Euro 2024

[Goalposts]

I’m not really interested in Mark Twain, or Shania for that matter. I just want someone to explain how the officials got the decisions wrong, bearing in mind that is what I’m being condescended for. You can keep evading the question but it’s not really strengthening your argument.

If you need it explaining Riley - it suggests my point 1and 2 are correct - if that doesnt explain it my mark twain reference explains why it can never be explained and as it appears you still dont understand why it was wrong - well for some people life and football is just to complicated

[dsr]

My understanding is that officials in this tournament were told to deem the arm to be in an unnatural position if it is above the horizontal. I may well be wrong and would be happy to hold my hand up (below the horizontal just to be safe) if so. I turned off after the game so haven’t seen the coverage but what did ITV’s ‘laws of the game expert’ think?

If that's what they said, then it depends what they meant. Certainly his arm was below shoulder level, but the part below his elbow was slightly above horizontal but still below his shoulder. I don't know if the powers that be genuinely do believe that if your hand rises above the elbow when running then you are running in an unnatural position, but if they do it wouldn't be the first beyond-stupid decision they have made.

Or, of course, the penalty was given because the ball just flicked the man's thumb. If his thumb was inclined upwards at the time, then perhaps that's what they meant.

[Rileybobs]

If you need it explaining Riley - it suggests my point 1and 2 are correct - if that doesnt explain it my mark twain reference explains why it can never be explained and as it appears you still dont understand why it was wrong - well for some people life and football is just to complicated

I don’t need anything explaining, I just want to know what exactly, in your opinion, the officials got wrong. It would have been a lot less effort for you to just tell me rather than make cryptic references to Mark Twain. Then we could have discussed the incident from our own perspectives rather than waste each other’s time.

[martin_p]

Too close and natural position. Poor interpretation of the law.

Apparently ‘too close’ hasn’t been in the rules for about three years.

[Rileybobs]

If that's what they said, then it depends what they meant. Certainly his arm was below shoulder level, but the part below his elbow was slightly above horizontal but still below his shoulder. I don't know if the powers that be genuinely do believe that if your hand rises above the elbow when running then you are running in an unnatural position, but if they do it wouldn't be the first beyond-stupid decision they have made.

Or, of course, the penalty was given because the ball just flicked the man's thumb. If his thumb was inclined upwards at the time, then perhaps that's what they meant.

I’m recalling an incident from one of the early games and I doubt it was described in great detail. But my understanding was that if the extended part of the arm/hand/finger that touched the ball was above the horizontal (I guess they meant shoulder?) then referees should deem this an unnatural position. Again, I may be remembering incorrectly or may just be wrong, but that’s my recollection.

Either way, it’s completely ridiculous as is the entire handball law. As if we needed any more ambiguity introduced to the law than the notional ‘t-shirt line’. I think with handball the law makers just need to take a big step back and rethink the law from scratch because too many games are being decided on random and otherwise meaningless ball to hand contacts in the box.

Offside is also crap, but at least it’s less open to interpretation and seems to be clearer and quicker with the semi-automated technology.

[Goalposts]

Well Riley as every one else has posted reasons in regards to my comments you only need to look back up my mark twain reference for all its ambiguity is true .

The fact that as i suspected you are still unable to see why just confirms my opinion. I’m sure that its something over a beer we could discuss but on your understanding of the game on a rating of 1-10 your about a five. Don’t mean to insult or infer your stupid just that in terms of football your understanding is below average . You may be a rocket scientist a professor but in terms of understanding football .

Your just lacking - but hey we cant all be perfect

[Hedontplayforyou]

The handball thing is a complete joke as is offside .

Offside needs to be less nitty . I’m not sure what would work best but this at the moment is just ridiculous .

Daylight between players, then it’s advantage attacker?

Part of you body onside?

Who knows

[martin_p]

The handball thing is a complete joke as is offside .

Offside needs to be less nitty . I’m not sure what would work best but this at the moment is just ridiculous .

Daylight between players, then it’s advantage attacker?

Part of you body onside?

Who knows

But as long as you define the offside line VAR is always going to judge people offside by mms.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Feels like everyone agrees it’s not handball.

Yet some weirdo who sets the rules thinks it is.

