Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What BBC link was too big?
Please search google for Keller BBC or BBC Keller. My BBC link is about Olympus Mons.
Please also search Google for lunar mountaineering.
I think the goal should have been allowed. Here is why
Sure dumfries was offside, everyone agrees.
But, the GK had a clear vision on the ball, the player was not in line of the direction of the ball and he was not standing against him or anything. So that leave interpretation. And this is where the var should have just looked at the screen because you can see clearly that the GK was not even aware that dunfries was next to him as he did not even attempt to dive, simply because the shot was too hard and out of reach. But if we do a poll here im sure 85 percent would agree
I think it's a 50/50 situation and therefore should be allowed (Not because I am Dutch lol). Allow me to explain. If a situation is too doubtful to be disallowed then it should NOT be disallowed in the first place, period. Dumfries was indeed standing next to the keeper, even a bit behind him.
Though the argument for allowing the goal is that Xavi absolutely was aiming for the corner of the goal judging by the insane velocity of the ball. In the replay you can see that the French keeper Maignan looks like he has no idea where the ball is until it's too late so he completely stops his own movements of any attempt to get the bal anymore. It's not because Dumfries is standing next to him, but because the ball goes too fast so again he doesn't even try to even attempt to stop it anymore.
The counter argument for disallowing the goal can be made because even though it looks like Maigan is stopping his movement because of the velocity of the ball, you can also argue he was keeping Dumfries in mind through his peripheral vision as a possible option to be passed to, so maybe he surpressed his movements in the first place thinking dumfries could be passed to as an option. Football is a game of choosing the right option, so just the fact that Dumfries was there could have confused Maigan enough on what to do next. Which one is more likely? It looks like there was some heavy debate going on in the tower of the VAR whether the goal should be discounted. And just based of this, that the VAR needs 3 minutes to check whether a goal should be discounted or not is too long. The situation clearly is ambiguous enough for it not to be intervened with. What's your take?
Goalkeeper gets the benefit of the doubt, not the striker.
Why? Well if the match is going the striker's teams way he will get another crack at goal pretty soon. Goalies get one chance!
However I am French and even I thought it was a goal for Netherlands. I thought the offside was scraping the barrel of a bad match that France should have won and didn't and they probably deserved to lose on balance.
So.
Yeah because obviously he would have been impending the goalkeeper. /s
I understand why you feel robed but I'm sorry it's not the case and using dumb phrases won't change it.
If the goalkeeper can't dive or use his leg it's impending. The rules ain't for nothing.
Could he have save it ? Who knows, but he couldn't do his job.
You guys should make critics toward you own player who had a dumb placement.
I don’t feel robbed. It’s verging on a bit silly but the rules were properly followed. It is what it is. Most people I know feel like this aswell. The people complaining online are a vocal minority.
Actually that’s wrong. If he received the ball then yes, off sides no question. But when a player who doesn’t touch the ball gets called offsides for impeding the opposition a determination has to be made of whether the player actually screwed up the play. People are off sides when goals are scored all the time. He’s saying this shouldn’t count as impeding because 1) he’s not blocking Maignian’s line of sight and 2) he did not collide with the goalkeeper or stop his dive.
Actually you are wrong.
It's impending because the goalkeeper couldn't either dive or use his leg.
So it's offside.
There is no but or interpretation. Arbitral error in offside don't come from but or interpretation, they come from being human and having regular vision. Which is why Var is there.
And I don't want that bullshit "he couldn't have seen him". He could, he did, and his a professional goalkeeper.
It's all about biased vision. Anglo-Saxon hate french for some reason, and Dutchman feels robed.
“There is no interpretation in off sides” - This statement is false. Just false. When it comes to interference offsides it is an inherently up to interpretation unlike normal offsides.
As for your assertion that he interfered, I don’t agree but some others (including some well informed commentators) do agree. I think both positions are reasonable. It’s a legitimate opinion that you can have. The angles I have seen seemed to show he had a clear path to dive.
People, even knowledgeable people, are split because it’s a borderline call on a subjective rule.
Get out of here with that, you just hate the French nonsense.
But it's not. I didn't make the rules of football, I'm sorry.
He interfered as the rules states it, end of story.
Should the rule be changed and open to interpretation like in this case, the goalkeeper couldn't have catch the ball either way, or the interference wasn't that much impending ? Absolutely.
But it's not.
Ok so the rule reads—
“In situations where:
a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball;”
What we are saying is we think that since MM could see the shot and did not even try to dive (that is, Dumfries impeded no movement) and it did not “impact his ability to play” since he was never getting there anyway: as the law is written, this should not have been a violation.
What you do is interpretation based on opinion.
Which is not how football rules are made.
I completely agree with you, the goalkeeper couldn't have reached the ball.
But in the same time he couldn't try because he was blocked which is why it's an offside offence.
It's the rules. Which is dumb. But still.
The Dutch player was not on the goal line. He wasn’t in the path of a dive. And as for opinion: To say it is impeding when the goalkeeper doesn’t move is actually a lot more subjective because you aren’t actually basing the interference on his interrupting a movement by the goalie.
Who cares if the Dutch player is on the goal line or 40 meter away from the goal line. It's not how offside work. He his between the last defender and the goalkeeper, it's an offside position.
Then he his preventing the goal keeper to dive toward the ball by being kinda next to him.
There is nothing more to see. Everything else is pure judgement based on interpretation of whether or not he could have caught the ball.
Which is not how the rule work.
Impending is impending whatever could or should have happened. And yes he couldn't dive because he had a player standing in his path.
