EURO debut for Anthony Taylor, in charge of Netherlands - France.
Game 20, Group D
Leipzig, 21 June 2024 21:00 CET
NETHERLANDS - FRANCELeipzig, 21 June 2024 21:00 CET
Referee: Anthony Taylor ENG
Assistant Referee 1: Gary Beswick ENG
Assistant Referee 2: Adam Nunn ENG
Assistant Referee 2: Adam Nunn ENG
Fourth Official: Glenn Nyberg SWE
Reserve Assistant Referee: Mahbod Beigi SWE
Video Assistant Referee: Stuart Attwell ENG
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Fedayi San SUI
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Marco Fritz GER
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Marco Fritz GER
UEFA Referee Observer: Kyros Vassaras GRE
UEFA Delegate: Paul Lyon GIB
Good no PK 8'. Almost no holding on NED10. He droped himself to the ground.
ReplyDeleteAR1 very good decision, no offside
ReplyDeleteAR2 Nunn, the benches are on the far side
DeleteAh yes, thanks for correcting, my mistake.
Deletequite strict foul line from Taylor. unusual, but fine for me. Not sure about that YC now tbh, looked like harsh go whistle foul there. once given, a YC must follow.
ReplyDeleteHe already showed the yellow card
DeleteI thought so too first. But NED player is holding his sholder and slightly pulls him down. So at that speed, I think it is a last minute brake on the attack. It looks light, but I think foul and YC is correct.
DeleteI think there was a slight holding by the NED24 indeed, but actually FRA7 tugs his opponent’s shirt as well, even stronger. The latter probably hidden for Taylor though.
DeleteMissed foul 36’ blatant!
ReplyDeleteand now wrong free kick - Thuram with his same dive from WC Final. not a good couple of minutes for Taylor
DeleteIf that's a FK (not clear if there was a handball), how is that not a YC for SPA?
ReplyDeletehttps://streambug.org/cv/41b3c7
It seems I missed it live. Yes, if whistled, a rather clear SPA, but I agree we cannot be sure about handball from this replay.
DeleteI think that the instruction about YC abolishment for handball stopping a shot on goal has abolished all yellow cards for SPA in case of handballs, leaving only the RC for DOGSO...
DeleteThat's crazy, isn't it?
DeleteGood start of the game with a quite strict foul line by Taylor. Unfortunately, his sharpness in foul detection dropped towards the end of the half. IMO: missed "undercutting" foul in favour of FRA in 26', missed foul for FRA in 35' (IMO, a reckless tackle YC missed for NED6) and a rather wrong foul for FRA in 38' (I think Thuram took a dive there, at least that's my feeling). On the positive side, a very good decision in 8' regarding potential penalty for NED (Depay fell on his own really) and a rather correct YC for NED24 in 31' (SPA/LoR), at least for my taste. All in all, a decent performance, but with a visible decline in foul detection as the match progressed (consistency issue). Let's hope for the best in this 2H.
ReplyDeleteHas there even been one enertaining game so far?
ReplyDeleteTbh Taylor style doesnt help this match either
DeleteTurkey - Georgia for sure.
DeleteCroatia Albania wasn't bad in term of entertainment !
DeleteWhat a miss by Taylor in 61‘, clear foul + YC for a foul against Xavi.
ReplyDeleteInsane miss foul
DeleteI don’t really understand why he didn’t whistle a Dutch free kick here. His line of foul selection is extremely petty throughout the match, but this dangerous scissor is allowed. That doesn’t make sense to me.
DeleteAgreed, a bad miss indeed and again inconsistency in Taylor's decision making.
DeleteExcellent decision, punishable offside. Attacker close to keeper, he impeded a potential save. One could discuss about the real chances of making a save, but this is a correct decision for me.
ReplyDeleteAttweel seems to be in trouble, very long time, but it should be expected to confirm this decision TBH...
Agree correct decision but very limit for me because on this situation the goalkeeper don’t have a lot of chance to save it
DeleteFully agree with your explanation.
DeleteAgree
DeleteWhat a long check
ReplyDeleteAttwell’s embarrassing England here. He has to be quicker with these - that’s an easy check complete.