Find the weirdo. Solve the problem

[Rileybobs]

Well Riley as every one else has posted reasons in regards to my comments you only need to look back up my mark twain reference for all its ambiguity is true .

The fact that as i suspected you are still unable to see why just confirms my opinion. I’m sure that its something over a beer we could discuss but on your understanding of the game on a rating of 1-10 your about a five. Don’t mean to insult or infer your stupid just that in terms of football your understanding is below average . You may be a rocket scientist a professor but in terms of understanding football .

Your just lacking - but hey we cant all be perfect

Generally when someone challenges another’s argument they present reasons why they disagree. Shame you aren’t able to do this, but perhaps they didn’t teach this at football school

[Goalposts]

Generally when someone challenges another’s argument they present reasons why they disagree. Shame you aren’t able to do this, but perhaps they didn’t teach this at football school

Ok Riley ill play - 1 question 1 simple answer - Denmark deliberate handball yes or no

[martin_p]

Ok Riley ill play - 1 question 1 simple answer - Denmark deliberate handball yes or no

It doesn’t have to be deliberate to be a penalty so it’s a moot point.

[nil_desperandum]

What did the officials get wrong in the two quick-fire incidents?

In my opinion they weren't clear and obvious errors so the onfield decisions should have stood - certainly the non-penalty decision.

[Goalposts]

It doesn’t have to be deliberate to be a penalty so it’s a moot point.

I refer to my points 1 and 2

[Rileybobs]

Ok Riley ill play - 1 question 1 simple answer - Denmark deliberate handball yes or no

Deliberate as in the player consciously and intentionally handled the ball - no.
Deliberate as defined by the laws of the game and how officials have been instructed to interpret them in this competition - yes.

[Goalposts]

Deliberate as in the player consciously and intentionally handled the ball - no.
Deliberate as defined by the laws of the game and how officials have been instructed to interpret them in this competition - yes.

Well as the majority of people on here have expressed their option that would be wrong , and if you genuinely believe that my points 1 and 2 invalidate that opinion . But you are entitled to be wrong it is your right .

[ArmchairDetective]

The offside decision annoys me. I know it's technically right but it's not in the spirit of the game to disallow that. The offside rule was introduced to stop players hanging around the opposition's goal. Not to cancel out goals from players that are accidentally or incidentally offside by half an inch.

[Rileybobs]

In my opinion they weren't clear and obvious errors so the onfield decisions should have stood - certainly the non-penalty decision.

Offside has never been open to the clear and obvious test. You may have a point with the handball, although did the on-field officials actually see the ball touch Andersen’s hand? Because if not then it would be open to VAR intervention.

[martin_p]

I refer to my points 1 and 2

Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant, referees are there to apply the laws of the game not interpret ‘the spirit of the game’.

[martin_p]

The offside decision annoys me. I know it's technically right but it's not in the spirit of the game to disallow that. The offside rule was introduced to stop players hanging around the opposition's goal. Not to cancel out goals from players that are accidentally or incidentally offside by half an inch.

I agree, but as soon as you introduce technology you have to apply a very literal interpretation of the rule. I’d prefer VAR to disappear but that isn’t likely to happen.

[Rileybobs]

Well as the majority of people on here have expressed their option that would be wrong , and if you genuinely believe that my points 1 and 2 invalidate that opinion . But you are entitled to be wrong it is your right .

I don’t think the majority of people on here - which probably equates to about 10 people - should be taken into account. Do you think match officials should make decisions that 10 Burnley fans agree with or that are in accordance with the laws of the game?

What did the ITV football laws expert say after the game (I presume she was asked)?

[martin_p]

I don’t think the majority of people on here - which probably equates to about 10 people - should be taken into account. Do you think match officials should make decisions that 10 Burnley fans agree with or that are in accordance with the laws of the game?

What did the ITV football laws expert say after the game (I presume she was asked)?

She showed the defender moved his body (arguably unnaturally) so that his hand was where it was. To be honest I’d be furious if that happened in one of our games and we didn’t get the penalty.

[Goalposts]

Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant, referees are there to apply the laws of the game not interpret ‘the spirit of the game’.

