As a Dutchman I'm of course biased so for me the goal should stand but right now I'm happy with the draw.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Isn't that because Taylor already disallowed the goal? Then it's just up the VAR judge to confirm or send him to the screen to potentielly change the decision?
I don't give a shit about their nationality.
Make what any clearer? I disagree and I've explained my interpretation. It's comes down the level of interference. You think he's blocking his path to the ball. For me he potentially is. I don't think you can block someone's path you the ball if they don't attempt to get there.
Regardless if whether he could have made the save,which he absolutely couldn't, the ball is passed him before he knows it. He's not attempted a save at all.
It’s shouldn’t have been disallowed for me and maybe that’s down to how I think the rules should be applied and I could well be wrong on that front:
For me it’s a subjective decision. Had the keeper dived and been physically obstructed by the offside player it becomes and objective decision. Had the offside player been in the keepers line of sight then it becomes an objective decision.
As the player was to the side of the keeper you have to look at the entire picture to get the full context and if you watch it the keeper doesn’t react to the shot until it passes him and it doesn’t look like he is ever aware of the player. So I think VAR should have given advantage to the attack and decided that although in an offside position with potential to impact the goalkeeper, he had absolutely no bearing on the outcome and therefore the goal should have stood.
For me it’s a subjective decision. Had the keeper dived and been physically obstructed by the offside player it becomes and objective decision. Had the offside player been in the keepers line of sight then it becomes an objective decision.
As the player was to the side of the keeper you have to look at the entire picture to get the full context and if you watch it the keeper doesn’t react to the shot until it passes him and it doesn’t look like he is ever aware of the player. So I think VAR should have given advantage to the attack and decided that although in an offside position with potential to impact the goalkeeper, he had absolutely no bearing on the outcome and therefore the goal should have stood.
They're all paid to fill airtime.
Their 'opinions' change like the weather and should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.
The point you're repeatedly missing is that we absolutely do no want officials making guesses at how possible it is for professional footballers to complete actions in situations like that.
You're also taking it as fact that Maignan had no idea where Dumfries was, which again, is something we can't know for sure. Therefore, you can't go making judgements based on an apparent lack of attempt to make a save.
As I said, they've made the call based on three facts. Maignan's position, Dumfries position relative to Maignan, and the path of the ball relative to both.
You can only speculate over Maignan's balance and his awareness of Dumfries/the shot.
I don’t think it was offside, so I disagree with you.
There's a man right in the way of any potential dive from the goalkeeper. At this point, the goalie's options are either to dive like an idiot right into the player risking an injury to either of them or trust the refs to spot the obvious interference.
Never seen a save that made you go "I've no idea how he managed to save that"?
The ref's (or yours) personal opinion on whether or not the goalie could've pulled off a worldie is irrelevant.
I thought it was offside to be fair.
VVD saying "we scored a goal but the English referee disallowed it" is the kind of salty bitching I enjoy.
Exactly a potent dive from the keeper. One that wasn't attempted. He was leaning the other way and made no attempt to move towards the ball. It's not about whether he could or couldn't. He didn't attempt it so there was nothing to block.
Shay Given on Irish TV said he didn't see him until after the ball was in the net, and as a keeper you dive anyway, in front of him, behind him into him. He said it wouldn't matter you'd be focussed on the ball.
If it was a french defender that stood there and watched the ball go in, I don't think we're having this conversation.
Can’t help but enjoy VVD being upset.
Well no, because a french defender wouldn't have been offside.
I think, with the benefit of the various replays, it’s clear enough that the player didn’t actually interfere with the goalkeeper saving the ball, so my view is it should be allowed. There’s always going to be an element of subjectivity as to whether the keeper could save it in this type of decision. Had the ball gone right into the top corner of the goal I doubt we’d be having this conversation.
That said, it’s certainly not the worst decision and understandable why they made it. I would have liked the onfield ref to go to the screen and see all the replays though.
That said, it’s certainly not the worst decision and understandable why they made it. I would have liked the onfield ref to go to the screen and see all the replays though.
He means in place of the goalkeeper. In theory, that defender might somehow have been able to get there with his foot but I think everyone would agree that wouldn’t be the case, and the goal would have stood.
I know what he meant silly.
I'm not missing that as it's your interpretation of my posts and what you think my rationale is.
You're completely missing my main point. At no point does he attempt a save. There was nothing to block as he didn't attempt to get to that ball. If he had attempted a dive or even jumped into the defender a little bit than fair enough. He was in no position to attempt a save and got lucky with the Dumfries positioning and the decision.
But again that's my opinion. As I've said it's a contentious decision as can be seen from the punditry which is pretty funny that you're discounting. It's a question of nuance on this decision and it's not objective as you keep repeating. My interpretation is that it should be a goal unless the keeper attempts the save, even half-heartedly. You're free to have a different opinion but you're not going to change my mind.
In place of the goalie, mate. I'm not a complete eejit.
That's fair. As a goalie, he understands the situation better than most.
I've no horse in this particular race, so I couldn't care less which team this happened to.
I've no skin in the game at all but when people are claiming it's 100% objectively the correct call when it's clearly a contentious one that's split opinion of fans, pundits etc then it's going to generate quite a bit of back and forth.
You're still not understanding that you're making massive assumptions with that stance.
You're taking him not appearing to attempt a save as evidence that he knew he wouldn't have got there. Regardless of what Shay Given says, it could well have been an instinctive response to knowing there's a man in a bright orange kit stood exactly where he needs to dive.
