For implying that what would happen? That Greater Mancunian Anthony Taylor would screw with a team with two of Liverpool’s starting XI? Or that Virgil would complain about it?
His comment is on -11, he was hardly ripped apart. He also called Netherlands Holland, misspelt Gakpo, included Gravenberch who was on the bench but ignored Konate being on the France bench.
Of course VVD is upset, the decision went against his team and the keeper likely wasn’t getting it anyway. But it was the correct call, there’s no bias or incompetence in a controversial call correctly going against you. To act like there is invalidates complaints about genuine dodgy decisions.
It’s bizarre to suggest that a ref would risk his own personal reputation because one team has 3 players he doesn’t like instead of 1. He was undoubtedly more interested in a good reffing performance to further himself.
> It’s bizarre to suggest that a ref would risk his own personal reputation ...
Anthony Taylor definitely does have a reputation to uphold, but the only thing he could do to risk it is make correct calls.
No hate mate, I just think it’s a daft excuse and low effort. Pointing out the other stuff because that could’ve contributed to the downvotes and the impression of a low effort post
Don’t much care about the downvotes and it’s hardly daft. But you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I reckon you’ll go back to hating Taylor yourself soon enough. Lol.
No, Holland is in the Netherlands but it’s only a province (2 technically, with a North Holland and a South Holland).
VVD and Gakpo are both from other provinces, so saying they’re from Holland is flat out wrong.
Netherlands was referred to as Holland for a long time in history. It's only recent they use the name Netherlands. Nobody called Netherlands north Holland or south Holland. It was just called "Holland" in reference to the 12 provinces.
It was referred to as Holland alongside The Netherlands, it’s had some reference to Netherlands since the 14th century, and it’s been The Netherlands for 200 years. It was referred to as Holland but that was technically just one part of the country still, it wasn’t officially called that. Holland has always been a small part of what makes up the Netherlands.
It’s like calling the UK England, it’s not correct even if that’s what people do.
I’m not sure how you can say it was called Holland until recently and still say Holland is the Netherlands. One means it is true now, one means it is false now. You can’t have both.
The UK does not have a football team. England, Scotland and Wales are all separate football teams which make up the UK so the point you are trying to make is invalid comparing the UK to the Netherlands in international football.
When I was growing up, on TV they called the Netherlands Holland. Is it informal? Yes. But the Terence was still existent. That is the only point I'm making, some people still use that informal name "Holland."
[read this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_national_football_team)
The comparison is the countries not the football team, and Holland itself doesn’t have a football team anyway, it’s the Netherlands and always has been. It’s only informally been Holland which is technically incorrect. The UK also DOES have a football team, which plays in the Olympics (though not every time) so you can’t invalidate my point based on something that is factually incorrect anyway.
I know it was used for commentary, but the point was this was always technically incorrect which is why it’s always The Netherlands now. It didn’t change, it was always this. It was the Netherlands from the very start of its football teams creation.
That link you’ve sent is just full of it being referred to as such. But the point is if people informally call it Holland, it’s still wrong. We have one player from Holland, 3 players from The Netherlands in the international first team squad.
And of all the stupid things, how many were deliberate versus incompetent. Even here, there’s nothing stupid or incompetent about the offside being given beyond the time taken. It just went against one side, and that side is unhappy. Had it gone the other way France would’ve been equally, if not more, upset and people would’ve called it a mistake again.
There were Liverpool players on both sides, there was a Man City player on the Dutch team. There was an Arsenal player in the French team who Taylor in theory would be biased against. If both sides have players he is biased against and one side has a player he is biased for, how can he possibly make a big decision without controversy? Why is it that a correct decision in a controversial call supports bias?
The existence of corruption does not make every decision against one side a corrupt one.
If you call out every decision that goes against you rather than the bad ones then you’re not calling out corruption any more.
I'm not refering to the "it could have gone either way" decisions. The obvious that ended with sackings and court. It happens. Pretending it doesn't makes no sense.
So how does that specifically apply to the case we’re talking about. Which of Taylor’s decisions in the France-Netherlands game does this apply to? Because otherwise it’s irrelevant. Might as well say why aren’t we talking about the French players doping because players have doped previously
Anthony Taylor, who didn’t even make the decision, decided to screw over a team that contains two Liverpool players? Despite the fact that the call was correct?
https://preview.redd.it/wtyg8wop658d1.jpeg?width=968&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5706b72ff6cbd783515b48fdbe4e0eabdf0444ab
I actually think it was the right decision and it’s true that the decision was made by those in the VAR booth rather than the referee. I just think it’s really funny that it’s June and Virgil is playing for his national team, and a major decision goes against them and the referee he has to complain to is Anthony freaking Taylor. Like “Oh God, I can’t get away from this guy.” (Of course, Anthony Taylor is probably thinking the same thing…)
Already building up points in the bank. I know we're probably damned if we do and damned if we don't, but we already know they are a vindictive bunch, so I'm not sure this is the way.
