Spijed wrote:But what about the last man who isn't supposedly interfering with play?

It only needs to be in line with the last defender.

Although personally I'd favour a rule of only the feet are used to judge offside and sensors in the boots to judge it.

Works equally varcically in the ladies' game too... That'll help promoulgate the game to a new audience...

If they get it wrong they may have just finally killed off the golden goose. Get this wrong and live fans both on matches and at home will be turning off football in droves.

Business motivations and win at all costs may well end up being remembered as VAR when football finally realises that it is a sport, an entertainment for people to watch. It is not all about facts and figures; that is accounting and they don’t sell many subscriptions for showing accountants.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Watching the Toulon Tournament yesterday and lots of physical contact was being penalised, some were really good tackles but deemed to be dangerous. Portugal were awarded a penalty towards the end of the England game when the defender was making a challenge for the ball in the air but turned his back slightly and the ball hit his arm, which was down by his side, when he was jumping and going out of the box.
Unfortunately, this is the future of the game and it will become too sterilised to watch at the top levelwith VAR taking over everything.

There's one every other game now, i'd say about 20% of what I see are given. Looking forward to seeing if it changes with the new handball rule- apparently it'll not be given if it's not deliberate or if it's within the "normal body outline" of the defender so Crouchie might have a problem if they use the outline of Messi

People seem to have completely forgot the fact that for a change in decision to happen it needs to be "clear and obvious "

There was an incident tonight where France scored a belter of a goal only then for it to be ruled offside after a two minute delay due to the goal scorer having the big toe of her standing foot offside. Its absolutely killing the joy of football imo

If it takes a piece of footage of an incident to be played ,rewound, then played again 20 or more times, in some instances, then slowed down all over a two minute period it is neither clear nor obvious and should remain with the original decision of the onfield officials

That was the original remit from FIFA when VAR was to be implemented.

So when your TV pundits say and accept that "I know it's taken a while, and things need to be speeded up, but at least the right decision was made", they are wrong!

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote:People seem to have completely forgot the fact that for a change in decision to happen it needs to be "clear and obvious "

There was an incident tonight where France scored a belter of a goal only then for it to be ruled offside after a two minute delay due to the goal scorer having the big toe of her standing foot offside. Its absolutely killing the joy of football imo

If it takes a piece of footage of an incident to be played ,rewound, then played again 20 or more times, in some instances, then slowed down all over a two minute period it is neither clear nor obvious and should remain with the original decision of the onfield officials

That was the original remit from FIFA when VAR was to be implemented.

So when your TV pundits say and accept that "I know it's taken a while, and things need to be speeded up, but at least the right decision was made", they are wrong!

It's the definition of "level" that needs to be cleared up.

In normal games, the normal linesman is not expected to asses one player's boot against another player's shoulder to see which is further forward. They are "level" and hence not offside. VAR is abolishing "level" and saying that one player must be further forward, even if by a fraction of an inch.

They need to do one of two things:

1. Change the laws to emphasise that VAR rules are now different from normal rules.
or:
2. Accept that "level" is still in the rules, and accept that it means if you can't see who is further forward with a naked eye on a still photo, then the players are level.

In the meantime, if they want to be consistent, they should demote tonight's linesman for making a "clear and obvious error". We can't have officials making "clear and obvious errors" like that and expecting to be reappointed.

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote:People seem to have completely forgot the fact that for a change in decision to happen it needs to be "clear and obvious "

There was an incident tonight where France scored a belter of a goal only then for it to be ruled offside after a two minute delay due to the goal scorer having the big toe of her standing foot offside. Its absolutely killing the joy of football imo

If it takes a piece of footage of an incident to be played ,rewound, then played again 20 or more times, in some instances, then slowed down all over a two minute period it is neither clear nor obvious and should remain with the original decision of the onfield officials

That was the original remit from FIFA when VAR was to be implemented.

So when your TV pundits say and accept that "I know it's taken a while, and things need to be speeded up, but at least the right decision was made", they are wrong!

The assistants are told to keep their flags down so how do we know whether the assistant would have flagged for Lingard or not?

Rileybobs wrote:The assistants are told to keep their flags down so how do we know whether the assistant would have flagged for Lingard or not?

