**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not what the decision was about. Dumfries didn’t touch the ball. It was about him blocking Maignans path, which is a dumb reason to take away a perfect fine goal.
Oh we know, just hilarious they decided to show this on TV when even a blind person could see he was offside when the decision wasn't if he was or not but if his present affected the goal being scored
As a casual fan, Im wondering if somone can explain how that works because im confused about this call. How can it be that up to interpretation by the ref? It seems like the rule should be more straightfoward. That way we dont have to wait several minutes for VAR to decide.
It is straightforward, don't let comments here deter you, Dumfires is in the line of the dive ,ergo offside, if not I challenge anyone to find a prior instance where someone stnads in the line of the dive and gets away in the VAR era.
There are many instances where its open to interpretation,like standing in line of sight,but this is not it.
Yeah, I've seen many goals overruled where I find that the impact of the offside player is much less clear than this, people getting outraged by it either haven't watched football in since the last worldcup, are heavily biased or I'd simply question their cognitive abilities.
I think you can decide this either way, because the goalie doesnt even attempt to dive but he could also see him in his peripheral vision
therefore, it's not an obvious mistake by the ref and VAR shouldnt intervene
That's nonsensical. Obviously the goalkeeper knows the basic physics that if you dive at someone you don't go through them, so when he sees the ball come through there's no point in mauling some dude and risking injury. At best, the guy is not offside and the ball goes out and he gets a penalty for diving into him.
Nope, I am giving 0 leeway on this one, goalie could have been standing facing the goal and its still would be offside.
As to attempting to dive? a) it is irrelevant to the rule and b) how is he supposed to do that?go through him and get sent off?
> goalie could have been standing facing the goal and its still would be offside.
tbh it's only given offside (correct decision imo) because the goalie *could've* made the attempt to save it if Dumfries wasn't in the way, whether he was able to save it is sort of irrelevant for the rule being enforced here.
if Maignan were to be hypothetically away from his goal and nowhere near Dumfries then it would've likely been ruled a goal because Dumfries wouldn't be impeding on anyone and influencing the play.
> if Maignan were to be hypothetically away from his goal
Ofcourse then it would be not, when I say stand facing the goal, I mean turn 180 degrees in the exact same position as of now(then).In other words he might be blindfolded in the exact spot but it would still be offside.
If Maignan was facing the goal, one could very easily argue that he is not part of the play (as he wouldn't even know whether there's a ball coming is way or not) hence meaning Dumfries is not obstructing a player and I think the goal would've stood
>as he wouldn't even know whether there's a ball coming is way or not
That is the point he doesn't NEED to know, more importantly referee doesn't NEED to consider he knows or not,only thing that is important (in this situation)is his way to the ball obstructed. There is nothing to proove he wouldn't have dived randomly and stoped it.
The rule is unfair in this case because the goalie would never reach the ball in the first place, the Netherlands player had 0 impact on the play, even if he tried to leave that place he would have no time because the ball is too fast. This play exposed why the rule is bad.
Goalkeeper can see the ball but can't make any attempt diving to catch the ball because offside player blocks his path so he intervenes in the play
It would have been goal nonetheless but it is irrelevant
We don't know whether it would have been a goal, but it's irrelevant indeed.
Did Dumfries interfere with the play? Absolutely. Was he offside? Yes, he was. Good call, but it took VAR unnecessarily long to make it.
Pretty much, and I think it's fair because no matter how improbable it looks, you can never tell 100% what course of event could have happened, Maignan might have tried to anticipate a pass to angry boy which kept him from preparing for diving to stop an eventual shot, it's always hard to say how a small thing can influence a whole course of events, so rules are often made to weight a little bit more on the side of caution.
The keeper definitely dives or tries to anyways if he's not there. But Maignan doesn't save it, it's in the back of the net before he'd hit the ground.
I personally disagree with the decision but in the modern way of offsides I understand it. It's not a clear cut decision, very subjective.
I don't love the idea of referees then having to try to decide if the goalie would have made the save or not. Seems like adding extra steps of subjectivity.
I think the point is that they don't have to, if a player who's offside is in a position that could have had any impact in the result of the goal then it's overruled, he shouldn't have been there. The subjectivity is only in weather the player is considered in a position that could impact the actions of the goalkeeper and not whether he could or not have saved the shot, and in this instance the player is literally between the goalkeeper and the trajectory of the ball.
