Koeman accuses VAR of 'breaking football' after Dutch loss

[Sid Bishop]

This penalty decision helped England to win last nights the match but I thought it was very harsh on the Dutch.

Netherlands boss Ronald Koeman criticised the use of video assistant referees (VAR) for "breaking football" after England were awarded a contentious penalty in Wednesday's tense Euro 2024 semi-final.
The Dutch had taken an early lead through Xavi Simons' powerful strike but Gareth Southgate's side were handed a lifeline when Harry Kane was caught on the follow-through by Denzel Dumfries after the England captain had already shot over the bar.
No penalty was given originally but referee Felix Zwayer then pointed to the spot after he was advised to go to the monitor by VAR.
Kane levelled with the spot-kick and substitute Ollie Watkins struck a 90th-minute winner to send England to Sunday's final, where they will play Spain.
"In my opinion it should not have been a penalty," said Koeman.
"He kicked the ball and the boots touched. I think that we cannot play properly and this is due to VAR. It really breaks football."
Former England defender and ITV pundit Gary Neville felt the Netherlands had every right to feel aggrieved.
"As a defender, I think it's an absolutely disgraceful decision," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... ngd96570zo

[Max B Gold]

This game will forever be remembered as the Disgraceful Penalty - VAR fiasco.

[Story of O]

This game will forever be remembered as the Disgraceful Penalty - VAR fiasco.

Win some, lose some. Were you just as indignant about the “hand of God” goal?

[Max B Gold]

This game will forever be remembered as the Disgraceful Penalty - VAR fiasco.

Win some, lose some. Were you just as indignant about the “hand of God” goal?

Can't remember but the second goal in that game was even better.

[BiggsyMalone]

He’s not wrong. The ref expert ITV had said it wasn’t and quoted the rule. Madness.

[Dunners]

Studs up, high challenge. Could easily have injured Kane's foot. It was a foul.

[Sid Bishop]

He’s not wrong. The ref expert ITV had said it wasn’t and quoted the rule. Madness.

Indeed it was a strange decision but the ''ref expert'' has given her opinions before about controversial VAR decisions and the panel of ex pros have very much disagreed with what she has ruled, its all about different interpretations of the rules which even referees themselves vary in their opinions. Put it like this, that decision would only be made in a game which had the use of VAR and even then many times a penalty would not have been given.

[Story of O]

I did not think it was a penalty either, but that’s football. I seem to recall the Dutch getting a dodgy decision against us in a World Cup qualifier many years ago

[BiggsyMalone]

He’s not wrong. The ref expert ITV had said it wasn’t and quoted the rule. Madness.

Indeed it was a strange decision but the ''ref expert'' has given her opinions before about controversial VAR decisions and the panel of ex pros have very much disagreed with what she has ruled, its all about different interpretations of the rules which even referees themselves vary in their opinions. Put it like this, that decision would only be made in a game which had the use of VAR and even then many times a penalty would not have been given.

A panel of ex-pros are going by their interpretation, that means nothing when you put it against the rule.

[Proposition Joe]

The last replay they showed made it look much more like a foul, would have been handy if they'd shown it earlier. Can see why it was given.

Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.

[Proposition Joe]

Or even if it had been the other way round - Dumfries gets there first and half clears before Kane catches him on the foot, we score from a rebound or second phase, it's always getting disallowed.

[Sid Bishop]

He’s not wrong. The ref expert ITV had said it wasn’t and quoted the rule. Madness.

Indeed it was a strange decision but the ''ref expert'' has given her opinions before about controversial VAR decisions and the panel of ex pros have very much disagreed with what she has ruled, its all about different interpretations of the rules which even referees themselves vary in their opinions. Put it like this, that decision would only be made in a game which had the use of VAR and even then many times a penalty would not have been given.

A panel of ex-pros are going by their interpretation, that means nothing when you put it against the rule.

These guys have the experience of playing many games at the highest level and experienced the rule interpretations given by some of the best referees in the world. As shown last night, different referees interpret the rules differently.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Its a foul and was given. That Unkel in the studio is useless, but not as much as Lee Dixon.

