The French believe that the third goal of Argentina should have been disallowed: reasons for the discussion

Argentina’s third goal in the 2022 Mundial final is controversial in France as L’Équipe insists the bid should have been cancelled.

For the aforementioned Gallic newspaper, Messi’s second goal, already scored in extra time, according to the regulations, should have been disallowed. This is because some of the South American substitutes crossed the touchline, invading the field before the ball hit the French goal. In this sense, the Pole Szymon Marchiniak had to cancel the goal and sign a free kick for the French.

L’Équipe even cites paragraph 9 of Rule 3 of the football laws in support of the argument: “If, after a goal has been scored, the referee realizes, before play has resumed, that a goal has been scored at the moment, this shall disallow the goal. If the additional person is a used player , an unused substitute, a sent-off or a member of the team that scored the goal, the game shall be restarted with an indirect free kick to the place where the extra person was.

Yesterday, Duarte Gomes, a former Portuguese referee, spoke about this: “Annulling a goal because of such a formality would be just a crime,” he wrote.

“When Messi scored the third goal, the Argentine team had at least one other element on the field (a substitute, who was next to the coaching bench). In theory, when there are situations of numerical superiority on the part of the scorer, the letter of the law punishes this team with an indirect free kick that annuls the goal. But this sanction was designed to punish deliberate/strategic presence, not accidental or harmless. elements or to prevent those who are hurt from suffering from this fact. This was not the case and it was clear to everyone. The substitute entered the field instantly out of a desire to celebrate and celebrate the right goal. did not act intentionally, he did not gain an advantage, he did not harm anyone. It was instinct at a time when it was difficult to control, in a game that determined … World Champion! The spirit of the law is not to punish such cases. It is important to understand that the letter of the law I often fall short of what he really wants to assert. This happens in the rules that define the sport and in many others. In this case, to annul a goal because of such a formality would be just a crime. The opposite of what football expects. Law 18 – Common sense. ADVICE. Think of the “inappropriate intrusion” in penalty kicks that happens every game; think small tackles and pushes (by defenders and attackers) in areas that are only penalized if they are obvious and have consequences; think about the place where the throw-ins are taken, which rarely happen where the ball left; think about where “fouls” are marked in midfield, not where they actually happened. There are many examples of “theoretical commitments” that don’t make sense in practice because they don’t relate to the truth of the game” can be read on her Facebook page.