Why Norway feels 'bitter' after contest of controversy against England

What is a World Cup knockout match without a little bit of drama?

England's 2-1 extra-time victory over Norway in Miami had plenty of it, with goals disallowed and potentially a dodgy assist from a wire holding up the floating camera above the pitch.

Norway captain Martin Ødegaard noted that Norway "didn't get much help from the referee" in his post-match comments.

Andreas Schjelderup, who scored the opening goal, echoed those comments, saying: "The odds were against us. Some decisions by the referee were a bit bitter."

Alfie Haaland, father of Norway's talismanic striker Erling, was even more pointed in his post-match tweet, congratulating England's double goalscorer Jude Bellingham and the referee …

Yet, ironically, it was England who had the first reason to feel aggrieved.

Norway opened the scoring through Schjelderup's cross-cum-shot that deceived Jordan Pickford and sailed into the top corner of the goal.

England was upset though, after feeling that Harry Kane was fouled in the build-up.

On the BBC, Ellen White said "it wasn't a foul" and the consensus is that she's right, that Kane not strong enough in the tackle, despite pleading his case.

Spider-cam-gate

Many controversies have involved some sort of wire-tapping, but none quite like this.

And let's be clear, nothing can take away what a sublime attacking move it was from England as it equalised in the shadows of half time.

Eliott Anderson drove forward down the left side and passed forward to the excellent Anthony Gordon.

He looked up and cut the ball back along the edge of the 18-yard box to Jude Bellingham, who took a touch and fired into the Norwegian net, another moment of brilliance from the Real Madrid man whose importance to this England team is growing exponentially with every game at this tournament.

But how did Anderson get the ball?

Ørjan Nyland's goal kick looked as though it may have made contact with the wires holding up the spider-cam, taking a deflection and then dropping favourably for Anderson.

Nyland was livid after the goal went in and, soon after, Norway coach Ståle Solbakken furiously remonstrated with the French officials as the teams traipsed off at half-time.

Every ball at the World Cup has a sensor in it, which registers every touch the ball gets. Apart from this one, apparently.

"Before England's goal in minute 45+2 against Norway, the sensor in the Connected Ball showed no peak in the 'heartbeat of the ball' when in the air," FIFA said in a statement.

"Therefore [there was] no evidence that the ball touched the overhead wire and changed the movement of the ball."

Had a touch been discovered, play should have been stopped and restarted with a dropped ball, as per the laws of the game:

If, while the ball is in play, the game is stopped because of interference from an outside agent, play restarts with a dropped ball for the team that would have retained or gained possession of the ball (including from the restart if the ball would have gone out of play). If this is not clear to the referee, the ball is dropped for a player of the team that last touched the ball. The ball is dropped at the place where it was when play was stopped.

So, did the wire help England?

Regardless of whether it did or not, Solbakken was not willing to apportion blame at full-time.

"There are many situations today and, well, maybe we have been looking at many of them in the World Cup, so these things happen," he said.

"We just want to wish England the best of luck."

His captain, Ødegaard, bemoaned the decision, despite admitting that he didn't see it.

"Margins were not in our favour today with some of the decisions. Maybe you need that in games like this," he said when asked about the incident.

Norway's disallowed goal

This one is potentially even more contentious.

After England's Harry Kane had a goal ruled out just before half-time for a marginal offside, Norway felt it should have retaken the lead through Torbjørn Heggem after he powered the ball into the roof of the net from close range.

But England was once again appealing for a foul in the lead-up.

Closer inspection showed that Erling Haaland had put two hands on Elliot Anderson and delivered a sizeable shove into the England man's back.

French referee Clément Turpin was called to the VAR monitor by Jérôme Brisard and promptly ruled out the goal.

Given all the rucking and rolling that typically goes on in a penalty area in the lead-up to a corner kick, there is a suggestion that this was at least a little bit soft.

"England have been very fortunate," former England striker Wayne Rooney told the BBC.

"For me it's not a foul. England will take it, but I don't think it's a foul."

That being said, an off-colour Haaland did not help himself with a very visible, two-handed shove that took the England defender out of the game.

Ødegaard, who once again missed it in real time, was pretty down on the decision.

"I haven't seen it. Margins were not in our favour," he said.

England's non-penalty

In the end, this did not have an impact on the result, but it could have done.

England, having just taken the lead thanks to yet another Bellingham goal, felt it should have had a penalty when Oscar Bobb felled Djed Spence in the penalty area.

Spence had run past two Norway defenders into the penalty area before getting his leg in front of Bobb, who then knocked the Spurs fullback to the ground.

Referee Turpin instantly pointed to the spot for what looked like a stone-wall penalty.

However, VAR official Brisard disagreed, calling his fellow countryman to the monitor.

Turpin, after reflection, decided that Spence initiated contact and the penalty was waved away, stunning pundits.

"Where is Spence supposed to put his leg?" Alan Shearer said on the BBC.

"He puts his leg forward to try to protect the ball, it is your job as a forward to do that."

Meanwhile Paul Robinson said the decision "angered" him.

"That is a penalty. He's got every right to put his leg in front of the defender but the contact is there," Robinson said.

"That's angered me."

Email address