Euro: Group D: Netherlands vs. France

[cgf]

Barcola is on the bench. He'd toast that Dutch D.

Griez on the pitch is like playing with 10 men right now. No pressing, no defensive effort, nothing interesting offensively.

I haven't seen as much of him, so don't have as strong of feelings there though it certainly would've been worth a punt...I just know that Tel or Doue could've given your attacks an unexpected spark that it lacks.

Dembele, Coman and Mbappe should be a great front 3, but there will be games like this where your attacking movements just feel stale without Mbappe doing something amazing.

After two games....

Bad news :
We have zero offensive game. DD's offensive choices are just terrible (Thuram needs to go).
0 goal in 2 games with and without Mbappe.

Good news :
We are extremely solid defensively (though as can be seen, a fluke goal can always happen).
Kante is vintage Kante.
DD always plays very defensive in group stage and feels confident his team will win KO games. So far, so good.

In this game :
+ : Kante, Maignan, Saliba, Tchouameni

- : Thuram, Griezmann, Dembele, Theo

Even the defense left some openings that the dutch just weren't good enough to take advantage of. Unfortunately I expect you to play better & better as the tourney goes on, but that Upa-Kounde side of your defense can be taken advantage of and Theo had a rough time with Frimpong.

 

[cgf]

He’s not inspector gadget

He probably wasn't stopping it either way, but crazy things happen and the keeper didn't have the chance to make a crazy save. So we can't know for certain that he wasn't going to.

I wish that goal had stood, but the call was the right one with the rules as they are and the rules make sense.

 

[Savant]

Was the shot really that far away from where the goalie was? I was half asleep for most of the half so don't really remember.

Maybe I'm used to hockey reviews where players being around where the goalie is is more common and pronounced but to me this was a pretty obvious decision.

inspector gadget might have gotten it

He's not that far from the ball (though I do think he wouldn't reach it). But again, a player standing next to the goalie on the path of the goal is totally hindering the play.


My exact words 10 minutes ago. People paying tons of money for ticket+hotel+travel for that crap? Ouch.

But the Dutch player isn’t trying to hinder him either. It’s a lousy rule

 

[Ceremony]

inspector gadget might have gotten it

You made that joke already.

inspector gadget might have gotten it


But the Dutch player isn’t trying to hinder him either. It’s a lousy rule

You can be offside without trying to gain an advantage by being offside.

 

[Savant]

He probably wasn't stopping it either way, but crazy things happen and the keeper didn't have the chance to make a crazy save. So we can't know for certain that he wasn't going to.

I wish that goal had stood, but the call was the right one with the rules as they are and the rules make sense.

I don’t think this rule makes sense. It’s over officiating

You made that joke already.

I mean I don’t think the majority of keepers have a chance on that. Pickford and his T. rex arms for example aren’t getting near that.

You can be offside without trying to gain an advantage by being offside.

Which is why it’s a bad rule.

 

[Islesfan22]

this game

 

[cgf]

I don’t think this rule makes sense. It’s over officiating


I mean I don’t think the majority of keepers have a chance on that. Pickford and his T. rex arms for example aren’t getting near that.

It comes from the same place as letting teams score goals before having the VAR review them. It's trying to give players the chance to do the incredible...only it's to make the incredible save instead of scoring the incredible goal.

It may be over-officiating, and in this case, it cost us what would've been a fun goal, but I think the spirit is right and it's a logical application of that spirit...even if I wouldn't mind it being changed.

 

[Evilo]

Which is why it’s a bad rule.

So someone fouling without trying to foul is a bad rule too?

 

[Savant]

It comes from the same place as letting teams score goals before having the VAR review them. It's trying to give players the chance to do the incredible...only it's to make the incredible save instead of scoring the incredible goal.

It may be over-officiating, and in this case, it cost us what would've been a fun goal, but I think the spirit is right and it's a logical application of that spirit...even if I wouldn't mind it being changed.

