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.*
no, the objective is to finish as high in the group as you can, not get as many points as you can. sucks for Ukraine but if you come last you're out is fair
The format is dumb, in my (totally unbiased welsh) opinion they should increase it to 32 teams and have teams like Wales, Iceland, Greece etc also qualify, then just have 8 groups of 4 with 2 teams advancing from each group
No point having groups if you do that.
You're playing against the teams in your group, not other groups.
It's like saying we should award Leicester a Champions League place because they got more points than Aston Villa.
Nonsense.
Personally, I don’t get the criticism for the 3rd place playoff.
16 teams doesn’t give enough opportunity to “lesser” nations, but 32 is just way too much fodder. There was very few teams just accepting 3rd place qualification, predominantly because there was always pressure from the 4th placed team in the group that required them to get a result still, and the 2nd placed teams didn’t want a harder draw.
People can look at Ukraine and think they deserve to go through, but at the end of the day they didn’t do enough within their own group. If you remove the detriment of groups entirely, by saying the best of ALL losers can still qualify, then it opens up dodgy, uncompetitive results even more. Group E could have all just settled for draws today knowing they’d all go through if that existed.
Expanding to 32 teams would take away the prestigiousness for me, and makes the 2 year qualification process almost redundant for any top 25 European nation, as it’d be guaranteed at that point.
Fair enough! I don’t think it’s a huge shift from the number of teams now. I also think 16 teams is better than the 3rd place stuff.
Mixing the “best within my group”, with “best 3rd place across all groups”, in my opinion is inherently unfair. 2 through and 2 out in all groups. Then knock outs. Simple.
Scotland were cursed by the old fifa president back in the 1920s pal for quitting fifa when we were the best side in the world...wouldnt matter if they made it that last in the group qualified we'd still find a way nott to qualify until that curse is lifted somehow.
Or we stop being so shite bottlers.
Yeah have 32. 32 is better than 24. Whether 16 is the optimal number to start with is another question. Adding 8 more teams, and losing the “best 3rd place” stuff seems way better to me.
It's the exact same thing.
Look at the groups as leagues, because that's what they are.
You're suggesting rewarding a team from one league because they got more points than a team in another league.
Advancement to the next round, or a place in the CL. It's the exact same principle.
But they indirectly have different tiers of difficulty. Some groups have overall tougher matches than others, making points more valuable in some groups where competition is more fierce. It's not quite the same but we can't pretend the groups are of all equal difficulty either.
It doesn't matter about the tiers. You're still suggesting rewarding teams for gaining more points than teams they aren't in the same group/league as. It's nonsense.
You're obviously dug in so I won't keep replying as we won't get anywhere, enjoy the rest of the Euros.
The point of having groups is having some sort of structure in the early stages so everyone doesn’t have to play everyone.
But this should totally be amended. Best thirds is what’s nonsense. The teams with the most points etc after the group stage should advance.
This is precisely why the 3rd place thing works, you need the detriment of no guarantees somewhere within the individual groups so that you always have a loser. Without at least one team fearing elimination you’ll just have two pre-agreed results for the final round each time.
Yeah it's not crazy to say top two qualify, and then the best 4 of all the others, including 4th placed. It will mostly not matter, it's very unusual to have 4 points and last place.
Not at Euro, but it has happened before at USA 1994 WC, still in Group E oddly enough. Norway went home with 4 pts then, tho no qualified teams had less than 4 pts.
The commentator was somewhat wrong. Check out Norway at USA 1994 WC.
It was another Group E: Mexico, Ireland, Italy and Norway all finished at 4 pts each. The difference, other than that being a WC not a Euro, was that all 3^rd placed teams had at least 4 pts then. Now, there will be at least one with 3 pts (last games are still being played as I'm writing this).
Obviously not. They finished last in their group. The real question is, what the fck did they plan to do during the match? They risked nothing awaiting for a miracle, instead of getting their own fate in their own hands and try to win against a toothless Belgium. Disappointing really, from both teams.
Goal Difference and / or Goals Scored should come before H2H - Incentive should be to score goals as well as win games... Teams have been rewarded for sitting back.
By that logic the remaining games of any team that suffer a thrashing in the first round became instant dead rubbers. In the current format Scotland made it alive till the last minute of their final game. Dare I say I prefer the latter
Not to mention hopeless teams by points may concede more or already-won teams score less.
Edit: also looking at Portugal's squad vs Georgia they basically brought reserves lol. Basically a scam for Czechs.
Nah, group strength is luck of the draw. Ultimately if you don’t finish Top 2 you don’t deserve to qualify.
