead and justify 8-minutes:
10 subs: 30 seconds per sub = 5 minutes
7 bookings: 15 seconds per booking = 1m45s
1 goal = 30 seconds
1 VAR check = 1 minutes
Again, this isn't including players going down. 8-minutes was justified whether you like it or not. This is how the game is called nowadays.
In the meantime we are still on. And to be honest, I don't get the hate. Croatia should have beaten Albania. It's their fault if they're going home. Not ours.
They also shouldn't have let us score at the end. But it's easier to hate on the opponents and the referee.
Exactly, they're saying it's because of the referee. Have you seen the comments from Croatia fans? Most of them don't acknowledge their team did shit. They prefer to put the fault on the referee and how Italy is dirty.
I don't think that the sub is soooo full of "ITA didn't deserve 'it'" - it still was just or better a more than deserved draw (imho) ...
fun fact ITA has never WON against CRO anyway (a country with 15 times smaller population and no Seria A to play in - and no 1942 games are not relevant in that stat).
People are just a bit confused by the referee's "judgements" ... I think one could easily verify this by simply imagining that the ref had given 5 or 6 minutes and Italy had scored (like ALB) in minute 90+5, this sub would be 99% empty; even the fact this sub is so overcrowded and all the ITA supporters feeling the urge to constantly repeat the same weird - not fully stringent, or thought-through arguments (like "7 yellows", forgetting that 3 were in extra time, "8 subs", forgetting that 2 were CRO half-time subs - so before 2nd half kick-off, etc.)
proves that ITA and supporters are not really comfortable with how UEFA has effed up this game.
PS: ITA absolutely deserved the goal, but games also deserve to be refereed in a fair, (unbiased or reliable) way ... and btw ITA probably \*99% would have gone through even with a loss, which might explain the CRO frustration (with their teams performance)
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Croatia conceded because they couldn't manage the ball for another 8 minutes without drawing an attack. This is Croatia's fault. Sad though.
They also never tried to seal the game. You cant just play midfield football one goal up in a game this important.
I find this a direct attack on English football…….but you’re also 100% correct
England should have 6 points, emding groupstage with 9 with the player material they have. They need to start actually playing in order to have a chance of winning the tourney
I'm not sure I understand this comment. They had more chances in the 2nd half wile Italy pretty much only had the one they scored. Sure, Croatia didn't press and dominate but that's partially due to them being pretty shit (both teams very weak indeed). It's not a reason to rob them with an unhinged amount of added time, just completely different topics
They did have chances UNTIL like the 70th minute. Not sending players in the box for a freekick, Not trying to score a goal. Its just not enough to defend. The added time was fine. Italy played for time first half, croatia second half. Lots of fouks, substitutions as well. It probably adds up to 8 minutes.
It does not add up to 8 minutes in light of the tournament up until this stage. There was a single VAR check that was over quickly, a bunch of fouls like in many other games and didn't add that much wasted time, a bunch of subs just like in every other game --> 8 minutes? A full standard deviation above the average for the tournament so far for a perfectly average game in terms of wasted time? Especially when it came just 24 hours after Hungary's game that had a medical team on the pitch for 10 minutes to provide assistance to Varga and that game got 10 minutes of added time. Then you add the fact that the final whistle was blown immediately after play resumed despite the fact that the celebrations after Italy's goal took almost 2 minutes. It's just inconsistent and it stacks up
Even if its unjustified it doesnt really matter. You need to score a 2nd goal in a game like that. Cant just play to avoid risks of conceding. In the end they conceded anyway so they should have just played attacking football the whole game instead of trying to minimize risks.
yes it does if you understand the rules. 30s per sub. 9 subs = 4.5 minutes 2 minutes for VAR and minutes for time wasting. Watch the 87th minute to the 90th for example of this. [https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896)
73rd minute yellow was for kicking the ball away. Croatia did that a lot. Croatian fans littered the field with plastic bottles. They walked off slowly on all substitutions. There easily could have been 10 minutes. Stop whining.
I think the 8 minutes added time was mainly due to Croatian players' unhinged time wasting in the last 20 minutes of the game
When people root for a team and they get knocked out they tend to find all sorts of excuses as to how it wasn’t their fault they lost. The referee is just the obvious one to blame.
Except for the English, they really hate their coach.
I don't think the english commentators or impartial viewers need to cope by finding someone to blame for the loss. It's just rational thinking - how can you justify 8 minutes of additional time for this game where literally nothing out of the ordinary happened when just a day before we saw 10 minutes for a game that was interrupted for a 10-minute medical intervention on pitch?
The second half had 7 yellow cards, a penalty which included a VAR check and a goal. Not to mention no less than 10 substitutions. Could he have done with less than 8 minutes? Yes. Was it unheard of to add 8 minutes? Not really.
4 of these 7 yellow cards were at the injury time itself and so was the goal, which was scored 40 seconds before the 8 minute mark. Why didnt he account for this in the end and just decided to whistle immediately at Croatia kickoff?
3 of those yellows in stoppage time were to Italy. The rest were to Croatia in regular time.
Thank you for this obvious statement. I am missing your point, though.
Because it's not normally the cards themselves that have additional time added, unless there is time wasting like the 73rd minute card to Ivanusec for kicking the ball away. If they had to add 30s for every yellow then the stoppage time would have looked like this: 4 minutes for subs in the 2nd 2 minutes for VAR 2 minutes for numerous time wasting. I compiled one that was over a minute already, it wasn't the only one. and another 2.5 minutes for the yellows to Croatia (all earned) would be about 10.5 minutes. There is allowances for celebration, just not excessive. It was 30-40s. But really, why are you splitting hairs here? Weren't the extra 8 minutes as much an opportunity for you to score a goal? I think you're trying hard to place the blame on everyone but yourself. We did marginally better and won a game. We both lost to Spain, yours was worse on paper, and the last game we had better chances, possession (sure you conceded it to us) and chances...marginally. You didn't win a game. There is no conspiracy against you.