Because that's not what the linesmen are told. They are told that if it's close, wait until the play has played out before signalling for offside. If the linesman had thought that Lingard was offside, he would have flagged after the ball had gone into the net, the ref would have disallowed the goal, and then VAR would have looked at it.

dsr wrote:Because that's not what the linesmen are told. They are told that if it's close, wait until the play has played out before signalling for offside. If the linesman had thought that Lingard was offside, he would have flagged after the ball had gone into the net, the ref would have disallowed the goal, and then VAR would have looked at it.

Very true. My mistake.

This is a good article about the problems of VAR -

'When a goal is ruled out for offside by VAR but another goal is allowed because the contravention of a law happened in a phase not checked by VAR, the game’s result is actually distorted more by the technology, not made more correct.'

https://www.football365.com/news/on-the ... athematics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comment overheard yesterday:
'England should have been in the Final. We were robbed of a goal because Lingard was only just offside, it should have stood'.

Until some grasp the fact that offside is offside, it's going to be a long uphill struggle to win people over.

These telly refs are making the game less enjoyable. The arguments over anything other than offsides are just that.. arguments. Some will agree with the telly ref, some won't. Just as when the ref in the middle made all the calls.

But the stop / start nature, the cancelled celebrations, the time wasted, the confusion.. it's not a great leap forward. You hear people say, well if it gets the right decision.. not sure I agree. In most cases, there is no 'right' decision.

And even with marginal offsides, so what. Nobody dies if you get it slightly wrong. These aren't surgeons making critical calls. It's a game, someone might be a bit unlucky, and possibly lose a game of football. That's it. I'm far from convinced it's worth the damage telly refs are doing to the sport just so we can always have a pixel perfect offside call. And the handball thing is absolutely ludicrous.

JohnMac wrote:Comment overheard yesterday:
'England should have been in the Final. We were robbed of a goal because Lingard was only just offside, it should have stood'.

Until some grasp the fact that offside is offside, it's going to be a long uphill struggle to win people over.

But until the laws are rewritten, was he offside? The laws say that if the players are level, then he is not offside. Do we now have different laws for VAR matches on non-VAR matches, where we still have level in one but not the other?

The reason we were robbed of the goal is because trechnology doesn't prove that Lingard was offside; not that he was only just offside. There is a better than even chance that he was offside, but we can't be sure. They need to re-evaluate the laws and decide if "not sure" should count as level and therefore onside, or if "not sure" should be decided by a best guess.

The offside law needn't be complicated - if only your feet could be offside then surely that'd make it easier to see across the line. There's no advantage to be gained regarding height when running upright, and it's rare that an attacker is considerably taller than a central defender (e.g Crouch vs Cannavaro, that's like a foot or something) and in that event it's poor decision making that leads to a midget marking a giant rather than a flaw in the law.
Then, if during the live game, both the assistant and the ref give the goal then the goal stands. VAR can check behind the scenes by all means but only interfere if the liner was sneezing or something and missed clear daylight betwixt attacker and defender. Anything else should stand.

Football is flawed. That's what makes it so brilliant. Trying to 'perfect' it is what is going to be its downfall.

I hate VAR. I think it's terrible. A big toe being offside is not what I want to see being overturned. If the linesman thought it was on, then go with his decision. Offsides should work like LBW in cricket - you can review, there should be a margin of error, and if you waste your review, you've wasted it.

VAR will kill football - mark my words.

dsr wrote:But until the laws are rewritten, was he offside? The laws say that if the players are level, then he is not offside. Do we now have different laws for VAR matches on non-VAR matches, where we still have level in one but not the other?

The reason we were robbed of the goal is because trechnology doesn't prove that Lingard was offside; not that he was only just offside. There is a better than even chance that he was offside, but we can't be sure. They need to re-evaluate the laws and decide if "not sure" should count as level and therefore onside, or if "not sure" should be decided by a best guess.

It's a mess for sure but wasn't his foot in front of the last defender, as in scoring part of the body?

Harsh but offside.

100% certain to be a goal pre VAR as would the disallowed one yesterday because the match officials didn't raise an issue.

I'm dreading getting back to the Miners at 6.15 from a 3.00 kick off next season.

Or give each team 2 reviews a game, so they would be saved to correct any absolute shockers.

JohnMac wrote:It's a mess for sure but wasn't his foot in front of the last defender, as in scoring part of the body?

Harsh but offside.