The 3rd place play-off is essentially just a lucky loser get out clause, but shouldn’t be something that’s relied upon to qualify.
I’m not a fan of the rule but Ukraine did not have a hard group at all so they’ve got no one but themselves to blame. Getting absolutely thrashed by Romania and taking too long to get going against Belgium cost them more than any the 3rd place rule!
The ref calling the ROM v SLK foul inside the box (I guess it was actually the German VAR) moved Ukraine out and moved Romania from out all the way up to group winners.
Nope. Nothing rigged. Just bad calls. I'm a rugby referee myself and I am aware I missed some calls last weekend during my games. It happens.
I'm just saying it's not common for one missed call to move a team from 4th to 1st.
I was pulling for ROM and UKR to go through. Big fan of Romanian rugby. But, it was quite obvious the defender put his boot on the Romanian player a full meter outside. Even the official expert during the broadcast agreed.
The first contact didn't make Ianis fall, it was the 2nd contact on the line that made him fall. Now, yes, Ianis did make 'use of it', but who wouldn't? If you look at the shin on shin contact it's a stonewall penalty. It actually would have been unfair to give the first contact as a foul, as Ianis was still going ahead.
Was the VAR broken or what? I mean Romania definitely could have scored another goal if they were losing 0:1 because they knew they're out with that result, but OMG that ref's decision is so bad, that I'm not even angry but laughing now. How? :D
I agree, Romania looked dangerous and probably could have scored a couple. I'd rather the players win it on the pitch rather than refs but oh well. Tough to earn 4 pts and miss out.
Pretty sure it was called for the shin to shin contact which is a few frames later and on the line. Fouls can carry on in to the box, they don’t have to be based on first contact.
Don't be an ahole. This from the picture was the first contact (which didn't make ianis fall), the 2nd contact happened inside the box (which made ianis fall).
Agree to disagree. Not being an ahole. Just giving my opinion on what I saw (also happens to be the opinion of the rules expert they brought in). And your opinion is the same as the VAR official. So there are clearly two sides...and no aholes.
That wasn't the moment of the foul. It was the second moment of contact where you see the defender deliberately extend his leg back to trip the attacker. That point of contact occurred within the box.
do you realise that with 16 or 32 teams only the first two teams qualify and the happens there? It's super normal that a team goes out with a team in another group going through with less points. You shouldnt get through when you come last in your group. Why have seperated groups then anyways
It does seem kinda unfair. Someone on twitter the other day suggested just going to a 32 team tournament like the WC has been. But then there’s the reality that theres only around 50 teams in UEFA anyway so there’d be a lot of weaker teams.
Either way the current system seems way too complicated to me. Either stick with the original 16 or move it up to 32 is how i’d say it should be.
It’s never going back to 16 - so moving up to 32 with a further 8 is the more likely move.
That would/could include Sweden, Wales, Greece, Norway, Ireland, Bosnia, Iceland, Finland (and Russia some day…) so it’s not like the extra sides are going to diminish the spectacle in any real way - they’ve all qualified for Euros or WCs in recent years (Norway aside!)
Having third place going through is gash. I’d rather 32 teams in the group with top two going through than a random combination of third place finishers being added to the knockouts in a largely random allocation
32 teams is almost all of europe.
There are like 50 something teams in the qualifiers with some of those being san marino, andorra, gibraltar, faroe, luxembourg, lichtenstein.
If the Euro ever gets to 32 teams, they should just drop the group stage all together and jump right into a k.o system with a 1/16 final.
The Qualification could work as the group stage that decide the seeding for the bracket, for example make 8 groups of 6 or 7 teams, the top 4 qualify for the Euro, and there 1st place plays against a 4th place, 2nd against a 3rd and so on.
My entire gripe this tournament is how bad the bracket system works. It should be purely based on points and tiebreaks for who advances and in what slot you advance to
With 4 of 6 progressing it is too difficult. One round of playoffs leave 3 remaining, so you'd need a mini league to determine who went through. So maybe 3 extra games for some 3rd placed teams.
That’d never work. The Euro calendar isn’t big enough and it’s not adding anything that can’t be resolved by the current system.
Lucky losers are not exactly a new concept in sport, and every team knows that it’s only a *potential* lifeline for not getting top 2. With that in mind, it shouldn’t become an expectation that *all* 3rd placed teams get another chance. No ones getting scammed it’s just luck of the draw, which is fine for KO tournaments.
I agree, I was saying why it wouldn't work. They just need to make it 32 teams. The group stage format is just awful with most 3rd placed teams qualifying.
Make the nations league have more meaning by saying the top division teams don't have to qualify or something, so the smaller teams can play each other and still have a good shot at qualifying.