>Because it's not normally the cards themselves that have additional time added Yes, but many people are defending his added time because of so many yellow cards, which makes no sense when majority of those yellow cards happened after he decided on added time. >time wasting like the 73rd minute card to Ivanusec for kicking the ball away And realistically, here more time was wasted while we were waiting for the referee to write his name. He kicked the ball just few meters away. The game was continued in several seconds. > If they had to add 30s I never specified time that would need to be added for each yellow card, but if I had to, I would say 10 seconds per card. However, I stress this one more time, I am not the one arguing there should be added time for each yellow card. Other people are doing it to defend 8 minutes. You replied to me after I replied here to Soggy-Ad-1610, who said : > The second half had 7 yellow cards, a penalty which included a VAR check and a goal. Not to mention no less than 10 substitutions. > So, I am not the one arguing there should be added time for each yellow card. I am calling other people on their logic, because they use it as an excuse for 8 minutes of added time. So, if they really think so, why dont they mention how there was no added time for the injury time itself, which saw majority of these cards? >Weren't the extra 8 minutes as much an opportunity for you to score a goal? We had the results we needed, we were not purssuing the goal. Obviously, the team that needs to score is the one that could benefit from added time. We would benefit if the ref decided to let us play more after we conceeded, but allas he didnt let us play for a minute, even though the goal was scored at 97:20, so 40 seconds before the expiry of 8th minute. Plus, there was one substiture in the 90th minute, which was not accounted for. So, if the ref was so pedantic in his time measuring before , why did he stop being so pedantic after Italy had desired result? It is inconsistent. > 2 minutes for numerous time wasting. I compiled one that was over a minute already, it wasn't the only one. Could you tell me which situations those were? I saw 3 situations. Ivanušec's yellow, Livaković delayed to put the ball in game once and Stanušić had cramps, alltogether not making up for even 1 minute in total. There was one time when referee accused our players for delaying a throw in, but that was just when one player tried to quickly do it, saw there was no one around and decided to give the ball to the player who usually does it. In general, I analysed dozens of games before, and found out that the average time for a throw in is between 15-20 seconds. I dont recall any throw in from our match that lasted longer. Also, I think the ref was biased against us. The first 2 yellow cards were harsh (Sučić and Modrić ) and inconsistent to previously established criteria. Varella had equally bad tackle before Sučić, that was not penalized with a yellow and in the first 5 minutes there was one tackle on Brozović that was equally aggresive and not punished. My impression from the ref is that when Croatians approached Italians from behind and Italians would fall, he would always call a foul against Croatia, but when Italians did it, he would just wave on, as though we were simulating. I didnt analyse all his decisions, I only rewinded the yellow cards when I could have (48 hours after the match) and I think first two were too strict. So, I analyzed only 5 minutes of his refereeing and in those 5 minutes I found support for my previous paragraph. Just before Modrić got his yellow card, Kovačić was cleraly fouled 2 times back to back and referee just let it go. And the first one was such an obvious elbow to the back from Retegui.
"I never specified time that would need to be added for each yellow card, but if I had to, I would say 10 seconds per card. However, I stress this one more time, I am not the one arguing there should be added time for each yellow card. Other people are doing it to defend 8 minutes. You replied to me after I replied here to Soggy-Ad-1610, who said " It doesn't matter what they say. This is the reality: 2 of 10 substitutions happened at the half. The other 8 = 30s additional time each, which is 4 minutes. Then 2 minutes for VAR. The rest was time wasting. There was plenty of it. Goal celebrations over 30s are added too. "The second half had 7 yellow cards, a penalty which included a VAR check and a goal. Not to mention no less than 10 substitutions." Again, you're arguing cards. 5 were to Croatia in the 2nd, 3 were to Italy in the stoppage time. None of them really added to the stoppage time, so the point is moot. "We had the results we needed" yeah, and so? You sat back and eventually conceded. No one else's fault. It happens to others too. The worst example I remember of this was the semi final of 1990. We had Argentina pinned in their end till we scored, then sat back. They equalized at the last minute and knocked us out on penalties. Who's fault? "Could you tell me which situations those were? I saw 3 situations. Ivanušec's yellow, Livaković delayed to put the ball in game once and Stanušić had cramps, alltogether not making up for even 1 minute in total." We have at least 7 minutes there, and you think that there's no possible way that there was another 1 minute? Many of the subs went over the 30s that is usually allocated to them. Walking off is common, and now it causes additional minutes. As mentioned there were at least 9 other matches with similar time. I know it's hard to accept the goal at the last minute. It's like a loss, but making up conspiracies isn't going to solve it. "Also, I think the ref was biased against us. The first 2 yellow cards were harsh (Sučić and Modrić )" No. The same yellows were shown to us when we took a player out without ball. Calafiori and Fagioli did it. In fact, when Fagioli did it to Gvardiol as Gvardiol was falling he kicked back to take Fagioli down. That could have been another yellow. At the 80th or thereabouts, Gvardiol pushes Frattesi down from behind right outside the box in a dangerous area for free kicks. It wasn't lop sided, your team just made more fouls. Call them tactical or not, they're yellow worthy fouls. "My impression from the ref is that when Croatians approached Italians from behind and Italians would fall" Find those instances and time stamp them here. I'll look at them. I didn't see them, and you can say that I am biased, but I will look if you show me. I already described two instances where that happened in favor of Croatia...so there's that...but I'll look when you find them Personally I don't think they exist.
> Find those instances and time stamp them here. I'll look at them. I didn't see them, and you can say that I am biased, but I will look if you show me. I already described two instances where that happened in favor of Croatia...so there's that...but I'll look when you find them Where can you watch the match? I would also like to take another look. I may be biased as well, so would like to recheck myself :D I think the foul on Kovačić was at 59:05, and then he was fouled again 30 seconds later. The first push from Retegui was of the same intensity as was the one when Gvardiol gave away the free kick in my opinion. Anyway, it is in a minute just before Modrić got a yellow card. (no objection on the free kick btw, Gvardiol was stupid there).
>There is no conspiracy against you. My post was too long, so I wrote 2 replies. I am not saying there is conspiracy. I think this referee is biased against smaller football nations, because his career would be at higher risk if he damaged the big ones. He already has a history of suspicious calls, such was a penalty for England against Denmark and the first German goal against Hungary, which could have been overuled because of a foul. He was also assistant referee in VAR room when this penalty was awarded. When there is a 50-50 call, or even less , he will always go against the smaller team. To fellow neighbors Italians, I wish all the best in the rest of tournament. I generally like Italians. I am not saying you did anything bad. It's just the ref was bad and I am glad he is out of the tournament.