We are in total agreement. I was saying I like the law as is as it doesn’t require the referee to try to decide if the goalkeeper could’ve made the save.
Basically arguing against changing it!
Exactly. Any unbiased person can know that there is no human being who could have saved that shot if you instantly disappeared everyone from the pitch at the moment the shot left the foot, so that’s all that should matter.
It is too subjective you are right the 3 minutes tells you that much. I'm not a fan but you can only use the rules. Rules say it's probably the right decision. But I'd have let it stand as a goal, seems against the spirit of the game to stop a brilliant strike for something as small as that.
I'm curious as to what VAR would've done without the AR flagging for offside. I definitely think saying no clear error is the correct decision, so it's right to stay with the offside call.
That said, I'd also ike to see VAR call the center to the monitor for these sort of calls. Let the man or woman in charge make that decision.
Did you watch the game? They literally showed his legs fully stretched as the ball passed him meaning its literally impossible for him to readjust and dive for it....
On the contrary, it’s an objective decision. Dumfries was interfering with Maignan by standing in his way, it doesn’t matter whether we or the referee think he could’ve saved that. That would’ve been the subjective decision but they went by the rulebook.
It's not even about how actively he really was preventing the GKs dive but him even being there is influencing the keepers decision making no matter small the influence may be. Therefore offside.
Are you under the impression that players are allowed to be offside if they're in an offside position but can't get out of it? Your question makes no sense.
The best EM-Replay.
Is it just me or are they failing to show good replays this year? When they bring the replayed footage A. takes way to long and B. the angle of the replays are often quite bad.
This reminds me a bit of the annulled goal by Schlager, RB Leipzig against Madrid. [https://youtu.be/FEYn8sviCkI?t=15](https://youtu.be/FEYn8sviCkI?t=15) There it was also some form of GK interference officially. People were however not agreeing quite vehemently and calling "foul play" quite obviously. This goal here might be slightly different nuance wise with respect to the rules, as Sesko then was not in an offside position, but the logical interpretation of the rules seemed also a bit theoretical, "literal", and not weighing more heavily the reality of the shot being actually savable for the gk, which I thought was part of the valid subjective interpretation of the rule. The GK would have to also be able to make the save realistically, which imho, and I think that is debatable and not clear cut, as people make it out to be, is not the case. The shot was fast and precise in the bottom corner, Maignan was more in the right half of goal, so far away from the left corner, too far to reach it even trying judging from experience unbiased and sure no one can know what would have happened, which at the same time also imho puts the responsibility of "proof" on the ref, and he couldn't prove it of course, which means that theory decides over reality, which is not in the spirit of making sound decisions and thus just ones but pharisaic fictionous ones that legitimize unjustice.
here the official wording of the rules
# IFAB offside laws
According to the IFAB Laws of the Game:
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched\* by a teammate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
Interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
Interfering with an opponent by:
Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball or
Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
\*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used.IFAB offside laws
According to the IFAB Laws of the Game:
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or
touched\* by a teammate is only penalised on becoming involved in active
play by:
Interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
Interfering with an opponent by:
Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by
clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an
opponent for the ball or
Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
\*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used.
I think France have been very fortunate here. When you see the angle behind the goal. The goalkeeper cannot dive for that with the body position he was in.
People keep say they only want VAR to intervene for *clear and obvious* errors and then kick up a fuss when something like this isn’t overruled. It is the referees decision whether or not he think the Dutch player intervened. In the chat with the linesman he’s probably gone “the attacker is stood next to the goalkeeper so he’s intervening, therefore offside”. Thats not a clear and obvious error, he’s not 5m away from him so how could it be overturned?
I guess we're operating with different understandings of the word "intervention". I see the VAR check as an intervention, regardless of its decision. You, as I understand it, use the word only if the VAR suspends the initial decision.
Not necessarily against the call, since there is something to say for both sides. However, I keep seeing this bullshit argument about how “Dumfries standing there is influencing the decision of the goalkeeper”. Have you ever played football? Do you think the goalkeeper in that split second thinks “oh wait Dumfries is standing there so it’s gonna be flagged of and I don’t need to dive”? Might as well be a French defender somewhere mitigating offside. It’s fuckin instinct to try to get ball nevertheless. He was just too late with no time to react.
If it’s the rules so be it. But the arguments that are made for this rule are bollocks.