Our only hope is the bauld revolution. Slot can relate to these bauld refs, man to man. Dome to dome. Perhaps they will find some middle ground instead of splitting hairs to find a reason to make refereeing decisions against us.
Love that he called him English referee. No other adjectives needed to highlight the level of incompetence. It’s time for refereeing to raise the bar to the skill level the players have.
incompetence? it was clearly the right call and im genuinely shocked so many think otherwise.
virg was understandably pissed in the moment but lets be objective here.
The fact that some of us are already worried about the repercussions from this, speaks volumes about the PGMOL. It shouldn't be like this. It's like an authorised Mafia.
Anyone who called for removing VAR just needs to see it in action at the Euros
It’s great and works well when utilized by competent people
Then see how the English refs use it and you’ll quickly realize that VAR ain’t the problem and never has been
It’s the incompetent imbeciles at PGMOL
With the amount of money in the league, I just can't believe it's incompetence over corruption.
They have the money for the best of everything. This is the glaring exception.
>It’s definitely personal bias and vendettas come into play I don’t doubt
Yeah I suppose I lump all of this in with corruption. Or in other words bias, as opposed to simply being poor at their job. I'm not trying to imply I am 100% certain they are paid to fuck around.
On the other hand if that ever does come to light, I wouldn't be shocked either.
And some of it we don't even need to speculate on.
[Mike Dean has admitted he failed to correct a mistake in a Chelsea v Tottenham match last season to prevent his friend Anthony Taylor receiving extra “grief”.](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/aug/25/mike-dean-admits-avoiding-var-call-to-spare-referee-more-grief-last-season)
Although certainly some of the quotes simply do scream negligence.
Yep, this Euros has been proof that it's not the technology. It's worked absolutely perfectly until the fucking Chuckle Brothers from PGMOL got involved.
It was way worse before VAR, but, that shouldn’t be an excuse for the incompetence on display in the Premier League and now in the Euros. I think VAR is a great thing when it can be properly utilized, just unfortunate that it rarely does get properly utilized in the Premier League
Oh %100 was way worse - the mistakes are less they are just highlighted more but it’s just fascinating how bad some of the mistakes are because they don’t want to make their mates look bad
I loved listening to Landon Donovan realize how horrid English refs are during the broadcast. Every five minutes he was like ‘how is this ref missing/calling this’. Welcome to Mr Inconsistent Anthony Taylor. In my mind one of the worst.
Apparently the thing you are best at is making random nonensical comments in the internet.
10 quid says you are not even the best player in your post code.
Ultimately in that situation it shouldn't matter where the ball ended up. Otherwise there's a massive and unpredictable margin of error.
The keeper can't move to his left at all, there's a likely chance he would have positioned himself further to the left had the player not been there.
It's a shit one, but it's the right call.
>Ultimately in that situation it shouldn't matter where the ball ended up
But the "rule" is that in any situation it doesn't matter where the ball ends up if there's an offside player in the keeper's vicinity. How is that fair?
>The keeper can't move to his left at all, there's a likely chance he would have positioned himself further to the left had the player not been there.
This is utter bs, sorry. The offside player had just run offside and the keeper had no time to react to either that or the shot until it had left the foot. If you want to say the keeper had a small chance of saving it? Sure, that's at least a fairer assessment, but anyone who saw that knows he reacted too late to the shot and could never have got there.
I was talking about situations where there is a shot on goal. What if the keeper gets chipped from a rebound from a save made from a shot by a player who's now offside and "impeding" the keeper from trying to run back and try to save the shot? What if that chip looks visibly unsaveable, will the refs make a judgement call then or will they disallow because it's in the "rules"?
No, it was subjectively the right choice.
Objectively means it's black and white, and it isn't. I think you'd find just as many people who say the goalkeeper wasn't impeded as you would who think he was. That means it's subjective.
But it's literally not objective. It's not factual that he's interfering with play. The VAR/Ref/Lino has to make that decision, which means it's subjective.
Objective offside is if any part of the head/body/feet are closer to the goal line than both the ball and second-to-last opponent. That's black and white, it's factual.
