90' + 12' - A big happening. FRA ostensibly score the tying goal. But after the referee signals for full-time, a VAR check and OFR disallows the goal for offside. Griezmann's position is clear, but the ball is first headed by a TUN defender. Is it a save? Deflection? Referee said at least one of those two!
Someone better able to explain that goal reversal? Tunisian guy heads it, Griezmann kicks it, why doesn't it count?
Even with the new interpretation, there is no way you can penalize Griezman there. It's irrelevant in terms of result, but I can't imagine that's the right call.
OH! No. I understand what's happened now. They're asking the referee to determine deliberate play or not. And, he was jumping, lack of ability to control. Good call.
We see the R come to the monitor for all subjective OS decisions. This is subjective (as was the "line of sight interference" VAR review). They just don't come over when it is about OSP or whether a ball was touched, as those are objective.
The new interpretation on deliberate vs deflection make this one a fairly easy call. Nice job by VAR and R to get that one right.
Correct decision under the new interpretations of "deliberately plays the ball," and whether that resets offside under Law 11....but I don't like the instruction/interpretation for that very reason. I want the France goal to be a good goal.
(1) Great effort trying to reach a ball (2) in the air with (3) low likelihood of good control shouldn’t penalize defenders, that’s the new rule/reasoning.
I see what it is now that I'm actually really looking at this thing. However, the other possibility was that he was looking for a pushing foul, but it's clear that he gave him offside as he indicated IFK.
I thought Conger was very good overall. He doesn’t have the political shine of other refs but the crew did really well today. AR1 great call to disallow 1st Tunisia goal….crew did really well including the last moments.
But you have to penalize him. It got headed, but just barely. By a defender that is under pressure and physically being touched by an opponent to make it even more difficult. That a classic example for the new interpretation.
7. Good patience, control over the match, and accurate decisions. Good job on reading the VAR at the end, even if it was moot by that point.
Even knowing about the recent clarifications on deliberate play, I'm conflicted because it seems to me he could have arrived under the ball earlier. If he arrives just-in-time at maximum effort and can only manage a streched touch, it's clear. But if you check-up or address the ball at half-speed because you think you have the trajectory figured out but then make up for a miscalculation with that stretched touch.... Edit: Good thing it's all academic at this point, anyway.
Isn't it hard to believe that this would have been a goal only 6 months ago? It's ridiculous it took so long to change. BTW, the announcers (JP Dellamera) did a better job of explaining what VAR was looking at better than Machnik or Clattenburg ever could.
https://www.theifab.com/documents/?documentType=all&language=en&years=2022 Review circular 26. It's recent and covers this exact play. Prior to this circular this would be considered a deliberate play by the defender and therefore a goal. It is now the opposite. I'm honestly surprised they didn't get this correct on the field. Offside position was easy for the AR as he was like 3 yards off. The AR also had a clear view of the defender and Conger did as well especially with his height. If I'm in the center with comms I expect my AR to be saying help help, telling me I need to make a deliberate or deflection decision. I'd then quickly say deflection deflection and expect to see my ARs flag come up. The ball quickly ends up in the net so you're not in a hurry at that point either. Just talk it out.
It didn't help the case for deliberate that an attacker was bumping / pressuring him the whole time he was jumping to play it which only decreases his ability to control the ball.
Griezman was standing there not doing anything. The ball wasn't even intended for him. It was intended for his teammate who was challenging for the ball. If Griezman is the only one there and the defender is trying to prevent the ball from going to Griezman then yes it's offside, but there is another onside French attacker challenging for that ball. I don't see how this is offside even with the new interpretation. So an attacker, who is clearly offside, who lets the ball run through to a teammate who is onside (and that offside attacker is not involved play (i.e. puts his hands up)) is now gonna be penalized for offside? If the Griezman goal is offside, then we are not too far off from disallowing Van Nistelrooy's goal in 2004 (at that time it was hugely controversial to allow the goal). I know they are not that close of plays, but it's not too far off. You're penalizing a player for just being in an offside position. If the result actually mattered, I think we would have had a huge controversy.
That's a good point, and only wish it had been part of the official considerations. That would make this situation more clear under the guidelines.
You’re penalizing a player for touching the ball that was last played by his teammate. It doesn’t matter who it’s intended for or what they meant to do or anything else. The circular could not be more clear in this case. We do not consider that to be a deliberate play. It isn’t any different of that got took a 100 mph shot off a defender face and it bounced to someone.