Lol...VAR at euros

As soon as it happened, I felt sorry for Taylor and Atwell tbh. Either decision was going to annoy a lot of people!

Thought the same …..there was no win for them

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
It was a really tricky decision and either interpretation is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless there's an allowance in the rules for situations where the 'keeper or defender can't reach the ball, the goal is correctly ruled out, imo. The Dutch player was interfering; the 'keeper couldn't dive in the direction of the ball because of the player standing in the way. Whether or not he'd have got the ball is moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he wasn't in the way of the dive, the dive would have been behind the player if he was in any position to be able to dive, which he wasn't, which is why he didn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If that was the case he could still be offside though as he’d be impeding his view if he had to dive behind him.

Either way, the player being there has an impact on the keepers ability to play or challenge for the ball. The question is really whether that’s enough or not. By the law it is, but then some people will also take into account the likelihood of him getting to the ball at all, others will say that’s irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if that had happened I'd be happy with offside being given as it would have proven he was impeded. However it didn't happen as the goalkeeper couldn't make it which is why he couldn't dive for it in time.

If you asked the keeper he would say he didn’t dive cos he thought he was offside and was being impeded

Could be a lie but we will never know

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
It was a really tricky decision and either interpretation is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless there's an allowance in the rules for situations where the 'keeper or defender can't reach the ball, the goal is correctly ruled out, imo. The Dutch player was interfering; the 'keeper couldn't dive in the direction of the ball because of the player standing in the way. Whether or not he'd have got the ball is moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he wasn't in the way of the dive, the dive would have been behind the player if he was in any position to be able to dive, which he wasn't, which is why he didn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If that was the case he could still be offside though as he’d be impeding his view if he had to dive behind him.

Either way, the player being there has an impact on the keepers ability to play or challenge for the ball. The question is really whether that’s enough or not. By the law it is, but then some people will also take into account the likelihood of him getting to the ball at all, others will say that’s irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if that had happened I'd be happy with offside being given as it would have proven he was impeded. However it didn't happen as the goalkeeper couldn't make it which is why he couldn't dive for it in time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which, like I said, some will consider irrelevant.

Always find it interesting to read the ref chat forums when decisions like that are made. Even they’re pretty split -

https://refchat.co.uk/threads/netherlands-vs-france.23804/

The Ecuador Netherlands disallowed one they mention at the World Cup is an interesting one, pretty similar precedent.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
It was a really tricky decision and either interpretation is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless there's an allowance in the rules for situations where the 'keeper or defender can't reach the ball, the goal is correctly ruled out, imo. The Dutch player was interfering; the 'keeper couldn't dive in the direction of the ball because of the player standing in the way. Whether or not he'd have got the ball is moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he wasn't in the way of the dive, the dive would have been behind the player if he was in any position to be able to dive, which he wasn't, which is why he didn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If that was the case he could still be offside though as he’d be impeding his view if he had to dive behind him.

Either way, the player being there has an impact on the keepers ability to play or challenge for the ball. The question is really whether that’s enough or not. By the law it is, but then some people will also take into account the likelihood of him getting to the ball at all, others will say that’s irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if that had happened I'd be happy with offside being given as it would have proven he was impeded. However it didn't happen as the goalkeeper couldn't make it which is why he couldn't dive for it in time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which, like I said, some will consider irrelevant.

Always find it interesting to read the ref chat forums when decisions like that are made. Even they’re pretty split -

https://refchat.co.uk/threads/netherlands-vs-france.23804/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting reading and basically the same arguments being made here. Of course I accept its subjective and you can look at it both ways. In my view the keeper wasn't impacted as he could never have made the dive. The ball was already gone before he was even set.

It's correct there's nothing in the laws that say he has to have been able to make the dive but for me he can't impede the goalkeeper if the goalkeeper can't put himself in the position to be impeded anyhow. That's completely subjective of course but that's how I view it.

comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
If you asked the keeper he would say he didn’t dive cos he thought he was offside and was being impeded

Could be a lie but we will never know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the link Melton posted somebody made the point that the keeper dropped his knee after the shot as they often do when there's no point diving, as they're never getting there. I thought that was a good point.

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
It was a really tricky decision and either interpretation is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless there's an allowance in the rules for situations where the 'keeper or defender can't reach the ball, the goal is correctly ruled out, imo. The Dutch player was interfering; the 'keeper couldn't dive in the direction of the ball because of the player standing in the way. Whether or not he'd have got the ball is moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he wasn't in the way of the dive, the dive would have been behind the player if he was in any position to be able to dive, which he wasn't, which is why he didn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If that was the case he could still be offside though as he’d be impeding his view if he had to dive behind him.

Either way, the player being there has an impact on the keepers ability to play or challenge for the ball. The question is really whether that’s enough or not. By the law it is, but then some people will also take into account the likelihood of him getting to the ball at all, others will say that’s irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if that had happened I'd be happy with offside being given as it would have proven he was impeded. However it didn't happen as the goalkeeper couldn't make it which is why he couldn't dive for it in time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which, like I said, some will consider irrelevant.

Always find it interesting to read the ref chat forums when decisions like that are made. Even they’re pretty split -

https://refchat.co.uk/threads/netherlands-vs-france.23804/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting reading and basically the same arguments being made here. Of course I accept its subjective and you can look at it both ways. In my view the keeper wasn't impacted as he could never have made the dive. The ball was already gone before he was even set.

It's correct there's nothing in the laws that say he has to have been able to make the dive but for me he can't impede the goalkeeper if the goalkeeper can't put himself in the position to be impeded anyhow. That's completely subjective of course but that's how I view it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is an entirely valid interpretation I could argue for or against it, the main point is it’s not a clear cut one.

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet only one club had the balls to vote to scrap it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't need scrapped. Look at the EUROs, it's been excellent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just needs someone with competence to use it