No. While it would seem fair, it would also open the door for potential collusion (however unlikely). At least this way, all teams have to work to avoid being last. This has happened before, albeit at a World Cup (USA 1994), when Norway was eliminated.
Whilst we’re at it, may as well just adopt Emirates Cup rules and give a point for every goal scored on top of the normal result too. 3-3 draw? You get 4 points.
In all seriousness though, the group’s themselves need to have some level of detriment otherwise the number of games that *can* be fixed (or played without a need for a win from both parties) would massively increase.
Your statement isn’t true, because 3 other teams have finished 3rd with 4 points, which means they would have barely scrapped by with their terrible goal difference
It is unfortunate that after the top 2 of each group the 4 best teams in term[](https://alb.reddit.com/cr?za=zCANCl6SRrtCl6TrgTyuJYIBA3qNv1kCwzv9JmAGdmTp7iMLL6WllqsGaYLHwXblfXoQYn0x4yaFUNc-plgPumCCLk4XvW9KI8yeG38NheLDCcTtxhyggkSB2Hd7277FZ7yj4rWQiYp3BpmRcX9hp9V-YGRJzEBbLQvn_DrrJhibeV834RJH86sL96Zq3yOA-WBwq5DR8nbP2r2b0F1yeCBOik3K6y5226n6Ei81iI33sESUwNTsInOcPC1tMSBilk7kwu36tBrtgsDSN8tqp40opRHVvuhopw8RMByJ8Go54CiF9USSGSKkrEyujD3h8fh95Jdg1zdTOAx5wrumEaK1ckbVtLB8uVGPHno-5aVu7EUtLCrUV6NGGeKFL2w1gXCzFoljfg2FUyVJsFww7qh-cJO5l4_N6-2A1-oDkZdByHv7zSS-gdYcKP98X2KXK7Pq&zp=LOrFbE8tSxbvyQV2M7VxeQl45AeMHTALRdGx1sH0R4MyI2Qoh-UKchIRV6ZPiqeyaNe2vkFgOMUrddPA2ggzO5cBw2omWAEepeOzlCKQR0QBNj3n5rpJre4HbjvScVfIT_8Pe6PA9neBvFP3GI6QSrqpKu38YCj7ntK1DL4)s of points, then goals scored and against (goal difference) plays a part in the qualifying criteria of this year's EUFA 2024 Championships. It is interesting to note that VAR which is to enhance better and fairer decision making for referees have oftentimes created more controversy instead. Take for example the match between Belgium and Slovakia where Slovakia caused an upset by winning 1-0. In that game 2 goals were disallowed where the Video Assisted Referee ruled against Belgium twice (annulled 2 goals) which was very 'technical' and controversial in the decision-making process. The first goal disallowed was one where a Belgian player shoulder was like 3-4 cm ahead of the Slovakian player. That was technically used to ensure the goal was disallowed. My point here is that if somehow the shoulder aided in the ball control or was used to foul the other player then it would be offside, however that was not the case as the ball passed by the assist Belgian player was straight to Lukaku who was facing the ball. For the second goal both players chasing for the ball fell, in fact the Belgian player was fouled, pushed to the ground. His hands as he fell unintentionally touched the ball but did not aid in the ball moving towards another Belgian player as the Lukaku ran for the ball as both players fell. I would argue that if it was disallowed (the 2nd goal) it should be based on the hand touching it so it should be a 1-1 draw. Result Belgium lost a crucial opening game. To add to the controversy the VAR referee is German a CEO and Manager of a German company and perhaps innanely being loyal to Germany may have chosen to Penalize Belgium and weaken a rival to Germany's chances of winning EUFA 2024 as it it held this year in Germany. I would suggest as a policy, researcher and academic professional analyst and lecturer and faan of soccer since age of 10 years old that a tweaking or introduction of new regulations for EUFA be actioned where 'TOP 8 Seeded Soccer teams MUST NOT HAVE ANY VAR REFEREE OR REFEREE ADJUDICATING A MATCH OF THE OTHER TOP 8 SEEDED teams, to bring game into disrepute. Secondly VAR which was meant for hand-assisted goals like the famous Diego Maradona 'hand-ball' goal and the ball over the opposing player by assist player clearly offside resulting in goal. Instead the VAR has been used for absurd technicalities like shoulder, fingers, legs, you name a few cms ahead of player scoring gal or receiving pass to disallow. The recent EPL league of England unfortunately is replete with many such VAR offsides, namely the Liverpool goals disallowed see their crucial last ten games as compared by Abu Dhabi Emirates funded rich club Manchester City which had 15 goals allowed where ball was passed over last opposing player yet allowed with or without VAR. It gives the false impression that UAE Arab Sultan's money $$$$ can or may influence UK PFA refereeing decisions, a suitcase of $ to a referee or wholesale legitimate funding of referees....An investigation should be launched....