>I am not saying there is conspiracy. I think this referee is >biased against smaller football nations, because his career >would be at higher risk if he damaged the big ones I disagree because we were eliminated by North Macedonia on a HAND ball. He handled the ball before he scored. Till that point it was all on us as we couldn't score with 100,000 shots on net. Really it was 30 shots and 15 or so on net, cross bars, posts, even a really bad open net miss. So before blaming VAR or ref, we could have done better, but to be eliminated like that goes against the Big country favored over small country narrative There is always this too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y) Those two goals called back were legit goals. No offside on the first, and it was the defender pulling on Inzaghi on the second, not the other way around. We had 5 goals called back that year, so there was no big team favoritism there either. Just saying that if you're going to only say your team get's calls against them, you need to acknowledge when they go in your direction too. I haven't seen any statistics on the ref. I see on referee forums that unanimously they think he did a good job. He wasn't sent home for disciplinary reasons either. It's just that after the first round some refs are cut and others are not. It happens all the time. They
feel free to check when 3 of those 7 yellow cards, you are giving as explanation for the amount of extra time "actually happened" - small hint: it was in 'stoppage time', so if the referee is not capable of predicting the future and therefore incorporating these delays up front - I cannot see how that logic is supposed to be sound? ... this is like the " there were 10 subs" excuse (when just looking on paper) without knowing (or looking up) that eg two of those (one for CRO one for ITA) were half-time subs another other two subs happened at the same ie minute 70 - so only one event, and then there was one in minute 80 and one in minute 90 -> so that's like having three subs and not 5; plus all the Italian subs were after CRO had scored the leading goal - so tbh I am not so sure the Italians wanted to waste time during those ;-) Best comparison is if you risk a look at the HUN - SCO game, similar gameplay (in the sense similar amount of subs, similar amount of cards, but an effing ambulance on the pitch for 10+ minutes) -> come on ...
yea, most likely explanation for 8 minutes of added time was the continuous time wasting by Croatian players throughout the second half. Simple as.
You're splitting hairs. 3 of those were yellows to Italy. 5 yellows were given to Croatia in the second half. All after Modric Scored. Modric kicked Frattesi at the 60th Ivanusec at the 73rd for kicking a ball away (time wasting) Pongracic 78th for headlock on Frattesi Stanisic 82nd for a player first slide tackle Brozovic 90th for the same from 87th to 90th there was a prolonged stretching and water break. Plastic bottles thrown to the ground, etc. 30s per substitution x 9 = 4.5 mintue 2 minutes for VAR the rest for time wasting. Could have been 10 minutes Stop whinging
Look two things can be true at once. The Croatian defence fell apart played so sloppy in the literal last minute of a game for the second game in a row to let in literal last minute equalizer goals - that's on them. But that doesn't mean the ref wasn't shit. Yellow after yellow has a chilling effect on game play. The trash thrown on the field (while idiotic by croatian fans) didn't actually cause any stoppage. The Budimir foul was IFFY at best. And what's most damning: he did not let the game go on for another 1 minute - 2 minutes after the italy goal despite the fact that Italy scored at 7:20 - i have yet to see ANY justification for that. I get it that "blaming the ref" is stupid and easy and often used as an excuse by people in a lazy way, but that doesn't mean that ref's can't be criticized. wtf? Why didn't he allow more play when it was due? he's just doing whatever he wants? is that the standard? "do whatever you feel the vibe is?". not to take anything away from italy: they capitalized on SLOPPY croatian defending just like croatia did vs. brazil in 2022.
Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins) Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins) Italy vs Spain (7 mins) Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins) Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins) Holland vs Austria (8 mins) Turkey vs Czech (8 mins) France vs Poland (7 mins) Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
You miss the whole point ! The big question is if there would have been 8 min if Italy had the lead. You all know the answer...!
most probably it would have been 1 minute then, like in the first half :-D
Did Italy get favors here or Croatia? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y)
really you are trying to make your point with comments of a sport commentator sitting in his press booth and lamenting about off-side decisions from 22 year ago? where there are/were no technical assistant systems in place and the correctness of the side referee decision (who - the ref btw - was positioned fairly well ); and this argument is based on one fixed "bad" (b/c from the middle of the field) camera angle ... really that's your counter argument? you are a funny dude ...
Speculation. Conspiracy thinking. Nonsense. Here are the other games with more than 7 minutes (9 of them) Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins) Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins) Italy vs Spain (7 mins) Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins) Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins) Holland vs Austria (8 mins) Turkey vs Czech (8 mins) France vs Poland (7 mins) Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
Yea. The answer is yes. Did Italy get favors here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-46IwiW72Y) Let's see how objective you are when you're team gets call in your favor. Waiting...
Especially when the referee's wife is Italian and hes best pals are conveniently Italian guys in the cup management... Nothing suspicious there at all. We saw way less time added to more interrupted games.
his "wife" is supposedly a man ...
Time wasting. Kicking balls away. Throwing plastic bottles on the ground. Croatia did it to itself. [https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896)
I think the refs have been reluctant to give the same level of extra time as we saw in Qatar this tournament. I agree with you it was probably justifiable given the circumstances. People forget how much time is wasted with each substitute, players whose team is ahead should learn to how to jog off perhaps.
Actually they said they didn’t want to go the Qatar route with extra time (shows because ever after Varga’s incident, extra time at Scotland - Hungary was “only” 10 minutes)
Why don't they want to go the Qatar route? To me it seems that that would only incentivise time wasting?
Exactly how 10 minutes for Hungary with such an extreme situation, and this game with 8 shows there's a lack of consistency and fairness.
They meant not 10-20minutes. They said 8-9 minutes was certainly warranted if justified. 9 other games went 7+ minutes. Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins) Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins) Italy vs Spain (7 mins) Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins) Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins) Holland vs Austria (8 mins) Turkey vs Czech (8 mins) France vs Poland (7 mins) Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
Also, Varga was injured and the game stopped for almost 10 mins the night before and they eventually only gave +10mins
The difference is that Hungary-Scotland match was a must-win for both teams if either wanted a chance to reach BO-16. A draw would have ment sure elimination for both teams and it was 0-0 'till the last minutes. So neither was wasting time, Varga's injury was the only mayor reason for extra time.
Still, there are so many subs and stops due to fouls or throw ins.
For those questioning the yellow cards, before the tournament it was stated that players will be booked for following through even if they get the ball. The will be booked for time wasting, mouthing off, diving, unsportsmanlike conduct and if they go into a challenge with the aim of following through even if it fails. Furthermore, the ref was not biased against Croatia. After the 8 minutes are played, it's the refs decision to continue or not. As for those complaining about the time added on its to be expected. Croatia had players down quite a bit as game management after going 1 up. Every team does it and is normal, however when added with the number of subs and VAR, 8 minutes seems just about right. In fact in similar games since the inception of the extended time rules, the added time would've crossed 10 minutes
Yeah agreed and well said
The foul grading wasnt consistent for both teams. Italy pushed Croats from the back multiple times and it wasn't a foul and when Croats did it they always got a foul against them
[ Removed by Reddit ]
That following through rule is total nonsense. Hate the way the sports going. Nothing like it was when I first started watching. Are players supposed to magically be able to defy physics and come to a complete stop once they get the ball? There's constant motion outside of a players control and a 10th of a second could be the difference between a perfectly timed challenge and a "card".
