Not a penalty.
Not a penalty
Not a penalty.
Penalty
Not a penalty...
...hang on go back one...
...Penalty
Not a penalty
Not a penalty
Not a penalty...
One last time from that very specific angle...
...Penalty.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Match Thread : England Women vs USA Womens World Cup Semifinal
- Thread starter zeetha
- Start date
Not a penalty.
Not a penalty
Not a penalty.
Penalty
Not a penalty...
...hang on go back one...
...Penalty
Not a penalty
Not a penalty
Not a penalty...
One last time from that very specific angle...
...Penalty.
I was very surprised they didn't, and also that the commentary made nothing of it. She absolutely moved early (not that personally I think moving a foot off your line should force a re-take - but it HAS done earlier in the tournament and they have to be consistent in their application of the rules, surely?)
The penalty was a tricky call, I thought.
There was very little intent from the defender, but she is behind the striker and thus is is her responsibility to ensure there is no 'coming together'. Ultimately her knocking White's foot as she shaped to tuck it away, DID result in her being unbalanced and missing the ball. She denied (deliberately or otherwise) a very good goal-scoring opportunity. I had sympathy with the defender, but it IS a penalty.
I'll tell you this too - if you watch her reaction after it is given, the defender is very grateful to accept her YELLOW card.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Because it is shit.
VAR created a shitshow last night
The offside goal wasn't a 'clear and obvious mistake', it was a massively marginal call. It hadn't been given by the lino or ref, so on review (if as applied in cricket where there is some common sense applied) this should have been a 'ref's call' - ie original decision not changed, 'soft signal' being 'goal stands'. Same with the pen - not originally given and evidence was far from conclusive. so no pen.
Amazing that football is managing to completely mess up the introduction of video reffing. Cricket and Rugby have got it pretty much nailed (really like the rugby approach - ref asking 'is there any reason I can't give the try' - apply this to the offside last night for example and the response could have been 'there is a marginal hint of offside, but it's not 100% clear - stick with your original decision'
I wasn't sure the keeper did move off the line for the pen, but v surprised they don't habitually look at it given the likelihood of it happening and the publicity they've put around it. Odd that there were no clear replays from a good angle to show it.
The offside goal wasn't a 'clear and obvious mistake', it was a massively marginal call. It hadn't been given by the lino or ref, so on review (if as applied in cricket where there is some common sense applied) this should have been a 'ref's call' - ie original decision not changed, 'soft signal' being 'goal stands'. Same with the pen - not originally given and evidence was far from conclusive. so no pen.
Amazing that football is managing to completely mess up the introduction of video reffing. Cricket and Rugby have got it pretty much nailed (really like the rugby approach - ref asking 'is there any reason I can't give the try' - apply this to the offside last night for example and the response could have been 'there is a marginal hint of offside, but it's not 100% clear - stick with your original decision'
I wasn't sure the keeper did move off the line for the pen, but v surprised they don't habitually look at it given the likelihood of it happening and the publicity they've put around it. Odd that there were no clear replays from a good angle to show it.
The bit the VAR haters are missing is that it was never a penalty, in real time.
It was never a penalty in all but one of the replays.
But it was a stonewall penalty in one replay, from one specific angle, an angle completely at odds with the ref and lino's positioning.
The image would have come to light and England fans would now be in uproar as it clearly denied us a certain goal!
"If only we had VAR"
As for Pearce:-
"Yes it's a penalty, although England have missed their last two"
Perhaps you should have mentioned that before the 'celebration'.
Agree on the penalty (about it being subjective) but not about the offside - and I think your cricket analogy is wrong. It was a very close call, agreed, but I'd liken it more to an LBW dismissal over-turned because the ball is shown to be JUST missing the stumps. It wouldn't matter how tiny the margin - it is still missing, and the decision changed.
Agreed, so let's do away with frame by frame analysis during and after the game by professionals and armchairists alike, because we can't have one without the other.
Worthing exile
New member
- May 12, 2009
- 1,219
Apologies if mentioned before but why take so long for a decision? There were 5 people in the VAR room. Why don't they decide on a majority vedrict within say 30 seconds?
As mentioned before, was fairly pro-VAR when announced, but completely anti-how it is being implemented, especially when it comes to offsides. Got to go back to the "clear daylight" rule. As it is, someone can be penalised for having a bigger nose or longer feet, that's obviously ridiculous.