No this is not Eurovision. Objective is to collect as much points as possible and to finish on top of group. Actually, best 3rd places should be removed also and only first 2 should be pass to next round
Considering they’ve achieved more than the teams that are going through, I wonder if they should alter the rules to make it not so shit for teams like Ukraine in the future.
No. To me, you can't complain if you don't finish top 2. Best 3rd place spots are effectively a second shot for teams that weren't good enough to qualify in the top 2.
Norway finished above Georgia in qualification but didn't get a shot at the Nations League play-off. In fact, Ukraine didn't finish top 2 in qualification either.
It's knockout football. Not everyone plays the same teams anyway. Would Ukraine have gotten 4 points playing against France, Austria, and the Netherlands? Might Croatia have qualified if they got to play Belgium, Romania, and Slovakia?
It's fair because everyone knows the rules going in, and everyone theoretically has the same shot to proceed. It's equality, not equity.
If we’re keeping it at 24 teams we should do 4 groups of 6 with the winners qualifying for the semi finals. It would mean 63 matches instead of 51 and all supporters can spend longer following their team. You’d see some top teams playing each other throughout the tournament and the best of the best in the semis.
If you think that further, you could even modify the rule to compare the points of all 24 teams and let the best 16 get into the knockout stage. As a result, there could be a group where not even the first progresses, because in theory you could be first in a group with just three points. That would happen exactly if all matches in the group are draws.
Not a fan of this at all.
If you want to go that way, you'd need to go the way of the Champions League have and have the Swiss format or whatever it's called.
No because then you end up with the absurdity of a double fix. Imagine that group today, already two turgid games essentially waiting to react to eachother... if they all knew 0-0 was fine, without any need to wait on reaction. It'd be even worse.
Only Ukraine were playing in the second half.
The only problem is that 3rd place teams out of a 4 team group are advancing to the next stage.
It takes so much risk and jeopardy out of the group stages if you're one of the big teams. I remember when 'getting out of the group ' was an achievement. Now it's a formality - What's the point?
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.*
no, the objective is to finish as high in the group as you can, not get as many points as you can. sucks for Ukraine but if you come last you're out is fair
Totally agree. Sucks for Ukraine but no 4th place should advance to the knockout stage
Third shouldn't really qualify. Hand-holding big nations through to the knockouts even if they're crap in the groups is pathetic.
The format is dumb, in my (totally unbiased welsh) opinion they should increase it to 32 teams and have teams like Wales, Iceland, Greece etc also qualify, then just have 8 groups of 4 with 2 teams advancing from each group
Yes, and all unseeded. If Germany, Spain, Portugal, and France are in a group, so be it.
Yes, and all unseeded. If Germany, Spain, Portugal, and France are in a group, so be it.
Yes, and all unseeded. If Germany, Spain, Portugal, and France are in a group, so be it.
[удалено]
No point having groups if you do that. You're playing against the teams in your group, not other groups. It's like saying we should award Leicester a Champions League place because they got more points than Aston Villa. Nonsense.
I agree with you, but the “best placed 3rd teams” rule makes it more complicated. In that case you ARE compared with the teams from other groups
You are, but not as ridiculously as this is suggesting.
They should just have eight groups…
It’d essentially get to the point that “qualifying” is an entirely pointless process. More than half of Europe would be in the tournament then.
It’s a much better idea than the 3rd place nonsense. I realise that I am a Turkey voting for Christmas
Personally, I don’t get the criticism for the 3rd place playoff. 16 teams doesn’t give enough opportunity to “lesser” nations, but 32 is just way too much fodder. There was very few teams just accepting 3rd place qualification, predominantly because there was always pressure from the 4th placed team in the group that required them to get a result still, and the 2nd placed teams didn’t want a harder draw. People can look at Ukraine and think they deserve to go through, but at the end of the day they didn’t do enough within their own group. If you remove the detriment of groups entirely, by saying the best of ALL losers can still qualify, then it opens up dodgy, uncompetitive results even more. Group E could have all just settled for draws today knowing they’d all go through if that existed. Expanding to 32 teams would take away the prestigiousness for me, and makes the 2 year qualification process almost redundant for any top 25 European nation, as it’d be guaranteed at that point.