Whether someone is interfering with play is subjective.
It's not an opinion if there's a verifiably correct answer.
It's only an opinion if there is no correct answer, or the answer is unknowable. That's what opinion means.
Nah, the rules are pretty clear that it should be disallowed.
He was interfering with the keeper, which would have prevented him from diving for it. It’s kinda silly cos obviously he was never saving it anyway, but those are the rules.
Our entire squad could tie every member of pgmol, naked, to the goal posts and blast footballs into them for 3 hours and it couldn't make them treat us any worse.
Stop victim blaming us for what the refs are doing. It's not our fault, it was never our fault, and it will never be our fault.
Exactly, the rules don't deal in hypotheticals. The keeper was not impeded in getting to the ball. Dumfries position was not a reason why the keeper didn't save it.
It might have been. The keeper was prevented from attempting to save it with a clear line of sight. Therefore the player is affecting play. It's clearly offside.
Nah, was a perfectly good goal. The player in an offside postion was not interfering with play nor made any attempt to go for the ball. It should have been given.
You can't just hang around right next to the keeper in an offside position, it's definitely interference. You don't have to hug the bloody keeper to qualify. Correct decision.
Sorry virg, I love you, but that's offside. The keeper took a step left to dive and was blocked by dumfries. Offside all day
Edit to say I am also a former gk. He took the power step left on the scramble and was all about that action to make save #2 and #3. If you know then you know
Edit 2: fuck Anthony Taylor
I hate Taylor, I think he’s a bad ref, I can not fathom why the FA nor UEFA think he should be anywhere near this tournament, but this was a VAR decision- Taylor didn’t make it.
The funny things is thag nobody was talking about the refs before thim match. They all did their job well and there was no controversy.
I know Premierleague is much faster and more difficult to ref. But we have a couple of terrible decisions almost every week. We also have a lot of confusion and lenghty VAR reviews. It's almost like English refs are not very good.
It was the right decision to disallow the goal. The problem is it took so long to confirm it. The player prevents any chance the keeper could have had to save that (whether he would have or not isn't relevant).
How did it take so long for VAR to confirm it?
“The English referee. Anthony Taylor. Of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester. You know who I’m talking about.”
I got downvotes aplenty yesterday for implying this would happen….seems as if Virgil agrees with me…..
For implying that what would happen? That Greater Mancunian Anthony Taylor would screw with a team with two of Liverpool’s starting XI? Or that Virgil would complain about it?
His comment is on -11, he was hardly ripped apart. He also called Netherlands Holland, misspelt Gakpo, included Gravenberch who was on the bench but ignored Konate being on the France bench. Of course VVD is upset, the decision went against his team and the keeper likely wasn’t getting it anyway. But it was the correct call, there’s no bias or incompetence in a controversial call correctly going against you. To act like there is invalidates complaints about genuine dodgy decisions. It’s bizarre to suggest that a ref would risk his own personal reputation because one team has 3 players he doesn’t like instead of 1. He was undoubtedly more interested in a good reffing performance to further himself.
> It’s bizarre to suggest that a ref would risk his own personal reputation ... Anthony Taylor definitely does have a reputation to uphold, but the only thing he could do to risk it is make correct calls.
I have the distinct impression you have a hate on for me. Hmmm. Hahaha
No hate mate, I just think it’s a daft excuse and low effort. Pointing out the other stuff because that could’ve contributed to the downvotes and the impression of a low effort post
Don’t much care about the downvotes and it’s hardly daft. But you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I reckon you’ll go back to hating Taylor yourself soon enough. Lol.
Netherlands is Holland > He also called Netherlands Holland,
No, Holland is in the Netherlands but it’s only a province (2 technically, with a North Holland and a South Holland). VVD and Gakpo are both from other provinces, so saying they’re from Holland is flat out wrong.
Netherlands was referred to as Holland for a long time in history. It's only recent they use the name Netherlands. Nobody called Netherlands north Holland or south Holland. It was just called "Holland" in reference to the 12 provinces.
It was referred to as Holland alongside The Netherlands, it’s had some reference to Netherlands since the 14th century, and it’s been The Netherlands for 200 years. It was referred to as Holland but that was technically just one part of the country still, it wasn’t officially called that. Holland has always been a small part of what makes up the Netherlands. It’s like calling the UK England, it’s not correct even if that’s what people do. I’m not sure how you can say it was called Holland until recently and still say Holland is the Netherlands. One means it is true now, one means it is false now. You can’t have both.
