| VAR 21:36 - Jun 21 with 6958 views | VanSaParody |
Wrong AGAIN
Netherlands should be 1-0 v France
Yes he's in an offside position, but NOT in GK's line of sight & made no attempt to move towards the ball as it flew in the net
I'm afraid if the GK says he's unable to dive left cos that's where the player is, the GK should be diving left anyway
Pathetic VAR decision AGAIN
Yet another reason it should be scrapped altogether |  | | |  |
| VAR on 23:57 - Jun 21 with 2019 views | Trequartista |
| VAR on 23:48 - Jun 21 by Herbivore |
That's why the lino and the ref had a conversation before disallowing it. The ref would have had a different view to the lino of where Memphis was stood. |
I suspect the conversation would have been along the lines of lino saying its offside, and ref saying the player may not be interfering, but i'll disallow it and let var take the responsibility. I think it less likely the referee overrules the lino, then hands it to var. Hence i think "no goal" is going to be the more likely outcome if you apply "clear and obvious error" |  |
| |
| VAR on 00:06 - Jun 22 with 1997 views | Vaughan8 |
Personally I think it was the right call (just). The guy is standing right next to the goalie in an offside position unfortunately.
He's in the way of the goalie if he wanted to dive. i suppose the only thing against that is he didn't dive and probably wouldn't have got it anyway.
Its a difficult one |  | | |
| VAR on 00:08 - Jun 22 with 1992 views | Rocky |
| VAR on 23:48 - Jun 21 by Herbivore |
That's why the lino and the ref had a conversation before disallowing it. The ref would have had a different view to the lino of where Memphis was stood. |
Quite. Had the goal been allowed it would have made a nonsense of the offside rule. The "offending" player wasn't standing several yards away from the action.
An offside player 's involvement is often a contentious affair. But he was within touching distance of the keeper and clearly limiting the GK's ability to freely move .
As clear an offside as you could get. [Post edited 22 Jun 2024 0:14]
|  | | |
| VAR on 07:13 - Jun 22 with 1923 views | MK1 |
| VAR on 22:16 - Jun 21 by VanSaParody |
Clear and obvious to me
Anyone who says it should have been disallowed, well, I just don't know what you're seeing & I'd question your judgement |
If that was your club or country, you would be on here saying that it was the right call. Please don't say otherwise. |  |
| |
| VAR on 07:24 - Jun 22 with 1897 views | Herbivore |
| VAR on 23:57 - Jun 21 by Trequartista |
I suspect the conversation would have been along the lines of lino saying its offside, and ref saying the player may not be interfering, but i'll disallow it and let var take the responsibility. I think it less likely the referee overrules the lino, then hands it to var. Hence i think "no goal" is going to be the more likely outcome if you apply "clear and obvious error" |
That's a bit speculative. They can just as easily give the goal and let VAR decide whether or not to disallow it. |  |
| |
| VAR on 10:16 - Jun 22 with 1861 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| VAR on 22:50 - Jun 21 by ArnoldMoorhen |
It would have been offside, full stop, no question, up until relatively recently.
My question is: why does Dumfries walk towards the goal, and give the ref the opportunity to give him offside?
He doesn't know where the shot is going to go when he goes and stands in the 6 yard box.
I don't see it as an outrageously bad decision, as it seems everyone else does. He was in an offside position, he is in the way of the keeper being able to dive. If he wasn't there, every single professional keeper in the world would dive there and make an attempt to save the ball. It is his presence in an offside position that takes that opportunity away. If there was even a one in a thousand chance of the keeper saving it then he has interfered. I think, if he isn't there, then the odds are better than that.
I think many referees wouldn't give it, but I think a lot would.
And I would give it as offside. |
Haven't read whole thread to see if already said but I suspect that if the attacker was standing the same distance to the keeper's right, the goal would have been allowed... [Post edited 22 Jun 2024 10:18]
|  |
| |
| VAR on 11:02 - Jun 22 with 1826 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| VAR on 22:53 - Jun 21 by VanSaParody |
No, because it would be the correct decision
As upsetting as it will be in this scenario as it would be against us
However, tonight's clear & obvious error by first, the on field officials for disallowing it, then VAR for NOT asking on field officials to review their otherwise, clear & obvious error, is for me, having looked at it from a neutral perspective, as I have absolutely no affiliation to either of these two teams/nations
So my opinion, I believe, is in the interest of fairness |
You're mad.
