[Football] Match Thread : England Women vs USA Womens World Cup Semifinal

[Steve in Japan]

Probably because the VAR crew are not going to tell the ref to come to the screen and check, if they haven't seen something that they are pretty sure is a penalty. If they see nothing, they won't call the ref over. So, the percentage of penalties given after the ref has been told to come to the screen is always going to be very high.

By "very high", do you mean 100%? Because that's what happens.

If you are using VAR, offside is binary. We might hate it's application but it is either offside or not.

Penalties can be very obvious, and they can be very subjective. The opinion of the video ref is not worth more than the ref, once the ref has seen a replay. And yet in practise the video team decide.

 

[Bodian]

Yep, I’m one of them. Mainly down to my young kids watching and enjoying it without any preconceptions. Will I be purchasing a BHAW ST for £20? Nope. I enjoyed it but I have no passion for it.

That's fair comment.

For many viewers, the WWC was something of an interesting novelty, like Netball in the Commonwealth Games, Curling / Women's Skeleton in the Winter Olympics.

Or tennis at Wimbledon for 2 weeks a year.

Those interested in sport will often watch it as there's been some home success in recent years to cheer on. And we're all patriotic to some degree.

But as soon as it’s all over, that’s pretty much it done in the minds of the viewers.

Were it not, the attendances of domestic women's football matches on a weekly basis would be very different to what they currently are.

At least with GB Women qualifying for the Tokyo Olympics based on England's success, there won't be too long to wait for another shot at glory.

The likes of Scotland's Erin Cuthbert and Jess Fishlock from Wales are likely to be in contention for that too.

So as far as the chance of success goes, the future's bright...but probably not Millie Bright.

Yes - this is it isn't it. It's a bit like going to watch your local non-league team. Quite fun, and enjoyable - and some good games. But you don't buy into it with the passion of watching the Albion. But presumably this will come with time as some of us get more involved, or some youngsters grow up with dual passions, or only a passion for the womens' game?

 

[ozzygull]

If I lived in Brighton I would definitely get a BHAW season ticket. The closest women’s team to me is Reading and I could not stomach supporting Brighton men and Reading women that would mess with my head. However I have registered for tickets for the Women’s Euros 2021 and the Amex is a venue.

 

[Gwylan]

The only other team sport for women, I may be corrected, is netball and field hockey

England are currently the world champions at cricket and we were runners-up in the rugby world cup. Our women are rather good at team sports

 

[Bodian]

By "very high", do you mean 100%? Because that's what happens.

If you are using VAR, offside is binary. We might hate it's application but it is either offside or not.

Penalties can be very obvious, and they can be very subjective. The opinion of the video ref is not worth more than the ref, once the ref has seen a replay. And yet in practise the video team decide.

Well - I haven't done a statistical analysis! (although the video ref said Kirby should have had a penalty against Cameroon, which the real ref overruled). I agree, the opinion of the video ref isn't worth more than the real ref - but the real ref won't have seen all the camera angles, and the video ref has. So, if the video ref thinks the real ref should have a look, it's probably because they themselves think it's a penalty. And once the real ref sees what the video ref has seen, then there's a good chance they will give a penalty.

 

[Steve in Japan]

England v Cameroon was an unmitigated disaster, towards the end the ref was ignoring VAR recommendations that would have led to a walk-off and match abandonned. Hopefully not representative of normal games!

 

[symyjym]

England are currently the world champions at cricket and we were runners-up in the rugby world cup. Our women are rather good at team sports

Thanks, yes, I knew I would be corrected. I didn't know our ladies were cricket world champions and I have never paid attention women's rugby. I should take more notice.

 

[Easy 10]

Right.

Personally, I'm getting heartily sick of VAR calls THIS marginal being called for offside (and not just because its gone against us). You could make a case that the ball had already travelled perhaps a foot at the moment this frame was taken - wind it back that half a second, and White would've been those couple of inches further back to be declared definitely "on". But no, its been decided the benefit of any doubt can NEVER be allowed to go to the attacker. This needs to change, because its far so far from "clear and obvious" as to be a joke. Look at the forward foot of the last defender and White. Both on the line.

IMO, when its this tight then you need to be clearly BEYOND the last defender to be called offside. Not part of your knee, not your toe - CLEARLY BEYOND, because only then are you gaining a CLEAR advantage. Surely the offside law is supposed to cut out goalhanging, or seeking an advantage by having a proper head start on a defender when the ball is played. NOT these bloody pube-width calls which is chalking off good goals left right and centre. The mens team got humped against Holland in the Nations League semi as well with a similarly shit-arsed decision like this.

We're losing goals from games, and replacing them with INSANE penalties for inadvertent handballs when the ball has been smashed from 2 yards away and clipped an elbow.

I'm seriously disliking VAR less and less. Its ruining games as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Right.

Personally, I'm getting heartily sick of VAR calls THIS marginal being called for offside (and not just because its gone against us). You could make a case that the ball had already travelled perhaps a foot at the moment this frame was taken - wind it back that half a second, and White would've been those couple of inches further back to be declared definitely "on". But no, its been decided the benefit of any doubt can NEVER be allowed to go to the attacker. This needs to change, because its far so far from "clear and obvious" as to be a joke. Look at the forward foot of the last defender and White. Both on the line.

IMO, when its this tight then you need to be clearly BEYOND the last defender to be called offside. Not part of your knee, not your toe - CLEARLY BEYOND, because only then are you gaining a CLEAR advantage. Surely the offside law is supposed to cut out goalhanging, or seeking an advantage by having a proper head start on a defender when the ball is played. NOT these bloody pube-width calls which is chalking off good goals left right and centre. The mens team got humped against Holland in the Nations League semi as well with a similarly shit-arsed decision like this.