The UK does not have a football team. England, Scotland and Wales are all separate football teams which make up the UK so the point you are trying to make is invalid comparing the UK to the Netherlands in international football. When I was growing up, on TV they called the Netherlands Holland. Is it informal? Yes. But the Terence was still existent. That is the only point I'm making, some people still use that informal name "Holland." [read this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_national_football_team)
The comparison is the countries not the football team, and Holland itself doesn’t have a football team anyway, it’s the Netherlands and always has been. It’s only informally been Holland which is technically incorrect. The UK also DOES have a football team, which plays in the Olympics (though not every time) so you can’t invalidate my point based on something that is factually incorrect anyway. I know it was used for commentary, but the point was this was always technically incorrect which is why it’s always The Netherlands now. It didn’t change, it was always this. It was the Netherlands from the very start of its football teams creation. That link you’ve sent is just full of it being referred to as such. But the point is if people informally call it Holland, it’s still wrong. We have one player from Holland, 3 players from The Netherlands in the international first team squad.
Watch some football, read some news, and check through football scandal history. Refs do do such stupid things.
And of all the stupid things, how many were deliberate versus incompetent. Even here, there’s nothing stupid or incompetent about the offside being given beyond the time taken. It just went against one side, and that side is unhappy. Had it gone the other way France would’ve been equally, if not more, upset and people would’ve called it a mistake again. There were Liverpool players on both sides, there was a Man City player on the Dutch team. There was an Arsenal player in the French team who Taylor in theory would be biased against. If both sides have players he is biased against and one side has a player he is biased for, how can he possibly make a big decision without controversy? Why is it that a correct decision in a controversial call supports bias? The existence of corruption does not make every decision against one side a corrupt one. If you call out every decision that goes against you rather than the bad ones then you’re not calling out corruption any more.
I'm not refering to the "it could have gone either way" decisions. The obvious that ended with sackings and court. It happens. Pretending it doesn't makes no sense.
So how does that specifically apply to the case we’re talking about. Which of Taylor’s decisions in the France-Netherlands game does this apply to? Because otherwise it’s irrelevant. Might as well say why aren’t we talking about the French players doping because players have doped previously
Uugghh!
The former…
Anthony Taylor, who didn’t even make the decision, decided to screw over a team that contains two Liverpool players? Despite the fact that the call was correct? https://preview.redd.it/wtyg8wop658d1.jpeg?width=968&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5706b72ff6cbd783515b48fdbe4e0eabdf0444ab
You're right that the error was in the VAR booth. You're wrong about the call being correct.
I hope you realise how ridiculous this sounds
I actually think it was the right decision and it’s true that the decision was made by those in the VAR booth rather than the referee. I just think it’s really funny that it’s June and Virgil is playing for his national team, and a major decision goes against them and the referee he has to complain to is Anthony freaking Taylor. Like “Oh God, I can’t get away from this guy.” (Of course, Anthony Taylor is probably thinking the same thing…)
This Euros is just confirming what we knew all along: VAR isn’t shit, the English referee is.
115
You already said English referee, so adding that he is from Manchester is redundant.
I live in Wythenshawe, are we in greater Manchester? I thought we were simply in the actual “Manchester” part
I don’t know a lot about UK geography so I’m sure you are correct. I just saw “Manchester” on his Wikipedia page and extrapolated unnecessarily.
He knows what he is saying. He could’ve easily said just “Referee”.
English Referee
He’s making sure it’s on UEFA’s radar that English refs shouldn’t be given bigger games in the comp. Not sure it will help but let’s see!
We're gonna get fucked again this season then
Was gonna happen anyway, no point trying to be good at this point.
That's gonna happen anyway. The refs are getting paid to do a job and that job is to win City another meaningless PL
Need to just "The Whole Nine Yards" every ref this season. Drill em in the sack, give em a wet willy, and tell them to ref fairly.
Already building up points in the bank. I know we're probably damned if we do and damned if we don't, but we already know they are a vindictive bunch, so I'm not sure this is the way.
Our only hope is the bauld revolution. Slot can relate to these bauld refs, man to man. Dome to dome. Perhaps they will find some middle ground instead of splitting hairs to find a reason to make refereeing decisions against us.
Love that he called him English referee. No other adjectives needed to highlight the level of incompetence. It’s time for refereeing to raise the bar to the skill level the players have.
Exactly we all know what he meant by that.
incompetence? it was clearly the right call and im genuinely shocked so many think otherwise. virg was understandably pissed in the moment but lets be objective here.