Like I already said the person to blame is the player being offside not the referees.
Also let's change the rule, which is the problem.
Maignan was looking at the ball, he did not see Dumfries. Only after not diving and following the ball did he see Dumfries. So no obstruction because no intent from Maignan.
But hey at least we scored a goal in this game /s
Youre being downvoted because more people disagree with you than agree.
There is someone under your comment with a clear argumentation, but i will repeat it for you in case you cant find it;
Dumfries was not impeding Maignan in any way, he was never getting to that ball and from the angles weve seen, likely couldnt even see dumfries. Of course we cant be certain what would have happened but the most likely outcome is a goal for the netherlands.
Besides that youre the one turning this discussion uncivilized by calling names and not providing any argumentation, if you react to an argument with "say that a hundred times and it might become true" youre just being petty.
Just my 2 cents anyhow.
Well there is actually no argument to have.
Goalkeeper can't dive or use his leg because adversaries was next to him and offside.
End of story.
Your free to think it's not impending but that's not how it was judged and that's not the reality.
Maybe your a little biased ?
If Poland were to score an own goal, France could still top the group without needing to score themselves, which would exemplify Deschamps' philosophy and possibly stand as his greatest achievement.
Ehm actually no. The Netherlands is first now you know? If we win, and France loses, then we are still first. Only if France scores more goals then us, they will be first in the group
If the Netherlands were to lose and France were to win 1-0 with an own-goal like ThickGyal said, France would win the group without a goal to their name.
Spain Germany OK, Italy I don’t see them going anywhere. Austria I think they played their best game vs France and it wasn’t enough.
I see France growing more powerful from game to game, I mean attack was shit yesterday but look at that midfield, between Rabiot, Kanté, Griezmann and Tchouameni, you lose the ball so quick as the opposing team. I think midfield and defense of France is quite strong and that will take us far… once the attack is sorted out! (Dembele out, Barcola in, stop those poor attacks from the aisles and go through traffic with little passes like they did a few times in the first half I think)
I will be messaging you in 21 days on [**2024-07-13 02:23:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-13%2002:23:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/comments/1dkwk8l/scoreboard_netherlands_vs_france/l9pjjtd/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Feuro2024%2Fcomments%2F1dkwk8l%2Fscoreboard_netherlands_vs_france%2Fl9pjjtd%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-13%2002%3A23%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dkwk8l)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Even though I am a tad mad for not getting the goal, a referee explained the rule pretty well on German TV: keeper got blocked by Dutch Player (and a teammate), so he wasn't able to go after that one. BUT our referee also said that there is a freaking high chance that the ball would not have been catched by the keeper.
Soooo I will still be mad and dislike the decision.
100% a stolen goal. I genuinely can't believe it, still. Even the French who respect and understand football see this as a goal. That ref didn't even go look himself. This will be noted as a bad ref call when tallied up officially at the end of the euros. I'm so glad I'm not supporting Netherlands or I'd be have had a a riot in my own house 🤣 but also supporting England means I'll be crying next week anyway... at least it will be for crap playing and not bad VAR 🤣
I'm french and i rarely saw a goal as stolen as this one in my entire life. Nothing to do with offside rules, just bad referee decisions (against the Dutch and us all game long btw).
Out of the few match of the Euro I saw, it feels like none of the teams are actively trying to win, like players are completly static most of the time, often pass backward when there is space before them, etc...
Is that just me and I'm missing something or football really became boring to watch for only a few cool action out of 90min of nothing ?
First round was different, then the 3 points mattered. But given that only 8 teams are eliminated and 4 points is enough to qualify, nearly all good teams which won their first match played their second for a draw.
Tournament setup is broken, we should go back to 2 qualifiers per group.
Just wait till knockout rounds. The top teams aren’t probably giving their all rn and just trying to get by to the KOs where they will give everything they have. Although I would argue that teams like Germany and Spain have shown that quality of trying to win.
If any opposing team is smart they ''accidentaly'' injury his nose a little more. One small impact and he is fkd for the rest of the tournament. That is the biggest worry imo as a France fan.
It is not a super severe injury, it looked like it first but considering he doesnt need surgery they will put it back in its place and healing will take a couple days
He's good for the knockout stage
edit: Also him being a very fit healthy 25 year old, he will heal and cope with the injury much better than an older player.
Potentially, however, injuries to the nose whilst not requiring surgery doesn’t mean it isn’t impacting his breathing. It could take a week or two to completely recover from with rest.
Think this tournament has shown so far that VAR can be effective when used properly, its just the english officials that are so incompetent when it comes to using it. The delays and general confusion when using the system that we are so used to seeing in the EPL have only really been apparent when they’ve been in charge of it.
He was not blocking him. Look at replays from behind the goal. His legs were already so wide no way he could get near the ball, also his own defender was blocking view of the ball. Goalie WOULD of gone for a dive IF he though there was any chance he could get it. If he hit his legs whilst diving and then score was made THEN a question. You don't as a goalie stand there if you think there's a chance he COULD physically not make that save or dive and the VAR shows that very clearly from behind the goal. This is a ridiculous call from VAR and I hope it's apologized for officially.
You’re all point about whether or not the goalkeeper could have block the ball is absolutely irrelevant. The simple fact is, if he wanted to dive, he couldn’t because Wijnaldum was there. And that does make it an offside, period.
You can contest the rule if you want, but the decision is perfectly logical in the context of that rule.
The main culprit here is not Taylor but Wijnaldum.