ReplyDeleteSurely it's their last game... embarrassing
DeleteIncomprehensible long VAR check
DeleteTaylor’s got a really good team and has had an expected level performance. He’ll definitely move onto knockouts. But I’m so sorry for him because he’ll get loads of abuse for something that’s not his fault!!! Surely Attwell goes home after this
DeleteGreat decision by Taylor
ReplyDeleteClear offside. I don't know what Attwell was checking for so long...
ReplyDeleteEnglish referees are spoiling VAR
ReplyDeleteWhat??? Arbitrary comment - bordering on racism imo. Let's kick it out! Taylor's participation is based on a FIFA/UEFA assessment, not his nationality!
DeleteBig decision and very long VAR check. So difficult as they had to decide whether goalkeeper could possibly reach the ball.
ReplyDeleteIt‘s a very brave call, also excellent that Taylor and AR2 did not rely on VAR but decided on the pitch. I have sympathy for the decision, goalkeeper could not jump to possibly reach the ball. But was there any possibility for him to actually get the ball? I have doubts.
DeleteIt is unfortunate for Taylor that such a call will definitely be discussed after the match. It could be decisive, not only for the Dutch but also for Taylors path in the tournament. Maybe he was aware of that when VAR check needed more time than expected and he finally got the call that offside is supported.
Should it not have been an OFR? Would have been quicker for Taylor to check it himself
ReplyDeleteWas the GK actually going to save it?
Haha this output of the offside situation
ReplyDeleteThere was no need to wait that long, obvious offside, blocking the goalkeeper, and a late offside flag
ReplyDeleteCorrect decision to cancel the goal in my opinion. The Dutch player position made it impossible for the French goalkeeper to jump and save the goal. Pretty long check. I liked the team work here between Taylor and Nunn here.
ReplyDeleteHE has a right to stay there. He did not move. No infringement
DeleteFor me a clear goal
How does he have a right to stand in an offside position AND interfere with the goalkeeper?
DeleteWith all due respect, he actually doesn't. While him being in an offside position, is not an offence in itself, that offside position definitely became active once his standing there interfered with the goalkeeper's ability to make save. The probability of such a save is another question, but I think the interference cannot be denied. At least that's how I see this situation.
DeleteThe dismissal of Lee Mason by PGMOL due to a serious error that hurt Arsenal last year is the clearest proof that English referees cannot operate VAR in any competition. Insecure, confused and slow.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant!!
DeleteThat wasn't the easiest VAR intervention tbh, give them some slack!
DeleteBig VAR mistake. No infringement. Clear goal
ReplyDeleteSays the totally unbiased Dutch ref lol
DeleteCan you please say why? In my view Dumfries is very close to the French goalkeeper ( 1 meter) and within the target area, and as such hindering the goalkeeper. and consequently punishable offside
DeleteBut perhaps you have a better explanation for why not offside.
That's a clear punishable offside position c'mon! The only point is why it took so long for the VAR to confirm the onfield decision, that's pretty strange
DeleteGreat teamwork between referee and AR
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't think Maignan had any chance to touch that, I think the referee had to rule the goal out. I understand honestly the long wait, tricky situation to deal with. Ultimately, excellent decision by the assistant referee and the VAR.
ReplyDeleteYes, people are comparing it against the relatively quick factual offsides we've seen so far but this is different as it involves interpretation as to whether there was interference with an opponent, still think it could have been slightly quicker mind you, but the correct decision was reached which is the most important thing
DeleteTo me its no more than a 50/50 call. Yes, offside, not in line of sight, GK makes mo effort to dive and save, ball goes in the corner.
ReplyDeleteTake offside player out, GK does not save it - therefore, goal
Agree Nunn has to flag as he has no "depth" on the incident and Taylor confirms on field.
So surely no intervention is correct if 50/50 call? You wanted Taylor to go to the screen
DeleteI think there are two points to the offside. First, the onfield conversation and decision, excellent teamwork. Then you have the VAR wait. First was 20s for the onfield chat, then the offside position needs confirming, before the offence of interfering can be checked. Also important to note three different nationalities in the VAR hub. I think it understandable how this can all add up to a slightly slower check. The anti-English var rhetoric from some I think is a little over the top in this situation. But of course it is important to be as efficient as possible
ReplyDeleteA universally disliked referee who is not rated at all in England walks over to the AR and tells him to raise his flag - even the AR knew it was not offside.
