French Football Federation complain to FIFA about the disallowed goal

Everyone seems to forget that even with the introduction of VAR the interpretation of the Laws in football still need to be interpreted.
I think he was off in same way Benzemas goal v Liverpool was off.
He was yards offside when the cross came in, the linesman doesn’t flag until the move ends. He steps back onside after defender heads it. He s offside
 
He was yards offside when the cross came in, the linesman doesn’t flag until the move ends. He steps back onside after defender heads it. He s offside

Standing in an offside position, and being offside are two different things though. It looks to me that he doesn't make any attempt to go for the cross when it comes in and therefore he isn't active at that point.

He only reacts after the defender heads it, which is a new phase of play, and it's therefore onside.

That's my interpretation of it, but it's so confusing these days.
 
Imagine the uproar if this goal had stopped a team from progressing to the knockout stages, what chance do we have if even now they can’t apply the rules properly.
 
It was old school offside.
I can only think, under modern rules, that the defender was deemed to be affected by Griezman's offside position before the he played it, but I am surprised it was given offside.
France rested their players but probably deserved to lose anyway.
The group positions weren't affected by this weird call, thankfully.
 
Last edited:
I think the issue with this one is the referee will say that the ball was played in his direction from the free kick rendering him active and an interference with defenders in the phase of play even though he's not going for the ball.

Another way of explaining it is it's a bit like when a referee has to judge whether or not a player is offside and interfering with a goalkeepers vision when a goal is scored, even if the player is not attempting to distract the keeper or play the ball.

I don't know if that is the way that particular rule should be interpreted (because they seem to muck about with it every year) but its the only possible explanation for me.
 
I think the issue with this one is the referee will say that the ball was played in his direction from the free kick rendering him active and an interference with defenders in the phase of play even though he's not going for the ball.

Another way of explaining it is it's a bit like when a referee has to judge whether or not a player is offside and interfering with a goalkeepers vision when a goal is scored, even if the player is not attempting to distract the keeper or play the ball.

I don't know if that is the way that particular rule should be interpreted (because they seem to muck about with it every year) but its the only possible explanation for me.
This is what get me with the not interfering with play. If you are on the park, you are interfering with play. as an attacker, the defenders and keeper will always be keeping an eye on you in case you move back onside therefore you are distracting them, therefore interfering with play.
 
Remember when Diego Forlan scored at Ibrox for Villareal, 90% of the stadium were thinking wtf, I was one of them screaming blue murder at the time and even in the pub afterwards.

The 2nd phase law was just in its infancy and it seemed like a real injustice at the time.

The old saying "If you're not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch" comes to mind.

I can also remember Rangers benefitting from the rule with a Kenny Miller goal at the piggery, miles offside when Naismith played the ball forward from a bad kick out, but got himself onside for the 2nd phase.
 
Remember when Diego Forlan scored at Ibrox for Villareal, 90% of the stadium were thinking wtf, I was one of them screaming blue murder at the time and even in the pub afterwards.

The 2nd phase law was just in its infancy and it seemed like a real injustice at the time.

The old saying "If you're not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch" comes to mind.

I can also remember Rangers benefitting from the rule with a Kenny Miller goal at the piggery, miles offside when Naismith played the ball forward from a bad kick out, but got himself onside for the 2nd phase.
When you start talking about phases and intent then basically talking about opinion and making it up as you go along
 
The handball and the offside rule is getting a bit fucking silly.

The Argentina penalty tonight was bizarre.

Regarding the French complaint, what good can it do now?
The handball one really annoys me. It would be far easier to have a penalty for a deliberate handball. And for non deliberate handballs, a free kick. Just because it happens in the box shouldn’t dictate a penalty.

Some of these handballs are so marginal, conceding a penalty for it for is mental
 
Remember when Diego Forlan scored at Ibrox for Villareal, 90% of the stadium were thinking wtf, I was one of them screaming blue murder at the time and even in the pub afterwards.

The 2nd phase law was just in its infancy and it seemed like a real injustice at the time.

The old saying "If you're not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch" comes to mind.

I can also remember Rangers benefitting from the rule with a Kenny Miller goal at the piggery, miles offside when Naismith played the ball forward from a bad kick out, but got himself onside for the 2nd phase.
Aye - sure Edu chased it through and Miller was standing with nobody near him.
 