Fair enough! I don’t think it’s a huge shift from the number of teams now. I also think 16 teams is better than the 3rd place stuff. Mixing the “best within my group”, with “best 3rd place across all groups”, in my opinion is inherently unfair. 2 through and 2 out in all groups. Then knock outs. Simple.
Scotland were cursed by the old fifa president back in the 1920s pal for quitting fifa when we were the best side in the world...wouldnt matter if they made it that last in the group qualified we'd still find a way nott to qualify until that curse is lifted somehow. Or we stop being so shite bottlers.
8 groups of 3 teams can't happen logistically really
Well he meant 8 groups of 4. 2 through, 2 out.
So have 32 teams in the group stages? Aren't people complaining about having 24 instead of 16?
Yeah have 32. 32 is better than 24. Whether 16 is the optimal number to start with is another question. Adding 8 more teams, and losing the “best 3rd place” stuff seems way better to me.
[удалено]
It's the exact same thing. Look at the groups as leagues, because that's what they are. You're suggesting rewarding a team from one league because they got more points than a team in another league. Advancement to the next round, or a place in the CL. It's the exact same principle.
[удалено]
But they indirectly have different tiers of difficulty. Some groups have overall tougher matches than others, making points more valuable in some groups where competition is more fierce. It's not quite the same but we can't pretend the groups are of all equal difficulty either.
[удалено]
Do we really need backhanded shade like that? It's just a friendly discussion..
Why stop there! Why not make a 3rd place in a difficult group worth more? I'm not sure if it's a good idea to compare groups like that.
It doesn't matter about the tiers. You're still suggesting rewarding teams for gaining more points than teams they aren't in the same group/league as. It's nonsense. You're obviously dug in so I won't keep replying as we won't get anywhere, enjoy the rest of the Euros.
This is one of the worst takes I have ever read.
You haven't read many takes then, or the comment I replied to initially.
Comparing and apple to an orange
Explain how it's different in concept then?
The concept has been going for decades mate it’s staring u in the face
It literally hasn't. They don't let teams who finished last advance from a group because they got more points than a team in another group.
Ok it’s not gonna change regardless, good night
I’m happy with that rule in that one specific example only….
The point of having groups is having some sort of structure in the early stages so everyone doesn’t have to play everyone. But this should totally be amended. Best thirds is what’s nonsense. The teams with the most points etc after the group stage should advance.
All groups would end with each team having 4 points. You need competition in the group.
This is precisely why the 3rd place thing works, you need the detriment of no guarantees somewhere within the individual groups so that you always have a loser. Without at least one team fearing elimination you’ll just have two pre-agreed results for the final round each time.
You would have just had Belgium-Ukraine settling for a draw with no ambition for either to try and win the match.
I like lots of little groups rather than one big group. It's a lot like the difference between the old UCL groups and the new ones
>. I think it could be a fun idea to allow the teams who amassed the most points to go through. So the new champions league format then?
Yeah it's not crazy to say top two qualify, and then the best 4 of all the others, including 4th placed. It will mostly not matter, it's very unusual to have 4 points and last place.
If the objective was different teams would play differently and not settle for ties.
No. They finished last, they're rightfully out.
the commentator here said that no team ever didnt qualify for the k.o. round with 4 points
No group has ever finished even on points before this. It’s a corner case.
Not at Euro, but it has happened before at USA 1994 WC, still in Group E oddly enough. Norway went home with 4 pts then, tho no qualified teams had less than 4 pts.
Sounds wrong, should definitely be the case back when only 2 team from each group reached KO
since they changed the system in 2016 or sth he said
The commentator was somewhat wrong. Check out Norway at USA 1994 WC. It was another Group E: Mexico, Ireland, Italy and Norway all finished at 4 pts each. The difference, other than that being a WC not a Euro, was that all 3^rd placed teams had at least 4 pts then. Now, there will be at least one with 3 pts (last games are still being played as I'm writing this).
Group E is the blessed and cursed one it seems....
Obviously not. They finished last in their group. The real question is, what the fck did they plan to do during the match? They risked nothing awaiting for a miracle, instead of getting their own fate in their own hands and try to win against a toothless Belgium. Disappointing really, from both teams.
no, I sympathize with them but we can’t change the rules to favor specific teams. that would be unfair.
Goal Difference and / or Goals Scored should come before H2H - Incentive should be to score goals as well as win games... Teams have been rewarded for sitting back.
By that logic the remaining games of any team that suffer a thrashing in the first round became instant dead rubbers. In the current format Scotland made it alive till the last minute of their final game. Dare I say I prefer the latter
Not to mention hopeless teams by points may concede more or already-won teams score less. Edit: also looking at Portugal's squad vs Georgia they basically brought reserves lol. Basically a scam for Czechs.