ReplyDeleteNaturally his VAR is not going overrule Taylor and if it was clear and obvious why did it take do long.
The only positive thing about this decision is that hopefully Taylor will be sent home.
What? Where is this coming from?
DeleteThink you have a serious axe to grind
I really do not understand this post. And I tbh find it discracefull. I believe in a nuanced view of a match official performance or KMI decision. And I think there have been some good examples of people doing this above. (Even though they have a different oppinion as others)
DeleteWhat a bitter comment - totally lacking any "grace and style"! Given the length of the discussion on this page concerning this game, a) The decision clearly was not 'straightforward'; b) Taylor was right to consult with VAR, and ) it was clearly the right decision under the circumstances (i.e. Taylor made the call he thought was right - which is all any referee can do).
DeleteAnthony Taylor should have watched the video to interpret. For me, I can't say that the Dutchman bothered the goalkeeper, Maignan didn't even try to save the ball.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. Would have added weight to the decision
DeleteAtwell has been making dodgy VAR decisions all season. Taylor doesnt even have the grace to view the video.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about refereeing is that at least if a referee has class and elegance about his manner it makes up for his lack of humility. Where as Taylor is graceless, lacks elegance and class and walks with a wobble.
I feel that last comment just sums up a bitter and twisted attitude. Did he beat you to a promotion?
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong but interference with an opponent (specifically a GK) doesn't make any mention of the GK needing to save the goal for it to be interference, only that he is prevented from doing so, we saw something like this in the PL a few months ago (ball going in the corner, keeper not going to get there but he was attacker standing right in front of him), involving Wolves and their manager was apoplectic. Independent VAR panel decided unanimously that it was correct to disallow the goal
ReplyDeleteAs a Dutchman I can also understand the long wait and the decision. For me it is a 50/50 decision as well. Since the on field decision was offside, one cannot say it is completely wrong. An OFR would have been better maybe, because it is doubtful, whether the GK was physically capable of saving this ball or not
ReplyDeleteIsn't an OFR not only needed needed when VAR thinks an on-field-decision should be overtaken? In this situation they confirmed the on-field-decision.
DeleteI understand you and others saying OFR would have been better. But I think this would go against guidelines UEFA set out. I think they want only an OFR if clear and obvious mistake. (VAR intervenes on a high bar of intervention, so not on 50/50 calls). I do agree that it was to long. But OFR would have made it longer and more unclear for fans. What was meant to be avoided.
DeleteGood performance of Taylor. Crucial decisions,especially goal of NED team cancelled correctly taken. We will se further appoitments for him.
DeleteGood Performance in a very boring Game. Offside decision correct.
ReplyDeleteIn a match mainly dominated by tactics, the high expectations were not met, and often leading to a draw.
ReplyDeleteSuch matches are often difficult to officiate but ref Taylor delivered
overall an adequate and effective performance without seriously culpable errors.
Have seen and enjoyed today 3 good-very good referee performances and that was for me the highlight of today.
Congratulations
Let‘s have a look at the LotG:
ReplyDelete„A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate 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.“
Only relevant is the second point. Here, the attacker did not obstruct the goalkeeper‘s line of vision. He also did not challenge the goalkeeper for the ball. Neither did he attempt to play the ball.
So, the attacker needed to make an obvious action which **clearly impacts** (!) on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. That is not the case here. All of us, even the bloggers who support the decision, had doubts whether the goalkeeper could reach the ball. Even if there is a possibility, it must CLEARLY impact the ability to PLAY the ball. IMO the impact is not clear. It is not enough that the player prevented the goalkeeper from jumping only, there still needs to be a clear possibility to reach the ball.
So, IMO the decision is wrong according to the LotG, even if I have sympathies for the decision.
To add that: One can also doubt whether standing can be an obvious "action".
DeleteI think you forgot to mention the one paragraph which exactly would be relevant in this particular situation :)
Delete“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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12”
But with this passage I keep having doubts whether or not it was a correct decision to be honest.
