| VAR 21:36 - Jun 21 with 6950 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 21:30 - Jun 22 with 1985 views | MK1 |
| 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! |
Wow. You have switched back again. You feeling alright? The ref and linesman called it and VAR didn't see it as a clear and obvious error. It ain't rocket science. You and I both know that if that goal stood against your club or country, you would be saying the exact opposite. Please don't say that you wouldn't, because nobody would believe you and you are already making yourself look very silly.
Suggesting that people might get run over by a bus isn't very clever by the way. The sort of thing children say in a playground. Grow up. |  |
| |
| VAR on 21:52 - Jun 22 with 1961 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| 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! |
The "hold someone's hand" thing that you think makes you sound clever is really juvenile.
I haven't come back into the thread for a while, but I will add to what I said earlier by saying, in response to this:
"I had said before if the keeper had at least tried & there'd been a collision, then the player has clearly impeded him"
The keeper doesn't know if the Right Back, or another player away to his right, is playing the striker onside. So he has to assume that he is "live".
If the keeper dives through him and cleans him out, then the keeper risks giving away a penalty. So he can't do that. The presence of Dumfries stops the keeper from diving, therefore he is interfering with play. |  | | |
| VAR on 21:55 - Jun 22 with 1954 views | Vegtablue |
| 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! |
Impediment / interference doesn't demand a head-on collision. 😂 Prevent someone from achieving or attempting an action and you've passed the threshold. Is this some kind of skit in dedication to your username? | | | |
| VAR on 22:43 - Jun 22 with 1923 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 21:52 - Jun 22 by ArnoldMoorhen |
The "hold someone's hand" thing that you think makes you sound clever is really juvenile.
I haven't come back into the thread for a while, but I will add to what I said earlier by saying, in response to this:
"I had said before if the keeper had at least tried & there'd been a collision, then the player has clearly impeded him"
The keeper doesn't know if the Right Back, or another player away to his right, is playing the striker onside. So he has to assume that he is "live".
If the keeper dives through him and cleans him out, then the keeper risks giving away a penalty. So he can't do that. The presence of Dumfries stops the keeper from diving, therefore he is interfering with play. |
The 2 or 3 who keep coming back are the minority
I can't help if a minority can't see the clear & obvious, which is why I likened what those minority must be lacking to needing help crossing a road (a serious bit of road safety advice) as they're not seeing something clear & obvious like a bus, for example
But hey, the minority can believe what they want to believe, I'll just continue to live in the reality of what's clear & obviously in front of me | | | |
| VAR on 22:46 - Jun 22 with 1914 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 21:30 - Jun 22 by MK1 |
Wow. You have switched back again. You feeling alright? The ref and linesman called it and VAR didn't see it as a clear and obvious error. It ain't rocket science. You and I both know that if that goal stood against your club or country, you would be saying the exact opposite. Please don't say that you wouldn't, because nobody would believe you and you are already making yourself look very silly.
Suggesting that people might get run over by a bus isn't very clever by the way. The sort of thing children say in a playground. Grow up. |
Go & tell the teacher then, scaredy pants | | | |
| VAR on 10:04 - Jun 23 with 1855 views | Herbivore |
| 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 |
I can see why you're struggling here, you don't understand the offside rule. |  |
| |
| VAR on 10:13 - Jun 23 with 1847 views | Herbivore |
| VAR on 17:05 - Jun 22 by redrickstuhaart |
There is a subjective test to apply. Either result would not have been palpably wrong. |
Precisely this. Even though my position is that VAR was right not to overrule the ref, I'm actually on the fence as to whether the officials should have ruled it out, perhaps even slightly leaning towards it should have been given. It partly depends how you interpret interfering with play, certainly Dumfries' presence is a distraction and might prevent him going for it so that suggests he's interfering, however given that the keeper was never getting to the ball in a million years, did Dumfries' position prevent the goal from being stopped? Not in my view, so you could then argue that he's not genuinely interfering with play since his position did not materially change the outcome of that phase of play. But these are subjective arguments and a case can be made either way and if the ref had given it I'd similarly have expected VAR to not overturn the decision.
Frankly anyone still saying it's a clear and obvious error at this point is a bit of a div. The fact that numerous people have explained why they can see why it was ruled out shows that it was not a howler of a decision. [Post edited 23 Jun 2024 10:19]
| |
| |
| VAR on 10:17 - Jun 23 with 1846 views | MK1 |
| VAR on 22:43 - Jun 22 by VanSaParody |
The 2 or 3 who keep coming back are the minority
I can't help if a minority can't see the clear & obvious, which is why I likened what those minority must be lacking to needing help crossing a road (a serious bit of road safety advice) as they're not seeing something clear & obvious like a bus, for example
But hey, the minority can believe what they want to believe, I'll just continue to live in the reality of what's clear & obviously in front of me |
What is clear and obvious is that the Dutch player is standing in an off side position pretty close to the goalkeeper. If you understood the rules of football, you would know that that gives the ref and linesman the right to say that he is interfering with play. Like I said earlier, it ain't rocket science.