100% certain to be a goal pre VAR as would the disallowed one yesterday because the match officials didn't raise an issue.

I'm dreading getting back to the Miners at 6.15 from a 3.00 kick off next season.

His foot was in front of the last defender at the moment that photo was taken. But can they swear that that photo was taken at the exact moment the ball was kicked? Not a hundredth of a second earlier, not a hundredth of a second later, but the exact moment?

Remember a running footballer covers 3 inches in a hundredth of a second, and one of his feet will be moving faster than that. The defender's foot will also be moving. So in a hundredth of a second, the combined movement of the forward's foit and the defender's foot, if they are going in opposite directions, could be as much as 12 inches and may very well be as much as 6. So to judge offside by a big toe, you need to be accurate to better than a two hundredth of a second in determining when the ball was kicked.

How many frames per second on Sky TV?

Yes. It's definitely working well. No doubt... Nigerian player deliberately slaps the ball in. But that's OK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/48612313" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dsr wrote:His foot was in front of the last defender at the moment that photo was taken. But can they swear that that photo was taken at the exact moment the ball was kicked? Not a hundredth of a second earlier, not a hundredth of a second later, but the exact moment?

Remember a running footballer covers 3 inches in a hundredth of a second, and one of his feet will be moving faster than that. The defender's foot will also be moving. So in a hundredth of a second, the combined movement of the forward's foit and the defender's foot, if they are going in opposite directions, could be as much as 12 inches and may very well be as much as 6. So to judge offside by a big toe, you need to be accurate to better than a two hundredth of a second in determining when the ball was kicked.

How many frames per second on Sky TV?

That is the technology that is currently used to decide it. The distance travelled between one frame and the next is the margin of error in the same way that there will be a margin of error of a couple of millimetres or even just a fraction of a millimetre with goal-line technology.

Another shocker in the France v Norway women's game. A penalty granted via VAR for a perfectly good tackle where the player was clipped on the follow through

aggi wrote:Another shocker in the France v Norway women's game. A penalty granted via VAR for a perfectly good tackle where the player was clipped on the follow through

aggi --I have posted about this on the Womens' Football thread, however, this decision was reversed because of VAR and this was an experienced referee who referees in the German Bundesliga!!
I think that she was instructed by FIFA that she should give the penalty, just as the referee was in the World Cup Final last season.
It is FIFA's toy and being backed up all the time by UEFA ad the media and it will ruin the game as we know it.

They must really love the French teams!!

Never been in favour of VAR, does anybody actually know the handball rule? I've always thought it was ''deliberate'' handball, has that changed? or are we making up our own definition of deliberate? the penalty Man United got in the final minute against PSG was an absolute disgrace.

I'd love someone to explain how this is DELIBERATE handball

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAelqZFNUbc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I actually think VAR has been introduced to match fix games on a larger scale

France were never going to lose that World Cup final, the VAR wouldn't allow it.

''Deliberate'' handball

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H3u8MbXNSk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KRBFC wrote:Never been in favour of VAR, does anybody actually know the handball rule? I've always thought it was ''deliberate'' handball, has that changed? or are we making up our own definition of deliberate? the penalty Man United got in the final minute against PSG was an absolute disgrace.

I'd love someone to explain how this is DELIBERATE handball

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAelqZFNUbc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't worry about it because with the new directives for next season it will just get more and more difficult to understand.
I have given up and thrown my Laws of the Game Book out of the window because they no longer apply in the game which I played and refereed for well over 40 years.
It is what the people running the game want and, aided by TV and the media in general and the modern football fan, they will achieve their objective when every handball is penalised, every physical contact is penalised and nobody had any idea what the Offsdie Law is about.
I wish that I was a cynic because I would have an excuse for my ramblings.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Don't worry about it because with the new directives for next season it will just get more and more difficult to understand.
I have given up and thrown my Laws of the Game Book out of the window because they no longer apply in the game which I played and refereed for well over 40 years.
It is what the people running the game want and, aided by TV and the media in general and the modern football fan, they will achieve their objective when every handball is penalised, every physical contact is penalised and nobody had any idea what the Offsdie Law is about.
I wish that I was a cynic because I would have an excuse for my ramblings.

my interest in football overall has gone downhill fast recently, VAR, the almost no contact rules being implemented and my team playing dull, boring hoofball has left me completely uninterested.