Deleted my comment because I missed this completely @Refwatch. It is very relevant and the actuality of the situation is that it now can become offside according to the LotG. It is now up to interpretation whether the attacker clearly impacted the goalkeepers ability to make the save, maybe, maybe not.
Delete@Refwatch, thank you very much, this is the LotG passage I've been looking for. This should be the relevant one.
DeleteI agree with MX in regards to it being the matter of interpretation. IMHO, there was an impact. I really cannot tell if Maignan could have actually reached the ball, but, at least for my taste, he was prevented from even having a chance in the first place. That's how I view this situation, and if I interpreted it correctly, there is a specific passage in the LotG that gives such a view some relevance.
Thanks, Refwatch. Indeed, there is a special paragraph for "safes". So, there is no need to have a "clear" impact. Still, there must be an impact on the possibility to play the ball, not a "possible impact". So, the impact needs to be proven.
Delete@Dukat192
Delete"really cannot tell if Maignan could have actually reached the ball"
Therefore, as there is doubt as to whether there is an impact, it is considered that there is none. That's why we have instructions at the UEFA rap, at the seminars of the elite referees, that the impact should be obvious.
Tonight, the referees' mistake happened precisely because they thought the impact was obvious, not because they had a doubt. IF they were in doubt, the refereeing team's decision would have been a goal
"Still, there must be an impact on the possibility to play the ball, not a "possible impact. So, the impact needs to be proven."
DeleteAMEN.
@DrMr, now I get your point. Thank you very much for this explanation. If those are the instructions given at the seminars, this decision becomes questionable indeed.
DeleteI somehow still feel it's a grey area decision, at least in terms of VAR intervention, given the wording of the passage above (that's why I used the word "questionable"). However, according to your explanation, the preferred (better to say: "correct") decision should have been no offside. Of course, now I'm starting to turn this debate into a semantic one, in regards to the exact meaning of some specific words, like "possibility to play the ball" (I'm still not sure there was none, but as you said, this means no impact). So it's probably better to finish with: "I stand corrected."
That being said, with such an amount of constructive debate among us here, I'm not sure if I can put so much blame on the referee crew, especially if the origin of their mistake is the belief they had an "obvious impact" on their hands and not a more serious issue. Frankly, I would have probably reached the same conclusion on field. Also, I have to say we haven't had such a long, but constructive debate for some time now, which also points out the complexity of the subject.
Hello everyone.
ReplyDeleteSorry but that can't be offside.
LOTG:
"...interfering with an opponent by:
1) Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by ! clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision! o
2) Challenging an opponent for the ball or
3) Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
4)Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
So, it wasnt clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision so we can't dicsuss about preventing a GK from playing or being able to play the ball.
Wrong decision
It would be better to read the full terminology of the law to see why the decision was taken.
Delete'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'
See @Refwatch comment above.
DeleteI have to say that i'm starting to think you're right. At first I thought offside was the right decision, because the goalkeeper can't make the save due to the position of the attacker. But apparently just standing there is not punishable according to LOTG.
Delete@Murphy
DeleteHello my friend.
The passage you all refer to is just a straw for this decision and cannot be interpreted as extensively as you make it out to be. With the logic you are guided by, every situation where the ref is in doubt can be brought under the paragraph you mention.
Because of this, uefa instructed at seminars for elite referees that there is NO offside in case of doubt, because the impact must be obvious. When we are not sure whether it is obvious, it is considered not.
Best regards
"A player moving from an offside position interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball. Is it an offside offence?
DeleteYes, if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball. If the player intentionally impeded the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12."
@MX does the part of LOTG Refwatch is writing about, apply here? the goalkeeper doesn't make an attempt to play the ball, how can the attacker interfere an attempt then?
Delete"A player moving from an offside position interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball. Is it an offside offence?"
DeleteNot in this particular case, unfortunately.
@ref because the LotG only needs to interfere with his movement towards the ball. The goalkeeper is trying to reach the ball but can’t because the opponent is interfering with his movement (by blocking his way to dive there, note the words blocking = interfering and dive = movement as practical appliance). HOWEVER, would the goalkeeper ever be able to make the save? If not then there is no punishable offside offence from the attacker, that is the more relevant point to speculate from which is in the gray area for me (classic quote: if doubt - no flag).