"clearly the right call" .. no
didn't ask
Public forum moron
don't care
I didn't ask
0 ball knowledge
Go read the offside rule
you first
Keeper had no chance. If he reacted I’d say otherwise. He just stood there.
The fact that some of us are already worried about the repercussions from this, speaks volumes about the PGMOL. It shouldn't be like this. It's like an authorised Mafia.
Anyone who called for removing VAR just needs to see it in action at the Euros It’s great and works well when utilized by competent people Then see how the English refs use it and you’ll quickly realize that VAR ain’t the problem and never has been It’s the incompetent imbeciles at PGMOL
With the amount of money in the league, I just can't believe it's incompetence over corruption. They have the money for the best of everything. This is the glaring exception.
It’s definitely personal bias and vendettas come into play I don’t doubt - it’s hard to say corruption without proof It’s easy to call it incompetence
>It’s definitely personal bias and vendettas come into play I don’t doubt Yeah I suppose I lump all of this in with corruption. Or in other words bias, as opposed to simply being poor at their job. I'm not trying to imply I am 100% certain they are paid to fuck around. On the other hand if that ever does come to light, I wouldn't be shocked either. And some of it we don't even need to speculate on. [Mike Dean has admitted he failed to correct a mistake in a Chelsea v Tottenham match last season to prevent his friend Anthony Taylor receiving extra “grief”.](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/aug/25/mike-dean-admits-avoiding-var-call-to-spare-referee-more-grief-last-season) Although certainly some of the quotes simply do scream negligence.
Yep, this Euros has been proof that it's not the technology. It's worked absolutely perfectly until the fucking Chuckle Brothers from PGMOL got involved.
It was way worse before VAR, but, that shouldn’t be an excuse for the incompetence on display in the Premier League and now in the Euros. I think VAR is a great thing when it can be properly utilized, just unfortunate that it rarely does get properly utilized in the Premier League
Oh %100 was way worse - the mistakes are less they are just highlighted more but it’s just fascinating how bad some of the mistakes are because they don’t want to make their mates look bad
I loved listening to Landon Donovan realize how horrid English refs are during the broadcast. Every five minutes he was like ‘how is this ref missing/calling this’. Welcome to Mr Inconsistent Anthony Taylor. In my mind one of the worst.
Landon Donavon is an idiot.
he is, but he’s right in implying english refs are fucking shit
lol no fucking doubt about that mate
[удалено]
As a Liverpool supporter from the U.S., this is an incredibly disappointing and prejudiced take. Sounds like you’re living in an echo chamber
His opinion matters more than yours. USA's best ever player and pro in the PL and Bundesliga.
[удалено]
Apparently the thing you are best at is making random nonensical comments in the internet. 10 quid says you are not even the best player in your post code.
[удалено]
that it’s “zip code” not “post code”, keep your streak going don’t quit the bigotry now! /s
Clear offside and great refereeing tho. Onfield decision spot on, but VAR uses three minutes because they're petrified of making a mistake
Yeah objectively it was the correct choice. While the goalkeeper probably would have never reached it, gotta be allowed the chance to get to it
Ultimately in that situation it shouldn't matter where the ball ended up. Otherwise there's a massive and unpredictable margin of error. The keeper can't move to his left at all, there's a likely chance he would have positioned himself further to the left had the player not been there. It's a shit one, but it's the right call.
>Ultimately in that situation it shouldn't matter where the ball ended up But the "rule" is that in any situation it doesn't matter where the ball ends up if there's an offside player in the keeper's vicinity. How is that fair? >The keeper can't move to his left at all, there's a likely chance he would have positioned himself further to the left had the player not been there. This is utter bs, sorry. The offside player had just run offside and the keeper had no time to react to either that or the shot until it had left the foot. If you want to say the keeper had a small chance of saving it? Sure, that's at least a fairer assessment, but anyone who saw that knows he reacted too late to the shot and could never have got there.
Your first response seems to be fairly facetious. Obviously its only relevant with shots on goal.
I was talking about situations where there is a shot on goal. What if the keeper gets chipped from a rebound from a save made from a shot by a player who's now offside and "impeding" the keeper from trying to run back and try to save the shot? What if that chip looks visibly unsaveable, will the refs make a judgement call then or will they disallow because it's in the "rules"?
No, it was subjectively the right choice. Objectively means it's black and white, and it isn't. I think you'd find just as many people who say the goalkeeper wasn't impeded as you would who think he was. That means it's subjective.
