Why does no one ever talk about this moment?

[atypical_boro]

So there's the infamous Hand of God. Lots of us, it not all, now know about Glenn Hoddle being savagely assaulted seconds before the second goal, meaning the 'best goal of all-time' should never have been scored and England should have had a free kick in the middle of the park.

Gazza's big toe not being quite big enough in extra-time of the 1996 semi against Germany, as well as Darren Anderton hitting the post.

Pretty sure there were 2 x Sol Campbell efforts ruled out in 1998 and 2004 that arguably could have both stood, and seen England progress.

Of course, there's Lampard's 2010 'equaliser' which would have levelled things at 2-2 with England in the ascendency.

But what about this one, that is never ever mentioned anywhere? England scored a perfectly good goal against West Germany in the 112th minute of the 1990 semi-final, not long after Waddle had hit the post. People talk about Waddle hitting the post all the time, but never about this 'goal'. We was robbed!

But isn't it funny how some things become 'infamous'/heart-breaking and some things are just confined to the dustbin of history without a second glance.

✂️ VAR?

60 seconds · Clipped by Jonny · Original video "West Germany 1-1 England (4-3 PSO) | Extended Highlights | 1990 FIFA World Cup" by FIFA

youtube.com

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

Apart from watching that match when I was 7, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that header. That’s quite mad. And that tackle from Brehme on Gazza, Jesus wept. That’s a red card without a second’s thought now.

But that header, it’s amazing how everyone just gets back on with the game. Nowadays you’d have everyone surrounding the referee and the commentators going wild with TV producers playing replays on a loop.

 

[MickaelDebevePhenomenal]

Its discussed at length on the QKWHS podcast, The offside rule at the time was different apparently (I was only 7 so have no recollection of this personally) and it was widely accepted to be offside

 

[atypical_boro]

Its discussed at length on the QKWHS podcast, The offside rule at the time was different apparently (I was only 7 so have no recollection of this personally) and it was widely accepted to be offside

I do remember it being discussed on QKWHS, but it was in the early days of the series (I think?) so at least 5 years ago, and I didn't actually remember them saying it was widely accepted as offside.

I am same age as Viv so can't really remember if that should have stood or not by the 1990 laws of the game. Any of the older guard care to give an opinion?

The only bit of him that could be deemed offside is surely his finger tips? Were they ever included as being 'offside'?

 

[B_G]

There was no such thing as interfering with play. If anyone was in an offside position then it was offside.
England player closest to the near side looks slightly off doesn't he?

 

[Frankie Lee]

There was no such thing as interfering with play. If anyone was in an offside position then it was offside.
England player closest to the near side looks slightly off doesn't he?

It looked on to me still.

 

[B_G]

Camera not dead in line so impossible to say with certainty but probably is very slightly in front. Referee perfectly positioned and has a better view than the camera in fairness.

 

[atypical_boro]

View attachment 68939

Camera not dead in line so impossible to say with certainty but probably is very slightly in front. Referee perfectly positioned and has a better view than the camera in fairness.

His arm might be but look at the Geman's boot?

But anyway, I didn't know there was no such thing as 'not interfering with play'. There is a famous Clough quote about it that I assumed came from the 80s.

I think the player in question is Gazza isn't it? Not that long after his yeller card.

 

[MickaelDebevePhenomenal]

I do remember it being discussed on QKWHS, but it was in the early days of the series (I think?) so at least 5 years ago, and I didn't actually remember them saying it was widely accepted as offside.

I am same age as Viv so can't really remember if that should have stood or not by the 1990 laws of the game. Any of the older guard care to give an opinion?

The only bit of Platt that could be deemed offside is surely his finger tips? Were they ever included as being 'offside'?

level was classed as off until the rule changed in 1990

 

[wilkos_perm]

So there's the infamous Hand of God. Lots of us, it not all, now know about Glenn Hoddle being savagely assaulted seconds before the second goal, meaning the 'best goal of all-time' should never have been scored and England should have had a free kick in the middle of the park.

Gazza's big toe not being quite big enough in extra-time of the 1996 semi against Germany, as well as Darren Anderton hitting the post.

Pretty sure there were 2 x Sol Campbell efforts ruled out in 1998 and 2004 that arguably could have both stood, and seen England progress.

Of course, there's Lampard's 2010 'equaliser' which would have levelled things at 2-2 with England in the ascendency.

