WC Final - Argentina vs France

[JamesL]

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.

Not that I don't agree with you...
But @Big Cat raises a really valid point. What is the actual point in the law being written down if we look at it and shrug our shoulders. Lots of other laws fall into that category I know.
I'm torn. A very very big part of me agrees with you. And then there's this small niggly thing that says it's expressly written down what should happen in this scenario... AND we have tech to prove it.

 

[Big Cat]

Not that I don't agree with you...
But @Big Cat raises a really valid point. What is the actual point in the law being written down if we look at it and shrug our shoulders. Lots of other laws fall into that category I know.
I'm torn. A very very big part of me agrees with you. And then there's this small niggly thing that says it's expressly written down what should happen in this scenario... AND we have tech to prove it.

There's one very easy way to identify 'bad law'. If it's not applied, its bad
So change it. That's easier than applying Law which is not fit for purpose. Whatever, the game is flawed if the book is routinely ignored

 

[socal lurker]

There's one very easy way to identify 'bad law'. If it's not applied, its bad
So change it. That's easier than applying Law which is not fit for purpose. Whatever, the game is flawed if the book is routinely ignored

I don't conceptually disagree, but my faith in an IFAB change creating a "fix" is pretty thin.

 

[Murri O]

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?

I think this is the same play but from a different angle. Looks like his head.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1604843156205277185

 

[one]

.

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?

View attachment 6250

Bear with the long post and I suspect I may offend some with this post.

How can anyone who understands what refereeing or even football is about ask for this goal to be disallowed? Unless we are looking for obscure ways of somehow discrediting either the refereeing here or the team. I am amused that this has even attracted a debate and so many posts.

Would we also caution both these subs for entering without permission? As well as any and ALL the subs who ever enter the FOP for goal celebration? Very often when substituting and the player who comes off from the far side and has to go around, cuts one of the corners if play is on another end, will you caution him and disallow a goal of it happens at that moment in every case?

To give you a picture, imagine yourself doing a cup final (or equivalent if you are not in England) and one team scores an equaliser in the 90th minute with no one in the defending team protesting against any decisions . While the team is celebrating your AR tells you quietly that one of their subs had his foot on the touch line while watching the action or warming up on the side. Will you disallow the goal? If you do (and I don't believe you would) you better say your refereeing career goodbye. If we don't do something so pedantic in a grassroot game how do we expect it to happen in a WC final?

You may say foot on the touchline is different to this case where subs were about a yard in. No it is not as we either apply the law to the wording it has been written or we don't. Otherwise neither case clearly had no impact in play.

Yes as officials we apply the laws, but in the framework of being fair (and safe). A good example to follow is the encroachment into the penalty area at a penalty kick. It is only punished if the offender has an impact on play.

 

[one]

What is the actual point in the law being written down if we look at it and shrug our shoulders.

We should never shrug our shoulders at any law but look at why it was written in many cases. We all know the laws are changed and worded with a narrow focus and often without thinking about consequence. The main purpose of this law is when a team plays with 12 players without being noticed until a goal is scored. But then I suspect hey generalised it to "player, substitute,..." to cover all basis without think that someone will use it for something that it was not intended for.

 

[GraemeS]

.

Bear with the long post and I suspect I may offend some with this post.

How can anyone who understands what refereeing or even football is about ask for this goal to be disallowed? Unless we are looking for obscure ways of somehow discrediting either the refereeing here or the team. I am amused that this has even attracted a debate and so many posts.

Would we also caution both these subs for entering without permission? As well as any and ALL the subs who ever enter the FOP for goal celebration? Very often when substituting and the player who comes off from the far side and has to go around, cuts one of the corners if play is on another end, will you caution him and disallow a goal of it happens at that moment in every case?

To give you a picture, imagine yourself doing a cup final (or equivalent if you are not in England) and one team scores an equaliser in the 90th minute with no one in the defending team protesting against any decisions . While the team is celebrating your AR tells you quietly that one of their subs had his foot on the touch line while watching the action or warming up on the side. Will you disallow the goal? If you do (and I don't believe you would) you better say your refereeing career goodbye. If we don't do something so pedantic in a grassroot game how do we expect it to happen in a WC final?

You may say foot on the touchline is different to this case where subs were about a yard in. No it is not as we either apply the law to the wording it has been written or we don't. Otherwise neither case clearly had no impact in play.

Yes as officials we apply the laws, but in the framework of being fair (and safe). A good example to follow is the encroachment into the penalty area at a penalty kick. It is only punished if the offender has an impact on play.

There's a phrase used on here to describe the type of referee who would rather make up what he thinks feels fair instead of applying the laws as written - last week's ref.

It's arguably hypocritical to be one of many people on here who has used the term LWR pejoratively, who has encouraged new refs "don't be last week's ref", to follow the law, submit their cards etc - and then determine that this law is one of the ones we actually shouldn't bother following.

I am one of those hypocrites - I don't think for a second this goal should have been disallowed. But it is ridiculous that IFAB leave these kind of holes in the law book and just expect referees to improv their way around it.

