Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
I wasn’t even trying to take anyone on
.. I thought I was agreeing. Just saying I don’t like the ifab description of what is and isn’t deliberate
TUN vs FRA Matchday 10 - Conger (NZL)
- Thread starter george.g
- Start date
.. I thought I was agreeing. Just saying I don’t like the ifab description of what is and isn’t deliberate
deusex
RefChat Addict
I'd really like to see this IFAB clarification please cos EVERY bit of FIFA training I've seen wants this goal to stand.
Am very much on the same page as you here. No chance this was offside last year but defo offside this year
What a mess though. Knowledgeable referees in complete disagreement throughout this thread
It was a mad circular
France apparently protesting.
That certainly looks like he blows for the kickoff and then full time before signaling for var.
That certainly looks like he blows for the kickoff and then full time before signaling for var.
Yep, that looks and sounds exactly like what happensFrance apparently protesting.
That certainly looks like he blows for the kickoff and then full time before signaling for var.
Not sure what a protest archives mind? They've already topped the group
What a mess, he has clearly blown for full time before then getting a VAR recommendation.
Have FIFA secretly employed Mike Riley, as they seem to have taken the EPL's VAR problems and then raised them to the next level? And again, as with the EPL problems, this has to come down to management rather than the match officials.
Have FIFA secretly employed Mike Riley, as they seem to have taken the EPL's VAR problems and then raised them to the next level? And again, as with the EPL problems, this has to come down to management rather than the match officials.
This is it, and it if followed logically clearly says that tonight's goal should have stood. https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/circular-26-new?l=en
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
the French are showing a video that seems to indicate the ref blew for kick off and then blew for FT.. if that’s the case the greizmann goal should stand I think. Ref seems to have made a bit of a balls up which ever way he’s done it.
one
RefChat Addict
So once the goal was disallowed, the VAR should have reviews it's own process and seen that disallowing the goal after the kick off and full time would have been incorrect in law, then allow the goal. That would have been interesting.France apparently protesting.
That certainly looks like he blows for the kickoff and then full time before signaling for var.
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
After watching again I think the VAR probably got this one correct. Couldn’t say defender was in control and I’d say this part from ifab, covers it..
The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control..
I mean defender is actually pushed over by France player while attempting the header. Ref probably should have just called foul on defender.
The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control..
I mean defender is actually pushed over by France player while attempting the header. Ref probably should have just called foul on defender.
Last edited:
Littlefish
New Member
Clear and Obvious. Deliberate play. Control of the ball. The five IFAB indicators as linked and listed by Rustyref.
You can work left to right or right to left.
The crux to me is the defender was (deliberately!!) off the ground and headed the ball.
On the one hand, it is hard to conceive of a situation where a header equals control of the ball (basic logic), yet the IFAB circular clearly conceives of such being feasible (3rd bullet bottom of page 2).
In pretty much all other respects the IFAB circular points, in this case, to a deliberate play; as opposed to it being classed a deflection. As Rustyref notes most if not all of the five indicators of 'control' are a tick (or more precisely not collectively moving the burden of proof away from deliberate play as called on the field).
A key point I'll highlight to the debate is my reading being the five bullets are individual indicators of control & thus deliberate play; as such, ticking just one should be enough to confirm .... NOT the other way round. Further, there is no "and" linking the five.
Deliberate play or deflection?
Putting it all together. The call on the field is subjective but doesn't jump out as obviously wrong, set against the standard in Law 11 of a deliberate play. Layering on the oh so woeful IFAB clarification doesn't really yield a smoking gun that screams 'deflection'; in fact quite the opposite and would have been more interesting had if been called off by the on field team.
Take away; another bad day for Law 11 and IFAB more generally. A tricky position that VAR found itself in, but it feels to me it didn't operate as intended.
You can work left to right or right to left.
The crux to me is the defender was (deliberately!!) off the ground and headed the ball.
On the one hand, it is hard to conceive of a situation where a header equals control of the ball (basic logic), yet the IFAB circular clearly conceives of such being feasible (3rd bullet bottom of page 2).
In pretty much all other respects the IFAB circular points, in this case, to a deliberate play; as opposed to it being classed a deflection. As Rustyref notes most if not all of the five indicators of 'control' are a tick (or more precisely not collectively moving the burden of proof away from deliberate play as called on the field).
A key point I'll highlight to the debate is my reading being the five bullets are individual indicators of control & thus deliberate play; as such, ticking just one should be enough to confirm .... NOT the other way round. Further, there is no "and" linking the five.
Deliberate play or deflection?
Putting it all together. The call on the field is subjective but doesn't jump out as obviously wrong, set against the standard in Law 11 of a deliberate play. Layering on the oh so woeful IFAB clarification doesn't really yield a smoking gun that screams 'deflection'; in fact quite the opposite and would have been more interesting had if been called off by the on field team.
Take away; another bad day for Law 11 and IFAB more generally. A tricky position that VAR found itself in, but it feels to me it didn't operate as intended.
deusex
RefChat Addict
I'm simply failing to see anything other than FIFA clearly wanting this goal to stand.
I don't know how anyone could read that or watch those clips and not come to the same conclusion.
Maybe someone in the OFFSIDE camp can clarify.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
He was being challenged, but that's irrelevant if we're talking about the new guidelines for deciding if it was a deliberate play - it's simply not part of those considerations. The only time it would be relevant would be if the challenge was by a player who was in an offside position when the cross came in, but that wasn't the case.
So even when I read carefully through the new guidelines @RustyRef quotes above - and for the reasons he so cogently gives, I'm still not seeing this as an offside offence by Griezmann.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
@RustyRef has quoted the new criteria in full. There are five of them, and he has gone through them one by one, showing how they were not met here. As he says, the only one which comes close to being applicable is the one saying that a ball in the air is harder to control that a ball on the ground. But that's not really a hard and fast rule - it doesn't say (or mean) that any time a ball is in the air, there cannot be a deliberate play.
If you disagree with his analysis, perhaps you can explain which of the five criteria given by the IFAB are applicable, and means this is a deliberate play by the defender.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
We’ll the ball being in the air is pretty obvious, but of course not dispositive. He is to able to fully collect himself due to contact by the attacker. And when I look at the videos, I see this as much close to the not a play videos than the play videos. Because of the challenge from the opponent, he isn’t able to make clear contact and sent the ball where he is trying to send it. As best I can infer from the videos and circular, that is the kind of contact that they no longer want to be considered a play that resets OS.
That said, I think the guidance is mushy. Until recently, I think the line was much brighter: if you have time to try to play the ball and touch it, that was enough. When this guidance came out, one of my first comments was that it became a lot more subjective and would cause more disagreements.
That said, I think the guidance is mushy. Until recently, I think the line was much brighter: if you have time to try to play the ball and touch it, that was enough. When this guidance came out, one of my first comments was that it became a lot more subjective and would cause more disagreements.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
But that's irrelevant unless the French player challenging for the ball was in an offside position (which he wasn't). Or unless you think it was just a straightforward pushing foul - which I don't think anyone is actually suggesting (or what was given).
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Again, challenge from the opponent (who was in an onside position when the ball was last touched by a team mate) is not relevant in deciding whether there is a deliberate play.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I can't find the official IFAB statement on this but experience has shown that VAR can be used for game-changing incidents that occurred before the final whistle sounded, even if the referee is not informed till after the whistle had already gone.France apparently protesting.
That certainly looks like he blows for the kickoff and then full time before signaling for var.
There have been a number of such occurrences - it happened at the end of a Brighton vs Man United game in the 2020-21 season and in a Champions League game between Atletico Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen in January this year.
Atletico Madrid miss penalty awarded after the final whistle following VAR check