But what about this one, that is never ever mentioned anywhere? England scored a perfectly good goal against West Germany in the 112th minute of the 1990 semi-final, not long after Waddle had hit the post. People talk about Waddle hitting the post all the time, but never about this 'goal'. We was robbed!

But isn't it funny how some things become 'infamous'/heart-breaking and some things are just confined to the dustbin of history without a second glance.

✂️ VAR?

60 seconds · Clipped by Jonny · Original video "West Germany 1-1 England (4-3 PSO) | Extended Highlights | 1990 FIFA World Cup" by FIFA

youtube.com

yeah it never gets a mention, but i remember it well, i was outraged by it at 10 year old. For me that is far too tight to call.
Very few people seem to remember the Anderton one. He didn't do a lot wrong, the cut back fell just behind behind him. Golden goal too.

 

[B_G]

But anyway, I didn't know there was no such thing as 'not interfering with play'. There is a famous Clough quote about it that I assumed came from the 80s.

Quick google on this says there was always an element of "interfering with play" within the law since 1903. However what constitutes as interfering with play has changed a lot, this would have been classed as interfering with play at this time.

In 1990 you were interfering with play if seeking to gain an advantage, So any player in a position who is deemed to be trying to receive the ball was offside.

This changed again in 1995 where you had to actually gain the advantage before it was deemed to be interfering with play.

In 2005 it changed again where the player had to be active. By either touching the ball or in a position to physically impact the defending team.

 

[B_G]

level was classed as off until the rule changed in 1990

The rule change came in for Italia 1990 so in this match level should have been onside. I've just read that.

 

[Rofesleg]

View attachment 68939

Camera not dead in line so impossible to say with certainty but probably is very slightly in front. Referee perfectly positioned and has a better view than the camera in fairness.

But he isn't dead in line with the players either, so will see it from an angle.
And from there I doubt he can see the moment the ball is being played.
Definitely a bad call.

 

[atypical_boro]

But he isn't dead in line with the players either, so will see it from an angle.
And from there I doubt he can see the moment the ball is being played.
Definitely a bad call.

The whistle went immediately so I guess that's why Platt didn't question it, as he wouldn't have had a better view himself, but as Viv says I still reckon that would have been replayed a hundred times on the coverage (even pre-VAR).

 

[B_G]

They don't have all the camera angles and technology to analyse it like they do now. Their defender and referee look very confident of the offside. Referee will have heard when the ball was kicked. As soon as he kicked it, he blew. Defender will have positioned himself just far enough back to get the decision. Used to see a lot of that offside trap defending in those days

 

[Borobuddah]

“If he’s not interfering with play , what’s he doing on the pitch?”
Mr B Clough

 

[wilkos_perm]

“If he’s not interfering with play , what’s he doing on the pitch?”
Mr B Clough

It's a nice quote, but it's still a rubbish sentiment with regard to applying offside decisions

 

[Canyoudigit]

The Germans rifle is clearly playing him onside

 

[Liamo]

There was no such thing as interfering with play. If anyone was in an offside position then it was offside.

That's untrue. There has never, ever been a time when the laws said it was an offence simply to be in an offside position.

Even in the very first Laws of Association Football in 1863 a player in an offside position was only to be penalized if he were to:

touch the ball himself [or] in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so

B_G: In 1990 you were interfering with play if seeking to gain an advantage

Also not quite right. Interfering with play and seeking to gain an advantage were two separate and distinct clauses of the law in 1990. See below:

However it is the case that interfering with play and seeking to gain an advantage were both fairly liberally interpreted in the early 90’s, and the wording about being involved in active play didn't come in until 1995, along with the changing of the phrase "seeking to gain an advantage" to "gaining an advantage."

 

[equaliser]

That was the tournament that kicked off widespread interest in football again, really. In the 80s, after Hillsborough & Heysel, liking football almost came to seem as a guilty secret; it had a terrible image. But Gazza's tears, Nessun Dorma, that was the summer it bounced back in the popular consciousness. Two years' later, the Premiership arrived; the rest is history.

I always felt though that Germany were the best team at that time, just a little bit better than England. We were a bit spawny even getting to the semis: Belgium & Cameroon could both be considered unlucky, and it's worth remembering we didn't even qualify for the next world cup. The Argentina loss in 98 hurt more. By then we had Scholes, Beckham, Shearer; we looked built to go a long way, but Argentina were canny. Even then, in hindsight, France, with Zidane & Henry coming through, would probably have beaten us. We arguably had no one of their calibre.