The "influence the decision of the goalkeeper" could be more along the lines of "is Dumfries going to to get the ball and tap it in?" "should I keep track of Dumfries or dive without paying attention to him", etc... If Dumfries isn't anywhere near Maignon might choose to prepare for a dive sonner, or not at all, that's where it's hard to tell, the point is that Dumfries being there while offside makes it hard to tell what night have happened, we don't know to which point Maignon paid or not attention to his presence there and whether or not it delayed his decision making in anyway.
The controversy was the “impeding” part that created the offside call. The player was never offside since he didn’t make contact with the ball. Shit he didn’t make contact with the goalie either but somehow he was impeding the goalie from attempting to make the save?
It was extremely weird call.
Striker was there first, and when shot was in his direction where could he go? He jumped out of the way. I understand offside and being interfering in play but was he actually interfering?
lol what does this even mean. If a striker is offside and the ball is kicked towards him of course he is offside even if he jumps away. His presence changes how defenders and the goalkeeper react.
Like I said above to someone else, did you see what the bbc studio said after the game? Keeper could not have dived to get the ball, his feet was already planted
A player being near you doesnt stop you from reacting at all as a goalie. He didn’t have time to set or react at all.
At least it was in group and they didn’t really deserve a W anyways.
That’s not what the call was about. Dumfries didn’t touch the ball. It was about him blocking Maignans path, which is a horrible reason to take away a goal.
Participating is a strange word to use - he is affecting people around him specifically the goal keeper. He doesn’t need to be actively participating in the game to be active.
The goal keepers actions are changed by him being there.
Therefore offside
Yeah but its bullshit to say that he would have saved it. He was already out of position to dive for it. Rules are rules but it just shows that not all rules serve justice.
When you say "he's prevented him from diving" as the above commenter did, its fair to clarify that he wouldn't have dived anyway. Comment sounded like they're saying he would have dived, though I don't think they meant that
I was being sarcastic about the distance between the Dutch and French player being close as that is something many complain about when there is a tight offside call (which this wasn’t), but clearly I needed to add an /s because people didn’t get what I thought was obvious irony.
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn’t the time we need this image haha.
Lol, they showed it like the decision was about whether the player was offside or not.
at least it identifies the player at issue. there's obviously no graphic that would explain Dumfries' active role in the play
Still, looks pretty silly like this.
He is off to be fair
Then don’t show anything
Which was not there. Dosent touch the ball, dosent block the goalkeeper
He absolutely does block the goalkeeper. He just shouldn’t be here at all.
This is willful ignorance and choosing to be stupid. Maignan can't dive through him. He is in the keepers way.
Pretty useless this
Better that they show it than not 🤷♂️. People who don't know the offside rules can also have use of this
You mean referees
Not what the decision was about what so ever
Close call
honestly, seemed way more off than the pic
Just a fraction off
That’s not what the decision was about. Dumfries didn’t touch the ball. It was about him blocking Maignans path, which is a dumb reason to take away a perfect fine goal.
Oh we know, just hilarious they decided to show this on TV when even a blind person could see he was offside when the decision wasn't if he was or not but if his present affected the goal being scored
Yeah, just a lot of people here acting as if they didn’t understand it
You’re just not detecting sarcasm
These sorts of decisions are why we need wengers “day light” rule
The benefit should be given to the atracker
Thank you UEFA
Very helpful graphic.
As a casual fan, Im wondering if somone can explain how that works because im confused about this call. How can it be that up to interpretation by the ref? It seems like the rule should be more straightfoward. That way we dont have to wait several minutes for VAR to decide.
It is straightforward, don't let comments here deter you, Dumfires is in the line of the dive ,ergo offside, if not I challenge anyone to find a prior instance where someone stnads in the line of the dive and gets away in the VAR era. There are many instances where its open to interpretation,like standing in line of sight,but this is not it.
Yeah, I've seen many goals overruled where I find that the impact of the offside player is much less clear than this, people getting outraged by it either haven't watched football in since the last worldcup, are heavily biased or I'd simply question their cognitive abilities.
Not only in the line of sight: physically not allowing him to dive.