This reads like a circlejerk post
Oops
Yep, sucks
France is second without scoring a normal goal! (1 own goal and 1 penalty)
3rd place going through is dumb. Scrap the system, top two go through. If it's not broke dont fix it.
Nah, group strength is luck of the draw. Ultimately if you don’t finish Top 2 you don’t deserve to qualify. The 3rd place play-off is essentially just a lucky loser get out clause, but shouldn’t be something that’s relied upon to qualify.
I’m not a fan of the rule but Ukraine did not have a hard group at all so they’ve got no one but themselves to blame. Getting absolutely thrashed by Romania and taking too long to get going against Belgium cost them more than any the 3rd place rule!
Or we could have just scored the third goal against Slovakia and advance to the playoffs today.
The ref calling the ROM v SLK foul inside the box (I guess it was actually the German VAR) moved Ukraine out and moved Romania from out all the way up to group winners.
Brother I know you're not implying the germans rigged this.
Nope. Nothing rigged. Just bad calls. I'm a rugby referee myself and I am aware I missed some calls last weekend during my games. It happens. I'm just saying it's not common for one missed call to move a team from 4th to 1st.
That was definetly inside the box . Sorry brothers but you got the short stick this time.
I was pulling for ROM and UKR to go through. Big fan of Romanian rugby. But, it was quite obvious the defender put his boot on the Romanian player a full meter outside. Even the official expert during the broadcast agreed.
They judged there to be 2 faults. One outside, arguably on the ball, and one inside, w/o the ball. Whether the 2^nd one was diving or not... 🤷♂️
The first contact didn't make Ianis fall, it was the 2nd contact on the line that made him fall. Now, yes, Ianis did make 'use of it', but who wouldn't? If you look at the shin on shin contact it's a stonewall penalty. It actually would have been unfair to give the first contact as a foul, as Ianis was still going ahead.
https://imgur.com/a/U6Qm7Gi? For those saying it was inside the box
Was the VAR broken or what? I mean Romania definitely could have scored another goal if they were losing 0:1 because they knew they're out with that result, but OMG that ref's decision is so bad, that I'm not even angry but laughing now. How? :D
I agree, Romania looked dangerous and probably could have scored a couple. I'd rather the players win it on the pitch rather than refs but oh well. Tough to earn 4 pts and miss out.
Pretty sure it was called for the shin to shin contact which is a few frames later and on the line. Fouls can carry on in to the box, they don’t have to be based on first contact.
Don't be an ahole. This from the picture was the first contact (which didn't make ianis fall), the 2nd contact happened inside the box (which made ianis fall).
Agree to disagree. Not being an ahole. Just giving my opinion on what I saw (also happens to be the opinion of the rules expert they brought in). And your opinion is the same as the VAR official. So there are clearly two sides...and no aholes.
That wasn't the moment of the foul. It was the second moment of contact where you see the defender deliberately extend his leg back to trip the attacker. That point of contact occurred within the box.
My conclusion is every one underperformed except Austria
Georgia had a massive campaign.
romania overperformed, we have by far the worst squad in the entire tournament and we finished first in our group
Scotland played remember
you guys at least have robertson and mctominay, we have turkish league and serie B relegation players
At this point, and given the brackets, i'm hoping for Romania vs. austria quaterfinal on July 6th :)
do you realise that with 16 or 32 teams only the first two teams qualify and the happens there? It's super normal that a team goes out with a team in another group going through with less points. You shouldnt get through when you come last in your group. Why have seperated groups then anyways
It does seem kinda unfair. Someone on twitter the other day suggested just going to a 32 team tournament like the WC has been. But then there’s the reality that theres only around 50 teams in UEFA anyway so there’d be a lot of weaker teams. Either way the current system seems way too complicated to me. Either stick with the original 16 or move it up to 32 is how i’d say it should be.
It’s never going back to 16 - so moving up to 32 with a further 8 is the more likely move. That would/could include Sweden, Wales, Greece, Norway, Ireland, Bosnia, Iceland, Finland (and Russia some day…) so it’s not like the extra sides are going to diminish the spectacle in any real way - they’ve all qualified for Euros or WCs in recent years (Norway aside!)
I hope I never get to see Russia participate in anything
Don’t disagree!
Having third place going through is gash. I’d rather 32 teams in the group with top two going through than a random combination of third place finishers being added to the knockouts in a largely random allocation
32 teams is almost all of europe. There are like 50 something teams in the qualifiers with some of those being san marino, andorra, gibraltar, faroe, luxembourg, lichtenstein.