The player's positioning prevents the keeper's dive, and even if it wasn't he's within the keeper's line of vision, at the very minimum distracting him. How on earth is that not interfering with play? The only way he'd not be interfering is if he were standing behind the keeper.
Correct decision. I can't even see how it's controversial TBH. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| VAR on 12:58 - Jun 22 with 1782 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 11:02 - Jun 22 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You're mad.
The player's positioning prevents the keeper's dive, and even if it wasn't he's within the keeper's line of vision, at the very minimum distracting him. How on earth is that not interfering with play? The only way he'd not be interfering is if he were standing behind the keeper.
Correct decision. I can't even see how it's controversial TBH. |
We've all played the game we love at various levels with varying degrees of success!
I never played professionally, but there was a time I received coaching from a certain professional north London club's famous goalkeeping coach (Bob Wilson) & can say that the French keeper should have been set for the shot & should have dived to his left however close a Dutch player, or a French defender, or the ref, or a pitch invader, or a dog, or no-one was standing to him
The French GK was absolutely NOT being impeded & could/should have attempted a save
He probably still wouldn't have saved it (even with no-one standing 2-3 yards from him at the point he shot to score), as he was still getting up from having made a 1st save, which is why he wasn't set for the 2nd shot
Yes he was very obviously in an offside position, but, at the point the Dutch player shot to score, he most definitely was NOT in the GK's line of sight & also not close enough to the keeper to have stopped him being able to dive towards the ball
The ref/on field officials got it WRONG by disallowing it, then VAR ALSO got it WRONG by NOT asking the on field officials to review their clear & obvious error
The correct decision SHOULD have been that the goal should have stood
Once again, where technology is clearly showing that, in this case, a goal should stand, it's the humans, in this case both the on field officials AND the VAR officials, is what convinces me that VAR should be scrapped
& that's the point of my OP
It's NOT that the technology isn't working, but it's now that too many humans are STILL making WRONG decisions (& if we're going to have humans making wrong decisions, we may as well just have no tech & just the 1 human making mistakes...the ref) | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| VAR on 13:27 - Jun 22 with 1768 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| VAR on 12:58 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
We've all played the game we love at various levels with varying degrees of success!
I never played professionally, but there was a time I received coaching from a certain professional north London club's famous goalkeeping coach (Bob Wilson) & can say that the French keeper should have been set for the shot & should have dived to his left however close a Dutch player, or a French defender, or the ref, or a pitch invader, or a dog, or no-one was standing to him
The French GK was absolutely NOT being impeded & could/should have attempted a save
He probably still wouldn't have saved it (even with no-one standing 2-3 yards from him at the point he shot to score), as he was still getting up from having made a 1st save, which is why he wasn't set for the 2nd shot
Yes he was very obviously in an offside position, but, at the point the Dutch player shot to score, he most definitely was NOT in the GK's line of sight & also not close enough to the keeper to have stopped him being able to dive towards the ball
The ref/on field officials got it WRONG by disallowing it, then VAR ALSO got it WRONG by NOT asking the on field officials to review their clear & obvious error
The correct decision SHOULD have been that the goal should have stood
Once again, where technology is clearly showing that, in this case, a goal should stand, it's the humans, in this case both the on field officials AND the VAR officials, is what convinces me that VAR should be scrapped
& that's the point of my OP
It's NOT that the technology isn't working, but it's now that too many humans are STILL making WRONG decisions (& if we're going to have humans making wrong decisions, we may as well just have no tech & just the 1 human making mistakes...the ref) |
Putting "wrong" in capital letters doesn't make it so. What you think the keeper should have done, what you were coached by Bob Wilson, and whether a dog was on the pitch or not, all this is irrelevant. If a player is close to you, and in front of you, they're distracting you. They're interfering.