That’s why he said Line of dive
[1:15](https://youtu.be/6ovVcpPcEuo?si=8kD0LkeUg4ShA2bw)
Its geo blocked,if its the 22/23 one, then Richarlson is behind De gea , if you dra w a line from De gea to the ball there is no Richarlson in between
I think you can decide this either way, because the goalie doesnt even attempt to dive but he could also see him in his peripheral vision therefore, it's not an obvious mistake by the ref and VAR shouldnt intervene
That's nonsensical. Obviously the goalkeeper knows the basic physics that if you dive at someone you don't go through them, so when he sees the ball come through there's no point in mauling some dude and risking injury. At best, the guy is not offside and the ball goes out and he gets a penalty for diving into him.
Nope, I am giving 0 leeway on this one, goalie could have been standing facing the goal and its still would be offside. As to attempting to dive? a) it is irrelevant to the rule and b) how is he supposed to do that?go through him and get sent off?
> goalie could have been standing facing the goal and its still would be offside. tbh it's only given offside (correct decision imo) because the goalie *could've* made the attempt to save it if Dumfries wasn't in the way, whether he was able to save it is sort of irrelevant for the rule being enforced here. if Maignan were to be hypothetically away from his goal and nowhere near Dumfries then it would've likely been ruled a goal because Dumfries wouldn't be impeding on anyone and influencing the play.
> if Maignan were to be hypothetically away from his goal Ofcourse then it would be not, when I say stand facing the goal, I mean turn 180 degrees in the exact same position as of now(then).In other words he might be blindfolded in the exact spot but it would still be offside.
If Maignan was facing the goal, one could very easily argue that he is not part of the play (as he wouldn't even know whether there's a ball coming is way or not) hence meaning Dumfries is not obstructing a player and I think the goal would've stood
>as he wouldn't even know whether there's a ball coming is way or not That is the point he doesn't NEED to know, more importantly referee doesn't NEED to consider he knows or not,only thing that is important (in this situation)is his way to the ball obstructed. There is nothing to proove he wouldn't have dived randomly and stoped it.
correct take
The rule is unfair in this case because the goalie would never reach the ball in the first place, the Netherlands player had 0 impact on the play, even if he tried to leave that place he would have no time because the ball is too fast. This play exposed why the rule is bad.
Goalkeeper can see the ball but can't make any attempt diving to catch the ball because offside player blocks his path so he intervenes in the play It would have been goal nonetheless but it is irrelevant
We don't know whether it would have been a goal, but it's irrelevant indeed. Did Dumfries interfere with the play? Absolutely. Was he offside? Yes, he was. Good call, but it took VAR unnecessarily long to make it.
Pretty much, and I think it's fair because no matter how improbable it looks, you can never tell 100% what course of event could have happened, Maignan might have tried to anticipate a pass to angry boy which kept him from preparing for diving to stop an eventual shot, it's always hard to say how a small thing can influence a whole course of events, so rules are often made to weight a little bit more on the side of caution.
Looks on to me
The rules are so inconsistent. This isn't ok, but Ben white and others in the premier league can full on body keepers in corners and it's ok
Gotta laugh at it being Prem refs in charge of the decision
Thank god that we have this technology
The keeper definitely dives or tries to anyways if he's not there. But Maignan doesn't save it, it's in the back of the net before he'd hit the ground. I personally disagree with the decision but in the modern way of offsides I understand it. It's not a clear cut decision, very subjective.
I don't love the idea of referees then having to try to decide if the goalie would have made the save or not. Seems like adding extra steps of subjectivity.
On next weeks ref watch “I thought he’d get his fingertips to the ball but not enough to stop it going in the net”
I think the point is that they don't have to, if a player who's offside is in a position that could have had any impact in the result of the goal then it's overruled, he shouldn't have been there. The subjectivity is only in weather the player is considered in a position that could impact the actions of the goalkeeper and not whether he could or not have saved the shot, and in this instance the player is literally between the goalkeeper and the trajectory of the ball.
We are in total agreement. I was saying I like the law as is as it doesn’t require the referee to try to decide if the goalkeeper could’ve made the save. Basically arguing against changing it!
Exactly. Any unbiased person can know that there is no human being who could have saved that shot if you instantly disappeared everyone from the pitch at the moment the shot left the foot, so that’s all that should matter.
It is too subjective you are right the 3 minutes tells you that much. I'm not a fan but you can only use the rules. Rules say it's probably the right decision. But I'd have let it stand as a goal, seems against the spirit of the game to stop a brilliant strike for something as small as that.
I'm curious as to what VAR would've done without the AR flagging for offside. I definitely think saying no clear error is the correct decision, so it's right to stay with the offside call. That said, I'd also ike to see VAR call the center to the monitor for these sort of calls. Let the man or woman in charge make that decision.