Just a question. What am I suppose to be scared of? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| VAR on 17:46 - Jun 23 with 1790 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 10:04 - Jun 23 by Herbivore |
I can see why you're struggling here, you don't understand the offside rule. |
I suspect I've been conversant with the laws of the game & their updates, since before you were in your big girl's pants
Speaking of which, it's just occured to me I've been a little naive here, & fallen into somewhat of a trap by engaging with, & therefore, given attention to such a small minority - a trick which seems so common in your militant, LGBTQ+ type community I've heard so much about
Well, I refuse to pander to the minority, & have the time & attention the majority deserve, robbed from them any longer
I made my point in the OP & a few in the thread have taken things in a direction it didn't need to go
So you can carry on wetting your knickers if you like, I know I'm right & you're wrong & I know that will forever rankle, especially as you know you won't be able to provoke another response from me in this thread/subject
Oh yes, I win, you lose
COYB's | | | |
| VAR on 17:48 - Jun 23 with 1788 views | VanSaParody |
| VAR on 10:17 - Jun 23 by MK1 |
What is clear and obvious is that the Dutch player is standing in an off side position pretty close to the goalkeeper. If you understood the rules of football, you would know that that gives the ref and linesman the right to say that he is interfering with play. Like I said earlier, it ain't rocket science.
Just a question. What am I suppose to be scared of? |
I suspect I've been conversant with the laws of the game & their updates, since before you were in your big girl's pants
Speaking of which, it's just occured to me I've been a little naive here, & fallen into somewhat of a trap by engaging with, & therefore, given attention to such a small minority - a trick which seems so common in your militant, LGBTQ+ type community I've heard so much about
Well, I refuse to pander to the minority, & have the time & attention the majority deserve, robbed from them any longer
I made my point in the OP & a few in the thread have taken things in a direction it didn't need to go
So you can carry on wetting your knickers if you like, I know I'm right & you're wrong & I know that will forever rankle, especially as you know you won't be able to provoke another response from me in this thread/subject
Oh yes, I win, you lose
COYBs | | | |
| VAR on 17:51 - Jun 23 with 1780 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| VAR on 17:48 - Jun 23 by VanSaParody |
I suspect I've been conversant with the laws of the game & their updates, since before you were in your big girl's pants
Speaking of which, it's just occured to me I've been a little naive here, & fallen into somewhat of a trap by engaging with, & therefore, given attention to such a small minority - a trick which seems so common in your militant, LGBTQ+ type community I've heard so much about
Well, I refuse to pander to the minority, & have the time & attention the majority deserve, robbed from them any longer
I made my point in the OP & a few in the thread have taken things in a direction it didn't need to go
So you can carry on wetting your knickers if you like, I know I'm right & you're wrong & I know that will forever rankle, especially as you know you won't be able to provoke another response from me in this thread/subject
Oh yes, I win, you lose
COYBs |
Are you alright? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| VAR on 17:56 - Jun 23 with 1774 views | redrickstuhaart |
| VAR on 17:48 - Jun 23 by VanSaParody |
I suspect I've been conversant with the laws of the game & their updates, since before you were in your big girl's pants
Speaking of which, it's just occured to me I've been a little naive here, & fallen into somewhat of a trap by engaging with, & therefore, given attention to such a small minority - a trick which seems so common in your militant, LGBTQ+ type community I've heard so much about
Well, I refuse to pander to the minority, & have the time & attention the majority deserve, robbed from them any longer
I made my point in the OP & a few in the thread have taken things in a direction it didn't need to go
So you can carry on wetting your knickers if you like, I know I'm right & you're wrong & I know that will forever rankle, especially as you know you won't be able to provoke another response from me in this thread/subject
Oh yes, I win, you lose
COYBs |
Odd that you don't seem to have read what it actually says then... | | | |
| VAR on 18:48 - Jun 23 with 1765 views | Herbivore |
| VAR on 17:46 - Jun 23 by VanSaParody |
I suspect I've been conversant with the laws of the game & their updates, since before you were in your big girl's pants
Speaking of which, it's just occured to me I've been a little naive here, & fallen into somewhat of a trap by engaging with, & therefore, given attention to such a small minority - a trick which seems so common in your militant, LGBTQ+ type community I've heard so much about
Well, I refuse to pander to the minority, & have the time & attention the majority deserve, robbed from them any longer
I made my point in the OP & a few in the thread have taken things in a direction it didn't need to go