The fact that there's debate about it, even just in this thread, shows putting WRONG in capitals is WRONG.
You know, maybe you're WRONG! What's definitely evident from this thread: no-one's 100% sure, therefore you asserting the officials definitely got it wrong is incorrect. Are you Dutch by any chance? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| VAR on 13:43 - Jun 22 with 1751 views | Herbivore |
| VAR on 12:58 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
We've all played the game we love at various levels with varying degrees of success!
I never played professionally, but there was a time I received coaching from a certain professional north London club's famous goalkeeping coach (Bob Wilson) & can say that the French keeper should have been set for the shot & should have dived to his left however close a Dutch player, or a French defender, or the ref, or a pitch invader, or a dog, or no-one was standing to him
The French GK was absolutely NOT being impeded & could/should have attempted a save
He probably still wouldn't have saved it (even with no-one standing 2-3 yards from him at the point he shot to score), as he was still getting up from having made a 1st save, which is why he wasn't set for the 2nd shot
Yes he was very obviously in an offside position, but, at the point the Dutch player shot to score, he most definitely was NOT in the GK's line of sight & also not close enough to the keeper to have stopped him being able to dive towards the ball
The ref/on field officials got it WRONG by disallowing it, then VAR ALSO got it WRONG by NOT asking the on field officials to review their clear & obvious error
The correct decision SHOULD have been that the goal should have stood
Once again, where technology is clearly showing that, in this case, a goal should stand, it's the humans, in this case both the on field officials AND the VAR officials, is what convinces me that VAR should be scrapped
& that's the point of my OP
It's NOT that the technology isn't working, but it's now that too many humans are STILL making WRONG decisions (& if we're going to have humans making wrong decisions, we may as well just have no tech & just the 1 human making mistakes...the ref) |
Putting stuff in caps doesn't make it RIGHT, mate. | |
| |
| VAR on 15:18 - Jun 22 with 1712 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 13:27 - Jun 22 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Putting "wrong" in capital letters doesn't make it so. What you think the keeper should have done, what you were coached by Bob Wilson, and whether a dog was on the pitch or not, all this is irrelevant. If a player is close to you, and in front of you, they're distracting you. They're interfering.
The fact that there's debate about it, even just in this thread, shows putting WRONG in capitals is WRONG.
You know, maybe you're WRONG! What's definitely evident from this thread: no-one's 100% sure, therefore you asserting the officials definitely got it wrong is incorrect. Are you Dutch by any chance? |
I occasionally use upper case just for emphasis!
The moment the shot was taken, the GK was not being impeded by anyone & could/should have dived/attempted a save
I just don't see what the very small minority are not seeing - it's just so obvious that the goal should have stood
It's not whether I'm right or wrong about this scenario, nor if you're right or wrong, we're all just expressing our opinion
It's just that in this particular scenario, the correct decision is: goal
Not because it's my opinion, that's just what it should have been, because that's correct
So, yes, the on field officials did get it wrong by disallowing it, followed by VAR also getting it wrong by not asking the ref to review the clear & obvious error
Again, this was the point of my OP
Tech is fine, it's the number of humans who still get things wrong, which tells me we can do without the tech & just leave it to the ref to be the only 1 to make the mistake
Finally, despite the Van bit, no, I'm not Dutch! | | | |
| VAR on 15:24 - Jun 22 with 1708 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 13:43 - Jun 22 by Herbivore |
Putting stuff in caps doesn't make it RIGHT, mate. |
Mind the road | | | |
| VAR on 16:15 - Jun 22 with 1690 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| VAR on 15:18 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
I occasionally use upper case just for emphasis!