I’m beginning to hate VAR and the absolute farcical decisions that come from it. Deliberate handball is a reasonable thing to penalise, but I’m absolutely gobsmacked by some of the decisions now being made, especially in European or international games. Do refs abroad have a different set of rules? Now we’ve got the perfectly reasonable hand ball rule being changed so that the VAR anoraks can justify their existence. They are clearly incapable of identifying deliberate handball so the rule will change and they can get their magnifying glasses out to see whether an arm has made a player bigger! What absolute bolloc.ks
Also, VAR has not cut out all the simulation and seems to actually promote it by penalising any type of contact.
And while we’re at it, what the feck is UEFA doing holding European Cup finals in the middle of blood.y Asia? And WTF is FIFA doing allowing the World Cup to be held in Qatar? And what’s all this nonsense about a European Supreme League? And why can Sky dictate who plays where and when and change things at short notice? And why do players earn obscene amounts of money that could be better spent by subsidising the cost of footy for fans or by passing more money to grass roots footy.

Sometimes, things don’t change for the better

Rileybobs wrote:That is the technology that is currently used to decide it. The distance travelled between one frame and the next is the margin of error in the same way that there will be a margin of error of a couple of millimetres or even just a fraction of a millimetre with goal-line technology.

Then it's a stupid system. There is no other sport in the world where, if the technology is not sufficient to prove whether the ref was right or wrong, they will overturn the ref's decision. In cricket, if one frame shows the batsman out of his ground and the bails on, next frame shows him in his ground and the bails off, he is not out because they can't be sure. In baseball, American football, and rugby league, they overturn the ref's verdict only if there is proof that he is wrong - if they think he might be wrong but they aren't sure, they let it stand.

I think people get a little confused when they say that football is a physical contact game. I’m trying to think of physical contact in the game that is allowed. A shoulder charge has to be upper arm to upper arm or it is a foul. It is impossible not to foul a keeper when he comes for a cross with his arms raised as it is impossible to do a lawful shoulder charge in those circumstances. It used to be lawful to push someone out of the way if they were obstructing, if they were shielding the ball, it had to be within playing distance. Other than that, a pull or a push or holding were penalty offences, as were a kick or a trip. So please explain to me what physical contact is lawful.

Darnhill Claret wrote:I think people get a little confused when they say that football is a physical contact game. I’m trying to think of physical contact in the game that is allowed. A shoulder charge has to be upper arm to upper arm or it is a foul. It is impossible not to foul a keeper when he comes for a cross with his arms raised as it is impossible to do a lawful shoulder charge in those circumstances. It used to be lawful to push someone out of the way if they were obstructing, if they were shielding the ball, it had to be within playing distance. Other than that, a pull or a push or holding were penalty offences, as were a kick or a trip. So please explain to me what physical contact is lawful.

All physical contact is lawful. If it wasn't, how would they ever restart the game? If the France player touches the Norway player, then the Norway player by definition touches the France player, so do both sides get a simultaneous free kick? The point being, there are several specific rules about what constitutes a foul - kicking, tripping, pushing, holding, etc. - and "touching" isn't on the list. Contact is legal unless contact is just part of one of the proscribed offences.

Ever seen two players challenging for the same header? Is it always a foul one way or the other?

Darnhill Claret wrote:I think people get a little confused when they say that football is a physical contact game. I’m trying to think of physical contact in the game that is allowed. A shoulder charge has to be upper arm to upper arm or it is a foul. It is impossible not to foul a keeper when he comes for a cross with his arms raised as it is impossible to do a lawful shoulder charge in those circumstances. It used to be lawful to push someone out of the way if they were obstructing, if they were shielding the ball, it had to be within playing distance. Other than that, a pull or a push or holding were penalty offences, as were a kick or a trip. So please explain to me what physical contact is lawful.

Any contact that isn’t a foul. Players are always brushing against each other or even clipping a leg but it’s not a foul if the contact wouldn’t be enough to knock a feather over.

Well obviously all physical contact is not lawful as you have just confirmed later in your reply. I accept that some contact does not constitute foul play but two players challenging for a header I would say often constitutes a foul as one often seeks to gain an unfair advantage, or the player approaching from behind often uses a hand or forearm. People often try to minimise a push by saying ‘that is a harsh penalty, it was only a soft push’ as if that makes a difference. Any push is a foul.