Ok let’s play… remove the spirit of the game on which the last 200 plus years have been based - i:e arsenal replay etc. all irrelevant . So therefor it is down to consistency.. only their is none one week its off side and a penalty the next its not, the history and visual documentation shows that a vast majority of these decisions are opinions are inaccurate ( spirit of the game - i know i said ignore it ) 2 inches off side. Volleyed at you point blank and hitting your arm. When you are measuring the game in these increments you have probably never played sport in your life - its money based decision making

[bobinho]

This is a good Swiss team. If we somehow get through tomorrow we will be outclassed

The England team we have seen up to now, yes I agree. The England team that we should be fielding, with the instructions of “go out and play, express yourselves lads, do what you do for your clubs in the position you do it for your clubs” could beat them with something to spare, but the team sent out by the muppet? You’re right Elizabeth, they’d absolutely smash us.

[Rileybobs]

She showed the defender moved his body (arguably unnaturally) so that his hand was where it was. To be honest I’d be furious if that happened in one of our games and we didn’t get the penalty.

Cheers Martin. She has seemed to fall on the side of the officials on most occasions I’ve heard her, but I can’t imagine she has any affinity towards the officials themselves which perhaps shows they have generally been getting big decisions correct. Obviously Andersen wasn’t in an unnatural position because limbs fly around when people play football, not that I have any knowledge of football or how to play it. But the referees have been given clear guidelines on how to interpret the laws so on this occasion my gripe would be with the law itself.

Did she say anything about the hand being raised above the horizontal?

[dsr]

She showed the defender moved his body (arguably unnaturally) so that his hand was where it was. To be honest I’d be furious if that happened in one of our games and we didn’t get the penalty.

Seroiously? The defender moved, and that's why it was a penalty? I remember playing the game "statues" as a child, and how difficult it is to cease movement the instant someone shouts "freeze" - especially if you are in the air at the time.

This is one of the big problems with VAR. They show a slow motion that takes 5 seconds to cover an instant of real time, and they forget that the defender didn't have 5 seconds to decide what to do.

[martin_p]

Ok let’s play… remove the spirit of the game on which the last 200 plus years have been based - i:e arsenal replay etc. all irrelevant . So therefor it is down to consistency.. only their is none one week its off side and a penalty the next its not, the history and visual documentation shows that a vast majority of these decisions are opinions are inaccurate ( spirit of the game - i know i said ignore it ) 2 inches off side. Volleyed at you point blank and hitting your arm. When you are measuring the game in these increments you have probably never played sport in your life - its money based decision making

So what are you defining as offside according to ‘the spirit of the game’? Three inches, four inches, a foot. What ever your answer people will still be deemed offside by fractions of an inch if you are using technology. Offside has now become an absolute with the word introduction of technology but at least we now get a level of consistency on the non-objective decisions.

[martin_p]

Cheers Martin. She has seemed to fall on the side of the officials on most occasions I’ve heard her, but I can’t imagine she has any affinity towards the officials themselves which perhaps shows they have generally been getting big decisions correct. Obviously Andersen wasn’t in an unnatural position because limbs fly around when people play football, not that I have any knowledge of football or how to play it. But the referees have been given clear guidelines on how to interpret the laws so on this occasion my gripe would be with the law itself.

Did she say anything about the hand being raised above the horizontal?

No nothing about the horizontal. To be fair to her she did end her analysis saying she was just demonstrating why the way IFAB tell referees to interpret the rules meant it could be seen as a penalty and not offering a personal opinion.

[Goalposts]

I don’t think the majority of people on here - which probably equates to about 10 people - should be taken into account. Do you think match officials should make decisions that 10 Burnley fans agree with or that are in accordance with the laws of the game?

What did the ITV football laws expert say after the game (I presume she was asked)?

Technically that may be true ie the people that have posted have disagreed with you. True a 1000 people may agree with you and have not posted but the more you post the more mark twain rings true - i dont think that regardless of how many people post that will change your opinion. It’s very evident how your thinking lies and basically you do not agree with anyone that disagrees with you. You will always convince yourself that your position is right because I suspect you lack the ability to think otherwise impacts your moral worth

[martin_p]

Technically that may be true ie the people that have posted have disagreed with you. True a 1000 people may agree with you and have not posted but the more you post the more mark twain rings true - i dont think that regardless of how many people post that will change your opinion. It’s very evident how your thinking lies and basically you do not agree with anyone that disagrees with you. You will always convince yourself that your position is right because I suspect you lack the ability to think otherwise impacts your moral worth

Medice, cura te ipsum

[dsr]

I agree, but as soon as you introduce technology you have to apply a very literal interpretation of the rule. I’d prefer VAR to disappear but that isn’t likely to happen.