So you can carry on wetting your knickers if you like, I know I'm right & you're wrong & I know that will forever rankle, especially as you know you won't be able to provoke another response from me in this thread/subject
Oh yes, I win, you lose
COYB's |
What a bizarre and unpleasant response. You seem like a bellend. | |
| |
| VAR on 20:08 - Jun 23 with 1731 views | MK1 |
| VAR on 17:46 - Jun 23 by VanSaParody |
I suspect I've been conversant with the laws of the game & their updates, since before you were in your big girl's pants
Speaking of which, it's just occured to me I've been a little naive here, & fallen into somewhat of a trap by engaging with, & therefore, given attention to such a small minority - a trick which seems so common in your militant, LGBTQ+ type community I've heard so much about
Well, I refuse to pander to the minority, & have the time & attention the majority deserve, robbed from them any longer
I made my point in the OP & a few in the thread have taken things in a direction it didn't need to go
So you can carry on wetting your knickers if you like, I know I'm right & you're wrong & I know that will forever rankle, especially as you know you won't be able to provoke another response from me in this thread/subject
Oh yes, I win, you lose
COYB's |
Enjoy school tomorrow. Remember an apple for teacher. | |
| |
| VAR on 20:12 - Jun 23 with 1726 views | MK1 |
| VAR on 17:48 - Jun 23 by VanSaParody |
I suspect I've been conversant with the laws of the game & their updates, since before you were in your big girl's pants
Speaking of which, it's just occured to me I've been a little naive here, & fallen into somewhat of a trap by engaging with, & therefore, given attention to such a small minority - a trick which seems so common in your militant, LGBTQ+ type community I've heard so much about
Well, I refuse to pander to the minority, & have the time & attention the majority deserve, robbed from them any longer
I made my point in the OP & a few in the thread have taken things in a direction it didn't need to go
So you can carry on wetting your knickers if you like, I know I'm right & you're wrong & I know that will forever rankle, especially as you know you won't be able to provoke another response from me in this thread/subject
Oh yes, I win, you lose
COYBs |
If you tell teacher that 6x6 is 37, they may tell you that you are wrong, but don't you listen to them. You tell them that you are right and they have got it wrong all this time. If you tell them enough times, they will believe you.
 | |
| |
| VAR on 20:14 - Jun 23 with 1721 views | MK1 |
Have you not been listening. He is always right. | |
| |
| VAR on 20:19 - Jun 23 with 1713 views | MK1 |
| VAR on 18:48 - Jun 23 by Herbivore |
What a bizarre and unpleasant response. You seem like a bellend. |
Don't insult the child in the room. | |
| |
| VAR on 20:20 - Jun 23 with 1710 views | Sarge |
Another one just now.
A minor ‘foul’ after the ball is cleared means Germany’s goal ruled out. I’m sure the VAR apologists will be applauding it but seriously, is this what football is now? | | | |
| VAR on 21:07 - Jun 23 with 1685 views | Vegtablue |
| VAR on 20:20 - Jun 23 by Sarge |
Another one just now.
A minor ‘foul’ after the ball is cleared means Germany’s goal ruled out. I’m sure the VAR apologists will be applauding it but seriously, is this what football is now? |
Before the weirdness, this thread centred on a decision that VAR didn't overturn. I prefer football without VAR but there's little prospect of rewinding the clock really. | | | |
| VAR on 01:23 - Jun 24 with 1643 views | Ryorry |
| 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! |
FWIW, Shearer, on seeing the freeze frame, also said the keeper couldn't have immediately dived to his left to make a save, because at that moment his feet were wide apart & his balance was over to his right.
You couldn't expect a ref in real time to have to have clocked that & made a decision on it though. |  |
| |
| VAR on 01:28 - Jun 24 with 1638 views | Ryorry |
| VAR on 21:07 - Jun 23 by Vegtablue |
Before the weirdness, this thread centred on a decision that VAR didn't overturn. I prefer football without VAR but there's little prospect of rewinding the clock really. |
The real mystery for me re VAR is why on earth it wasn't employed when Scotland were inexplicably denied the stoniest of stonewall pens last night. The Hungarians must have been delirious with joy & amazement the spotkick wasn't given. | |
| |
| VAR on 04:53 - Jun 24 with 1616 views | MK1 |
| VAR on 01:28 - Jun 24 by Ryorry |
The real mystery for me re VAR is why on earth it wasn't employed when Scotland were inexplicably denied the stoniest of stonewall pens last night. The Hungarians must have been delirious with joy & amazement the spotkick wasn't given. |
As was I. | |
| |
| VAR on 07:13 - Jun 24 with 1571 views | Vaughan8 |
| VAR on 01:28 - Jun 24 by Ryorry |
The real mystery for me re VAR is why on earth it wasn't employed when Scotland were inexplicably denied the stoniest of stonewall pens last night. The Hungarians must have been delirious with joy & amazement the spotkick wasn't given. |
I didn't think it was a stonewall penalty.
It looks like Armstrong jumps across the defender, hanging a leg out, grabs his shirt and then they both tumble over?
However I am confused as to why it wasn't even checked! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