[Max B Gold]

He’s not wrong. The ref expert ITV had said it wasn’t and quoted the rule. Madness.

Indeed it was a strange decision but the ''ref expert'' has given her opinions before about controversial VAR decisions and the panel of ex pros have very much disagreed with what she has ruled, its all about different interpretations of the rules which even referees themselves vary in their opinions. Put it like this, that decision would only be made in a game which had the use of VAR and even then many times a penalty would not have been given.

A panel of ex-pros are going by their interpretation, that means nothing when you put it against the rule.

It's actually worse than that. It's their interpretation of what they think the laws of the game are. Most of them don't know the Laws of the Game.

[Max B Gold]

The last replay they showed made it look much more like a foul, would have been handy if they'd shown it earlier. Can see why it was given.

Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.

Not enough of a foul for a penalty and the ref played on. No obvious error.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

also, we didnt 1-0 with a pen. we were the better team and scored another goal.

[RedDwarf 1881]

Who cares. If the situation had been in reverse do you honestly think the Dutch would care , not a chance.

[Hoover Attack]

The last replay they showed made it look much more like a foul, would have been handy if they'd shown it earlier. Can see why it was given.

Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.

Not enough of a foul for a penalty and the ref played on. No obvious error.

How much foul does it need to be for a penalty?

[Sid Bishop]

The last replay they showed made it look much more like a foul, would have been handy if they'd shown it earlier. Can see why it was given.

Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.

Not enough of a foul for a penalty and the ref played on. No obvious error.

Perhaps in the future in high level football games, these VAR decisions in the penalty area will be taken out of human hands and instead be judged by some type of Artificial Intelligence computer systems !

[LittleMate]

If that would have been against us then we'd be fuming for days, weeks, months and possibly years. The only justification I can come up with is that he's trying to block the shot with the sole of his boot. If he'd made contact with the ball then what was he trying to achieve? It more probably than not adds up to a penalty and would be an automatic free kick in any other part of the pitch - but I totally get the Dutch's frustration.

[EliotNes]

Also, as others have pointed out, anywhere else on the pitch and that's a foul all day long.

This

[Chief crazy horse]

This game will forever be remembered as the Disgraceful Penalty - VAR fiasco.

Yes, but what a nice convenient diversion for you from England reaching the Euros final, eh Maxy!

[Sid Bishop]

If that would have been against us then we'd be fuming for days, weeks, months and possibly years. The only justification I can come up with is that he's trying to block the shot with the sole of his boot. If he'd made contact with the ball then what was he trying to achieve? It more probably than not adds up to a penalty and would be an automatic free kick in any other part of the pitch - but I totally get the Dutch's frustration.

Getting harder and harder nowadays to be a football defender, especially when you are defending in your own penalty box !
When in your own penalty box, play with your arms firmly tucked behind your back and do not attempt to make any sort of tackle either !

[Max B Gold]

This game will forever be remembered as the Disgraceful Penalty - VAR fiasco.

Yes, but what a nice convenient diversion for you from England reaching the Euros final, eh Maxy!

Oh! Did I forget to say congrats to England for reaching the final. Soz.

I hope someone's checked the betting patterns for the award of an England oenalty especially since the ref has a history of being susceptible to financial persuasion.

[BiggsyMalone]

Indeed it was a strange decision but the ''ref expert'' has given her opinions before about controversial VAR decisions and the panel of ex pros have very much disagreed with what she has ruled, its all about different interpretations of the rules which even referees themselves vary in their opinions. Put it like this, that decision would only be made in a game which had the use of VAR and even then many times a penalty would not have been given.

A panel of ex-pros are going by their interpretation, that means nothing when you put it against the rule.

These guys have the experience of playing many games at the highest level and experienced the rule interpretations given by some of the best referees in the world. As shown last night, different referees interpret the rules differently.

The rule is the rule. It can’t be interpreted differently.