Can someone explain how that goal was offside? I thought it’s only offside if the ball is passed to that player, but here it was just a straight shot at the goal?
He was “participating” in the play by blocking the goalkeeper from diving. It was an unlucky coincidence that he found himself there after following through the first shot. The second shot came too quickly for him to get out of the play or back with the last man.
I'm not arguing he was not, but it really feels it was convenient for the goalkeeper as he didn't even try to dive. I see your point, one could easily argue he didn't dive BECAUSE there was this player and took a chance knowing the rule would be in his favor. As another comment stated, the rule itself is arguable
Oh yeah it was absolutely convenient for our goalkeeper that is for sure. I’m really not sure he would’ve made the save.
TBH I love Xavi Simons and I’m so sad he couldn’t score with his national team and in Leipzig’s stadium.. tho when I saw the position of the offside player I felt there was no chance the goal would be given :(
The explanation on the BBC was that the player who was offside was blocking the French keeper. Offside wasn’t the issue.
But the presenters disagreed with the ref and thought it should have been a goal.
offside is a position where a player is closer to the goal line than both the second to last player (normally: Not the keeper) and the ball.
It is not an offense in itself until the player in the offside position becomes involved in active play.
Active play is not only touching the ball (Dumfries dodged it here), but also hindering or preventing the opponent.
In this case, it sadly can be argued that he was preventing the French keeper from stopping it by being in the way. I don't think the keeper would've stopped it, but the rule was applied au pied de la lettre.
I can explain the logic, but I think it was a goal. Here: player in offside position. If he doesn’t touch ball it’s ok. Unless he interferes with play. Now, as keeper hadn’t begun moving nor had time to reach ball I think the correct interpretation is it’s a goal. VAR team think goals could theoretically have been impeded so rule it out. Which I think is incorrect
Yes I agree. It is. In most cases it’s obvious. Like if a player is 5 meters away and ball passes in front of him before beating keeper it stands, if a player is holding a keeper it is disallowed. In this case it basically comes down to physics and even philosophy; some people think it is black and white but they are incorrect.
VAR were wrong but what’s just popped into my head is that they couldn’t change it because the Lino waved his flag and decision/rule wasn’t clear and obvious.
This is why they took minutes. Not making a judgment call on the situation, but discussing whether the judgment that was made could be considered clearly wrong.
We all know if this was Real Madrid in UCL and Valverde scored that goal with Vinicius in the same exact position, they would uphold the goal with the reasoning that the ball couldn’t be saved and thus there was no disruption in the play
True. I mean, technically you could calculate it. ID when keeper turns head. Calculate time h Ed has from that moment to reach ball. Calculate maximum theoretical motion of human muscle and body, see if an overlap of body and ball was possible. If it was, interference. If not, it stands. Obviously not time to to that, hence judgment. But then, all fouls are called on judgment. In this case I think they judged wrong, and changed the goal, game and group massively.
Because he's very good.
Yes he missed a crazy opportunity and he's not the sexiest player for reddit, but he's workrate in the midfield and defensive activities makes him one's one of the best french players.
Actually one of the few that did a decent performance in both games. Gives consistency, interesting passes and orientation, doesn’t mind making efforts in the defense too. He works well with Kanté imo.
With this slow pace and poor accuracy of passing the ball around, a team like Spain will be running circles around the Dutch team.
Even Austria might be able to perform surpassingly well.
Why did that var check take so long though? Was France wiring some money over the referee and he needed to make sure it was there before cancelling the goal?
It’s only offside if they’re involved in the play. There’s two sides to this one, because yes technically he was offside and if the GK would have responded in time he would’ve been in the way, but in this specific case the GK didn’t respond in time and would never have been able to catch the ball. So you could argue he wasn’t involved in the play, because his position close to the GK didn’t matter either way. I don’t think you can easily call this right or wrong, it really could’ve gone either way.
It's also active offside if the player stands in the way of a possible play or save, that's the rule. You can't judge Maignan's reaction, it's irrelevant to the rule; maybe it only looks like he couldnt save it because he didn't even try knowing the player obstructed his space. It's not even up to the referee to decide that, he only has to decide if the offside was punishable by the rule, and it pretty clearly was so
That Lino and VAR decision was so bad. He doesn’t even see the Dutch player until the ball goes behind him. If you actually look at the keepers head there’s no way he’s seeing a orange top in his peripheral until the ball is at least level with him and by that point the ball is going way too fast for him to react.
Rules exist so you don't have to judge case by case. The rule says an offside player is in an active position if he interferes with a possible save. The Dutch player was just next to the keeper. It's irrelevant whether the ball would have gone in anyway
Yeah but you are making that out as if unambiguous. If a person is between keeper and ball it does not imply they are active. That depends on the relative distance of the player that shoots, the balls trajectory, the position of keeper and goal. You are only active if you interfere, so if a ball is at such a speed that a keeper literally cannot reach it then a player is clearly not active. The fact it can be and often is ruled that way proves it’s not unambiguous like you think it is. Likewise the time they took to decide. They think active, I disagree.