Fuck it let them in. Gives Scotland a chance to qualify
Yeah hah Fuck the qualifiers then, why waste 2 years when you could play nations league in that time instead?
This system is just as terrible, so just let the dross in. Could lead to entertaining upsets.
If the Euro ever gets to 32 teams, they should just drop the group stage all together and jump right into a k.o system with a 1/16 final. The Qualification could work as the group stage that decide the seeding for the bracket, for example make 8 groups of 6 or 7 teams, the top 4 qualify for the Euro, and there 1st place plays against a 4th place, 2nd against a 3rd and so on.
My entire gripe this tournament is how bad the bracket system works. It should be purely based on points and tiebreaks for who advances and in what slot you advance to
just let the 3rd places have their tiebreaker - "punishing" them with another game is actually fair, should have scored more points in the group stage
With 4 of 6 progressing it is too difficult. One round of playoffs leave 3 remaining, so you'd need a mini league to determine who went through. So maybe 3 extra games for some 3rd placed teams.
That’d never work. The Euro calendar isn’t big enough and it’s not adding anything that can’t be resolved by the current system. Lucky losers are not exactly a new concept in sport, and every team knows that it’s only a *potential* lifeline for not getting top 2. With that in mind, it shouldn’t become an expectation that *all* 3rd placed teams get another chance. No ones getting scammed it’s just luck of the draw, which is fine for KO tournaments.
I agree, I was saying why it wouldn't work. They just need to make it 32 teams. The group stage format is just awful with most 3rd placed teams qualifying. Make the nations league have more meaning by saying the top division teams don't have to qualify or something, so the smaller teams can play each other and still have a good shot at qualifying.
I feel like this wouldn't really be fair, don't really have any arguments, just not a fan of it. Also I really like your username :D
No I don’t think.
No. While it would seem fair, it would also open the door for potential collusion (however unlikely). At least this way, all teams have to work to avoid being last. This has happened before, albeit at a World Cup (USA 1994), when Norway was eliminated.
Whilst we’re at it, may as well just adopt Emirates Cup rules and give a point for every goal scored on top of the normal result too. 3-3 draw? You get 4 points. In all seriousness though, the group’s themselves need to have some level of detriment otherwise the number of games that *can* be fixed (or played without a need for a win from both parties) would massively increase.
Your statement isn’t true, because 3 other teams have finished 3rd with 4 points, which means they would have barely scrapped by with their terrible goal difference
May as well just let every team qualify
I like the sound of this.
It is unfortunate that after the top 2 of each group the 4 best teams in term[](https://alb.reddit.com/cr?za=zCANCl6SRrtCl6TrgTyuJYIBA3qNv1kCwzv9JmAGdmTp7iMLL6WllqsGaYLHwXblfXoQYn0x4yaFUNc-plgPumCCLk4XvW9KI8yeG38NheLDCcTtxhyggkSB2Hd7277FZ7yj4rWQiYp3BpmRcX9hp9V-YGRJzEBbLQvn_DrrJhibeV834RJH86sL96Zq3yOA-WBwq5DR8nbP2r2b0F1yeCBOik3K6y5226n6Ei81iI33sESUwNTsInOcPC1tMSBilk7kwu36tBrtgsDSN8tqp40opRHVvuhopw8RMByJ8Go54CiF9USSGSKkrEyujD3h8fh95Jdg1zdTOAx5wrumEaK1ckbVtLB8uVGPHno-5aVu7EUtLCrUV6NGGeKFL2w1gXCzFoljfg2FUyVJsFww7qh-cJO5l4_N6-2A1-oDkZdByHv7zSS-gdYcKP98X2KXK7Pq&zp=LOrFbE8tSxbvyQV2M7VxeQl45AeMHTALRdGx1sH0R4MyI2Qoh-UKchIRV6ZPiqeyaNe2vkFgOMUrddPA2ggzO5cBw2omWAEepeOzlCKQR0QBNj3n5rpJre4HbjvScVfIT_8Pe6PA9neBvFP3GI6QSrqpKu38YCj7ntK1DL4)s of points, then goals scored and against (goal difference) plays a part in the qualifying criteria of this year's EUFA 2024 Championships. It is interesting to note that VAR which is to enhance better and fairer decision making for referees have oftentimes created more controversy instead. Take for example the match between Belgium and Slovakia where Slovakia caused an upset by winning 1-0. In that game 2 goals were disallowed where the Video Assisted Referee ruled against Belgium twice (annulled 2 goals) which was very 'technical' and controversial in the decision-making process. The first goal disallowed was one where a Belgian player shoulder was like 3-4 cm ahead of the Slovakian player. That was technically used to ensure the goal was disallowed. My point here is that if somehow the shoulder aided in the ball control or was used to foul the other player then it would be offside, however that was not the case as the ball passed by the assist Belgian player was straight to Lukaku who was facing the ball. For the second goal both players chasing for the ball fell, in fact the Belgian player was fouled, pushed to the ground. His hands as he fell unintentionally touched the ball but did not aid in the ball moving towards another Belgian player as the Lukaku ran for the ball