If we assume that at least one of the officials/VARs saw this and chose not to bring it to the referee's attention, that's arguably the same kind of deliberate misapplication of law that we know has a history of resulting in suspensions. And to choose to deliberately misapply law in a world cup final? If the pendulum had swung the other way and the higher ups decreed that it was wrong not to disallow the goal, that's a career-ending decision - but in reality, had the goal been disallowed, that would probably have actually been the career ending call. And that's not a paradoxical position I think is right to put officials in.

 

[Quarryref]

We should never shrug our shoulders at any law but look at why it was written in many cases. We all know the laws are changed and worded with a narrow focus and often without thinking about consequence. The main purpose of this law is when a team plays with 12 players without being noticed until a goal is scored. But then I suspect hey generalised it to "player, substitute,..." to cover all basis without think that someone will use it for something that it was not intended for.

As with much in refereeing and wider life, I find myself drawn to the middle ground on this.

I do get frustrated by the clear aberrations in the current LOTG where one thing is written, but everyone accepts that something different will happen. Top of the list for me is the 6-second rule. Its meaning and when it should be applied are as crystal clear as the fact that it is not intended to be enforced. So either demand it is enforced (not a good idea IMHO) or replace it with something that can be. No argument there.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter how many times the laws are rewritten, a combination of the game we all love (well most of the time) and the limitations of language mean being definitive about everything is impossible. LOTG fundamentalism is no better than religious fundamentalism or any other type. At some point, common sense, the spirit of the game, what football expects, or whatever else you want to call it, has to come into play.

For me, the incident we have been talking about falls into that. Just because we could read the words literally that way, let's not use a Law written for one thing to deal with something else, even if we can defend it grammatically. And let's not pretend anyone could rewrite the Laws to remove every possible example of doing that.

A final point for me is that we do have examples in the current Laws where IFAB has tried to be definitive. What happens is the paragraphs get longer, the language becomes harder to read and understand, and the chances of it being enforced correctly at grassroots go down not up. I want fewer, not more, examples of the ball in play, offence committed outside the FOP section. I like to think of myself as a reasonably intelligent chap, but that one gives me a headache every time I read it.

 

[Murri O]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1604820622047150082

I did wonder if the referee was a penalty late with the card, and I think this thread points out why I thought that!

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting.

This bloke is also a mind games champion. This happened in Tasmania.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1222803639372275712

 

[GraemeS]

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting.

This bloke is also a mind games champion. This happened in Tasmania.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1222803639372275712

Haha, excellent! I actually have very little issue with that - he knows what the punishment will be and has made a conscious decision that it's worth a card. No arguments, everyone knows what's going on etc.

 

[one]

There's a phrase used on here to describe the type of referee who would rather make up what he thinks feels fair instead of applying the laws as written - last week's ref.

It's arguably hypocritical to be one of many people on here who has used the term LWR pejoratively, who has encouraged new refs "don't be last week's ref", to follow the law, submit their cards etc - and then determine that this law is one of the ones we actually shouldn't bother following.

I am one of those hypocrites - I don't think for a second this goal should have been disallowed. But it is ridiculous that IFAB leave these kind of holes in the law book and just expect referees to improv their way around it.

If we assume that at least one of the officials/VARs saw this and chose not to bring it to the referee's attention, that's arguably the same kind of deliberate misapplication of law that we know has a history of resulting in suspensions. And to choose to deliberately misapply law in a world cup final? If the pendulum had swung the other way and the higher ups decreed that it was wrong not to disallow the goal, that's a career-ending decision - but in reality, had the goal been disallowed, that would probably have actually been the career ending call. And that's not a paradoxical position I think is right to put officials in.

I'll be shorter this time. I did think my post may ruffle a few feadthers .

No it is not hypocritical because there is a big difference in advising not to apply law or don't bother with it which is what you insinuate I said, and advising understand what the law is for and then apply it, which is what I actually said. But I suspect you already knew that.

In terms of applying law as it's written, once a team committed their first offence in a game, any goals they score for the rest of the game should be disallowed. Try applying that one , or are we happy with deliberately misapplying this one? Happy giving a lot more examples we all deliberately misapply and won't get told we are LWR.

 

[GraemeS]

I'll be shorter this time. I did think my post may ruffle a few feadthers .

No it is not hypocritical because there is a big difference in advising not to apply law or don't bother with it which is what you insinuate I said, and advising understand what the law is for and then apply it, which is what I actually said. But I suspect you already knew that.

The law states the goal should have been disallowed. By the letter of the law, there's no ambiguity there - you're seeing and inferring ambiguity because of context, experience, spirit of the game etc, which is exactly what any LWR would also argue they are doing.

I think that's a semantic difference at best - arguably it's not different at all. Last week's ref will have "a justification" for why they shouldn't apply law X or Y - the only reason they then do or don't get referred to as LWR is if we happen to agree with that justification or not. I like the referee's decision in this case, but I don't like the fact that it's possible to get the expected result by deciding in the moment that a law shouldn't be applied in this case.

In terms of applying law as it's written, once a team committed their first offence in a game, any goals they score for the rest of the game should be disallowed. Try applying that one , or are we happy with deliberately misapplying this one? Happy giving a lot more examples we all deliberately misapply and won't get told we are LWR.