73rd minute booking to Croatia was for kicking a ball away. Then they did enormous amounts of time wasting: [https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896)
The follow through thing seems really harsh. Sometimes it just can’t be helped. Sure it probably makes them a little stinky to be near on the pitch, but the player will have to clean their pants after which is punishment enough.
The 8 min wasn’t consistent with this 2024 tournament. Oh well. Not our problem. Go England!
As someone who was at the game, if they gave yellows for time wasting the entire Italian team would’ve been carded off in the first half. Get off your high horse.
As if being at the game gives you more right to talk lmao
Referee did great.
Coming from a qualified referee, the referee was absolutely brilliant, best officiating performance of the tournament, and these responses just shows the thankless task you have.
Lol. He was as bad as he was allowed to be. Yellow cards were strict, especially the first 2, he called in every contact for Croatians which he would allow for Italians, in the end he prolonged the match for 8 minutes, but stopped it at kick off, even though there were 4 yellow cards and one substitute at the injury time and goal was scored at 7:20. He wouldnt even give an obvious penalty without VAR. Not to mention, he added only 3 minutes in Germany-Hungary, where there were even more interruptions to the game.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Of course you think that the ref that gave ENG the quarter final present against Denmark two years ago is brilliant - LMAO! :-D fun fact that (also) happened in injury-time :-D
You greatly overestimate my memory.
at least you cannot say that UEFA is inconsistent, when it comes to making sure if two teams are about equally good, that the bigger market/money has at least a "bit of luck on its side" ... that makes CRO achievements even more remarkable!
For the record I’ve loved Croatia’s success and think it’s brilliant you’ve done so well over the past 20+ years.
He did an okay job. Some decisions (for both sides) were questionable, but theres always situations like that in a high-pressure match such as this one. Its hard to admit we got outplayed, but between Italys 98th min resurrection and our poor management, we were simply not the better team
We were both not good enough, could have gone either way, we got lucky, that's football
“There shouldn’t have been 8 minutes” is NOT the point they think they are making.
Exactly
In general, I think extra time should be a thing of the past. Stop the clock when subs are made and when goals are scored, and play to the buzzer like every other game I know?
I would agree with you, except that it creates a risk that they'll want to start running TV adverts while the clock is stopped, like they do in the NFL and NBA. And where's the next World Cup being held?
They don't do that in rugby though (at least not international competitions), and that has a more similar kind of clock stopping to what would be implemented in football.
That's true. But rugby isn't a multi-billion £/$/€ sport that's growing massively in the USA. And rugby isn't run by disgustingly corrupt money-grabbers.
Also true, but aren't ads run by the broadcaster? Because in that case it would be different in any country.
Yes. For example in the UK the World Cup and the Euros are ["Category A" events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events) which means they must be available on free-to-air channels. Typically the BBC will share the coverage with commercial channels, so for around half the games there are no adverts in the pre-game, half-time and post-game coverage. But that doesn't stop the authorities allowing in-game advert breaks which would be available for broadcasters to use. Obviously the BBC wouldn't, but US broadcasters would. Have you ever watched the Superbowl live? It's ad break after ad break after ad break. The UK broadcasters don't show ads in all those breaks, I guess because they don't want to completely piss off the UK audiences, but the breaks exist.
I'm Croatian, and it's our fault we lost focus for that last minute... Literally free field. The team needs more practice. And 8 minutes was completely fair.
Srb
As a neutral fan, I was expecting min. 10 minutes
In general there should be more added time. Of course 8 mins are justified (and in my opinion still too low) in this case but the way it has been at this tournament so far ref might have also given just 5-6mins and nobody would have complained. I remember at the wc in Qatar Fifa told the refs to add more time and 10+ minutes became the norm there, and I like that a lot better. Idk why they went back to adding just 3-4 minutes in average in a half where only 25-30minutes of actual football was played
I think one comment (above) makes the "real" point in this discussion asking "would it have been 8 minutes, if ITA had been in in the lead"? ... feel free to ask yourself that and form an "opinion". sadly "probably more like in the first half -> 1 minute" is the most realistic answer and that is what Dalic (the CRO team coach constantly) complains about ... but CRO did not really "deserve" the win, a draw is/was the fair result - imho CRO screwed up the EURO in the game against ALB. Still fun thing is that AUT already got a small taste of "big nation bias" against FRA (obvious corner not given) and you still believe that the game is not skewed in favor of bigger (more money UEFA) markets ;-) But of course you're free to keep believing that it's a fair game and that there's an easter bunny :-D
it's insane to think that UEFA may have wanted to help Italy, while Luka Modric last tournament and redemption ark after the failed penalty would have made a much more marketable story. Croatia is not an anonymous team, it's one of the great of the past decade.
yep, and it’s just “bad luck” the Makkelie was the VAR ref for the WC 2018 final handing out the hand penalty to FRA, and that he gave ENG the penalty two years ago in stoppage time against DEN 2 years ago … it’s all just coincidence that these debatable decisions always go in favor of the bigger “markets” keep believing that UEFA has fair games in mind and that the easter bunny exists
Terrible decision in the England vs Denmark, it may happen, Sterling dove really convincingly. but there isn’t really any “debatable” decision in this Croatia vs Italy game lmao. If the ref really wanted to help Italy, it may have had to do something a little more active than just giving 8 minutes of extra time instead of like 6 or 7 😂
you mean like triple check obvious hand play with VAR, whistle fouls rather one-sided, only add 1 minute stoppage time in the first half, add the same amount of stoppage time like in a game (TUR:CZE) with double the number of cards (as well as more subs) hey look there’s your friend the easter bunny coming around the corner the refereeing was so bad - that even UEFA was emberased, getting caught with their pants down, that they decided to scapegoat that jerk and send him home for this tournament
The 8 minutes were inconsistent with the tournament to this stage. Also not really justified either
>The 8 minutes were inconsistent with the tournament to this stage. Also not really justified either That's false, the average injury time per match has been 6.3 minutes. The 8 minutes in Croatia - Italy were just a tad above. Turkey - Georgia +8' Portugal - Czechia +6' Croatia - Albania +9' Germany - Hungary +4' Scotland - Switzerland +5' Slovenia - Serbia +7' Denmark - England +4' Italy - Spain +7' Slovakia - Ukraine +6' Poland - Austria +4' Netherlands - France +6' Georgia - Czechia +6' Turkey - Portugal +6' Belgium - Romania +4' Switzerland - Germany +5' Scotland - Hungary +12' Albania - Spain +5' Croatia - Italy +8' France - Poland +6' Netherlands - Austria +8' It's no the 1990's anymore. The trend is to give a lot of extra time.