English refs take their time because of how VAR is implemented here. If the mindset is to only intervene if clear error has taken place, that can be quickly established and a decision made. If the mindset is: let's take our time and examine under a microscope everything that's just happened so we can rule out a goal - this is what you get.
Under Webb the PL refs operate VAR on the basis of the latter. In England VAR is used to spotlight and showcase the officials. Not get to the right decision in the quickest possible time.
A reason why yesterday probably took as long as it did its rather than going straight to incident in question, they were probably unnecessarily reviewing a throw-in that took place several minutes before
Under Webb the PL refs operate VAR on the basis of the latter. In England VAR is used to spotlight and showcase the officials. Not get to the right decision in the quickest possible time.
A reason why yesterday probably took as long as it did its rather than going straight to incident in question, they were probably unnecessarily reviewing a throw-in that took place several minutes before
Last edited:
No I'm not. I'm not interpreting his thoughts so I'm not sure where you got that from. When I said he wasn't getting there I'm talking about what we can see on the screen, he was in no position to make the save and didn't even try.
However, it's quite simple for me in that he didn't move or attempt to make a save therefore he wasn't blocked. Is that objective enough for you?
However, it's quite simple for me in that he didn't move or attempt to make a save therefore he wasn't blocked. Is that objective enough for you?
Do you not think it's possible that the reason he didn't move for the ball is because there was someone in the way?
No I'm not. I'm not interpreting his thoughts so I'm not sure where you got that from. When I said he wasn't getting there I'm talking about what we can see on the screen, he was in no position to make the save and didn't even try.
However, it's quite simple for me in that he didn't move or attempt to make a save therefore he wasn't blocked. Is that objective enough for you?
Still very subjective and exactly the sort of judgments we don't want officials to be making.
Again not the crux of my point.
I thought It was an easy decision.for var .He's in an offside position interfering with play .
He's not interpreting Maignan's thoughts but he knows for sure and is definitely not making assumptions when he says that Maignan a) didn't know Dumfries was there so can't possibly have been affected by him and b) knew he was never getting to the ball which is why he didn't just dive straight at Dumfries.
Given was saying you dive anyway. How many keepers refuse to go for a ball because of the presence of an attacker? I would be more comfortable with the decision even if he half heartedly went for it.
It's a key part of your argument for it not being offside. Doesn't matter if it's the "crux" of it.
Given isn't Maignan.
Again you're misinterpreting me. The fact is he didn't dive or attempt to block the shot and therefore wasn't blocked. You keep turning my point into knowing what was is Maignan's mind which I've never claimed to know as it would be absurd to suggest that.
I understand your logic, I just have a different interpretation. We can agree to disagree. It's a contentious decision which is splitting opinion and that's fine.
The apparent lack of attempt to dive or block the shot could well have been affected by Dumfries being right next to him.
This is the massive assumption you are making and refusing to acknowledge.
I would bet every goalkeeper ever has done this at some point.
Why do you think teams get a player to stand right next to a goalie at corners? It's massively off putting.
Barthez famously stood appealing for offside while Di Canio slotted one past him, in what was a far less "instinctive" situation.
Players don't always do the obvious or done thing.
I'm not. I just don't think it's enough and for someone saying that I'm trying to get into his head that seems to be exactly what you seem to be doing with the first sentence. As I said it's fine to disagree. I'm not telling you you're wrong but you seem to be convinced yours is the only correct opinion when there's no consensus on this one.
There was a time not long ago where being offside was offside, that's it, full stop.
They've changed the rule to stop ruling out goals where a player isn't involved / interfering. This is great, you'd not want a corner taker being slow to get back onside to rule out a goal, etc.
Dumfries is in the 6 yard box, he's in the centre of the goal, he's stayed in an offside position, it's his fault the goal gets ruled out. Players want to blame the officials in these instances, but the player is in a position where if the ball comes to him then he's going to have his goal ruled out.
The real solution here is to get back onside so that you're not having to rely on the officials ruling that you're an inanimate object.
They've changed the rule to stop ruling out goals where a player isn't involved / interfering. This is great, you'd not want a corner taker being slow to get back onside to rule out a goal, etc.
Dumfries is in the 6 yard box, he's in the centre of the goal, he's stayed in an offside position, it's his fault the goal gets ruled out. Players want to blame the officials in these instances, but the player is in a position where if the ball comes to him then he's going to have his goal ruled out.
The real solution here is to get back onside so that you're not having to rely on the officials ruling that you're an inanimate object.
How can you know he’s not aware of the player though, in any way? You don’t just dive ‘anyway’ if you know there’s a human being right next to you. This is the issue, it’s not if it was going to be saved, it’s if the goalkeeper has been affected, no matter how little, by an offside player.
If you agree the player was interfering in play because he's stood next to keeper, you can ascertain that from a still image. It takes mere seconds to reach the conclusion. There wasn't several angels where the player's position was unclear to muddy the situation. The issue is PL refs have no expectation or obligation to expedite their decisions
They enjoy the eyes on them.
They enjoy the eyes on them.
Did I say that in a previous post, I didn't say it in the one you replied to?
Does it say that in the rules though? Does it mention minimal affect on the keeper or is it more about preventing another player from playing the ball?
Goalies dive into contact all the time so I don't really agree on that point. It's an interpretation either way though and it's not a clear cut incident.