throbber Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 8 hours ago, Zetterlund said: To me, whether someone is interfering or not comes down to whether anything would've happened differently had they not been there. In this case I don't think his presence made a difference as the keeper wasn't getting anywhere near it anyway. The keepers momentum is taking him towards that side of the goal and he doesn’t make a dive which may be because there is a physical obstruction in his way. You can’t say for certain whether or not that’s why the keeper doesn’t make a dive but the obstruction is clearly there from an offside player, the fact the ball is struck cleanly into the bottom corner and he wouldn’t get there is neither here nor there. I’d be taking my anger out on the offside Dutch player as he has no reason to be there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 I feel fairly indifferent to that decision. I don't hate it, but I don't think i've seen mentioned, the keeper seemed to move in the direction of the shot, then immediately pause, and gesture at the Dutch player then claim offside. I know they always look to claim for anything but to me he definitely seemed to stop his own attempt when he seen the forward there. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 3 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: I feel fairly indifferent to that decision. I don't hate it, but I don't think i've seen mentioned, the keeper seemed to move in the direction of the shot, then immediately pause, and gesture at the Dutch player then claim offside. I know they always look to claim for anything but to me he definitely seemed to stop his own attempt when he seen the forward there. That was my take too. He definitely checks his movement and starts the offside gesture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 16 minutes ago, TheScarf said: That was my take too. He definitely checks his movement and starts the offside gesture.    Does this mean you think the keeper was at it here? To me I think his momentum stops when he sees an obstacle in the road which is a natural human reaction. Bottom line for me is the keeper couldn’t attempt to stop the shot as there was an offside player stood in the direction he would have had to dive in. The argument that he wasn’t making the save anyway is playground stuff. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 14 minutes ago, throbber said: Does this mean you think the keeper was at it here? To me I think his momentum stops when he sees an obstacle in the road which is a natural human reaction. Bottom line for me is the keeper couldn’t attempt to stop the shot as there was an offside player stood in the direction he would have had to dive in. The argument that he wasn’t making the save anyway is playground stuff. No I think he was impeded by the attacker then claimed for offside. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 14 minutes ago, TheScarf said: No I think he was impeded by the attacker then claimed for offside. I was thinking it was a decision which totally divided the room after hearing the pundits on about it but right now I’m astounded that they all thought it should have stood because the keeper wasn’t getting there anyway. They can’t watch very much football if they’re surprised at the decision. You expect it from Jenas maybe but Rooney was saying the same stuff. Do you think the referees were discussing as to whether or not the keeper was going to save the ball anyway during the goal check?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 9 minutes ago, throbber said: I was thinking it was a decision which totally divided the room after hearing the pundits on about it but right now I’m astounded that they all thought it should have stood because the keeper wasn’t getting there anyway. They can’t watch very much football if they’re surprised at the decision. You expect it from Jenas maybe but Rooney was saying the same stuff. Do you think the referees were discussing as to whether or not the keeper was going to save the ball anyway during the goal check?! It’s clear as day that Dumfries would’ve prevented Maignan from getting to it. They pundits are at it purely down to the team who benefitted from it being ruled out was. If it was Georgia or Slovakia they’d have said it’s the correct decision. They want all their rivals for the title out as soon as possible so were hoping for France to lose. It’s obvious in commentary too in tournaments. Every time a team is attacking against a big nation other than England, the commentators are close to orgasm. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 2 hours ago, throbber said: The keepers momentum is taking him towards that side of the goal and he doesn’t make a dive which may be because there is a physical obstruction in his way. You can’t say for certain whether or not that’s why the keeper doesn’t make a dive but the obstruction is clearly there from an offside player, the fact the ball is struck cleanly into the bottom corner and he wouldn’t get there is neither here nor there. I’d be taking my anger out on the offside Dutch player as he has no reason to be there. The Dutch player was there because he followed up the first saved shot in case it was spilled. Literally a second later the ball was going past him for the disallowed goal. Thee keeper's movement looked more like he instinctively went to stick a foot out in the direction of the shot, but he made no move to dive for it. I suppose at