[FORZA AZZURRI]

Mr Mercury, on 21 June 2024 - 08:34 PM, said:

Once again the English officials fuckk up with VAR!

Oliver now Taylor? why didn?t he want to see for himself?

[Mr Mercury]

azul, on 21 June 2024 - 08:39 PM, said:

It makes you want to give up on top flight football.

I assume the directives have changed as I thought it was the on field official who had to make the final decision on that sort of call (interfering with play, etc.)

The spurs manager ,Ange P, sums it up perfectly..Bin it..

[Tylerdurdencfc]

The reason why it was disallowed was because they thought the keeper had been impeded by being able to make a genuine attempt at saving the shot as the player offside was interfering with his ability to make a decision to dive or not.

Any player in an offside position that makes any interference by impeding the goalkeeper means it is disallowed.

Whether he was or not is subjective and down to the VAR.

My opinion was he put the keeper in two minds and therefore offside. If the player wasn't there, the keeper would have dived and tried to save it. As he was there, the keeper didn't and therefore the player potentially interfered with play.

[FORZA AZZURRI]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 21 June 2024 - 08:56 PM, said:

The reason why it was disallowed was because they thought the keeper had been impeded by being able to make a genuine attempt at saving the shot as the player offside was interfering with his ability to make a decision to dive or not.

Any player in an offside position that makes any interference by impeding the goalkeeper means it is disallowed.

Whether he was or not is subjective and down to the VAR.

My opinion was he put the keeper in two minds and therefore offside. If the player wasn't there, the keeper would have dived and tried to save it. As he was there, the keeper didn't and therefore the player potentially interfered with play.

Was slightly behind keeper and as the guys on tv just said should have still attempted to save it ? why Taylor didn?t check himself is the question. Goal for me.

[spireitetoo]

 Tylerdurdencfc, on 21 June 2024 - 08:56 PM, said:

The reason why it was disallowed was because they thought the keeper had been impeded by being able to make a genuine attempt at saving the shot as the player offside was interfering with his ability to make a decision to dive or not.

Any player in an offside position that makes any interference by impeding the goalkeeper means it is disallowed.

Whether he was or not is subjective and down to the VAR.

My opinion was he put the keeper in two minds and therefore offside. If the player wasn't there, the keeper would have dived and tried to save it. As he was there, the keeper didn't and therefore the player potentially interfered with play.

I agree, no goal for me.

[dalekpete]

FORZA AZZURRI, on 21 June 2024 - 09:03 PM, said:

Was slightly behind keeper and as the guys on tv just said should have still attempted to save it ? why Taylor didn?t check himself is the question. Goal for me.

Taylor cannot check the monitor as the VAR decision supported the onfield call.

[azul]

dalekpete, on 21 June 2024 - 10:08 PM, said:

Taylor cannot check the monitor as the VAR decision supported the onfield call.

If so, more stupid protocol that gets VAR an even worse reputation than it deserves (and that is hard)

This post has been edited by azul: 21 June 2024 - 10:30 PM

[dalekpete]

azul, on 21 June 2024 - 10:27 PM, said:

If so, more stupid protocol that gets VAR an even worse reputation than it deserves (and that is hard)

No the onfield team determined that the Dutch player impacted the keeper's ability to make a save. It didn't matter whether he was likely to be successful in his attempt. The VAR agreed with this decision. He was hardly likely to say that he ref gave offside and he agreed and then invite the official to look at it again!

[azul]

dalekpete, on 21 June 2024 - 10:41 PM, said:

No the onfield team determined that the Dutch player impacted the keeper's ability to make a save. It didn't matter whether he was likely to be successful in his attempt. The VAR agreed with this decision. He was hardly likely to say that he ref gave offside and he agreed and then invite the official to look at it again!

That was the problem the on field officials made a mistake and it was compounded by and awful decision by the VAR official

With greater viewing options the VAR official should have said ?you may want to take a look at that decision again?. The system isn?t fit for purpose.

[Brookie]

azul said:

1719044273[/url]' post='1825993']
That was the problem the on field officials made a mistake and it was compounded by and awful decision by the VAR official

With greater viewing options the VAR official should have said ?you may want to take a look at that decision again?. The system isn?t fit for purpose.

It?s not the VAR system, it?s the people who use it

[FORZA AZZURRI]

dalekpete, on 21 June 2024 - 10:08 PM, said:

Taylor cannot check the monitor as the VAR decision supported the onfield call.