What they could do is pretty simple. Abolish the line-drawing machines and their spurious accuracy. There is zero point in a system that gives a clear and definitive answer to whether a player would have been offside had the ball been played at that exact instant.

Besides which, pre-VAR, was there really any groundswell of opinion that the game was somehow unfair because "level" couldn't be judged to the quarter inch? They are trying to solve a problem that didn't exist. Here's the simple solution.

1. Go back to the old rule, that in front is offside, behind is onside, level is onside.
2.. similarly go back to the former (and in non-VAR games still current) guidance that the torso is what matters, not the head or toes.

Then VAR is simple. Let the linesman give his decision in the normal way, since we have reverted the law to a position where the linesman can reasonably hope to get it right; and give the VAR man a still photo with no lines drawn. If he can't see within 5 seconds that the linesman was wrong, then the linesman is right. Wrong decisions will still be overturned, but not with 5 and a half minute delays.

[martin_p]

What they could do is pretty simple. Abolish the line-drawing machines and their spurious accuracy. There is zero point in a system that gives a clear and definitive answer to whether a player would have been offside had the ball been played at that exact instant.

Besides which, pre-VAR, was there really any groundswell of opinion that the game was somehow unfair because "level" couldn't be judged to the quarter inch? They are trying to solve a problem that didn't exist. Here's the simple solution.

1. Go back to the old rule, that in front is offside, behind is onside, level is onside.
2.. similarly go back to the former (and in non-VAR games still current) guidance that the torso is what matters, not the head or toes.

Then VAR is simple. Let the linesman give his decision in the normal way, since we have reverted the law to a position where the linesman can reasonably hope to get it right; and give the VAR man a still photo with no lines drawn. If he can't see within 5 seconds that the linesman was wrong, then the linesman is right. Wrong decisions will still be overturned, but not with 5 and a half minute delays.

But then people will get it wrong and you may as well abandon VAR.

[Goalposts]

Medice, cura te ipsum

As Marcus Aurelius would say

THE HAPPINESS OF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS UPON THE QUALITY OF YOUR THOUGHTS.”

[Rileybobs]

Technically that may be true ie the people that have posted have disagreed with you. True a 1000 people may agree with you and have not posted but the more you post the more mark twain rings true - i dont think that regardless of how many people post that will change your opinion. It’s very evident how your thinking lies and basically you do not agree with anyone that disagrees with you. You will always convince yourself that your position is right because I suspect you lack the ability to think otherwise impacts your moral worth

Shame only one of us has engaged in this discussion in good faith.

I don’t speak Latin, but what martinp said.

[bobinho]

Offside has never been open to the clear and obvious test. You may have a point with the handball, although did the on-field officials actually see the ball touch Andersen’s hand? Because if not then it would be open to VAR intervention.

Offside as a decision may not have been, but using VAR to prove it, has.

Clear and obvious. Was it? No? (And we all know that mm’s isn’t) Onfield decision stands. Technically correct, but going to these levels time and time again to disallow a goal is most certainly not in the spirit of the game, and NOT clear and obvious enough to ask VAR to confirm.

[Goalposts]

Shame only one of us has engaged in this discussion in good faith.

I don’t speak Latin, but what martinp said.

Good faith - that to me means sincerely and honestly - if you are holding true to that including previous statements -I’ll quote again a famous roman for you to contemplate, translated from latin..

“IF SOMEONE IS ABLE TO SHOW ME THAT WHAT I THINK OR DO IS NOT RIGHT, I WILL HAPPILY CHANGE, FOR I SEEK THE TRUTH, BY WHICH NO ONE WAS EVER TRULY HARMED. IT IS THE PERSON WHO CONTINUES IN HIS SELF-DECEPTION AND IGNORANCE WHO IS HARMED.”

[Lew200100]

Both of the decisions are the reason why people are falling out of love with premiership football. Both decisions may be correct but totally wrong in the spirit of a game.