worst you could argue he was distracted by the Dutch player being there, which might technically be seen as interference. I'm not saying it was a shocker of a decision as it could've been given either way, and may not have been overturned if the original decision was a goal. I'm also not surprised that Rooney and Shearer thought it was a good goal, although I think that's more to do with them being strikers rather than anything about England's rivals. Similarly I'd just prefer to see less reasons for goals to be ruled out for technicalities which can be open to interpretation. In real time when it happened the P&B audience were quite divided on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 11 hours ago, johnnydun said: Am I just being thick? How are Poland out? If they beat France and Austria get beat from Netherlands, and make up the 4 goal difference, do they not finish 3rd? With a chance? I'm in the same boat as you. Thickies united! Â 11 hours ago, Zetterlund said: Head to head comes first so they can't finish above Austria. Ah yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accies1874 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 9 hours ago, DrewDon said: I had been quite impressed with the efficiency of VAR at the competition before tonight's game. It had been pretty easy to go through a full game more or less forgetting that it was in operation. I am opposed to it outright, but, as someone who primarily consumes the Scottish Premiership, it has been slightly refreshing to watch games where they aren't just pausing play for thirty seconds after every corner to pore over some non-incidents. I think that the officiating has been excellent so far, so there hasn't been much of a need for VAR interventions. The ref and assistant got it right last night, but VAR took way too long after getting involved, and, as far as I remember/have seen, the Porteous red card has been the only subjective decision that they've got wrong, so with semi-automated offsides confirming a good decision it's always gonna be a lot quicker. The Belgium v Slovakia game is the game where it's been most noticeable, partly because I was there and partly because there was dubiety over Slovakia's goal and they had to overturn two Belgium goals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 11 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: The commentators were basically asking that the Keeper dive into the Dutch boy's knees to get the offside call Then they'd have been shouting for a penalty. "There was contact." "He was entitled to fall." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 5 hours ago, Zetterlund said: The Dutch player was there because he followed up the first saved shot in case it was spilled. Literally a second later the ball was going past him for the disallowed goal. Thee keeper's movement looked more like he instinctively went to stick a foot out in the direction of the shot, but he made no move to dive for it. I suppose at worst you could argue he was distracted by the Dutch player being there, which might technically be seen as interference. I'm not saying it was a shocker of a decision as it could've been given either way, and may not have been overturned if the original decision was a goal. I'm also not surprised that Rooney and Shearer thought it was a good goal, although I think that's more to do with them being strikers rather than anything about England's rivals. Similarly I'd just prefer to see less reasons for goals to be ruled out for technicalities which can be open to interpretation. In real time when it happened the P&B audience were quite divided on it. Yeah I shouldn’t have said he had no reason to be offside but if he tries to follow the shot in to the keeper he is taking a gamble that he’ll be stranded offside should the ball fall to a team mate. Was just unfortunate he ended up the wrong side of the keeper.  I don’t remember many var decisions that have been this open to interpretation but was the correct call IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Psychosis Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Never mind offside, I want to know if the drug tests have all come back negative. Quite clearly past the Dutchie on the left hand side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Â 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Would be good to see Austria get something and progress here, as they've been one of the better sides to watch in the tournament so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venti Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 France game for me. Robot boy & Fanny Murphy is the alternative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wile E Coyote Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Was going to watch BBC2. Heard Pearce. Back to BBC1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustOneCornetto Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Not just the mask that'll impede Mbappe's vision it's this pea souper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSJ.84 Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 3 minutes ago, Venti said: France game for me. Robot boy & Fanny Murphy is the alternative. Martin Keown, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Kite Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Lee Blakeman on the 5live sync comms. Stoke fan. I fully expect him to go mental if Arnautovic scores for Austria. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.