That?s not right, he has the opportunity to double check for himself? otherwise if all agreed why did it take 6mins almost?

azul, on 22 June 2024 - 08:17 AM, said:

That was the problem the on field officials made a mistake and it was compounded by and awful decision by the VAR official

With greater viewing options the VAR official should have said ?you may want to take a look at that decision again?. The system isn?t fit for purpose.

100% this .

[Osborne again]

Lightweight boots, breathable materials for kits, floodlights, and footballs that don't take on water have all helped to improve the game we love, but hand on heart, I don't think VAR has helped one bit to enhance the reputation of the game or the men who officiate.

[azul]

Brookie, on 22 June 2024 - 09:08 AM, said:

It?s not the VAR system, it?s the people who use it

The people are the major part of the VAR system

Most of it is subjective decision making backed up certain interpretations they are meant to follow and they are still making contentious decisions

[Mr Mercury]

Another cracking match, Georgia v The Czechs, full of passion and attacking football. Far and away from our dour awful approach.

[StaffsSpireite]

Mr Mercury, on 22 June 2024 - 02:50 PM, said:

Another cracking match, Georgia v The Czechs, full of passion and attacking football. Far and away from our dour awful approach.

To be perfectly honest iv not been entertained by England since Euro 96!! And im not joking.....

[Mr Mercury]

StaffsSpireite, on 22 June 2024 - 03:12 PM, said:

To be perfectly honest iv not been entertained by England since Euro 96!! And im not joking.....

Pretty decent summary that, although there were glimpses under both Sven and Capello and Hoddle.

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 22 June 2024 - 04:14 PM

[jonnythespireite]

StaffsSpireite, on 22 June 2024 - 03:12 PM, said:

To be perfectly honest iv not been entertained by England since Euro 96!! And im not joking.....

Funny how the passage of time affects the mind???.
In Euro 96 we were awful against Switzerland in the opening game, average against the Scots and got the rub of the green with the missed penalty, unbelievably good against a very good Dutch side, against Spain if it were played today we?d have probably lost as they had a couple of disallowed goals for tight offsides, and another glorious defeat against a German side that should have been despatched long before extra time. Usual fayre I?d say. That side was entertaining when it clicked though but to be honest given nothing since 66 I don?t give a monkeys as long as we win. We?ve had our moments in many tournaments since 96 too.

[Mr Mercury]

Another cracker of a game. Turkey v Portugal. Full of passion, spirit and drive. Hope you?re watching Gareth.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

 jonnythespireite, on 22 June 2024 - 04:17 PM, said:

Funny how the passage of time affects the mind???.
In Euro 96 we were awful against Switzerland in the opening game, average against the Scots and got the rub of the green with the missed penalty, unbelievably good against a very good Dutch side, against Spain if it were played today we?d have probably lost as they had a couple of disallowed goals for tight offsides, and another glorious defeat against a German side that should have been despatched long before extra time. Usual fayre I?d say. That side was entertaining when it clicked though but to be honest given nothing since 66 I don?t give a monkeys as long as we win. We?ve had our moments in many tournaments since 96 too.

Agreed.

Lineker and Co used to offer wry observations about the Germans doing just enough to qualify before inevitably winning tournaments.

Until we despatched them on our way to the final of the last Euro's. Confirming our progress as a nation under Southgate.

However possession and caution - the bywords for international football in the past - have now been replaced by tempo. Energy. Gambling.

To put it in cricket terms, Southgate, though deserving enormous credit for what he's achieved, is now using test match tactics in a twenty-twenty era.

And with a side filled with boundary hitters if unleashed...

[Mr Mercury]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 22 June 2024 - 04:40 PM, said:

Agreed.

Lineker and Co used to offer wry observations about the Germans doing just enough to qualify before inevitably winning tournaments.

Until we despatched them on our way to the final of the last Euro's. Confirming our progress as a nation under Southgate.

However possession and caution - the bywords for international football in the past - have now been replaced by tempo. Energy. Gambling.

To put it in cricket terms, Southgate, though deserving enormous credit for what he's achieved, is now using test match tactics in a twenty-twenty era.

And with a side filled with boundary hitters if unleashed...

Excellent analogy re the cricket, test match tactics in a T20 era! wish I?d posted that myself.