[Rileybobs]

Offside as a decision may not have been, but using VAR to prove it, has.

Clear and obvious. Was it? No? (And we all know that mm’s isn’t) Onfield decision stands. Technically correct, but going to these levels time and time again to disallow a goal is most certainly not in the spirit of the game, and NOT clear and obvious enough to ask VAR to confirm.

The offside call was 100% the correct decision by the officials. Clear and obvious just doesn’t come into it. We can debate VAR and how sh!t it is until the cows come home, but that doesn’t mean the officials got it wrong.

[dsr]

But then people will get it wrong and you may as well abandon VAR.

Fine by me. I don't agree with the official line that getting the decision right to the millimetre is all that matters, and entertainment value of the game is irrelevant.

It's a question of what degree of accuracy is deemed to be necessary. An Olympic games race could be deemed a dead heat for Olympic purposes but the VAR officials would say he isn't level for football purposes, and they will hold up the game for several minutes to prove it. Why? What good does it do? How is the game of football improved?

[Rileybobs]

Good faith - that to me means sincerely and honestly - if you are holding true to that including previous statements -I’ll quote again a famous roman for you to contemplate, translated from latin..

“IF SOMEONE IS ABLE TO SHOW ME THAT WHAT I THINK OR DO IS NOT RIGHT, I WILL HAPPILY CHANGE, FOR I SEEK THE TRUTH, BY WHICH NO ONE WAS EVER TRULY HARMED. IT IS THE PERSON WHO CONTINUES IN HIS SELF-DECEPTION AND IGNORANCE WHO IS HARMED.”

Well done. So rewind back, god knows how long, to when I asked you exactly what you thought the officials got wrong so that I can happily change my mind, because I seek the truth. This has been such a weird exchange because you’re accusing me of being entrenched in my views but not telling me why they’re wrong.

[dsr]

The offside call was 100% the correct decision by the officials. Clear and obvious just doesn’t come into it. We can debate VAR and how [deleted] it is until the cows come home, but that doesn’t mean the officials got it wrong.

Which leads another question. Clearly if the ball had gone out for a corner and Denmark had scored from the corner, then it would have been a definite error by the linesman. He would have made a mistake that lead indirectly to a goal.

So what is the advice to linesmen when they are asked to make a decision that is clearly impossible? No human on earth could definitively say that was offside. Are linesmen advised that when the ball doesn't go into the net, they should judge offside under a different law (ie. level is onside) to that if the ball had gone in (ie. no such thing as level)? Or are they asked to just take a guess, stick up their flag or not at random? Either way is unsatisfactory.

[martin_p]

Fine by me. I don't agree with the official line that getting the decision right to the millimetre is all that matters, and entertainment value of the game is irrelevant.

It's a question of what degree of accuracy is deemed to be necessary. An Olympic games race could be deemed a dead heat for Olympic purposes but the VAR officials would say he isn't level for football purposes, and they will hold up the game for several minutes to prove it. Why? What good does it do? How is the game of football improved?

I think your Olympic analogy is a poor one as they’ve been using technology to separating athletes by thousandths of a second for decades, races that look like dead heats to the naked eye.

I’d happily abandon VAR but that seems unlikely to happen. So given VAR exists you have to go with accuracy. Any interpretation you introduce will leave VAR open to more ‘that wouldn’t have been offside for United’ type comments you get with other subjective decisions.

[Rileybobs]

Which leads another question. Clearly if the ball had gone out for a corner and Denmark had scored from the corner, then it would have been a definite error by the linesman. He would have made a mistake that lead indirectly to a goal.

So what is the advice to linesmen when they are asked to make a decision that is clearly impossible? No human on earth could definitively say that was offside. Are linesmen advised that when the ball doesn't go into the net, they should judge offside under a different law (ie. level is onside) to that if the ball had gone in (ie. no such thing as level)? Or are they asked to just take a guess, stick up their flag or not at random? Either way is unsatisfactory.

Agreed. I’d bin VAR.

[martin_p]

Which leads another question. Clearly if the ball had gone out for a corner and Denmark had scored from the corner, then it would have been a definite error by the linesman. He would have made a mistake that lead indirectly to a goal.