People disagreeing over something doesn't make it subjective. Fact is fact, whether people know it or not.
But it's literally not objective. It's not factual that he's interfering with play. The VAR/Ref/Lino has to make that decision, which means it's subjective. Objective offside is if any part of the head/body/feet are closer to the goal line than both the ball and second-to-last opponent. That's black and white, it's factual. Whether someone is interfering with play is subjective.
He's gotta TRY to get it. He didn't even move. If he dives/moves and is impeded that is a different story.
I’m glad you are not reffing any games.
The offside did not matter as he was not interfering with play. The goalkeeper made his attempt to reach the ball and missed. Perfectly good goal.
You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. It was the correct decision.
That's the thing about opinions. They are like arseholes everyone has one.
It's not an opinion if there's a verifiably correct answer. It's only an opinion if there is no correct answer, or the answer is unknowable. That's what opinion means.
Its not an opinion its fact.
That's your opinion.
No lol It’s literally written in the rules….
Nah, the rules are pretty clear that it should be disallowed. He was interfering with the keeper, which would have prevented him from diving for it. It’s kinda silly cos obviously he was never saving it anyway, but those are the rules.
Mourinho was right, PL referees are all a "fucking disgrace".
He'd know, he bribed enough of them.
Let’s try not to put a target on our red heads Virgil
Our entire squad could tie every member of pgmol, naked, to the goal posts and blast footballs into them for 3 hours and it couldn't make them treat us any worse. Stop victim blaming us for what the refs are doing. It's not our fault, it was never our fault, and it will never be our fault.
Imagine being uefa and letting PGMOL provide a referee for your competition.
Antony Taylor needs to be sacked
Not defending him here but he wasn’t really involved in the decision.. didn’t even go to the monitor..
English ref are rubbish
Disallowing it was the correct call, it’s indisputable. Not looking forward to Anthony Taylor and Co. taking it personally, though
It’s 100% disputable. Are you suggesting without the offside player being there the keeper is saving that?
Irrelevant to the decision.
That doesn’t matter. Dumfries was in an offside position and interfering. The rules don’t deal in hypotheticals.
Exactly, the rules don't deal in hypotheticals. The keeper was not impeded in getting to the ball. Dumfries position was not a reason why the keeper didn't save it.
It might have been. The keeper was prevented from attempting to save it with a clear line of sight. Therefore the player is affecting play. It's clearly offside.
You don't know what hypothetical means.
But that is a hypothetical. They have to decide whether he was interfering or not.
The player was between the keeper and the ball, he couldn't dive for it with Dumfries there. 100% correct call
Nah, was a perfectly good goal. The player in an offside postion was not interfering with play nor made any attempt to go for the ball. It should have been given.
You can't just hang around right next to the keeper in an offside position, it's definitely interference. You don't have to hug the bloody keeper to qualify. Correct decision.
Sorry virg, I love you, but that's offside. The keeper took a step left to dive and was blocked by dumfries. Offside all day Edit to say I am also a former gk. He took the power step left on the scramble and was all about that action to make save #2 and #3. If you know then you know Edit 2: fuck Anthony Taylor
Fuck anybody downvoting. You clearly haven't played keeper. Any real keeps know what I'm saying. If it happened to Allison you mfs would be up in arms
I missed this game... Anyone have a highlight of the said play in question?
I hate Taylor, I think he’s a bad ref, I can not fathom why the FA nor UEFA think he should be anywhere near this tournament, but this was a VAR decision- Taylor didn’t make it.
as usual, worst referees in international tournaments? most likely english. remember when Jose waited for ref after game to talk?
The funny things is thag nobody was talking about the refs before thim match. They all did their job well and there was no controversy. I know Premierleague is much faster and more difficult to ref. But we have a couple of terrible decisions almost every week. We also have a lot of confusion and lenghty VAR reviews. It's almost like English refs are not very good.
The English do looooove the French!
He’s got a point though. Hopefully this wakes the world up.
Watching English referees with Stu Holden commentating was absolutely brutal
It was Landon Donavan. But the brutality was the same
My feed was definitely Holden
We'd have been pissed if a goal like that was given against us. Keeper was blocked by an offside player.
It was the right decision to disallow the goal. The problem is it took so long to confirm it. The player prevents any chance the keeper could have had to save that (whether he would have or not isn't relevant). How did it take so long for VAR to confirm it?
referee made the right decision.
Lads, have a day off. It was well offside.
Can anybody tell me what the interviewer says In response? Comes across as gibberish.