This is a very good point, and you make it eloquently. I was happy with VAR at the time because it reolved correctly two very difficult and match-changing decisions. But the errors were signalled as you say by VAR not the on pitch officials. So this effectively means that the VAR team had carte blanche to recall any bit of action for review they saw fit. But....using what criteria?
As you say I thought VAR was only for clear and obvious errors. There were other more obvious errors where bookings should have been made (or not) that were not recalled. So it seems the rule is that VAR can intrude without invitation if the VAR team see a goal that shouldn't stand or a penalty that isn't given. Would that be correct? Som is this the rules, or are they just making it up as they go along? What are the actual rules?
I ask this while still comfortable that the way VAR operated yesterday 'felt OK' to me even though the 'errors' were far from clear and obvious (that said I called our offside goal offside in real time, and the penalty shout really did need a look even if the on pitch officials dismissed it at the time).
Everything is looked at, only when the VAR's aren't happy do they ask the ref to take another look.
None of us fully understand what, how and when the VAR officials do what they do, which is just as much an issue as VAR itself.
All I'm doing is regurgitating Lars Siverson as he patiently tells Max Rushden (the man in the street) why he's completely wrong about every opinion he holds on VAR, in the Football Weekly podcast.
Can look at it either way though - LBW review could be shown to be clearly hitting the stumps but umpire has given it not out. On review, would still be not out, even though the stumps were being hit (by maybe 40% of the diameter of the ball) as it'd be 'umpires call' which is essentially the margin that makes the review system there to cater for 'clear and obvious mistakes'. The offside wasn't a clear and obvious mistake and would have fallen into a 'ref's call'. Football are trying to make everything black and white which simply doesn't work..............
stewart12
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2019
- 1,598
if you're going to take offside decisions down to the smallest fraction then the offside rule needs a serious re-think. At the moment it gives so little advantage to the striker so there's no incentive to take the gamble and play on the shoulder of the defender in case the tip of your nose is offside. What's a striker supposed to do now? Stay a yard onside to be safe thus giving them no advantage over the defender?
White's positioning was almost perfect for the goal but it was struck off because like 1/10th of her body was offside. Ludicrous
maybe go back to the "clear daylight" concept?
White's positioning was almost perfect for the goal but it was struck off because like 1/10th of her body was offside. Ludicrous
maybe go back to the "clear daylight" concept?
Clear daylight. Yes, I like that. This is how goal line technology adjudges a goal; more than half the ball over the line is not a goal, any more than the outline of Glenn Murray's cock past a defender's buttock should not be offside.
As is the way of all human things, once we find we can do something, we start doing it, even if it is absurd. But, a bit of tinkering, as per 'clear daylight' could make a massive difference - no need to chuck the baby VAR out with the bathwater IMV. Weren't people getting done for doing 31 in a 30 mile limit by speed cams when they first came in? Now they use a bit of clear daylight before they flash, innit?
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I like the idea that providing a PART of your body is onside, then you ARE onside, even if your leading leg / shoulder / nose is ahead of the last defender. Thats getting back to the notion of level being onside, without a rogue nipple making you off.
This notion of a fraction of a body part being a fraction ahead of the last defender thus making you offside is for the birds.
Clear daylight. Yes, I like that. This is how goal line technology adjudges a goal; more than half the ball over the line is not a goal, any more than the outline of Glenn Murray's cock past a defender's buttock should not be offside.
As is the way of all human things, once we find we can do something, we start doing it, even if it is absurd. But, a bit of tinkering, as per 'clear daylight' could make a massive difference - no need to chuck the baby VAR out with the bathwater IMV. Weren't people getting done for doing 31 in a 30 mile limit by speed cams when they first came in? Now they use a bit of clear daylight before they flash, innit?
Psssst - It's probably best not to use Murray as an example in 'close call' offside decisions.
Which may well become the case.
Although last night the England players leading foot, knee and shoulder were all offside, any one of which makes her offside, let alone all 3..
I'll hazard a guess had the lino waved her flag you'd be far more accepting of the decision despite 'blimey that was a close call'.
At least this this thread is a good rehearsal for next season's ***Official Match Day Thread*** threads.
Pre-match - lots of comments around selection, tactics, possible outcomes, form etc
Post-match - VAR
RIP football.
Pre-match - lots of comments around selection, tactics, possible outcomes, form etc
Post-match - VAR
RIP football.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
Although cricket didn't nail it initially, I remember seeing Darrell Hare as 3rd umpire (if I remember correctly) in a WI v England test using a protractor and ruler on the screen to try and work out if the ball was hitting the stumps after an lbw appeal!
Last edited: