There's nothing to buy. Did it delay the restart? No, if anything it sped it up as a replacement ball was thrown rather than the France player having to walk to get the original one.
WC Final - Argentina vs France
- Thread starter Mooseybaby
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Wasn’t that the play that had an injured French player and a sub before the restart anyway?
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Haven't looked at a replay but my impression was that he wasn't already completely on his knees, though. At the time, I thought he dropped to his knees as he shielded the ball back to the keeper - and then kneed it. The main question for me was whether (to use the wording of FIFA Circular 488) a referee would "be convinced that [...] the player’s motive" in falling to his knees was to be able to circumvent the prohibition on using his foot to play the ball to the keeper and on balance, I don't think it was.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I've already agreed that it probably doesn't meet the definition (as I don't think a referee could be sure it was deliberate) but you can't say it's not even close because one of the specific examples of a deliberate trick given by FIFA/IFAB when the law was brought in, in 1992 was:
Last edited:
Murri O
Well-Known Member
IDFK right on the 6 yard line would have made things interesting though.
Murri O
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm...
www.theifab.com
Law 3 - The Players | IFAB
Number of players in football, substitution in football, goalkeeper rules
www.theifab.com
I mean, that gives the officials a fairly easy out. Who knows when they "realised" there was an extra player? And if it's after play has restarted, then the law specifically allows for the goal to stand, so there's no issue.Hmmmm...
Law 3 - The Players | IFAB
Number of players in football, substitution in football, goalkeeper rules
I can understand the on-field officials missing it - is there an argument to say that VAR should have flagged it up though?
Fundamental problem associated with Football Officiating
Some Laws are arbitrarily applied 'to the letter'.... Offside for instance
Most Laws are arbitrarily loosely applied or not applied at all.... hiding behind 'what football expects' when that statement should only apply to stuff not specified in Law. Notwithstanding that the book is written dreadfully with vagueness everywhere with no coherent structure (providing another get-out).
No way VAR is getting involved with subs on the FOP. Poor show that clear DOGSO was ignored so as not to spoil the spectacle
Officiating in football is broken at all levels for lots of reasons, these comments are just part of a wider personal analysis
For clarity, I like this Referee's style and I thought he did an excellent job at carrying out his FIFA instructions. He's a cut above most of his WC colleagues and he's not at fault for anything I've said
Also, Billions watched the final and conveniently forgot about the stains on the competition. So I doubt FIFA could give a monkeys about anything else
Some Laws are arbitrarily applied 'to the letter'.... Offside for instance
Most Laws are arbitrarily loosely applied or not applied at all.... hiding behind 'what football expects' when that statement should only apply to stuff not specified in Law. Notwithstanding that the book is written dreadfully with vagueness everywhere with no coherent structure (providing another get-out).
No way VAR is getting involved with subs on the FOP. Poor show that clear DOGSO was ignored so as not to spoil the spectacle
Officiating in football is broken at all levels for lots of reasons, these comments are just part of a wider personal analysis
For clarity, I like this Referee's style and I thought he did an excellent job at carrying out his FIFA instructions. He's a cut above most of his WC colleagues and he's not at fault for anything I've said
Also, Billions watched the final and conveniently forgot about the stains on the competition. So I doubt FIFA could give a monkeys about anything else
Last edited:
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Hmmm - in thios shot, ball must already be over the line and its erm.......2 just about.
Anyone REALLY disallowing that goal at that time in thsi match?
At this point in time, no way can this goal be disallowed. I'm not certifiable!
But I'd want to change that gradually so that the Laws are progressively applied properly over time
At this moment, we ought to just tear page 50 out of the book (along with half the other pages)
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I can’t remember where I read it but someone said that lenient refereeing mainly benefits the dirtiest teams. Can’t help but think that the lenient refereeing from the Q4 onwards, massively benefitted Argentina. True also that they adapted best to the no card - but no VC - policy.
I think that's absolutely true - it's often mentioned on here when a referee suggests they adjust their game "for club marks". A badly behaved team is likely to mark you low regardless of what you do. And nothing will annoy a normally well-behaved team more than the sense you're letting them be kicked off the park.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The denial of a goal for trivial field encroachment is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. I'd much rather see that be cautioned or have teams fined than to turn it into actually taking away a goal. Yes, if everyone knew that was the actual punishment it would be less likely to happen, but of all the places I'd like to see better enforcement of expected behavior, that falls pretty far down the list.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
A few videos doing the rounds from the Argentina corner flag area suggests French attacker may have handled the ball just before Mbappe's shot was blocked by an Argentinan arm for France's 2nd penalty. Was it missed by VAR? Ignored as not deliberate or maybe didn't actually make contact with the hand. Arm was definitely raised well above his head initially....
French handball?
French handball?
Last edited:
It does fall way down the list, but it's still a page in the book that needs tearing out
If it was a page in isolation, we could just put it down to being a 'bad law' that needs changing. But it's not; far from it