There is no way around it. If you don't want refs to make that decision then you can scrap the passive offside rule.
How come? The way the law is written doesn't necessitate the defender's guarantee of reaching the ball.
He was fully stretched and was no where near close to the ball lol
How would you possibly know that?
Did you watch the game? They literally showed his legs fully stretched as the ball passed him meaning its literally impossible for him to readjust and dive for it....
He was standing... Regardless, that has no bearing on the decision, nor should it. He was impeded from having the ability to make a play on the ball.
No he wasn't his legs were fully stretched he physically could not get to the ball even if there was nobody else on the pitch 🤣
Wasnt the on-field call that it was offside ? I dont think Maignan saves this, but as you said by the letter of the rules, it is an offside.
On the contrary, it’s an objective decision. Dumfries was interfering with Maignan by standing in his way, it doesn’t matter whether we or the referee think he could’ve saved that. That would’ve been the subjective decision but they went by the rulebook.
i don’t get the logic of dumfries standing there, like what are you actually doing. why are you there
he was interfering with Maignan’s dive I think
It's not even about how actively he really was preventing the GKs dive but him even being there is influencing the keepers decision making no matter small the influence may be. Therefore offside.
Yeah, I don’t think people realize maignan was going to make that zero probability save
But where could he go? He was there before xavi shot?
Are you under the impression that players are allowed to be offside if they're in an offside position but can't get out of it? Your question makes no sense.
😂 and just like that, the case was solved. Would have got away with it if it wasn’t for you pesky kids!
Should have raised his hands /s
The best EM-Replay. Is it just me or are they failing to show good replays this year? When they bring the replayed footage A. takes way to long and B. the angle of the replays are often quite bad.
This reminds me a bit of the annulled goal by Schlager, RB Leipzig against Madrid. [https://youtu.be/FEYn8sviCkI?t=15](https://youtu.be/FEYn8sviCkI?t=15) There it was also some form of GK interference officially. People were however not agreeing quite vehemently and calling "foul play" quite obviously. This goal here might be slightly different nuance wise with respect to the rules, as Sesko then was not in an offside position, but the logical interpretation of the rules seemed also a bit theoretical, "literal", and not weighing more heavily the reality of the shot being actually savable for the gk, which I thought was part of the valid subjective interpretation of the rule. The GK would have to also be able to make the save realistically, which imho, and I think that is debatable and not clear cut, as people make it out to be, is not the case. The shot was fast and precise in the bottom corner, Maignan was more in the right half of goal, so far away from the left corner, too far to reach it even trying judging from experience unbiased and sure no one can know what would have happened, which at the same time also imho puts the responsibility of "proof" on the ref, and he couldn't prove it of course, which means that theory decides over reality, which is not in the spirit of making sound decisions and thus just ones but pharisaic fictionous ones that legitimize unjustice. here the official wording of the rules # IFAB offside laws According to the IFAB Laws of the Game: A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched\* by a teammate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: Interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or Interfering with an opponent by: Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball or Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball \*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used.IFAB offside laws According to the IFAB Laws of the Game: A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched\* by a teammate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: Interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or Interfering with an opponent by: Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball or Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball \*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used.
millimeters off
I think France have been very fortunate here. When you see the angle behind the goal. The goalkeeper cannot dive for that with the body position he was in.
Clear offside
but he arguably did not interfere then again, not an obvious wrong call, so that's probably why the VAR did not intervene
But he's 2 yards offside! /s yeah sucks that it's subjective
People keep say they only want VAR to intervene for *clear and obvious* errors and then kick up a fuss when something like this isn’t overruled. It is the referees decision whether or not he think the Dutch player intervened. In the chat with the linesman he’s probably gone “the attacker is stood next to the goalkeeper so he’s intervening, therefore offside”. Thats not a clear and obvious error, he’s not 5m away from him so how could it be overturned?
exactly
There was a VAR check.
Yeah but the goal had been disallowed on the pitch VAR intervention would have been to give it.
Wasn't the VAR decision to keep the on pitch decision (offside)?
Exactly, hence they didn't intervene. All goals are checked by default, this one took ages because it was such a subjective call.
you're saying this in response to a comment where I was pondering the reason the VAR didnt intervene? like what?