Sorry Claret, so you think gentle pushes to make your opponent lose balance is not a foul?

Darnhill Claret wrote:Well obviously all physical contact is not lawful as you have just confirmed later in your reply. I accept that some contact does not constitute foul play but two players challenging for a header I would say often constitutes a foul as one often seeks to gain an unfair advantage, or the player approaching from behind often uses a hand or forearm. People often try to minimise a push by saying ‘that is a harsh penalty, it was only a soft push’ as if that makes a difference. Any push is a foul.

In theory, if you read the laws without any prior knowledge of what the game looks like, you may be technically correct. But in practice, obviously, you aren't. How many times does the keeper come for the ball and not touch someone on the way? Penalty every time, presumably. As you say, most contact is a foul, so every corner there are several fouls as players jockey for position. The only decision to make is which foul came first, and making sure that synchronised cameras are available so we can see which foul was the most flagrant at the instant the ball was put into play. Half the corners would result in penalties, half would be free kicks for the defence.

Is this the theory? Maybe. Does it bear any resemblance to the game as it is played? No.

dsr, I don’t get the goalkeeper coming to collect the ball being a penalty. Have you maybe missed out a couple of words? The problem with your argument re corners is that the shirt tugging and wrestling has been allowed to become the norm. It has to be penalised to reduce the fouling. I look forward to seeing how VAR deals with crowded penalty area incidents.

Goodnight.

Darnhill Claret wrote:dsr, I don’t get the goalkeeper coming to collect the ball being a penalty. Have you maybe missed out a couple of words? The problem with your argument re corners is that the shirt tugging and wrestling has been allowed to become the norm. It has to be penalised to reduce the fouling. I look forward to seeing how VAR deals with crowded penalty area incidents.

The one that baffles me is the defenders are ALWAYS allowed to do whatever necessary to let the ball roll out of play for a goal kick, clear obstruction but it's allowed.

The goalkeepers at corners is another one too, goalkeepers are allowed to use their hands and are typically the biggest player on the pitch, why are they over protected by referees? let the giant goalkeepers COMMAND their own penalty box with force and stop treating them like fairies. The goalkeeper should be coming off his line like a steam train clearing everything in his path to get that ball from a corner, not relying on falling over at the slightest touch because they know referees will blow when they see a goalkeeper fall over regardless of the contact.

Darnhill Claret wrote:dsr, I don’t get the goalkeeper coming to collect the ball being a penalty. Have you maybe missed out a couple of words? The problem with your argument re corners is that the shirt tugging and wrestling has been allowed to become the norm. It has to be penalised to reduce the fouling. I look forward to seeing how VAR deals with crowded penalty area incidents.

If every push is a foul, then the only way the keeper can legally come through a crowd to get the ball is if he weaves through without touching anyone. If he touches anyone, it's a push and a penalty. Presumably.

Darnhill Claret wrote:Sorry Claret, so you think gentle pushes to make your opponent lose balance is not a foul?

Oh dear, Darnhill. Don’t get brainwashed by all the “there was contact” nonsense that’s bandied about these days. Most of us can see if it’s a foul or if it’s just a player trying to get an Oscar. It’s feckin embarrassing watching all these lightweights drop like a stone every time someone touches them. I used to play football and many a time I’ve been kicked, knocked sideways, tripped, pushed and booted high into the air but I never feigned injury or took a dive. There’s no need to and that would be cheating. The ref usually got it right. I’m sure VAR will quite rightly pick up some of the more subtle fouls, but my goodness, it seems to have also created a whole new make-believe world of fakery, posturing and incredibly fragile human beings.

Claret wrote:Oh dear, Darnhill. Don’t get brainwashed by all the “there was contact” nonsense that’s bandied about these days. Most of us can see if it’s a foul or if it’s just a player trying to get an Oscar. It’s feckin embarrassing watching all these lightweights drop like a stone every time someone touches them. I used to play football and many a time I’ve been kicked, knocked sideways, tripped, pushed and booted high into the air but I never feigned injury or took a dive. There’s no need to and that would be cheating. The ref usually got it right. I’m sure VAR will quite rightly pick up some of the more subtle fouls, but my goodness, it seems to have also created a whole new make-believe world of fakery, posturing and incredibly fragile human beings.