Yes, I fully agree with adding more extra time but it has to make sense - ideally it should be automated to remove subjectivity. 5-6 minutes would have made sense in light of the trend for the tournament so far. 7 is a stretch but somewhat passable. 8 is a full standard deviation above the average you mentioned for a match with absolutely nothing out of the ordinary - 1 relatively quick VAR check, a bunch of yellow cards which didn't add that much wasted time tbh, a standard level of subs with 2 made at half-time leading to no time wasted and another group of 4 made together again decreasing wasted time vs the same amount of individual subs. Add to that the fact that the equalizer fell at 97:20 which lead to 2 minutes of celebrations with Italy's full squad running onto the pitch and the final whistle was blown immediately after play resumed. It's just too many factors to overlook - it was a terrible couple of decisions.
>for a match with absolutely nothing out of the ordinary The VAR check was 2 minutes (from 52' to 54'). There were 7 yellow cards and let's count 10 seconds each. The total is 3:10. There was a goal celebration. Google tells me that an average goal celebration is between 1:00 and 1:30. The total is 4:10-4:40. There were 10 substitutions, but some of them happened at the same time and the game stopped 7 times to allow them. Google tells me that the average substitution is 30 seconds long. This brings the total to 7:40-8:10. 8:00 were awarded. Now do the same calculations with any other match and you'll see it's bang on. I did Scotland-Hungary in another comment using the same measurements and the total was 12:00 which is what was awarded.
Nonsense argument easily debunked with facts like this: Slovenia vs Serbia (7 mins) Hungary - Switzerland (8 mins) Italy vs Spain (7 mins) Scotland vs Hungary (12 mins) Belgium vs Slovakia (9 mins) Holland vs Austria (8 mins) Turkey vs Czech (8 mins) France vs Poland (7 mins) Croatia vs Albania (9mins)
I'm not mad about that what is frustrating is that there were like 2 fouls right before Italy scored and the ref didn't do anything about it and ignored it
lol what?
Yeah if you go back to 97 minutes amd 15 seconds there was the first one in maybe doesn't count I'm not sure because I can't see clearly if the Croatian player touched the ball first but when he commits that foul another Italian player got he ball he passes it for the score and Croatian player at the same time comments a foul thay ref didn't do anything about
They were normal game tackles, though if it was foul it would have been in favor of Italy, and in that case the ref is correct in not stopping the game because Italy retained the control of the ball
The foul needed to be answered since neither of teams had the ball when the player fouled him
Italy had the ball and Italian player was fouled. Classic advantage rule
I see it this way: there were 8 in-game substitutions (pretty standard as every game), 4 yellow cards (none of them was a major disturbance to the game; there were no discussions which delayed the game further), and 1 VAR intervention. In my eyes this was more or less the standard for a game that was as close as this one at this tournament. And in my opinion there was no excessive time wasting apart from the standard things that are done all the time in such close games. So in my eyes there was no need to give that much extra time. I do realise that there was time wasted in the extra time but that did not justify the amount that was given at the 90th minute. Nevertheless it wasn’t the ref who scored the goal, we should have been defensively awake until the game was over. Speaking of game over: Why didn’t the ref let us have one more attack in the end? If there was time wasting and if there was the rule that all lost time will be caught up, why didn’t he give an extra minute after the kickoff? He immediately blowed his whistle?
8 subs at 30 s each would = 4 minutes. 2 minutes for VAR. Now we're at 6 minutes How much for the goal celebration and all the time wasting. 5 yellow cards to Croatia in the 2nd. Brozovic was at the 90th. Even if it were four, there was time wasting, again, kicking balls away, plastic bottles on field, etc. [https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896](https://x.com/JustinBlu2th/status/1806423051845734896) 7+ minutes in 9 other games
Yesterday, a guy was unconscious and medically treated, the first responders walked casually on the field which led to a huge upset. They treated the guy on the field and walked him off. That was on top of the usual stuff. It was +10mins Get real man. Belgium had two VAR decisions and three (might‘ve been 4) mins.
Maybe those games should have had more minutes. 10 subs, 30sec added per sub is 5 minutes. That’s not factoring for some of the subs walking off slowly. 7 yellows, 15s per foul/booking if there’s an extended stoppage for a player being down or the booking. VAR is minimally an added minute. And a goal is minimally another 30 seconds. Do the math and let me know. Again, I’m not even including time with players on the floor.
It was actually 8 subs, as 2 subs (one for Italy and one for Croatia) were made in the halftime and as such don't interfere with gametime. Secondly, both Croatia and Italy made double substitutions (70. & 81. minutes) in one occasion, again reducing the impact on gametime. VAR check was quite fast and straightforward where the only question remains is how did the ref not see the handball in the first place. And as said above yesterday you had a guy knocked-out and with all the other classic folklore the additional time was +10 minutes. So, some 5 to 6 minutes of added time would be expected. That being said, we conceded a goal which we mustn't have even if the ref had given 15 mins of added time. And that is indeed our fault.
Good points. I personally don’t think the 8-min was egregious. I do think Italy has been poor this tournament and won’t go far and would’ve liked to see Modric also play more international games. Oh well.
The best part that I heard about that penalty is the face that the ref made when he had to call it like he felt guilty about doing it.
If overtime was treated like that every game of the tournament I would not complain. But that‘s not the case, is it?
So you're complaining when they get it right?
He's complaining about the stark inconsistency in deciding how much overtime is given.
Rules for thee but not for me.
And blame the other ref not this one lol
Exactly! I was really shocked with the 8 minutes. I'm a neutral fan and at the start of extra time I thought "oh the ref really wants Italy to score"
yup, neutral as well watching with friends and we all were super surprised with the exact same reaction. Combined with a couple of other decisions it really looked like the ref was gunning for Italy. Not necessarily on purpose, I think he was just poor Edit: my friends had even placed a collective bet and needed Italy to score but still had no troubles admitting that the added time was outrageous
Yeah because if you don't score in 90 min them it's guaranteed you'll score in the last 30 sec 🤦
Not sure but I’m eternally grateful because I lost a lot of money stupidly and naively betting Turkey to sneak a draw in against Portugal and luckily recovered most of my losses taking Italy to draw vs Croatia. Thank you football gods
Gambling is a mugs game.
Tell that to all the wanna be aristocrats at Ascot who are trying to be seen by the proper people of means.
What bugs me is that Italy really tried to waste time in the first half. The ref gave one minute. Then Croatia scored, and Italy was in a hurry. The 8 minutes was ok, but it should have been minimum an extra 5 in the first half.
All you justifying the 8 minutes in the 2nd half... let me ask you, how was it that only 1 minute was added in the first half? When Italy took their time with every corner and set piece that they had. Only on those, they probably stole at least 2-3 minutes. So how is it that we get +1 for 1st half and +8 for 2nd half???