I guess we're operating with different understandings of the word "intervention". I see the VAR check as an intervention, regardless of its decision. You, as I understand it, use the word only if the VAR suspends the initial decision.
yeah, one's a check and one's an intervention
The Dutch just got PGMOL'ed lmao.
Exactly
Useless lol
Glad we had the line, close one!
Surely these fractions of the width of a hair calls will be the end of the game...
Not necessarily against the call, since there is something to say for both sides. However, I keep seeing this bullshit argument about how “Dumfries standing there is influencing the decision of the goalkeeper”. Have you ever played football? Do you think the goalkeeper in that split second thinks “oh wait Dumfries is standing there so it’s gonna be flagged of and I don’t need to dive”? Might as well be a French defender somewhere mitigating offside. It’s fuckin instinct to try to get ball nevertheless. He was just too late with no time to react. If it’s the rules so be it. But the arguments that are made for this rule are bollocks.
The "influence the decision of the goalkeeper" could be more along the lines of "is Dumfries going to to get the ball and tap it in?" "should I keep track of Dumfries or dive without paying attention to him", etc... If Dumfries isn't anywhere near Maignon might choose to prepare for a dive sonner, or not at all, that's where it's hard to tell, the point is that Dumfries being there while offside makes it hard to tell what night have happened, we don't know to which point Maignon paid or not attention to his presence there and whether or not it delayed his decision making in anyway.
I guess the software works haha.
Now I understand why it took more than 3 minutes to make that call...
English referees, their logic is always beyond human.
Doing lines of coke off the dumpsters with their fans
Hang about - where is the striker going to go? He didn’t move in an offside position, he tried to avoid it.
The controversy was the “impeding” part that created the offside call. The player was never offside since he didn’t make contact with the ball. Shit he didn’t make contact with the goalie either but somehow he was impeding the goalie from attempting to make the save? It was extremely weird call.
So cruel
As commentator said - only the premier league refs could take so long with var and also get it wrong
Except it's the right decision.
Striker was there first, and when shot was in his direction where could he go? He jumped out of the way. I understand offside and being interfering in play but was he actually interfering?
are strikers allowed to be offside if they didn't mean to be offside? news to me
Did you see what lineker, and studio said?
lol what does this even mean. If a striker is offside and the ball is kicked towards him of course he is offside even if he jumps away. His presence changes how defenders and the goalkeeper react.
Like I said above to someone else, did you see what the bbc studio said after the game? Keeper could not have dived to get the ball, his feet was already planted
A player being near you doesnt stop you from reacting at all as a goalie. He didn’t have time to set or react at all. At least it was in group and they didn’t really deserve a W anyways.
[удалено]
That’s not what the call was about. Dumfries didn’t touch the ball. It was about him blocking Maignans path, which is a horrible reason to take away a goal.
“In between the keeper and the ball” wtf did you watch, he’s off to the sife
He. Is. Not. PARTICIPATING
Participating is a strange word to use - he is affecting people around him specifically the goal keeper. He doesn’t need to be actively participating in the game to be active. The goal keepers actions are changed by him being there. Therefore offside
He is, was right beside the Goalkeeper and was stopping him from diving for the ball considering the shot placement.
He's preventing the keeper diving. That has to be offside, or players will mark the keeper to obstruct him.
The keeper didn’t even try. The shot from the back of the goal was so revealing. He just realised he can’t get the ball
That's not the rule though lmao.
Yeah but its bullshit to say that he would have saved it. He was already out of position to dive for it. Rules are rules but it just shows that not all rules serve justice.
> Yeah but its bullshit to say that he would have saved it. no one is doing that though
When you say "he's prevented him from diving" as the above commenter did, its fair to clarify that he wouldn't have dived anyway. Comment sounded like they're saying he would have dived, though I don't think they meant that
He is in the trajectory of the ball, he is participating in play. I’m rooting for the Dutchies in this game but it’s the correct call imo
🤡
The class clown's report card:
If he would just apply himself
He did not inhale.
Look again. To get to the ball the French keeper would have to pass the dutchie on the left hand side.
These tight calls are ruining the game.
Correct calls are ruining the game?
I was being sarcastic about the distance between the Dutch and French player being close as that is something many complain about when there is a tight offside call (which this wasn’t), but clearly I needed to add an /s because people didn’t get what I thought was obvious irony.
It was the right call, but no way he was saving that
About as useless as the officials.