Deletei don't see the goalkeeper 'trying to reach the ball', so i think there was no interference. The attacker wasn't that close to the goalkeeper, there was room for the goalkeeper to start with a dive. only then we would be able to see if there was interference.
DeleteBTW I agree with you that this is the grey area. So i also can understand VAR didn't step in: no clear and obvious mistake. But the preferred outcome for me would have been a goal.
Delete
Delete'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'
This is just the reason why there wasn't OFR but the correct decision should be no offside.
Simons scores 68:33
ReplyDeleteCheck complete 71:35
Time taken 3:03
Lukaku scores 85:51
Decision changed 88:30
Time taken 2:39
It took less time for an on field review in Belgium game than in tonight’s game. Unbelievable from Attwell, what was he doing!!
it was a difficult decision
DeleteYes it was an important and tricky decision for Taylor and Nunn on field. It wasn’t clear either way (but offside is my preference). Which is exactly why it should have taken Attwell maximum 1 minute to decide no clear error, carry on
DeleteOnfield decision took about 20s, it wasn't immediate. Then, the offside position had to be confirmed, before checking if he was impacting. Then, a discussion amognst three people not used to working together (not from the same FA). I agree 3mins was too long, but if the different countries had different ideas, the discussion could have caused disagreement, that we don't know
DeleteLike in the NFL, no pass interference if pass is "uncatchable". Though I have never heard a National Instructor ever mention that concept in teaching the principle of offside.
DeleteOk Daniel but you can also say, handball came before Belgium goal and Meler knew his decision before announcing it, so you can take off time there, too. Also, maybe you are right - but Attwell has too many wrong/indecisive moments in VAR, so it’s hard to trust him!
DeleteI agree Attwell has had issues (Everton Forest comes to mind), but I also think he has been generally good in Uefa competition in a year most the big VAR names have made major errors. I think the Attwell-bad narrative is overblown. We simply don't know if this is purely him taking too long or different ideas from different people caused a longer conversation
DeleteSome absolutely disgraceful, personal and frankly vindictive comments from some individuals tonight.
ReplyDelete“In the end, we want the main referee to take the decision”
ReplyDeleteThis is the main claim every time Rosetti talks about VAR. Tonight’s episode is the clear example of the contrary. The referee could not see if the player was actually impacting on the goalkeeper. In such cases I would always prefer the referee to reassess the situation. It is a grey area, then let the ref decide, not the VAR
The referee assessed the situation with the help of his AR. They made the correct decision on the field, not sure what this post is getting at
DeleteDidn't affect the goalkeepers ability to play the ball. It's obvious he had zero ability to play it.
Delete@RG few months ago in Italy there was a similar case in Roma-Inter. The Inter player was even closer to the Roma goalkeeper - touching him - and the ref, after OFR, assessed that even if there was a slight contact, the GK could not save the goal in any case. He was praised for this decision that could only take with OFR.
DeleteIn this case, Taylor maybe assessed the impact, although he was covered and had almost no vision, but at least an OFR would have been necessary to make the ref really assess the impact.
It is a grey area, I agree, but the final decision on the impact was not taken by the ref
IMO, it was a decent performance by Taylor overall, but nothing more, with some clear issues in foul detection and assessment. In addition to the two missed (26', 35') and one wrong (38') foul from the 1H, he eventually had a pretty bad miss of a dangerous scissor tackle in 61', which warranted a mandatory YC for FRA8. Disciplinary wise, in addition to that missed caution, I think he also missed a YC to NED6 for the aforementioned foul in 35'. On the other hand, the one YC he did issue in 31' (to NED24) was perfectly fine for me. Generally speaking, these mistakes point to visible inconsistency in his foul detection and assessment, as some minor things were punished while an offence such as the 61' tackle went unsanctioned. He did try to follow a rather strict line, however it should have been maintained throughout the whole match in order for it to be successful. However, let me be clear in saying that I never observed any loss of control over the game or the players in this match, and I think Taylor's performance in that aspect can be described as clearly positive.