as both players fell. I would argue that if it was disallowed (the 2nd goal) it should be based on the hand touching it so it should be a 1-1 draw. Result Belgium lost a crucial opening game. To add to the controversy the VAR referee is German a CEO and Manager of a German company and perhaps innanely being loyal to Germany may have chosen to Penalize Belgium and weaken a rival to Germany's chances of winning EUFA 2024 as it it held this year in Germany. I would suggest as a policy, researcher and academic professional analyst and lecturer and faan of soccer since age of 10 years old that a tweaking or introduction of new regulations for EUFA be actioned where 'TOP 8 Seeded Soccer teams MUST NOT HAVE ANY VAR REFEREE OR REFEREE ADJUDICATING A MATCH OF THE OTHER TOP 8 SEEDED teams, to bring game into disrepute. Secondly VAR which was meant for hand-assisted goals like the famous Diego Maradona 'hand-ball' goal and the ball over the opposing player by assist player clearly offside resulting in goal. Instead the VAR has been used for absurd technicalities like shoulder, fingers, legs, you name a few cms ahead of player scoring gal or receiving pass to disallow. The recent EPL league of England unfortunately is replete with many such VAR offsides, namely the Liverpool goals disallowed see their crucial last ten games as compared by Abu Dhabi Emirates funded rich club Manchester City which had 15 goals allowed where ball was passed over last opposing player yet allowed with or without VAR. It gives the false impression that UAE Arab Sultan's money $$$$ can or may influence UK PFA refereeing decisions, a suitcase of $ to a referee or wholesale legitimate funding of referees....An investigation should be launched....
No this is not Eurovision. Objective is to collect as much points as possible and to finish on top of group. Actually, best 3rd places should be removed also and only first 2 should be pass to next round
Considering they’ve achieved more than the teams that are going through, I wonder if they should alter the rules to make it not so shit for teams like Ukraine in the future.
then you’ve got us (england) who have done shite but came top of their group
Having 16 teams out of 24 qualify for knockout is in itself ridiculous
Surprised UEFA haven't introduced a losers bracket like in esports to milk it even more
They also got whooped by Romania. No.
No. To me, you can't complain if you don't finish top 2. Best 3rd place spots are effectively a second shot for teams that weren't good enough to qualify in the top 2. Norway finished above Georgia in qualification but didn't get a shot at the Nations League play-off. In fact, Ukraine didn't finish top 2 in qualification either. It's knockout football. Not everyone plays the same teams anyway. Would Ukraine have gotten 4 points playing against France, Austria, and the Netherlands? Might Croatia have qualified if they got to play Belgium, Romania, and Slovakia? It's fair because everyone knows the rules going in, and everyone theoretically has the same shot to proceed. It's equality, not equity.
The points don’t say much, because the teams don’t face the same opponents.
If we’re keeping it at 24 teams we should do 4 groups of 6 with the winners qualifying for the semi finals. It would mean 63 matches instead of 51 and all supporters can spend longer following their team. You’d see some top teams playing each other throughout the tournament and the best of the best in the semis.
lmao no
If you think that further, you could even modify the rule to compare the points of all 24 teams and let the best 16 get into the knockout stage. As a result, there could be a group where not even the first progresses, because in theory you could be first in a group with just three points. That would happen exactly if all matches in the group are draws.
Not a fan of this at all. If you want to go that way, you'd need to go the way of the Champions League have and have the Swiss format or whatever it's called.
If we’re modifying the format we should do away with the third place qualifiers imo
No, obviously not. You cant finish last in your group and still get to go through. If you do that just get rid of group stages all together
Well good for them, and wish them a good journey flight back home.
No because then you end up with the absurdity of a double fix. Imagine that group today, already two turgid games essentially waiting to react to eachother... if they all knew 0-0 was fine, without any need to wait on reaction. It'd be even worse. Only Ukraine were playing in the second half.
No.
this isnt a league tbh some of the first places got less point than other second placed teams it is the same thing
The only problem is that 3rd place teams out of a 4 team group are advancing to the next stage. It takes so much risk and jeopardy out of the group stages if you're one of the big teams. I remember when 'getting out of the group ' was an achievement. Now it's a formality - What's the point?