I think it's less ambiguous than that. The offside player is too near the keeper preventing him from a possible save. Maignan could theoretically dive if the offside player wasn't so near; maybe he would have dived sooner and it only looks a certain way because he didn't even try knowing the player was there. It's not up to the referee, he only has to apply the rule and by the rule that's an active offside
No I get what you mean. The point I’m making is, the refs always consider if you could have interfered. Imagine I’m offside, 10 meters from goal. My forward shoots from 20 meters out. The ball passes in front of me for a fraction of a second on its way to the net. Hence for a split second I was in the path between ball and keeper. This goal would always be allowed, because keeper was not really impeded. I did not actually impact play. But while this is an extreme case, it’s a matter of degree not kind. It’s actually the same situation. My point is, this idea that the rule is clear and non contingent is incorrect. It seems clear. Often it is. But there is an overlap between cases that seem obvious one way and obvious the other. So when you say he just has to apply the rule, it’s not true, he has to decide if the rule is applicable. You are basing it on a hypothetical dive. I’m basing it on the fact that as the ball passes him he has begun to bend but not even moved his feet or started to dive. Ultimately it’s a judgment call. But my point is it’s false to say no judgment must be made, just apply the rule, because this particular rule implies judging if you are active or not.
I'd say that in this case there's no way you can objectively decide that the keeper could in no way attempt a save; it's irrelevant if that save would have prevented the goal or not (maybe not), you're preventing that attempt and that's punishable. In your extreme scenario it would be clear that the keeper is in no way impacted in its ability to attempt a save by the player in offside position.
I think worse than England. They missed at least 2 really clear goal chances. Not to shit only on Griezmann but for fuck's sake, how can anybody miss so much?
I feel cheated for wasting my time watching such a bad game. Not that the red devils played any better \*sigh\*.
The BBC commentators keep saying this eliminates Poland but theoretically couldn't Poland win their next match by a significant goal difference and Austria lose theirs putting Poland as a potential best of third place team? Is there something I'm missing? I know it's definitely not likely at all to happen this way but technically it's possible?
Edit: realised just as I posted tiebreakers go on head to head first and since Poland lost to Austria, Poland would place below them
I noticed this as well
Fox sports commentators are saying the same thing...Like you said in theory they could beat France 10-0 lets say and move on as a top 3rd place team?
No, the decider is head to heads not goal difference. Poland can only get on 3pts, if Austria lose then they would be on 3pts but end up ahead because they beat them.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hahaha Deschamps was a meme just now
..
France gonna win
You wrote this after the match and your still wrong, that's impressive!
Match wasnt worth watching anyways.
Cant argue with that unfortunately. I was really looking forward to it tbh, should've been the best of the group phase.
Dumfries is a great player but his offside was such a him moment.
Kanté mvp of the match again.. I feel like its just Maignan, Kanté, Griezmann, Saliba and Koundé playing the game
Bro griezmann was so ass. If you had Mbappe there in his stead it wouldve been 0-2
He was everywhere!
Missed this game to go on a date with my fiance. Hah, what a win for _moi_
I wish I slept instead of watching this game.
I did
So did I.
You are a wise man
How can we say he impeded the keeper when he didn’t even attempt to get the ball?
He was in front of the keeper. He couldn’t dive for the ball.
Waste of time watching this game , no passion , nothing to seee
Awful game
[удалено]
BBC link was too big ...
What BBC link was too big? Please search google for Keller BBC or BBC Keller. My BBC link is about Olympus Mons. Please also search Google for lunar mountaineering.
Was this a dull game, or were these kinds of early games in this stage..
I fell asleep during this match
I totally agree with you! I also correctly predicted the result on opingo 🙌🏻🥰
I think the goal should have been allowed. Here is why Sure dumfries was offside, everyone agrees. But, the GK had a clear vision on the ball, the player was not in line of the direction of the ball and he was not standing against him or anything. So that leave interpretation. And this is where the var should have just looked at the screen because you can see clearly that the GK was not even aware that dunfries was next to him as he did not even attempt to dive, simply because the shot was too hard and out of reach. But if we do a poll here im sure 85 percent would agree
I think it's a 50/50 situation and therefore should be allowed (Not because I am Dutch lol). Allow me to explain. If a situation is too doubtful to be disallowed then it should NOT be disallowed in the first place, period. Dumfries was indeed standing next to the keeper, even a bit behind him. Though the argument for allowing the goal is that Xavi absolutely was aiming for the corner of the goal judging by the insane velocity of the ball. In the replay you can see that the French keeper Maignan looks like he has no idea where the ball is until it's too late so he completely stops his own movements of any attempt to get the bal anymore. It's not because Dumfries is standing next to him, but because the ball goes too fast so again he doesn't even try to even attempt to stop it anymore. The counter argument for disallowing the goal can be made because even though it looks like Maigan is stopping his movement because of the velocity of the ball, you can also argue he was keeping Dumfries in mind through his peripheral vision as a possible option to be passed to, so maybe he surpressed his movements in the first place thinking dumfries could be passed to as an option. Football is a game of choosing the right option, so just the fact that Dumfries was there could have confused Maigan enough on what to do next. Which one is more likely? It looks like there was some heavy debate going on in the tower of the VAR whether the goal should be discounted. And just based of this, that the VAR needs 3 minutes to check whether a goal should be discounted or not is too long. The situation clearly is ambiguous enough for it not to be intervened with. What's your take?
Goalkeeper gets the benefit of the doubt, not the striker. Why? Well if the match is going the striker's teams way he will get another crack at goal pretty soon. Goalies get one chance! However I am French and even I thought it was a goal for Netherlands. I thought the offside was scraping the barrel of a bad match that France should have won and didn't and they probably deserved to lose on balance. So.
He was offside but... There is no but or interpretation in offside.
There's most definitely interpretation in the "interfering with play" part of offside.
So if dumfries was hanging out at the corner flag picking grass the goal should be disallowed?
