The Euro 2024 Thread

[Jack Regan]

He can’t dive with the player there though can see why it’s been chalked off

Yep!

He wouldn't have saved it had he dived anyway and only Maignan knows whether he'd have actually dived without him there or not (I don't think he would have as the reaction time between the two strikes would have made it very difficult for him to have done so).

 

[Dire Wolf]

Just coincidence that the VAR decision that took the longest of the whole tournament was with English officials?

 

[Dire Wolf]

PGMOL: ruining football in multiple countries.

 

[big mean bunny]

Goal for me. Keeper was never getting there and barely seemed to notice the attacker near him. Kilman esque.

He almost instantly points at him.

 

[Tony Towner]

Just coincidence that the VAR decision that took the longest of the whole tournament was with English officials?

Yep, I'm not even watching the game, so don't have an opinion on the decision, but have seen that on Twitter, so predictable and nothing will change next season bar the automated offsides

 

[Alan]

I'm stunned that people think that should have stood. Properly.

 

[Alan]

Yep, I'm not even watching the game, so don't have an opinion on the decision, but have seen that in social media, so predictable and nothing will change next season bar the automated offsides

In fairness, I think in this case the arguments against the call that was made are illustrative of why there may have been some hemming and hawing in the booth.

In my head it's an obvious offside but clearly for others it's right the other end of the spectrum. Who'd be a referee!

 

[jd1981]

Yep!

He wouldn't have saved it had he dived anyway and only Maignan knows whether he'd have actually dived without him there or not (I don't think he would have as the reaction time between the two strikes would have made it very difficult for him to have done so).

I think if you’re in a position that prevents the keeper from even attempting to make a save then you’re involved and active he at least needs to given the option to try

 

[Mel Evo]

He almost instantly points at him.

Sure you’re right, and suspect I’m swimming against the tide on this one, but that looked like the keeper was never getting there and that’s why he didn’t move. He then sees the excuse and takes it up.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Deschamps getting this squad to score 0 goals in two games is special. An absolute conman.

 

[Tony Towner]

In fairness, I think in this case the arguments against the call that was made are illustrative of why there may have been some hemming and hawing in the booth.

In my head it's an obvious offside but clearly for others it's right the other end of the spectrum. Who'd be a referee!

It's only our refs who hem and haw though. Others give a decision. As I say not commenting on what the decision was

 

[pr0sl0]

Whether he actually attempted the dive or not is completely irrelevant - the guy's in the space the goalie would have to dive into, that means he's impacting play.

The only thing I'm confused about is why it took so long, it honestly seems a textbook example of interfering with play to me

 

[Alan]

It's only our refs who hem and haw though. Others give a decision

I guess what I mean is that for this specific situation I understood why there might be a delay. It wasn't ideal, certainly.

But you're right, given the history English refs have with VAR it is easy to deny them the benefit of the doubt! Of their own making, that is.

 

[Mel Evo]

I'm stunned that people think that should have stood. Properly.

Why? He’s buried it in the corner and the keeper isn’t making it. He’s not interfering with play if he’s doing it theoretically, only in practice, which is why it seems fair to say he should have shown intent to get there. I understand why you disagree, I accept I might be wrong, but it’s not odd to think it should have stood. You’ll find journalists online now arguing it should (again, no clincher itself of course).

 

[Alan]

Why? He’s buried it in the corner and the keeper isn’t making it. He’s not interfering with play if he’s doing it theoretically, only in practice, which is why it seems fair to say he should have shown intent to get there. I understand why you disagree, I accept I might be wrong, but it’s not odd to think it should have stood. You’ll find journalists online now arguing it should (again, no clincher itself of course).

Something being surprising does not necessarily make it odd. Not in a negative sense, at least.

@pr0sl0 has probably elaborated better than I could.

 

[Quirkafleeg]

I'm stunned that people think that should have stood. Properly.

There's always one thats outraged at a correct assumption and has to challenge it. I'm stunned loike.

 

[Alan]

There's always one thats outraged at a correct assumption and has to challenge it. I'm stunned loike.

You wound me, Quirk!

 

[Quirkafleeg]

Whether he actually attempted the dive or not is completely irrelevant - the guy's in the space the goalie would have to dive into, that means he's impacting play.

The only thing I'm confused about is why it took so long, it honestly seems a textbook example of interfering with play to me

You're wrong..

 

[PuntsWolf]

If you think that’s offside, I don’t know what to say. He’s interfering even less than Kilman.

 

[Quirkafleeg]

If you think that’s offside, I don’t know what to say. He’s interfering even less than Kilman.

Good cop bad cop shit here Punts.