I should think FIFA should complain about how shite France were. Could not string two passes together and it looked like they were trying to help out a former colony.
 
Standing in an offside position, and being offside are two different things though. It looks to me that he doesn't make any attempt to go for the cross when it comes in and therefore he isn't active at that point.

He only reacts after the defender heads it, which is a new phase of play, and it's therefore onside.

That's my interpretation of it, but it's so confusing these days.
Is still say he's interfering with play as the ball is played to him

Correct decision
 
Some of the decision have been absolutely ridiculous. It’s being used to referee the games and it’s turning into complete non-contact sport where hands will soon need taped into players shorts.
 
I turned the television off in disappointment immediately after France scored in the last seconds so thought until this thread that the game had ended in a draw :oops:
 
The handball one really annoys me. It would be far easier to have a penalty for a deliberate handball. And for non deliberate handballs, a free kick. Just because it happens in the box shouldn’t dictate a penalty.

Some of these handballs are so marginal, conceding a penalty for it for is mental
that then comes down to the refs interpretation of what is then deliberate and would cause chaos!
 
the thing is they all do this now

stand yards offside then avoid getting involved until the 'next phase'

I think he is offside and gains an advantage by avoiding getting marked during 'phase 1'
 
Standing in an offside position, and being offside are two different things though. It looks to me that he doesn't make any attempt to go for the cross when it comes in and therefore he isn't active at that point.

He only reacts after the defender heads it, which is a new phase of play, and it's therefore onside.

That's my interpretation of it, but it's so confusing these days.

I’m with you on this one.

For me, the defender goes back to head the ball because of another onside French player trying to get on the end of the cross. Not Griezmann. So, Griezmann wasn’t interfering with play.

After the ball is headed clear, Griezmann has got back onside for the second phase of play, and then scores.

However, as you’ve already said, it is as confusing as hell, these days. Even referees can’t agree.
 
Maybe they need some extra dosh and remembered how much the Irish got for Henry’s handball goal that took them to a tourney?
 
The complaint isn’t whether the player was offside or not it’s because the review was carried out after the final whistle was blown.
 
Remember when Diego Forlan scored at Ibrox for Villareal, 90% of the stadium were thinking wtf, I was one of them screaming blue murder at the time and even in the pub afterwards.

The 2nd phase law was just in its infancy and it seemed like a real injustice at the time.

The old saying "If you're not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch" comes to mind.

I can also remember Rangers benefitting from the rule with a Kenny Miller goal at the piggery, miles offside when Naismith played the ball forward from a bad kick out, but got himself onside for the 2nd phase.
I remember that too, the 50/50 between Edu and (Loovens/Majstorovic?) hoofed it right in the air in time for him to get onside.

Was a fucking tremendous finish and result that day.
 
Sport is becoming a joke where a room full of anonymous pricks 50 miles away are getting to decide the outcome and nobody actually at the game has any idea what is going on.

The Argentina penalty last night was an absolute farce.

Var should be restricted to offsides. Everything else it is just ruining.
 
Sport is becoming a joke where a room full of anonymous pricks 50 miles away are getting to decide the outcome and nobody actually at the game has any idea what is going on.

The Argentina penalty last night was an absolute farce.

Var should be restricted to offsides. Everything else it is just ruining.
totally agree ... why do they need to be remote from the stadium anyway? Why cant they just have one guy in a room at the stadium with tv monitors? They should take a look at how its done in rugby league. And while theyre at it they should look at how rugby league handles chat back to the ref.

While i'm on a rant, can i say they should have a serious look at all the con men, divers and time wasters. I fully expect Tom Daly to get a game for England sometime soon.
 
Just like the penalty given against the Polish keeper. If that was a pen then it should of been against Gordon at Tynecastle.

Just caught up with that and shocked that VAR gave that as a penalty - Messi gets to the ball and clearly heads it out only to then be caught by the keeper's hand.

Nobody thought that was a penalty apart from the officials it seems.
 
Standing in an offside position, and being offside are two different things though. It looks to me that he doesn't make any attempt to go for the cross when it comes in and therefore he isn't active at that point.

He only reacts after the defender heads it, which is a new phase of play, and it's therefore onside.

That's my interpretation of it, but it's so confusing these days.
This is what Kyoto does for the scum and van Nistelroy did for Manchester United years ago.
I’d have no problem if one of ours adopted the same tactic.
 
Back
Top