The moment the shot was taken, the GK was not being impeded by anyone & could/should have dived/attempted a save
I just don't see what the very small minority are not seeing - it's just so obvious that the goal should have stood
It's not whether I'm right or wrong about this scenario, nor if you're right or wrong, we're all just expressing our opinion
It's just that in this particular scenario, the correct decision is: goal
Not because it's my opinion, that's just what it should have been, because that's correct
So, yes, the on field officials did get it wrong by disallowing it, followed by VAR also getting it wrong by not asking the ref to review the clear & obvious error
Again, this was the point of my OP
Tech is fine, it's the number of humans who still get things wrong, which tells me we can do without the tech & just leave it to the ref to be the only 1 to make the mistake
Finally, despite the Van bit, no, I'm not Dutch! |
"Not because it's my opinion, that's just what it should have been, because that's correct"
Haha, what?! "Just what it should have been" is your opinion! "It's just so obvious that the goal should have stood" is YOUR OPINION.
"I just don't see what the very small minority are not seeing" - How can you not see that someone being in your line of vision is going to be off-putting and therefore affecting the way you play?
If the keeper "could/should have dived/attempted a save" why didn't he? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| VAR on 16:39 - Jun 22 with 1681 views | Trequartista |
| VAR on 07:24 - Jun 22 by Herbivore |
That's a bit speculative. They can just as easily give the goal and let VAR decide whether or not to disallow it. |
Highly unlikely to do that if the assistant ref has flagged it.
The linesman will have the perfect angle for the offside, the referee will in most cases not have the perfect angle to judge the interference. Given the human fallibility we've seen in the Premier League this season, I really think there will be quite a bias of decisions in this scenario going to var with a status of "ruled out". | |
| |
| VAR on 16:39 - Jun 22 with 1680 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 16:15 - Jun 22 by The_Flashing_Smile |
"Not because it's my opinion, that's just what it should have been, because that's correct"
Haha, what?! "Just what it should have been" is your opinion! "It's just so obvious that the goal should have stood" is YOUR OPINION.
"I just don't see what the very small minority are not seeing" - How can you not see that someone being in your line of vision is going to be off-putting and therefore affecting the way you play?
If the keeper "could/should have dived/attempted a save" why didn't he? |
If you look at the moment the ball is struck at goal, the GK is not being impeded by an opposition player
He's just made a save, he's only just back to his feet & is not set in time to have got to the second shot, but at the point the shot is taken, he wasn't being impeded by any opposition player
Freezeframe it at that moment
It's clear
It's not my opinion
It's just clear
You'll have to ask the French goalie himself why he didn't attempt to dive/save
You & I may have to agree to disagree, but I'll forever know I'm right about this! | | | |
| VAR on 16:47 - Jun 22 with 1670 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| VAR on 16:39 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
If you look at the moment the ball is struck at goal, the GK is not being impeded by an opposition player
He's just made a save, he's only just back to his feet & is not set in time to have got to the second shot, but at the point the shot is taken, he wasn't being impeded by any opposition player
Freezeframe it at that moment
It's clear
It's not my opinion
It's just clear
You'll have to ask the French goalie himself why he didn't attempt to dive/save
You & I may have to agree to disagree, but I'll forever know I'm right about this! |
Haha, we're going round in circles. The player doesn't have to be impeding the goalkeeper. He has to be interfering with play. If he's near the keeper and the keeper can see him, he's interfering with play. You act differently when there's a player near you. You have half an eye on them, distracted, and fine margins like that can be the difference, especially for a goalkeeper.
