Men's Football UEFA Under 21 European Championship 2023

[Rafa Maciel 1,594]

5 minutes ago, Cinnamon Bun said:

Only the Men's. It's cuz Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland feel FIFA will make them merge with England to form a Great Britain team due to them not putting in good performances compared to England. Although since Tokyo, Wales have qualified for a Euros and a World Cup and Scotland look set to qualify for Euro 24 so they might be swayed to agreeing to team up. 

Unfortunately I can't see any movement on allowing GB to compete on either the men's or women's side - unless the discussions are taking place in complete secrecy which seems a little unlikely. In contrast, we knew 2 years before Tokyo that the associations had agreed to the women's team competing. 

[AsensioWillemsen 158]

23 minutes ago, Cinnamon Bun said:

Only the Men's. It's cuz Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland feel FIFA will make them merge with England to form a Great Britain team due to them not putting in good performances compared to England. Although since Tokyo, Wales have qualified for a Euros and a World Cup and Scotland look set to qualify for Euro 24 so they might be swayed to agreeing to team up. 

I thought they reached the agreement that the best performing team was allowed to perform under the flag of GB when they qualified. Which should usually be just England.

But this is only for the women's tournament, then.

[Mkbw50 438]

UEFA website says England are not eligible.

 

That said, it seems more people have warmed to the idea of a GB team. In 2012 it was very controversial. People were saying it would lead to a merger full stop etc

[Rafa Maciel 1,594]

24 minutes ago, AsensioWillemsen said:

I thought they reached the agreement that the best performing team was allowed to perform under the flag of GB when they qualified. Which should usually be just England.

But this is only for the women's tournament, then.

The best performing team approach only applies to hockey and that is based on the agreement of the home nations federations. Rugby 7s used to be the same but they've now merged to compete under GBR banner.

 

For football, the Scottish FA in particular is very protective of their independence and have been worried that if they agree to a GBR team then UEFA/FIFA will say that Scotland is ineligible for international tournaments.

[AsensioWillemsen 158]

2 minutes ago, Rafa Maciel said:

The best performing team approach only applies to hockey and that is based on the agreement of the home nations federations. Rugby 7s used to be the same but they've now merged to compete under GBR banner.

 

For football, the Scottish FA in particular is very protective of their independence and have been worried that if they agree to a GBR team then UEFA/FIFA will say that Scotland is ineligible for international tournaments.

What's the procedure in women's football then? GB was around last Olympics after all.

[Rafa Maciel 1,594]

9 minutes ago, AsensioWillemsen said:

What's the procedure in women's football then? GB was around last Olympics after all.

Before Tokyo there was a big push to up the profile of women's football (and women's sport in general) in the UK, so the home nations agreed to allow GBR team to take part. Don't think Wales or Scotland were actively involved - can't remember if any non English players took part.

 

For Paris, as far as I am aware, there's been no public announcement made that an agreement has been reached so it is all a bit in limbo. 

[phelps 7,670]

for both men and women's Football the rules are the same as they were in Tokyo.

 

no GBR in the men's division because there's no agreement between ENG, SCO, WAL and NIR.

 

meanwhile ENG have been designated as the GBR representative in the qualification tournament (which is now the new women's Nations League 2023/2024).

in case they qualify, a full GBR squad would be able to take part into the Olympic Games, even if I read somewhere that there won't be any SCO/WAL/NIR player added to the ENG team despite the rules allow that.

 

p.s. this has been made official since the end of the last Olympic cycle.

[Henry_Leon 1,397]

What happened in the match  2 - 1   is absolutely ridiculous!!!

 

UEFA has chosen not to have VAR and goal-line technology in the U21 tournament; someone at UEFA will have to explain the reason for this choice, but it won't happen and we went back to the time when poor referees could decide games.....

 

 

All the possible and impossible happened, obviously against Italy:

• were not awarded a clear penalty,
• they suffered a goal clearly spoiled by a very clear foul (therefore to be cancelled)
• and Italy had found an equalizer in added time, because the ball had widely crossed the goal line of at least 35-40 cm, a pity that the referee and linesman didn't notice it...

Spoiler

 

A big own goal for UEFA

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Henry_Leon

[AsensioWillemsen 158]

Lindhout is a very poor ref, we all know that in the Netherlands. But yeah, the refereeing was crucial in this one, although I do think Italy and France were on par. Here to hope Italy will get far even with these decisions.

 

I'm not sure if the ball was clearly 100% over the line, it seemed pretty close to me. However, providing it wasn't a goal, it should have been a penalty and a red for a hand ball.

[phelps 7,670]

3 hours ago, AsensioWillemsen said:

Lindhout is a very poor ref, we all know that in the Netherlands. But yeah, the refereeing was crucial in this one, although I do think Italy and France were on par. Here to hope Italy will get far even with these decisions.

 

I'm not sure if the ball was clearly 100% over the line, it seemed pretty close to me. However, providing it wasn't a goal, it should have been a penalty and a red for a hand ball.

that wasn't the case of a bad referee: that was corruption at 1000%.

 

the only doubt is who ordered that kind of refereeing? Ceferin? Rutte? Scholz? Macron and the Paris 2024 organizers? all of them together?