ReplyDeleteComing to KMIs, of the two the team had to face, the 8' one was solved correctly, IMO: it was actually Depay who fell on his own in France's PA. As for the cancelled goal from 69', I think it is best for any readers to refer to the quite exhaustive debate in the comments above. The final decision seems to have been wrong, unfortunately, but let me be perfectly honest in saying I don't put major blame on the referee crew for this, especially as the real issue in this rather complex situation seems to have been their assessment of an obvious impact: a decision I would have probably made on field and still personally consider somewhat of a grey area, although I admit I was probably wrong in my initial comments. However, what I would like to highlight and actually praise is Taylor's cooperation with AR2 Adam Nunn and their commitment to reaching a decision on the FoP, without waiting passively for the VAR. What's more, and in relation to the LotG passage we discussed above, I don't think the Committee expected a VAR intervention there. As for the prolonged time VAR took to confirm the decision, given the amount of debate we had on the blog, I'm not sure we can put blame on Attwell for this. It was certainly long and disruptive for the game, but I definitely wouldn't want to be in his shoes for such a complex decision, especially if a similar debate arose among the crew in the VOR.
To conclude, I think this performance can be described as decent, but with a clear area for improvement in foul detection and maintaining a consistent line in assessing the severity of fouls.
Why is the decision wrong? Law 11 clearly states that " A player moving from, or standing in an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the player towards the ball, this is an offside offence, if it clearly impacts on the ability of the opponent to the play the ball, or challenge for the ball. Dumfries is stood 1m from the GK right in the area where the ball goes past, it is not a requirement in law that the GK would needed to have saved it, only that he was prevented from perhaps doing so. This is backed up by Christina Unkel on X. It's an obvious impact. This has to be offside, otherwise teams would just place an attacker 1m beside a GK at all times to interfere with their decision making.
DeleteI feel the same as you do. However, I refer you to the discussion above, where it's clearly stated that the impact on the possibility of playing the ball needs to be obvious/proven, not possible or potential. I think the discussion here rather proves that it was not so obvious as one might think, with quite a few opposing views. Now, I admit I put no real blame on the referee crew, as I would have reached the exact same decision and actually still have a hard time accepting no offside in this particular situation, for the same reasons you mentioned. However, if I managed to properly understand the opposing arguments (especially by DrMr and Ref_1707), they do have a point actually, whether I like it or not. A public clarification by UEFA and/or IBAB for this particular situation would be more than welcome, but I don't think we will get something like that soon. That's why I tried my best to formulate sentences without putting blame on Taylor and crew, instead focusing on consistency in foul detection and especially the 61' situation in the overall mark. It's a really complex decision, I think we can all agree on that.
DeleteWith regard to the disallowed goal incident, as a non-expert in refereeing, I would like to comment on the ridiculous and nonsensical guidelines surrounding VAR, since it seems to me that this issue comes up time and time again. The decision to disallow the goal was IMO awfully wrong, also with a huge impact on the tournament (eliminating Poland, who would have had a slim but very real chance of advancing if the goal had counted).
ReplyDelete1) The whole "clear and obvious error" story is infuriating. Of course, we can make the argument that the offside player was in the GK's path, hence it is not a clear and obvious mistake and VAR can't overturn it. However, one could easily check whether the GK was able to save the shot or not with a simple calculation: Consider the speed of the ball, the distance from the ball to the GK and the max speed of the GK. I strongly believe that such a calculation would have shown that there was no way to save the shot. In that sense, it's a "clear and obvious error" and should have been overturned. But instead of focusing on the facts of the game, due to this guideline, we keep arguing about whether an error was "clear and obvious" or not.
2) Although against the guidelines, IMO it would be perfectly reasonable to let Taylor do an OFR in any case. Since the decision took over 3 minutes anyway, one must ask what is achieved by not sending Taylor to the monitor? He probably would have assessed the situation differently after seeing the replay.
For me, this is comparable to the incredible Sterling dive at Euro 2020 against Denmark where Makkelie gave the penalty. If I remember correctly, the VAR check took quite long and the wrong decision stood without review. Basically, if the referee falls for a dive and calls a penalty on the pitch, then VAR doesn't intervene if there was any contact, which means "contact = foul".