It's hilarious how you keep saying "It's not my opinion, it's just clear" ...which is your opinion! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| VAR on 16:58 - Jun 22 with 1666 views | Vegtablue |
| VAR on 16:39 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
If you look at the moment the ball is struck at goal, the GK is not being impeded by an opposition player
He's just made a save, he's only just back to his feet & is not set in time to have got to the second shot, but at the point the shot is taken, he wasn't being impeded by any opposition player
Freezeframe it at that moment
It's clear
It's not my opinion
It's just clear
You'll have to ask the French goalie himself why he didn't attempt to dive/save
You & I may have to agree to disagree, but I'll forever know I'm right about this! |
Just watched it myself and agree with others. If the goalkeeper diving for a shot results in him smashing his head/neck into an offside player's legs, which is clearly what would have happened here, that's impeding. I'm convinced he wouldn't have saved it but he's denied the opportunity to try. | | | |
| VAR on 17:05 - Jun 22 with 1642 views | redrickstuhaart |
| VAR on 16:58 - Jun 22 by Vegtablue |
Just watched it myself and agree with others. If the goalkeeper diving for a shot results in him smashing his head/neck into an offside player's legs, which is clearly what would have happened here, that's impeding. I'm convinced he wouldn't have saved it but he's denied the opportunity to try. |
There is a subjective test to apply. Either result would not have been palpably wrong. | | | |
| VAR on 17:08 - Jun 22 with 1638 views | Vegtablue |
| VAR on 17:05 - Jun 22 by redrickstuhaart |
There is a subjective test to apply. Either result would not have been palpably wrong. |
Agreed. | | | |
| VAR on 17:54 - Jun 22 with 1619 views | solemio |
VanSaParody, are you from Welwyn/Hatfield? | | | |
| VAR on 18:14 - Jun 22 with 1612 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 16:58 - Jun 22 by Vegtablue |
Just watched it myself and agree with others. If the goalkeeper diving for a shot results in him smashing his head/neck into an offside player's legs, which is clearly what would have happened here, that's impeding. I'm convinced he wouldn't have saved it but he's denied the opportunity to try. |
You're right, if he had, & had collided, then I agree it should have been disallowed
But he didn't attempt to try to get to it, so, having not been impeded (because he made no attempt to get to it), the goal should have stood | | | |
| VAR on 18:15 - Jun 22 with 1610 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 17:54 - Jun 22 by solemio |
VanSaParody, are you from Welwyn/Hatfield? |
?
!
Neither
But coincidentally, I do originate from Hertfordshire! | | | |
| VAR on 20:06 - Jun 22 with 1581 views | MK1 |
| VAR on 18:14 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
You're right, if he had, & had collided, then I agree it should have been disallowed
But he didn't attempt to try to get to it, so, having not been impeded (because he made no attempt to get to it), the goal should have stood |
Finally you agree. The call was correct. It took longer for you to come round than it should have, but you got there in the end. Feels good doesn't it, when you finally admit it. | |
| |
| VAR on 20:49 - Jun 22 with 1560 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 20:06 - Jun 22 by MK1 |
Finally you agree. The call was correct. It took longer for you to come round than it should have, but you got there in the end. Feels good doesn't it, when you finally admit it. |
I had said before if the keeper had at least tried & there'd been a collision, then the player has clearly impeded him
If only the GK had done so
That he didn't, at the moment the shot at goal came, yet again, the GK was impeded by no-one, hence, goal should have stood
The on field officials disallowing it was the wrong decision, followed by the VAR officials also getting wrong their decision not to ask the ref to review the clear & obvious error
Unfortunately for just a small minority of you, you can't change what's right
I can see it, & an overwhelming majority can see it
It was just unfortunate for, in this case, the Netherlands, that on the night, the combination of both the on field & VAR officials all made errors where the tech clearly showed what was correct
Like I suggested to someone else, I recommend you perhaps hold someone's hand when you next cross the road, because you also are clearly not going to see that big obvious bus! | | | |
| VAR on 21:04 - Jun 22 with 1546 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| VAR on 20:49 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
I had said before if the keeper had at least tried & there'd been a collision, then the player has clearly impeded him
If only the GK had done so
That he didn't, at the moment the shot at goal came, yet again, the GK was impeded by no-one, hence, goal should have stood
The on field officials disallowing it was the wrong decision, followed by the VAR officials also getting wrong their decision not to ask the ref to review the clear & obvious error
Unfortunately for just a small minority of you, you can't change what's right
I can see it, & an overwhelming majority can see it
It was just unfortunate for, in this case, the Netherlands, that on the night, the combination of both the on field & VAR officials all made errors where the tech clearly showed what was correct
Like I suggested to someone else, I recommend you perhaps hold someone's hand when you next cross the road, because you also are clearly not going to see that big obvious bus! |
You're just repeating what you've already said in the hope that it'll eventually come true through saying it enough times.
You've completely ignored my point that the law isn't about impeding a player, it's interfering with play.
And when lots of people disagree with you it's a bit embarrassing to keep saying we're "just a small minority." | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