Oh I mean I don’t care who wins the game, I just think it’s a really bad rule. I think you need to reward Simons for putting in a perfect shot, rather than call offsides on the minute chance the goalkeeper gets there: maybe it’s just me. I think you need to give some consideration to the shot placement when looking into that. I also don’t think dumfries was trying to set a pick. It feels like a ref bailout, so to me the goal should stand

So someone fouling without trying to foul is a bad rule too?

This is an extremely broad question. It’s situational

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The rule makes sense. It was correctly applied. I don't even wanna say "bad luck" because it's not luck. Dumfries shouldn't be where he is on that shot.

 

[Savant]

The rule makes sense. It was correctly applied. I don't even wanna say "bad luck" because it's not luck. Dumfries shouldn't be where he is on that shot.

Why shouldn’t Dumfries be there? He’s not there because he is trying to block out Maignan. He is there looking for a rebound. But again, the most important thing is the quality of the Shot. The quality of the shot is what should be taking precedent.

And yeah I understand the argument that Dumfries is in the way; but I just don’t think the keeper is getting there

 

[Ceremony]

Why shouldn’t Dumfries be there? He’s not there because he is trying to block out Maignan. He is there looking for a rebound. But again, the most important thing is the quality of the Shot. The quality of the shot is what should be taking precedent.

And yeah I understand the argument that Dumfries is in the way; but I just don’t think the keeper is getting there

He shouldn't be there because he's offside. If there had been a save and the ball came to him and he scored it wouldn't have counted.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Or if the shot had deflected off him, which he very narrowly avoided, it also would have been offside.

 

[Savant]

He shouldn't be there because he's offside. If there had been a save and the ball came to him and he scored it wouldn't have counted.

but he’s not there trying to block out the keeper

 

[Ceremony]

but he’s not there trying to block out the keeper

But he's offside.

For instance, if that play had been the result of a corner and France had someone on the line defending, the goal would have counted because Dumfries wasn't offside and wasn't doing anything he shouldn't have been.

 

[BB88]

I mean the crew called it offside before it went to VAR

& it took too long to review

That’s my issue

Killed all the momentum the game had

 

[Savant]

But he's offside.

For instance, if that play had been the result of a corner and France had someone on the line defending, the goal would have counted because Dumfries wasn't offside and wasn't doing anything he shouldn't have been.

I understand the rule. I do not like the rule

 

[Albatros]

Agree that this interpretation of the offside rule doesn't make the game better or fairer. It should take out unfair advantage and nothing else.

 

[cgf]

These two teams are having a "mid-off" as kids would say nowadays.

I’m old enough for girls with serious daddy issues to be into me and even I know that’s not what the kids would say…

 

[robertmac43]

Why shouldn’t Dumfries be there? He’s not there because he is trying to block out Maignan. He is there looking for a rebound. But again, the most important thing is the quality of the Shot. The quality of the shot is what should be taking precedent.

And yeah I understand the argument that Dumfries is in the way; but I just don’t think the keeper is getting there

100% agree - the ref should be able to go to the screen there and make the call. I get why the rule exists and there are moments when players truly are in the way of a save. On this occasion the shot was always going in.

 

[cgf]

Why shouldn’t Dumfries be there? He’s not there because he is trying to block out Maignan. He is there looking for a rebound. But again, the most important thing is the quality of the Shot. The quality of the shot is what should be taking precedent.

And yeah I understand the argument that Dumfries is in the way; but I just don’t think the keeper is getting there

Because he would be offsides if there had been a rebound?

 

[Karterthadon]

I’m old enough for girls with serious daddy issues to be into me and even I know that’s not what the kids would say…

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

I hate this place during int tournaments

 

[robertmac43]

I hate this place during int tournaments

It's insane... So much easier here in the dog days of October.

 

[Bondurant]

Dumfries was clearly offside. I thought I understood the offside rule but, alas, I clearly do not.

Am I to understand that being in an offside position is negligible so long as not active in attacking/defending/playing the ball/obstructing keeper?