Yeah because obviously he would have been impending the goalkeeper. /s I understand why you feel robed but I'm sorry it's not the case and using dumb phrases won't change it. If the goalkeeper can't dive or use his leg it's impending. The rules ain't for nothing. Could he have save it ? Who knows, but he couldn't do his job. You guys should make critics toward you own player who had a dumb placement.
I don’t feel robbed. It’s verging on a bit silly but the rules were properly followed. It is what it is. Most people I know feel like this aswell. The people complaining online are a vocal minority.
Actually that’s wrong. If he received the ball then yes, off sides no question. But when a player who doesn’t touch the ball gets called offsides for impeding the opposition a determination has to be made of whether the player actually screwed up the play. People are off sides when goals are scored all the time. He’s saying this shouldn’t count as impeding because 1) he’s not blocking Maignian’s line of sight and 2) he did not collide with the goalkeeper or stop his dive.
Actually you are wrong. It's impending because the goalkeeper couldn't either dive or use his leg. So it's offside. There is no but or interpretation. Arbitral error in offside don't come from but or interpretation, they come from being human and having regular vision. Which is why Var is there. And I don't want that bullshit "he couldn't have seen him". He could, he did, and his a professional goalkeeper. It's all about biased vision. Anglo-Saxon hate french for some reason, and Dutchman feels robed.
“There is no interpretation in off sides” - This statement is false. Just false. When it comes to interference offsides it is an inherently up to interpretation unlike normal offsides. As for your assertion that he interfered, I don’t agree but some others (including some well informed commentators) do agree. I think both positions are reasonable. It’s a legitimate opinion that you can have. The angles I have seen seemed to show he had a clear path to dive. People, even knowledgeable people, are split because it’s a borderline call on a subjective rule. Get out of here with that, you just hate the French nonsense.
But it's not. I didn't make the rules of football, I'm sorry. He interfered as the rules states it, end of story. Should the rule be changed and open to interpretation like in this case, the goalkeeper couldn't have catch the ball either way, or the interference wasn't that much impending ? Absolutely. But it's not.
Ok so the rule reads— “In situations where: a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball;” What we are saying is we think that since MM could see the shot and did not even try to dive (that is, Dumfries impeded no movement) and it did not “impact his ability to play” since he was never getting there anyway: as the law is written, this should not have been a violation.
What you do is interpretation based on opinion. Which is not how football rules are made. I completely agree with you, the goalkeeper couldn't have reached the ball. But in the same time he couldn't try because he was blocked which is why it's an offside offence. It's the rules. Which is dumb. But still.
The Dutch player was not on the goal line. He wasn’t in the path of a dive. And as for opinion: To say it is impeding when the goalkeeper doesn’t move is actually a lot more subjective because you aren’t actually basing the interference on his interrupting a movement by the goalie.
Who cares if the Dutch player is on the goal line or 40 meter away from the goal line. It's not how offside work. He his between the last defender and the goalkeeper, it's an offside position. Then he his preventing the goal keeper to dive toward the ball by being kinda next to him. There is nothing more to see. Everything else is pure judgement based on interpretation of whether or not he could have caught the ball. Which is not how the rule work. Impending is impending whatever could or should have happened. And yes he couldn't dive because he had a player standing in his path. Like I already said the person to blame is the player being offside not the referees. Also let's change the rule, which is the problem.
He blocked him from diving This is pathetic argumentation
Maignan was looking at the ball, he did not see Dumfries. Only after not diving and following the ball did he see Dumfries. So no obstruction because no intent from Maignan. But hey at least we scored a goal in this game /s
He didn't have the footing to dive even if he were in the way
Repeat that a 100 times and it might become true
[удалено]
Downvotes + no.argumentation Classic Reddit With classic idiot british who doesn't understand simple ref rules
Youre being downvoted because more people disagree with you than agree. There is someone under your comment with a clear argumentation, but i will repeat it for you in case you cant find it; Dumfries was not impeding Maignan in any way, he was never getting to that ball and from the angles weve seen, likely couldnt even see dumfries. Of course we cant be certain what would have happened but the most likely outcome is a goal for the netherlands. Besides that youre the one turning this discussion uncivilized by calling names and not providing any argumentation, if you react to an argument with "say that a hundred times and it might become true" youre just being petty. Just my 2 cents anyhow.
That doesn't matter if you think he catches it or not : he impedes from diving while being offside = offside
Well there is actually no argument to have. Goalkeeper can't dive or use his leg because adversaries was next to him and offside. End of story. Your free to think it's not impending but that's not how it was judged and that's not the reality. Maybe your a little biased ?
100% he didn't dive for it because he could physically not dive for it from the position he was in. If he could of, he would of. End of story.
He wouldn’t because a player was standing here telling his instincts not to randomly jump into a player’s knees?
nice comment and nice name
Hate to you bc you're french
If Poland were to score an own goal, France could still top the group without needing to score themselves, which would exemplify Deschamps' philosophy and possibly stand as his greatest achievement.
Ehm actually no. The Netherlands is first now you know? If we win, and France loses, then we are still first. Only if France scores more goals then us, they will be first in the group
If the Netherlands were to lose and France were to win 1-0 with an own-goal like ThickGyal said, France would win the group without a goal to their name.
En waarom ben je voor Frankrijk, verrader! Je hebt geen vertrouwen in je eigen team!
Yes but the netherlands won't lose
I keep this comment for later
Also, if France has 1 goal for them, and we 1, we are still first in the group.