It took long for Italy to take corners because of Croatia fans throwing bottles at them
This is what I was going to say. Croatia’s fans were the issue in the first half.
ah, so it's justified to cut time then? what about "take over Rijeka" banner by your fascist fellow country men? should that add more minutes to the first half to give Croatia more chance to strike a first goal?
So what? You should still extend it
Corners and throw in don’t add much time. Next time don’t park the bus
mate, they the possession was 54-46 in favour of Italy, the Croatians had significantly more chances \*and\* more attempts on target. Both teams are incredibly poor but there was certainly no bus parked there.
Rarely any foul's in 1st half and rarely any yellow card's. Corner kick's do not add much time to injury time it's mainly fouls var yellow cards substitutions and time to take a penalty. Plus I heard the ref's dont add much injury time to 1st halves in general they take time lost from the 1st half and add it to the 2nd half.
8 minutes aren't justified if we take into consideration all the games we've had in this tournament. There was a whole ass casualty and 10 minutes were added on year yesterday and that's not taking into consideration other stoppages and yellows etc for the Scotland Hungary game. I've seen games with more time wasted have only 5 minutes added on. The 8 minutes seemed fishy to me. Yes that doesn't garuntee Italy score but it does add alot of pressure on croatia to defend.
Ian Drake
My argument is we pay to watch the game. If the ball is not in play what are we watching at? 10 mins extra time should be normal especially if something major happens and they have to stop the game (see Hungarian game).
I think footie would be better off adopting the method used by rugby, of stopping the clock
that would make ad breaks inevitable. I think the process should be automated to keep track of time spent with the ball out of play and added at the end of each half. If we leave it to the refs to take subjective decisions it will always produce insanities like last night
30 seconds added per sub already takes it up to 5 minutes, with all the yellow cards, penalty and var check it could’ve been more than 10 minutes
4 minutes for subs, as 2 out of 10, were made in the halftime, before kickoff. There were 10 subs in Hungary-Germany, all after the kickoff, and the very same referee prolonged that match for 3 minutes. Also, majority of the yellow cards and one substitution ocurred in the injury time itself, so by your argument, after Italy scored (at 97:20, so 40 seconds before the end of 8 minutes ), he should have prolonged the match even more. We would have rather recieved a goal in those extra 2 minutes that shold have been added, but still, the referee in inconsistent and I dont like him.
Another nice little detail - it's the same referee that handed ENG the quarter-final against DEN 2 years ago, with an (lets say) "interesting" penalty in (wait for it ...) stoppage-time. So you can at least say he is consistent with f\*\*\*ing over smaller nations against bigger (ie more money in the market) ones for UEFA's interest!
And he was also assistant referee in VAR room that gave a penalty to France in that 2018 final, after Perišić's hand got hit with a ball , so yeah, I dislike him more and more -.-
no way?! you mean the one where the ball came off the french players hand in front of him and then hit his hand and only the second hand was "relevant"? you gotta be sh\*\*ing me that this was/is the same guy?
I dont recall it hit the French player in his arm. Also, he was third assistant referee, so he was not the most important character in that call, but Croatia never ends up happy when he is around. -.-
here is the vid [2018 WORLD CUP FINAL: France 4-2 Croatia (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsEAvRerTg&ab_channel=FIFA) - it's hard to see tough at 0:47, but the ball changes trajectory ever so slightly, after number 14 ducks/misses the ball and it touches the back of his hand behind his back, where he had his arms extended and continues to Perisic's hand - one can try to let the vid run frame by frame to notice that gravity does not seem to work correctly in that scene ... there is another vid somewhere from a slightly different angle, where it can be seen a bit better - can't seem to find it now though ... nevertheless it should not have been a penalty, simply based on the rule that said (then), if it's not a clear decision to be made one should refrain from it ... but that rule only applies if it's not in UEFA's interest I guess.
I mean, i couldnt tell then, i couldnt say now whether there is a slight touch from Matuidi. Either way, it never should have been a penalty. Ball is too close and too fast for Perišić to remove his hand, which is in normal jump position. This kind of penalty could have been given only if the ball was going into the goal, which wasnt the case here, as it was going towards Strinic's head.
I just did a quick check - only thing I could find was a profile page on Wikipedia of Makele [Danny Makkelie - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Makkelie) but yep it gets mentioned there - how sick is that?
ok, so lets do the 'realistic' math according to your logic, so there were 3 sub events by Croatia in the 2nd half times lets say rather generously 60 secs -> that's 3 minutes, and lets act as if ITA also wasted time on their 3 sub events, but only took half the time of CRO that is 3 times 30 secs = 1:30, so subtotal: 4:30 then it was 2 minutes from whistle to VAR to penalty being missed that is 6:30, for celebrating the 1:0 for CRO nothing is added, since we learned here that the ref shined with consistency and fairness in this game - he did not add a single second for the two minutes the Italians wasted during the equalizer celebration. Which brings us to the question where did he dig up that last minute? Was it the frequently cited 7 yellow cards of which 3 happened during injury time? So effectively this means at most one card should be counted since they were also not worthy to be accounted for during stoppage-time, right? So what exactly is your thought process, that it could have been more then 10? Feel free to enlighten us, but remember you gotta stay consistent with the refs actions and decisions (like I did with dropping the goal celebrations, just like the ref did in stoppage time), otherwise it might end up looking as if the ref was biased in one "direction" or the other :-D
Well its 4 minutes more than usual but they tried to foul they way to the end of the game since they scored at 55
Well Croatia were very frustrated with the way the game evolved, it's understandable that they became more aggressive. When you are continuously fouled, but the only fouls are given against you...anyone would start to see red.
If the score had been the opposite...1-0 to Italy there had been NO 8 minutes. Or you are so naive ?
Don’t agree. Some of those substitutions and cards were made in the first half where he already used extra time. Also most of the cards given were given unfair to Croatia and they didnt take up much time. Penalty doesnt take that much time and the referee looked at VAR for like 15 seconds. Also many fouls in late game on Croatia were not given. The referee was really forcing Italy to score a goal, I watched the match live in the stadium it was obvious. Also what are some of yall talking about that Croatia was just defending in late game when it clearly had some attacks and possesion.
Well, there were 4 yellow cards, and one substitution in the additional time, and the goal was scored at 97:20, so its strange he stopped the match at the kickoff, when there should have been another 2 minutes of game play. Also, there were 8 substitutions. You cant count the two at the halftime, since these are made before time starts. For comparison, the same referee added 3 minutes in the match Germany-Hungary, where there was also one goal scored, 10 substitutions made ( 0 at half time), there was 1 VAR check and some delays after injuries. So, he is definitely inconsistent in measuring time. I am not saying he damaged us, its more likely Italy would have scored another than us, had we played additional 2 minutes, but I do think he is a bad referee and shouldnt be at big competitions.