It is the way that the game is going and, reading darnhill's posts, it is the way that fans want it to go with every physical contact penalised one way or another.
No tackling, don't run alongside someone because you may touch him, don't jump up with anyone because there could be contact ---is this the game that we love?

Claret wrote:Oh dear, Darnhill. Don’t get brainwashed by all the “there was contact” nonsense that’s bandied about these days. Most of us can see if it’s a foul or if it’s just a player trying to get an Oscar. It’s feckin embarrassing watching all these lightweights drop like a stone every time someone touches them. I used to play football and many a time I’ve been kicked, knocked sideways, tripped, pushed and booted high into the air but I never feigned injury or took a dive. There’s no need to and that would be cheating. The ref usually got it right. I’m sure VAR will quite rightly pick up some of the more subtle fouls, but my goodness, it seems to have also created a whole new make-believe world of fakery, posturing and incredibly fragile human beings.

Thats why I found the women's game refreshing Last night.....and they Didn't cover their mouths..

The VAR decision for the penalty last night was a joke.

Its a bit worrying, but thats the sort of decision VAR should be reversing, not checking and deciding it is a penalty.

Lancasterclaret wrote:The VAR decision for the penalty last night was a joke.

Its a bit worrying, but thats the sort of decision VAR should be reversing, not checking and deciding it is a penalty.

It'll go under the radar a bit as it's the Women's World Cup but if that's the criteria for a penalty now - and we have to assume it is since it went to the telly ref and overturned the on-field ref's call - then a non contact sport isn't coming, it's here now.

The French lass goes in two footed - possibly dangerous. The Norwegian player clears the ball cleanly, as her foot follows through makes contact with the French player. Goes to the telly ref, there's contact so it's a penalty. It wasn't a trip, wasn't reckless, eyes on the ball. Just two players making contact.

Honestly don't know where the game goes from here - but Ben Mee will get sent off every single time for that Gomez tackle next season. And if it's in the box it's a nailed on penalty, no question.

When I was defending, in or outside the area I tackled with my feet. I didn’t use my arms in any scenario. If I had been tempted to use my arms I knew the referee might be likely to penalise me. My skills against my opponents skills. Likewise when trying to get to the ball when attacking if I fouled I expected to be penalised, so it was up to me to get to the ball before the defender, then he might be tempted to foul me to prevent me scoring. No shirt tugging, no holding, no pushing. If running alongside, the only way I would try and unbalance my opponent would be with a shoulder charge, not by leaning on him, but with the knowledge that if I got it wrong and connected with his chest or back (if I missed his upper arm) then again I would be penalised. Instead of playing the game fairly it is now the norm to see how much they can get away with, without being penalised. That isn’t playing football. That is attempting to cheat to gain an advantage. Not what I want to see. I don’t like seeing Danny Rose picking the ball up for a throw-in and charging 10 metres down the line before releasing the ball. I don’t like seeing players appealing for throw-ins when they know they played it out and I don’t like the lazy acceptance by refs that ‘it’s all part of the game’. If you don’t want all fouls penalised, then don’t complain about wrestling in the area at set-pieces.

NottsClaret wrote:It'll go under the radar a bit as it's the Women's World Cup but if that's the criteria for a penalty now - and we have to assume it is since it went to the telly ref and overturned the on-field ref's call - then a non contact sport isn't coming, it's here now.

The French lass goes in two footed - possibly dangerous. The Norwegian player clears the ball cleanly, as her foot follows through makes contact with the French player. Goes to the telly ref, there's contact so it's a penalty. It wasn't a trip, wasn't reckless, eyes on the ball. Just two players making contact.

Honestly don't know where the game goes from here - but Ben Mee will get sent off every single time for that Gomez tackle next season. And if it's in the box it's a nailed on penalty, no question.

To me, if the second bit (contact by the Norwegian player AFTER playing the ball) is a foul, then surely the two footed attempted by the French lass first overrules that?

But you are right, if there isn't a FIFA comment this week about how that shouldn't be a penalty then we might be watching a game that will no longer appeal like it used to.

If we have to accept that a ref should ignore minor infringements and only penalise serious fouls then make that clear in the laws of the game. Players and fans need to know what is a foul and what isn’t. No wonder people constantly criticise refs and the decisions they make or don’t make.