So what is the advice to linesmen when they are asked to make a decision that is clearly impossible? No human on earth could definitively say that was offside. Are linesmen advised that when the ball doesn't go into the net, they should judge offside under a different law (ie. level is onside) to that if the ball had gone in (ie. no such thing as level)? Or are they asked to just take a guess, stick up their flag or not at random? Either way is unsatisfactory.

The linesman makes a decision of what he’s seen whether it goes for a corner or in the net. The powers that be have deemed that those decisions only need checking if a goal is scored and I think we can all agree we don’t want VAR checking every offside as games wouldn’t finish until midnight!

[dsr]

I think your Olympic analogy is a poor one as they’ve been using technology to separating athletes by thousandths of a second for decades, races that look like dead heats to the naked eye.

I’d happily abandon VAR but that seems unlikely to happen. So given VAR exists you have to go with accuracy. Any interpretation you introduce will leave VAR open to more ‘that wouldn’t have been offside for United’ type comments you get with other subjective decisions.

The point of the Olympics is that if two athletes cross the line breast to breast, then it's a dead heat. They don't look further to see whose toes or head or that-part-of-the-arm-that-isn't-handball crossed first.

Besides, the VAR people don't see the fatuousness of using technology of 1/26th of a second to make a decision that needs thousandths of a second. But that's a different matter - that's not a matter of principle, just a matter of using technology that can't do the job while pretending it can.

[Goalposts]

Well done. So rewind back, god knows how long, to when I asked you exactly what you thought the officials got wrong so that I can happily change my mind, because I seek the truth. This has been such a weird exchange because you’re accusing me of being entrenched in my views but not telling me why they’re wrong.

Well its bedtime for me so last post on this matter.

Basically you are agreed with the decisions in this match on all matters as previously sated. I:e hand ball and offside
Your. Argument to the technical matter of that rules is that an offside is offfside, a hand in a slightly elevated position is handball. A decision not made in the heat of the game over writes a refs on field analysis resulting in a multiple angled slowed down var decision and that the ref made a ‘ CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR’. If you believe that the ref made a clear and obvious wrong decision your argument stacks up as does mine as to points 1-2-3 and that actually its people like you and your opinions and defence of the arguments hat you have supported that are ruining the game.

[Rileybobs]

Well its bedtime for me so last post on this matter.

Basically you are agreed with the decisions in this match on all matters as previously sated. I:e hand ball and offside
Your. Argument to the technical matter of that rules is that an offside is offfside, a hand in a slightly elevated position is handball. A decision not made in the heat of the game over writes a refs on field analysis resulting in a multiple angled slowed down var decision and that the ref made a ‘ CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR’. If you believe that the ref made a clear and obvious wrong decision your argument stacks up as does mine as to points 1-2-3 and that actually its people like you and your opinions and defence of the arguments hat you have supported that are ruining the game.

No, I’ll make it simple for you. I believe the match officials interpreted and applied the laws of the game correctly.

[Goalposts]

No, I’ll make it simple for you. I believe the match officials interpreted and applied the laws of the game correctly.
[/quote


The argument is a bit akin to the old what is the law and what is right . The balance is always tricky between the two…. In football though if we cant acknowledge what is right “ which in my opinion you have done in advocating abolishing var . What is the point. Your defence of the rules in terms of supporting the var decisions and saying we should abolish var shows your inability to balance the two . And if you support the interpretation of the rules as laid out as the law is correct regardless of it quite clearly being an ass. Demonstrates your inability to equate right and wrong.. i sense in your last statements you are saying that you are technically right but morally wrong

[Rileybobs]

Again no, just that I think the officials made the right decisions regardless of whether I agree with the laws of the game.

[willsclarets]

The interpretation of the law means the referee would be able to defend a decision to either give or decline the penalty. There were enough mitigating factors not to give it. Its safe to say you're not wrong Riley saying the officiating for those incidents were correct. But it's not binary, it's subjective. And taking into consideration common sense ie the defender is very close, clearly makes no attempt to move his hand toward the ball and is in a natural position to try and block with his legs. For me they shouldn't give it, and their interpretation could've been easily defended.

But I couldn't say it was awful officiating in those instances. I will say aside from that 2 minutes I thought the ref was poor. Far too many soft free kicks given for Germany.