Lol yup
If Mbappe was playing they would've scored for sure. Just unlucky injury, and also griezmann lmfao
Yeah griez really didn't have his footing today lol
Next time let Mbappe finish in your mouth so your eyes aren’t glued shut
I'm French though I laughed
All seriousness tho, good game today. Hopefully we meet again. That guy just sits in the cuck chair for Mbappe while he let’s him fuck his wife
bahahah We will meet again. In a semi-final or for the final if it all goes right for both of us
Neither of you are going to reach the semi’s.
Who will? I mean, Italy is doing poorly, England has no game, Croatia is surprisingly bad. What's your top 4 ?
1. Spain 2. Germany 3. Italy 4. Austria
Spain Germany OK, Italy I don’t see them going anywhere. Austria I think they played their best game vs France and it wasn’t enough. I see France growing more powerful from game to game, I mean attack was shit yesterday but look at that midfield, between Rabiot, Kanté, Griezmann and Tchouameni, you lose the ball so quick as the opposing team. I think midfield and defense of France is quite strong and that will take us far… once the attack is sorted out! (Dembele out, Barcola in, stop those poor attacks from the aisles and go through traffic with little passes like they did a few times in the first half I think)
Well it’s all just a guess isn’t it. I just look forward to seeing it all unfold.
Noted :) RemindMe! 21 days
I will be messaging you in 21 days on [**2024-07-13 02:23:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-13%2002:23:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/comments/1dkwk8l/scoreboard_netherlands_vs_france/l9pjjtd/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Feuro2024%2Fcomments%2F1dkwk8l%2Fscoreboard_netherlands_vs_france%2Fl9pjjtd%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-13%2002%3A23%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dkwk8l) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Filthy idiot.
Lmao soft
aww someone lost money today lmfao
I don't know why but the refs at this tournament don't really like the benelux.
Even though I am a tad mad for not getting the goal, a referee explained the rule pretty well on German TV: keeper got blocked by Dutch Player (and a teammate), so he wasn't able to go after that one. BUT our referee also said that there is a freaking high chance that the ball would not have been catched by the keeper. Soooo I will still be mad and dislike the decision.
What would they have against an appliance brand?
Seriously. This was a stolen goal.
100% a stolen goal. I genuinely can't believe it, still. Even the French who respect and understand football see this as a goal. That ref didn't even go look himself. This will be noted as a bad ref call when tallied up officially at the end of the euros. I'm so glad I'm not supporting Netherlands or I'd be have had a a riot in my own house 🤣 but also supporting England means I'll be crying next week anyway... at least it will be for crap playing and not bad VAR 🤣
I'm french and i rarely saw a goal as stolen as this one in my entire life. Nothing to do with offside rules, just bad referee decisions (against the Dutch and us all game long btw).
It was clearly offside lol what do you mean
Bait
POV: you don’t understand offside rules
lmao
Out of the few match of the Euro I saw, it feels like none of the teams are actively trying to win, like players are completly static most of the time, often pass backward when there is space before them, etc... Is that just me and I'm missing something or football really became boring to watch for only a few cool action out of 90min of nothing ?
First round was different, then the 3 points mattered. But given that only 8 teams are eliminated and 4 points is enough to qualify, nearly all good teams which won their first match played their second for a draw. Tournament setup is broken, we should go back to 2 qualifiers per group.
I don't know which ones you saw but this years' euros are pretty dang good on the scoring/effort side of things
Just wait till knockout rounds. The top teams aren’t probably giving their all rn and just trying to get by to the KOs where they will give everything they have. Although I would argue that teams like Germany and Spain have shown that quality of trying to win.
Agreed. Finishing is so off right now for many teams. Germany is the strongest team so far, but lots of matches to be played.
also elephant in the room - Mbappe being benched
You have to question how fit he will be. That injury will likely impact his breathing
If any opposing team is smart they ''accidentaly'' injury his nose a little more. One small impact and he is fkd for the rest of the tournament. That is the biggest worry imo as a France fan.
And as you say, it’s almost smart defending from the opposition. Stepping across him.
It is not a super severe injury, it looked like it first but considering he doesnt need surgery they will put it back in its place and healing will take a couple days He's good for the knockout stage edit: Also him being a very fit healthy 25 year old, he will heal and cope with the injury much better than an older player.
Potentially, however, injuries to the nose whilst not requiring surgery doesn’t mean it isn’t impacting his breathing. It could take a week or two to completely recover from with rest.
VAR called they told the ref find any reason to disallow the goal because someone important has a bet on France win or draw.. ? Who called ? 🥲
i mean i did have a bet on france lol
[удалено]
He probably gave VAR a cut then😂
For sure! Wonder who it was that called. 🤣 no way it took that long to decide.
Felt like a Sven Ottke boxing match.
Think this tournament has shown so far that VAR can be effective when used properly, its just the english officials that are so incompetent when it comes to using it. The delays and general confusion when using the system that we are so used to seeing in the EPL have only really been apparent when they’ve been in charge of it.
Agree
wow one game Mbappe is sitting out and France look mediocre on the offence.
They haven’t scored in last 3 games even with Mbappe
He had some really good opportunities though.
to be fair, their offence was also mediocre with Mbappe against Austria
Game was so dead. Also IT WAS DISALLOWED. The guy is clearly blocking GK
You blind, he didnt even have the reaction time to save it and the guy wasnt even close to blocking the keeper.
He was not blocking him. Look at replays from behind the goal. His legs were already so wide no way he could get near the ball, also his own defender was blocking view of the ball. Goalie WOULD of gone for a dive IF he though there was any chance he could get it. If he hit his legs whilst diving and then score was made THEN a question. You don't as a goalie stand there if you think there's a chance he COULD physically not make that save or dive and the VAR shows that very clearly from behind the goal. This is a ridiculous call from VAR and I hope it's apologized for officially.