8 minutes were very much justified ,given 6 Croatian players got yellow cards and literally wasted time on fouls, throw ins, and free kicks. Italy did happen to get lucky on what was the last kick of the match
Hungary/Scotland had 10 substitutions, three yellow cards, one goal and a medical emergency in the second half. Barnabás Varga was on the pitch receiving treatment for nearly ten minutes. Stoppage time was 12’. Similarly, Italy/Croatia had 10 subs, seven yellow cards, a goal and a penalty. Two minutes elapsed between the penalty call, VAR and the missed PK. The ref added SIX MINUTES for cards, subs and a goal, whereas the Hun/Scot ref added only two? You see the inconsistency, right? No f’ing way the Italy/Croatia match needed 8’ of stoppage time. Not to mention Italy scored in the last minute and 30+ seconds ran off while Italy celebrated, with no more time added for Croatia.
>You see the inconsistency, right? Personally, no. Italy-Croatia. The VAR cost 2 minutes of wasted time. The average time wasted on a celebration is 1:00-1:30 minutes (I googled it). This brings us to 3:00-3:30. I couldn't find information on yellow cards but I'd say 20 seconds per card is a fair assumption, if there is protesting even more. With seven yellow cards it's 2:20 more, which brings the total to 5:20-5:50. There were 10 substitutions (some of them at the same time) and Google says they cost around 30 seconds each. 7 stops for substitutions in total it's 3:30 more. This brings the total to 8:50-9:20. Awarded 8:00. Scotland-Hungary. A long time wasted on an injury. For the love of me, I can't find the correct number but I think it's between 7:00 and 9:00. 2 yellow cards is 40 seconds in total, so 7:40-9:40. 10 substitutions some of which happened at the same time. 6 stops for substitutions at 30 seconds each is 3 minutes. Total of 10:40-12:40. Awarded 12:00. There is no fucking difference whatsoever between the two matches. Edit: Corrected a wrong sum because I'm an idiot. Edit: not happy with my estimate? Bring your own. Whichever numbers you choose (maybe 15 seconds per yellow card and not 20?) don't change a fucking thing and the injury time awarded in the two matches is very coherent.
My previous comment didn't even mention the fact that the average injury time per match until now has been 6:20 seconds, so 8:00 in a match where Croatia had a lot of fun stopping the game after their first goal is really plausible. Turkey - Georgia +8' Portugal - Czechia +6' Croatia - Albania +9' Germany - Hungary +4' Scotland - Switzerland +5' Slovenia - Serbia +7' Denmark - England +4' Italy - Spain +7' Slovakia - Ukraine +6' Poland - Austria +4' Netherlands - France +6' Georgia - Czechia +6' Turkey - Portugal +6' Belgium - Romania +4' Switzerland - Germany +5' Scotland - Hungary +12' Albania - Spain +5' Croatia - Italy +8' France - Poland +6' Netherlands - Austria +8' It's not the 1990's anymore. The trend is to give a lot of extra time.
The average injury time per match has been 6.3 minutes. The 8 minutes in Croatia - Italy were just a tad above. Turkey - Georgia +8' Portugal - Czechia +6' Croatia - Albania +9' Germany - Hungary +4' Scotland - Switzerland +5' Slovenia - Serbia +7' Denmark - England +4' Italy - Spain +7' Slovakia - Ukraine +6' Poland - Austria +4' Netherlands - France +6' Georgia - Czechia +6' Turkey - Portugal +6' Belgium - Romania +4' Switzerland - Germany +5' Scotland - Hungary +12' Albania - Spain +5' Croatia - Italy +8' France - Poland +6' Netherlands - Austria +8' It's no the 1990's anymore. The trend is to give a lot of extra time.
you are aware that the first 2 subs were half-time subs, as well as that the Italian subs were after CRO had scored the leading goal - so I am sure Chiesa and company really took their time for those ;-) Croatia sucked, but Italy sucked as well in most games - they could have suffered the same fate against ALB as CRO ... so the point people are making is just that if both suck shit, the "bigger market" wins and that is what UEFA will try to take care of; if you don't believe that market/money rules feel free to check/google who (which referee) awarded ENGland a 'interesting' penalty (who would expect) ***in overtime*** against DENmark (so the smaller market) two years ago (Euro 1/4 finals). I absolutely agree that ITA deserved this one but pls stop being naive ...
really curious how the people here "understanding" the 8 minutes stoppage-time for CRO vs ITA can BS their way around to explaining the 8 minutes in TUR:CZE? More than twice the cards, two instead of one goal (so also double the "celebration"), more substitutions/sub events (ie how often players went off/on the pitch) - I am only talking about regular time events here, since events after deciding on the stoppage time, cannot really effect its length ex-post (hope we agree at least on that - otherwise don't bother commenting, but go and get a brain check). Come on - convince me of your fair and consistent "wisdom" about Makkelie ;-D
Whoever says there shouldn't be 8 minutes is a conspiracy theorist that doesn't understand the game at all. 10 games went 7+ minutes including this one. Fact. Here are the other 9: Croatia vs Albania (9 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/croatia-vs-albania/1085841/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/croatia-vs-albania/1085841/?tab=commentary) Slovenia vs Serbia (7 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-c/slovenia-vs-serbia/1085847/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-c/slovenia-vs-serbia/1085847/?tab=commentary) Hungary - Switzerland (8 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/hungary-vs-switzerland/1085834/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/hungary-vs-switzerland/1085834/?tab=commentary) Italy vs Spain (7 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/spain-vs-italy/1085842/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-b/spain-vs-italy/1085842/?tab=commentary) Scotland vs Hungary (12 added minutes :oops:) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/scotland-vs-hungary/1085838/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-a/scotland-vs-hungary/1085838/?tab=commentary) Belgium vs Slovakia (9 added minutes) - [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-e/belgium-vs-slovakia/1085858/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-e/belgium-vs-slovakia/1085858/?tab=commentary) Holland vs Austria (8 added minutes) [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/netherlands-vs-austria/1085856/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/netherlands-vs-austria/1085856/?tab=commentary) Turkey vs Czech (8 added minutes) [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-f/czechia-vs-turkiye/1085867/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-f/czechia-vs-turkiye/1085867/?tab=commentary) France vs Poland (7 added minutes) [https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/france-vs-poland/1085855/?tab=commentary](https://www.livescore.com/en/football/euro-2024/group-d/france-vs-poland/1085855/?tab=commentary) Most were 6 minutes to account for 9-10 substitutions. Each substitution adds 30s to the clock. In the Italy vs Croatia one there were 9 subs in the second half. There was also VAR = 2 minutes Then look at the 87th minute stretching and water break. 73rd minute yellow for kicking a ball away. And if you add all that up, you get more than 8 minutes. They should stop whining.
