DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Euros 2024
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80527--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: Whistleblower Date: June 21, 2024, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surely the on field decision was that there was a player
standing in an offside position. The decision as to whether it
should warrant a disallowance of the goal was Attwell's alone as
far as I could make out. Taylor went with Attwell's decision
without adjudicating the matter himself. This detracts from the
referee being the chief arbiter in this situation. Why have
monitors if the VAR can effectively referee certain parts of the
match ?
#Post#: 80528--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: Claretman Date: June 21, 2024, 4:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With the disallowed goal for offside i think you will find that
Taylor asked Nunn if the attacker was in an offside position as
he deemed him to be interfering. Taylor will have fed that back
to Attwell and his team and they will have checked the position
quickly and confirmed he was in an offside position. Attwell and
team was not be able to disprove what Taylor had fed back to him
thus he didnt need to visit the screen, he would have only
needed to visit the screen if Attwell thought there was evidence
to allow the goal.
Good decision onfield by Taylor, backed up by Nunn ar2 and
Attwell var.
Attwell has not thrown Taylor under a bus here, good teamwork.
#Post#: 80529--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: TVOS Date: June 21, 2024, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Claretman link=topic=6080.msg80528#msg80528
date=1719005826]
With the disallowed goal for offside i think you will find that
Taylor asked Nunn if the attacker was in an offside position as
he deemed him to be interfering. Taylor will have fed that back
to Attwell and his team and they will have checked the position
quickly and confirmed he was in an offside position. Attwell and
team was not be able to disprove what Taylor had fed back to him
thus he didnt need to visit the screen, he would have only
needed to visit the screen if Attwell thought there was evidence
to allow the goal.
Good decision onfield by Taylor, backed up by Nunn ar2 and
Attwell var.
Attwell has not thrown Taylor under a bus here, good teamwork.
[/quote]
What do you mean by "quickly"?
#Post#: 80530--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: Affy_Moose Date: June 21, 2024, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=6080.msg80527#msg80527
date=1719005559]
Surely the on field decision was that there was a player
standing in an offside position. The decision as to whether it
should warrant a disallowance of the goal was Attwell's alone as
far as I could make out. Taylor went with Attwell's decision
without adjudicating the matter himself. This detracts from the
referee being the chief arbiter in this situation. Why have
monitors if the VAR can effectively referee certain parts of the
match ?
[/quote]
Protocol is that a decision has to be made on the pitch. From
the live feed it’s clear that Taylor and the AR discussed it
quickly face to face - at which point the AR raises his flag.
The likely comms to VAR would have been something alone the
lines of ‘on-field decision offside as NED attacker judged
offside as the shot comes in and interferes with goalkeeper’.
VAR and AVARx2 review and confirm that’s what they have seen.
VAR protocol is only ever to bring a referee over to overturn an
on-field decision. They never are called over to re-affirm or
‘sell’ an existing decision.
#Post#: 80531--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: Claretman Date: June 21, 2024, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TVOS link=topic=6080.msg80529#msg80529
date=1719006207]
[quote author=Claretman link=topic=6080.msg80528#msg80528
date=1719005826]
With the disallowed goal for offside i think you will find that
Taylor asked Nunn if the attacker was in an offside position as
he deemed him to be interfering. Taylor will have fed that back
to Attwell and his team and they will have checked the position
quickly and confirmed he was in an offside position. Attwell and
team was not be able to disprove what Taylor had fed back to him
thus he didnt need to visit the screen, he would have only
needed to visit the screen if Attwell thought there was evidence
to allow the goal.
Good decision onfield by Taylor, backed up by Nunn ar2 and
Attwell var.
Attwell has not thrown Taylor under a bus here, good teamwork.
[/quote]
What do you mean by "quickly"?
[/quote]
With the semi automated system players in offside positions dont
need the lines drawing by humans as in the premier league, so it
is much quicker.
The thing that would take the time is viewing all the camera
angles to check the offside player was interfering
#Post#: 80532--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: magpie1892 Date: June 21, 2024, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From the highlights on BBC, looked offside to me
#Post#: 80533--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: Whistleblower Date: June 21, 2024, 5:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that my case is weakened by having the pundits on the
BBC concur with my view! It comes down to what one believes
constitutes interference.
Having read the helpful post about the likely conversations with
the referee, AR and VAR I withdraw my remark about Attwell
throwing Taylor under a bus. It appears Taylor was driving the
bus but it was no " transport of delight" in my view.
#Post#: 80534--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: Readingfan Date: June 21, 2024, 5:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The BBC coverage seemed to place a lack of emphasis on the
initial on-field decision being offside.
For what it's worth Dale Johnson agrees with decision and says
most controversial part was why it took Attwell and co so long
to complete VAR check -
HTML https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/40403064/var-review-why-simons-goal-netherlands-was-ruled-offside<br
/>
#Post#: 80535--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: Whistleblower Date: June 21, 2024, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Readingfan link=topic=6080.msg80534#msg80534
date=1719008510]
The BBC coverage seemed to place a lack of emphasis on the
initial on-field decision being offside.
For what it's worth Dale Johnson agrees with decision and says
most controversial part was why it took Attwell and co so long
to complete VAR check -
HTML https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/40403064/var-review-why-simons-goal-netherlands-was-ruled-offside
[/quote]
Exactly. If Taylor was leading from the start in disallowing the
goal then what was Attwell doing for three minutes? Clearly he
must have thought there was a case for allowing the goal or else
he would have very quickly endorsed Taylor's decision. Evidence
that it was not absolutely clear cut.
#Post#: 80536--------------------------------------------------
Re: A TAYLOR - Netherlands v France
By: bruntyboy Date: June 21, 2024, 7:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Readingfan link=topic=6080.msg80534#msg80534
date=1719008510]
The BBC coverage seemed to place a lack of emphasis on the
initial on-field decision being offside.
For what it's worth Dale Johnson agrees with decision and says
most controversial part was why it took Attwell and co so long
to complete VAR check -
HTML https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/40403064/var-review-why-simons-goal-netherlands-was-ruled-offside
[/quote]
Note how the EPSN article chooses to show a picture of the ball
virtually in the net and the goalkeeper stood right next to
Dumfries. aaa's highlighted text is the red herring here as line
of sight isn't the issue. The relevant points are the final two
bullets points:
"-clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this
action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the
ability of an opponent to play the ball"
and I would suggest that he did neither.
From his viewpoint on the touchline surely the AR can only
advise that Dumfries was in an offside position and nothing else
as any other point relies on the camera angle from behind the
goal.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page