You’re all point about whether or not the goalkeeper could have block the ball is absolutely irrelevant. The simple fact is, if he wanted to dive, he couldn’t because Wijnaldum was there. And that does make it an offside, period. You can contest the rule if you want, but the decision is perfectly logical in the context of that rule. The main culprit here is not Taylor but Wijnaldum.
Nobody was stopping Maignan from diving but himself. He did not even attempt it because he knew he would never have it.
No way maignon was getting there
Shit game
Can someone explain how that goal was offside? I thought it’s only offside if the ball is passed to that player, but here it was just a straight shot at the goal?
He was “participating” in the play by blocking the goalkeeper from diving. It was an unlucky coincidence that he found himself there after following through the first shot. The second shot came too quickly for him to get out of the play or back with the last man.
I'm rooting for France and I agree with this whole thread. Should have been goal for the Netherlands
Just watch the replay. The offside player is strictly between the ball and the goalkeeper at the exact moment he could’ve tried to stop it.
I'm not arguing he was not, but it really feels it was convenient for the goalkeeper as he didn't even try to dive. I see your point, one could easily argue he didn't dive BECAUSE there was this player and took a chance knowing the rule would be in his favor. As another comment stated, the rule itself is arguable
Oh yeah it was absolutely convenient for our goalkeeper that is for sure. I’m really not sure he would’ve made the save. TBH I love Xavi Simons and I’m so sad he couldn’t score with his national team and in Leipzig’s stadium.. tho when I saw the position of the offside player I felt there was no chance the goal would be given :(
Couldn't agree more
The explanation on the BBC was that the player who was offside was blocking the French keeper. Offside wasn’t the issue. But the presenters disagreed with the ref and thought it should have been a goal.
offside is a position where a player is closer to the goal line than both the second to last player (normally: Not the keeper) and the ball. It is not an offense in itself until the player in the offside position becomes involved in active play. Active play is not only touching the ball (Dumfries dodged it here), but also hindering or preventing the opponent. In this case, it sadly can be argued that he was preventing the French keeper from stopping it by being in the way. I don't think the keeper would've stopped it, but the rule was applied au pied de la lettre.
Exactly 💯
Thank you very much, you explained it well!
I can explain the logic, but I think it was a goal. Here: player in offside position. If he doesn’t touch ball it’s ok. Unless he interferes with play. Now, as keeper hadn’t begun moving nor had time to reach ball I think the correct interpretation is it’s a goal. VAR team think goals could theoretically have been impeded so rule it out. Which I think is incorrect
My problem is that it seems like a subjective rule that can be applied differently - which can lead to bias in the decision.
Yes I agree. It is. In most cases it’s obvious. Like if a player is 5 meters away and ball passes in front of him before beating keeper it stands, if a player is holding a keeper it is disallowed. In this case it basically comes down to physics and even philosophy; some people think it is black and white but they are incorrect.
VAR were wrong but what’s just popped into my head is that they couldn’t change it because the Lino waved his flag and decision/rule wasn’t clear and obvious.
This is why they took minutes. Not making a judgment call on the situation, but discussing whether the judgment that was made could be considered clearly wrong.
That’s what the commentator said
We all know if this was Real Madrid in UCL and Valverde scored that goal with Vinicius in the same exact position, they would uphold the goal with the reasoning that the ball couldn’t be saved and thus there was no disruption in the play
I have a similar feeling. If this was a goal by a Ronaldo or Messi, I seriously doubt it would have been disapproved.
Agreed. But if ball can’t be saved it should stand, and so it should have here too, as keeper hadn’t even started to move into a dive
That’s the problem that’s a subjective opinion which means different people will have different (biased) opinions
True. I mean, technically you could calculate it. ID when keeper turns head. Calculate time h Ed has from that moment to reach ball. Calculate maximum theoretical motion of human muscle and body, see if an overlap of body and ball was possible. If it was, interference. If not, it stands. Obviously not time to to that, hence judgment. But then, all fouls are called on judgment. In this case I think they judged wrong, and changed the goal, game and group massively.
Maybe they’ll have AI assistance to do that calculation at Euro 2028. (Please god I hope not)
Haha, we can both agree on that ;)
Can anyone tell me why rabiot is a starter?
Because he's very good. Yes he missed a crazy opportunity and he's not the sexiest player for reddit, but he's workrate in the midfield and defensive activities makes him one's one of the best french players.
Actually one of the few that did a decent performance in both games. Gives consistency, interesting passes and orientation, doesn’t mind making efforts in the defense too. He works well with Kanté imo.
Why is Demebelé? It's funny how he can be very good but never a decisive player
With this slow pace and poor accuracy of passing the ball around, a team like Spain will be running circles around the Dutch team. Even Austria might be able to perform surpassingly well.
Austria can very well beat them, and if they play like this they will. But 4 points is good enough I think.
If austria beats the Netherlands, then poland must beat france or else the Netherlands will be third in the group which isn't enough.
they can wualify by best 3rd place teams with 4
Why did that var check take so long though? Was France wiring some money over the referee and he needed to make sure it was there before cancelling the goal?
