We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.
We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.
We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.
We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.
We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.
We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.
We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.
We’re analysing each VAR choice made all through all 51 video games at Euro 2024. On Friday, Netherlands thought that they had scored in opposition to France just for the purpose to be disallowed for offside. What occurred?
After every recreation, we check out the main incidents to look at and clarify the method when it comes to VAR protocol and the legal guidelines of the sport.
Doable purpose: Dumfries given offside on Simons purpose
What occurred: Xavi Simons scored what he thought was the opening purpose for Netherlands within the 69th minute. Nonetheless, whereas the gamers had been celebrating referee Anthony Taylor was discussing the purpose together with his assistant, and it was disallowed for offside.
VAR choice: No purpose.
VAR assessment: This all comes right down to the nuances of the offside regulation and when a participant in an offside place is interfering with an opponent.
Simons struck a first-time shot which arrowed into the underside right-hand nook of the purpose. All good to this point.
Nonetheless, Denzel Dumfries was stood in an offside place between goalkeeper Mike Maignan and the trail of the ball.
Would Maignan have saved the shot? That is not a consideration for the officers; there is no choice a few keeper’s capacity. What the officers should ask themselves is whether or not Dumfries had an influence on Maignan, and if that affected his choice to not make a dive to aim the save. Would the keeper have needed to dive by means of the Dutch participant to get to the ball? It is no doubt a good evaluation contemplating Dumfries’ place.
It was fairly a straightforward name to rule out the purpose. So the really controversial half is why it took the VAR, Stuart Attwell, and his assistants from Germany and Switzerland so lengthy to assist the on-field choice: 2 minutes and 47 seconds after Taylor blew his whistle for the offside. It’s the longest VAR assessment of the match. It ought to have been a fast examine and full — which might have made it clearer the on-field name was certainly appropriate.
If it hadn’t been given by Taylor and his assistant, then a prolonged VAR examine was much more comprehensible and the purpose could have stood, because the interference is a subjective name.
It should be remembered the referee will solely be despatched to the monitor to change his choice, not simply to verify it.
Whereas the Dutch would possibly really feel aggrieved, they benefited in barely extra controversial circumstances on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Within the group stage fixture, Ecuador thought that they had equalised on the stroke of half-time by means of Pervis Estupiñán, however the purpose was dominated out on the sphere for offside in opposition to Jackson Porozo. He additionally stood near the goalkeeper in between him and the trail of the ball — but Andries Noppert had already dived in the wrong way. On-field choice, supported by the VAR.
Passive offside choices, when the offending participant does not contact or try to play the ball, are at all times essentially the most controversial. However what’s controversial and what the regulation intends do not marry up.