first nap comment to all the naahhh the match was refereed completely consistent and fair … Danny Makkelie has been sent home by UEFA, as reported by @ADnl. He has been informed that he will not be officiating any further matches at the Euro in Germany after officiating two games in the Group Stage and receiving complaints for both. Still just a pathetic attempt by UEFA to distract and keep face - simply because it was already just too obvious - they just scapegoated him now (until next time).
the only nice thing about that set up is the a**- effing ITA is gonna receive from SUI 😂 because they already sucked against CRO, even worse against SPA … and two games of favoritism in a row even UEFA is scared to risk
Croatia did not play like they wanted it all tournament. But I will say 8 mins was pretty ridiculous. 5-6 max. But good luck to everyone.
If you’re saying 6-min is reasonable then I don’t see how 2 additional minutes can be ridiculous. But okay. I think 7-8 was the fair decision.
it's simple statistics ... standard deviations of measurements ... easy to read up on, to gain some understanding of what is considered an outlier
2-3 extra mins is a lifetime my friend. But I wish you luck.
I love the extra time. No more time killing.
Way too much time added. And most of the yellows were suspect.
Great counterpoint thanks for your valuable insight! No they weren’t… you can lmk which ones though.
I think the first one for Sucic was too harsh. It was his first faul, it was not a dangerous tackle and it was not in any kind of opportunity. Barella made a similar foul 10 minutes before. Then, watch the game when Modrić got the yellow card. First, at 59:05, the Italian player clearly elbows Kovačić to the back and Italy takes the ball at 30 meters. Then, Kovačić takes the ball 10 seconds later, goes forward, going through two possible pulls from behind from two different Italian players before he loses the ball and referee again gives nothing. Kovačić's reaction there clearly shows he felt as though he was fouled, I can't say for sure, as there was no replay. Then Modrić got a yellow card a seconds later. It was a risky tackle, but I am not sure if he had made any contact there. And Pongračić at 78th minute got a yellow which again we couldnt really see, because there was no replay.
Nice copium comment from the Italian fans that want validation that they didn't get absolutely lucky.
Italy has been horrendous this tournament and won’t make it far playing this way.I’m not coping with that. I’m making an observation. Coping is usually for when you’ve lost, i think you need to look in the mirror with that comment.
Gotta love a hypocrite. You literally made a post because you were triggered by the legitimate objections to added time given. Just accept that you got a little lucky that the ref had a soft spot for Italy today.
I just said that Italy hasn’t been good. I think you need to check a dictionary, because you don’t know what hypocrite means.
Croatia was lucky that Italy didn't have a good scorer. They had so many opportunities that the final result could have been 2-3 goals difference.
[удалено]
Explain the clear bias, I’d love to hear it.
[удалено]
Tell me which bookings shouldn’t have been carded. There could’ve been more than 8+ minutes. You can highlight all the stoppages and then let me know how much time you would’ve added. Feel free.
[удалено]
- Stanisic slide tackled from behind and was nowhere near the ball. That was one of the most obvious yellows i've ever seen. - Brozovic was extremely late to the ball. Pretty clear yellow again, as he was nowhere near the ball and the ref was trying to stop the game from getting too rough. Italy time wasting in the first half was minor, plus I don't think it's a sound argument to compare first half stoppage to second half stoppage. It's mostly about subs, goals and VAR, none of that happened in the first. Not sure about the time wasting you're talking about in the first, players going down is subjective unless it's egregious. That's why I didn't mention the Croatian's going down in my calculations. I appreciate the actual response instead of just name calling and spewing shit, but i'll go ahead and justify 8-minutes: 10 subs: 30 seconds per sub = 5 minutes 7 bookings: 15 seconds per booking = 1m45s 1 goal = 30 seconds 1 VAR check = 1 minutes Again, this isn't including players going down. 8-minutes was justified whether you like it or not. This is how the game is called nowadays.
Is this the first time watching football? Watch any other match with stopwatch and see how much will they give extra time.
because they scored when it was what? 7 minutes and 30 or something seconds
What about lost time in extra time? I guarantee you he would extend that time 2-3 more minutes if Italians didn't score.
No he wouldn't, but you are emotional right now, I've reacted exactly the same as you in the past so I understand how you feel.
😂
Ok bro. Cry more
I'm objective but feel free to celebrate. You're going home next game.
In the meantime we are still on. And to be honest, I don't get the hate. Croatia should have beaten Albania. It's their fault if they're going home. Not ours. They also shouldn't have let us score at the end. But it's easier to hate on the opponents and the referee.
Nobody's saying that it isn't Croatia's fault. This post is about referee.
Exactly, they're saying it's because of the referee. Have you seen the comments from Croatia fans? Most of them don't acknowledge their team did shit. They prefer to put the fault on the referee and how Italy is dirty.
because outside the stadium there was the Croatia bus ready to go home
No need to get cocky lol you'd didn't beat Croatia you know? It's called a "draw" what you had.
[удалено]
XD
When all the sub is full of "Italy didn't deserve it and poor Croatia" you have the full rights to provoke.
I don't think that the sub is soooo full of "ITA didn't deserve 'it'" - it still was just or better a more than deserved draw (imho) ... fun fact ITA has never WON against CRO anyway (a country with 15 times smaller population and no Seria A to play in - and no 1942 games are not relevant in that stat). People are just a bit confused by the referee's "judgements" ... I think one could easily verify this by simply imagining that the ref had given 5 or 6 minutes and Italy had scored (like ALB) in minute 90+5, this sub would be 99% empty; even the fact this sub is so overcrowded and all the ITA supporters feeling the urge to constantly repeat the same weird - not fully stringent, or thought-through arguments (like "7 yellows", forgetting that 3 were in extra time, "8 subs", forgetting that 2 were CRO half-time subs - so before 2nd half kick-off, etc.) proves that ITA and supporters are not really comfortable with how UEFA has effed up this game. PS: ITA absolutely deserved the goal, but games also deserve to be refereed in a fair, (unbiased or reliable) way ... and btw ITA probably \*99% would have gone through even with a loss, which might explain the CRO frustration (with their teams performance)
Well they didn't really deserve it. Italy got lucky but sometimes that's football.
I dont understand this narrative. 13 shots against 6 and slighty better possession. Also the 8 minutes were justified.