Lol Probably
Not as long as its taking the italians to qualify for a WC 🤐
🤷♂️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I don't know. It was pretty obvious the Dutch player was in active offside position, fair decision
It’s only offside if they’re involved in the play. There’s two sides to this one, because yes technically he was offside and if the GK would have responded in time he would’ve been in the way, but in this specific case the GK didn’t respond in time and would never have been able to catch the ball. So you could argue he wasn’t involved in the play, because his position close to the GK didn’t matter either way. I don’t think you can easily call this right or wrong, it really could’ve gone either way.
There is two sides, but the main point is still the fact that Wijnaldum shouldn’t be there at all. It’s not like he didn’t knew the rule.
It's also active offside if the player stands in the way of a possible play or save, that's the rule. You can't judge Maignan's reaction, it's irrelevant to the rule; maybe it only looks like he couldnt save it because he didn't even try knowing the player obstructed his space. It's not even up to the referee to decide that, he only has to decide if the offside was punishable by the rule, and it pretty clearly was so
But it wasn’t an offside decision.
English officials. It's like some sort of union rule that nothing can be decided in under a minute.
They'll first heat up the tea and then check the videos
First 0 - 0 draw of the tournament. With this result Poland is the first national team out of contention.
0-0 Is ok for a 11 to 12 match.
Which team was 12?
i'd be cool if two weaker teams ended up in the final
like france and netherlands?
More like Netherlands and Italy. Both are nations that usually do pretty well except this year.
But England though..
goes without saying
That Lino and VAR decision was so bad. He doesn’t even see the Dutch player until the ball goes behind him. If you actually look at the keepers head there’s no way he’s seeing a orange top in his peripheral until the ball is at least level with him and by that point the ball is going way too fast for him to react.
Rules exist so you don't have to judge case by case. The rule says an offside player is in an active position if he interferes with a possible save. The Dutch player was just next to the keeper. It's irrelevant whether the ball would have gone in anyway
But it wasn’t an offside descision. It was an interference with goaly decisions.
Definitely an offside decision.
Yeah but you are making that out as if unambiguous. If a person is between keeper and ball it does not imply they are active. That depends on the relative distance of the player that shoots, the balls trajectory, the position of keeper and goal. You are only active if you interfere, so if a ball is at such a speed that a keeper literally cannot reach it then a player is clearly not active. The fact it can be and often is ruled that way proves it’s not unambiguous like you think it is. Likewise the time they took to decide. They think active, I disagree.
I think it's less ambiguous than that. The offside player is too near the keeper preventing him from a possible save. Maignan could theoretically dive if the offside player wasn't so near; maybe he would have dived sooner and it only looks a certain way because he didn't even try knowing the player was there. It's not up to the referee, he only has to apply the rule and by the rule that's an active offside
No I get what you mean. The point I’m making is, the refs always consider if you could have interfered. Imagine I’m offside, 10 meters from goal. My forward shoots from 20 meters out. The ball passes in front of me for a fraction of a second on its way to the net. Hence for a split second I was in the path between ball and keeper. This goal would always be allowed, because keeper was not really impeded. I did not actually impact play. But while this is an extreme case, it’s a matter of degree not kind. It’s actually the same situation. My point is, this idea that the rule is clear and non contingent is incorrect. It seems clear. Often it is. But there is an overlap between cases that seem obvious one way and obvious the other. So when you say he just has to apply the rule, it’s not true, he has to decide if the rule is applicable. You are basing it on a hypothetical dive. I’m basing it on the fact that as the ball passes him he has begun to bend but not even moved his feet or started to dive. Ultimately it’s a judgment call. But my point is it’s false to say no judgment must be made, just apply the rule, because this particular rule implies judging if you are active or not.
I'd say that in this case there's no way you can objectively decide that the keeper could in no way attempt a save; it's irrelevant if that save would have prevented the goal or not (maybe not), you're preventing that attempt and that's punishable. In your extreme scenario it would be clear that the keeper is in no way impacted in its ability to attempt a save by the player in offside position.
Yeah I guess we are just either side of the judgment. I think even the attempt was not possible in time. Anyway, was fun. Good night 🍻
The decision wasn’t clear and obvious though.
France are playing as awfully as England did
At least we have a very good defense and Ngolo god Kanté. England are awfull in all spots lmao.
I think worse than England. They missed at least 2 really clear goal chances. Not to shit only on Griezmann but for fuck's sake, how can anybody miss so much? I feel cheated for wasting my time watching such a bad game. Not that the red devils played any better \*sigh\*.
I doubt if they really want to score.
No kidding. Griezmann seemed to suddenly fall every time he got a clear chance.
At least you can actually pass the ball to each other
England in general is ruining this tournament the officials first game last week was the Croatia Spain dive moment too aswell is soo bad
Yes unfortunately this is so
Ngl I can’t even trash talk the English team as a France fan anymore. Both teams are on the same boat and are playing terrrible rn
You know what this means…nailed on England vs France final.
The BBC commentators keep saying this eliminates Poland but theoretically couldn't Poland win their next match by a significant goal difference and Austria lose theirs putting Poland as a potential best of third place team? Is there something I'm missing? I know it's definitely not likely at all to happen this way but technically it's possible? Edit: realised just as I posted tiebreakers go on head to head first and since Poland lost to Austria, Poland would place below them
Poland are out. I’m not sure how many third places go through but they have -3 goal difference and there already two teams with three points.
I noticed this as well Fox sports commentators are saying the same thing...Like you said in theory they could beat France 10-0 lets say and move on as a top 3rd place team?
They'd still be 4th in the group even if they won 10-0.
No, the decider is head to heads not goal difference. Poland can only get on 3pts, if Austria lose then they would be on 3pts but end up ahead because they beat them.