My key point is, the VAR guidelines are terrible, and while I was optimistic around 2018, they have been terrible for years now and there is no improvement in sight. Reading through some comments on this blog, I get the feeling that some people have "internalized" the guidelines and accepted the idea that many wrong decisions should stand due to some regulations with questionable reasoning. IMO while we have to accept that no VAR intervention/review here is supportable under the current guidelines, it's important to keep common sense alive and point out that this is wrong, misguided and hurts the game.
That being said, while Taylor's performance wasn't good overall, it was still acceptable. I think Taylor and Attwell were let down by the guidelines and can't be blamed for the situation, very unlucky for them.
You say: " Although against the guidelines, IMO it would be perfectly reasonable to let Taylor do an OFR in any case. "
DeleteThis scenario was possible in case of NO DECISION by referee, but when you have such outcome on the field, and, as you said, there is the chance to back referee (keeper impeded), it's simply 100% impossible that VAR will intervene, he would totally break the protocol, not helping the referee, but officiating the game himself and overruling what already decided.
As you can read, many different opinions, but basically one can never deny that offside is at least supportable decision. Impossible for VAR to change this decision, once the referee has made an assessment on the pitch. Very often we have the contrary, with VAR inviting referee to judge about a potential offside, in this case one should praise the field team work referee - AR. But these decisions are not accepted and there is always discussion. I'm curious what would have happened in case of goal allowed, I think Attwell wouldn't have invited the referee to an OFR, but in case, borderline to take this decision, if field officials had totally missed the position of the player.
ReplyDeleteNow, into the technical decision, you can easily explain it, but at same time, many people convinced on the contrary with the mostly universl argument that keeper couldn't have done anything. We heard about it in many other offside decisions, but at the end if the heads of refereeing don't give guidelines about that, the fact that keepe can't do nothing, will be never 100% irrelevant. So, just a decision that should be supported even if one dislikes it, and VAR can't absolutely do nothing to change. Nevertheless, now big focus again on Taylor and my feeling is that, regardless of that, it will be hard to see him again in very big games in the tournament.
Finally, a few words about referee - AR cooperation, we almost never saw that, Kuipers was the last one to make that with his assistant referees, and under the point of view that despite VAR, a referee must take decisions like it was before, this should be assessed as something very good by Rosetti, before all the rest.
We will see what will come for the English.
Hypothetical A; AR2 I have an offside player, cannot see what affect he has
ReplyDeleteRef: I got it. No issues. Goal
VAR - check - not enough evidence to overturn refs decision - GOAL
Hypothetical B: AR2 I have an offside player, cannot see what affect he has
Ref: I have poor view. Cannot say for certain
VAR - check - likely OFR - decision uncertain
likely event: AR2 I have an offside player, cannot see what affect he has
Ref: definitely within sight and post width, puy flag up
VAR 3 min check NO GOAL
All supportable? All acceptable??
Madness
Well, it follows the principle that the referee remains the one, who decides - especially in grey areas, where both decisions are supportable.
DeleteIn B: The referee would need to give the goal in that case. So we are nearly in case A, but with a lower bar for an intervention/OFR (missed incident). However if the VAR thinks, that onside is the better call, he should not recommend an OFR.
Then let the referee decide with much more information, with more angles. The decision could change or stay the same but at least the ref himself would have got it with more elements
DeleteThis is the state of the game, everything is "supportable", we must always hope and pray that the ref gets it right to begin with.
DeleteI think there is one simple solution: football referees can go the screen themselves in order to get the right decision. In rugby a referee can use the TMO if he is in doubt and see the different cameras on the big screen. In football there is a kind of assumption, that if the VAR is being used, the VAR's opinion is leading. How many referees dare to stay with their initial decision after being called to the screen? If it is doubtful, one should take every opportunity to take the most rightful decision, IMO.
DeleteI really feel for Taylor and Attwell, every game they seek to do at UEFA level or even FIFA has a number of difficult to assess KMI incidents that could go the other way easily and no one could really complain. Compare that to someone like Vincic who never has any KMI
ReplyDeleteHighlights:
ReplyDeletehttps://files.fm/u/83u8d62ygm
Can we get all the video clips of the games please?
ReplyDelete