[citation needed] - come on, you can't make a claim like that and not back it up with at least a page number that you think justifies it? I'm happy to engage in good faith, but unsupported claims like that don't add anything.

 

[Big Cat]

So, me kicking off about this (subs on fop etc. etc.) is entirely justified, as reflected by the debate it's triggered
Based on the discussion above, my usual inclination is that too much Law is 'bad' and needs changing to reflect the way the game is actually Refereed.
I think the book could be clearer without compromising brevity. But to achieve that, it needs to be fundamentally reworked. The problem seems to be, IFAB keep making small amendments/additions which only serve to stir up the existing soup. It's apparent that IFAB do not recognize or accept the problem and are not motivated or able to fix any of it. Bad Law (IMO) is one of the root causes of bad behaviour (culture) in the game, but FIFA (in particular) have no gusto for making genuine improvements to the game at the risk of damaging the commercial spectacle of a product

 

[one]

The law states the goal should have been disallowed. By the letter of the law, there's no ambiguity there - you're seeing and inferring ambiguity because of context, experience, spirit of the game etc, which is exactly what any LWR would also do.

I think that's a semantic difference at best - arguably it's not different at all. Last week's ref will have "a justification" for why they shouldn't apply law X or Y - the only reason they then do or don't get referred to as LWR is if we happen to agree with that justification or not. I like the referee's decision in this case, but I don't like the fact that it's possible to get the expected result by deciding in the moment that a law shouldn't be applied in this case.


[citation needed] - come on, you can't make a claim like that and not back it up with at least a page number that you think justifies it? I'm happy to engage in good faith, but unsupported claims like that don't add anything.

I won't continue on the letter of law argument as I think we won't get anywhere. For clarity though I am saying the same thing as post #208 which you liked. Possibly for a different reason?

In terms of the offence and goal example, no citation was not deliberate. It's well known and I thought you knew it.

Law 10.1
"A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal."

 

[GraemeS]

I won't continue on the letter of law argument as I think we won't get anywhere. For clarity though I am saying the same thing as post #208 which you liked. Possibly for a different reason?

In terms of the offence and goal example, no citation was not deliberate. It's well known and I thought you knew it.

Law 10.1
"A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal."

Ha, I didn't know about that.

But the fact that you think that disproves my argument does at least show that you've completely misunderstood what I was saying, and I'm a little confused as to why you're taking issue with my reply?

Broadly speaking, the issue seems to be that you're fine with referees having to use guesswork and experience to actually get a functional game of football played kind of partly within the laws. I think that's a problem and leaves referees hanging out to dry if they improv incorrectly and we should expect better - especially from a company that is anticipating $7.5billion in profits from the world cup.

 

[JamesL]

So, me kicking off about this (subs on fop etc. etc.) is entirely justified, as reflected by the debate it's triggered
Based on the discussion above, my usual inclination is that too much Law is 'bad' and needs changing to reflect the way the game is actually Refereed.
I think the book could be clearer without compromising brevity. But to achieve that, it needs to be fundamentally reworked. The problem seems to be, IFAB keep making small amendments/additions which only serve to stir up the existing soup. It's apparent that IFAB do not recognize or accept the problem and are not motivated or able to fix any of it. Bad Law (IMO) is one of the root causes of bad behaviour (culture) in the game, but FIFA (in particular) have no gusto for making genuine improvements to the game at the risk of damaging the commercial spectacle of a product

I called it at the time. Was surprised how little debate it's generated until now to be fair.
I think we all sit on the side of we don't want goals disallowed for this... But we also understand English and clear as day the words as written say this goal must be disallowed.

 

[one]

you're fine with referees having to use guesswork and experience to actually get a functional game of football played kind of partly within the laws.

No I am not.

I'm a little confused as to why you're taking issue with my reply?

You misrepresented my post. I explained how in my follow up post.

I think we all sit on the side of we don't want goals disallowed for this.

This is not how I read some of the posts here. Hence my somewhat blunt post.

 

[Murri O]

Not that I don't agree with you...
But @Big Cat raises a really valid point. What is the actual point in the law being written down if we look at it and shrug our shoulders. Lots of other laws fall into that category I know.
I'm torn. A very very big part of me agrees with you. And then there's this small niggly thing that says it's expressly written down what should happen in this scenario... AND we have tech to prove it.

I think the intent of the law is if there are too many players on the field as in a substitute (or 2) has come on and one (or 2) hasn't gone off. I know that's not what's written but I'm assuming that's what they meant.

 

[GraemeS]

This is not how I read some of the posts here. Hence my somewhat blunt post.

Then as I suggested, you're not reading my posts properly. From my initial reply, post #207:

I am one of those hypocrites - I don't think for a second this goal should have been disallowed. But it is ridiculous that IFAB leave these kind of holes in the law book and just expect referees to improv their way around it.

 

[RefJef]

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but had the French shot that was saved in the last few minutes gone in, we would/could have been having a similar discussion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1604650967194308608

(the video is in portrait, so you may need to click on it to see it full screen (which you need to do))