We're losing goals from games, and replacing them with INSANE penalties for inadvertent handballs when the ball has been smashed from 2 yards away and clipped an elbow.

I'm seriously disliking VAR less and less. Its ruining games as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah this for me.
If you are getting an advantage by playing in front of the defence then it's offside. if your practically level but moving forward at pace, then advantage to the attacking team.

 

[Sheebo]

Right.

Personally, I'm getting heartily sick of VAR calls THIS marginal being called for offside (and not just because its gone against us). You could make a case that the ball had already travelled perhaps a foot at the moment this frame was taken - wind it back that half a second, and White would've been those couple of inches further back to be declared definitely "on". But no, its been decided the benefit of any doubt can NEVER be allowed to go to the attacker. This needs to change, because its far so far from "clear and obvious" as to be a joke. Look at the forward foot of the last defender and White. Both on the line.

IMO, when its this tight then you need to be clearly BEYOND the last defender to be called offside. Not part of your knee, not your toe - CLEARLY BEYOND, because only then are you gaining a CLEAR advantage. Surely the offside law is supposed to cut out goalhanging, or seeking an advantage by having a proper head start on a defender when the ball is played. NOT these bloody pube-width calls which is chalking off good goals left right and centre. The mens team got humped against Holland in the Nations League semi as well with a similarly shit-arsed decision like this.

We're losing goals from games, and replacing them with INSANE penalties for inadvertent handballs when the ball has been smashed from 2 yards away and clipped an elbow.

I'm seriously disliking VAR less and less. Its ruining games as far as I'm concerned.

For starters, as I thought at the time, that red line is surely wrong? Unless she has size 19 feet - look closely. It’s not meant to be her arm is it as it has to be a part of you you can score with - it has that changed? It would still JUST be off given their feet but it would be even closer than what they’ve drawn up there... in fact, even her arm / hand doesn’t look up with the red line. I’m also assuming the lines are dead straight (technology).

 

[Easy 10]

Yeah this for me.
If you are getting an advantage by playing in front of the defence then it's offside. if your practically level but moving forward at pace, then advantage to the attacking team.

I think someone on the thread earlier nailed it. If we're going to INSIST on going down this "forensics" route with VAR offside calls, then reverse it. If any part of your body is still ONSIDE when the ball is played, then you are deemed onside. That fits in far better with the spirit of what the offside law is supposed to be for.

FFS, the game is supposed to be about scoring goals. Can't we just get back to that, instead of constantly ruling them out with shitty bloody calls like this ?

 

[Easy 10]

For starters, as I thought at the time, that red line is surely wrong? Unless she has size 19 feet - look closely. It’s not meant to be her arm is it as it has to be a part of you you can score with - it has that changed? It would still JUST be off given their feet but it would be even closer than what they’ve drawn up there... in fact, even her arm / hand doesn’t look up with the red line. I’m also assuming the lines are dead straight (technology).

Yup, I'm not even sure what that red line is supposed to be showing, because no part of Whites body is in line with it.

If we're going down to this ridiculous level of millimetres, then White's left foot, and the defenders right, is ON that blue line. And thats before you even factor in whether that frame depicts the INSTANT the ball was played, which I'm also not convinced of.

But with VAR offsides, it seems if in doubt, chalk it off.

 

[Wilko]

Right.

Personally, I'm getting heartily sick of VAR calls THIS marginal being called for offside (and not just because its gone against us). You could make a case that the ball had already travelled perhaps a foot at the moment this frame was taken - wind it back that half a second, and White would've been those couple of inches further back to be declared definitely "on". But no, its been decided the benefit of any doubt can NEVER be allowed to go to the attacker. This needs to change, because its far so far from "clear and obvious" as to be a joke. Look at the forward foot of the last defender and White. Both on the line.

IMO, when its this tight then you need to be clearly BEYOND the last defender to be called offside. Not part of your knee, not your toe - CLEARLY BEYOND, because only then are you gaining a CLEAR advantage. Surely the offside law is supposed to cut out goalhanging, or seeking an advantage by having a proper head start on a defender when the ball is played. NOT these bloody pube-width calls which is chalking off good goals left right and centre. The mens team got humped against Holland in the Nations League semi as well with a similarly shit-arsed decision like this.

We're losing goals from games, and replacing them with INSANE penalties for inadvertent handballs when the ball has been smashed from 2 yards away and clipped an elbow.

I'm seriously disliking VAR less and less. Its ruining games as far as I'm concerned.

Yep, surely we all want to see MORE goals whereas VAR keeps taking them away. Make the rule that the player has to be a fully in front of the other player to be off side, not a toe or a nipple or a strand of hair. Ridiculous.

 

[BensGrandad]

. At the time I said to my wife that goal wont stand it will go to VAR as she is probably just offside how fine the margin is may be open to debate. I was more annoyed with the poor penalty and the fact that they didnt use VAR to highlight how the keeper moved forward long before the kick was taken. If you are going to use VAR to award a penalty then use it for all aspects of the kick is my view. I was surprised that Lucy Bronze didnt step up to blast it away.

 

[mikeyjh]

For starters, as I thought at the time, that red line is surely wrong? Unless she has size 19 feet - look closely. It’s not meant to be her arm is it as it has to be a part of you you can score with - it has that changed? It would still JUST be off given their feet but it would be even closer than what they’ve drawn up there... in fact, even her arm / hand doesn’t look up with the red line. I’m also assuming the lines are dead straight (technology).

There has to be questions about the tech as well, how accurate is the perpendicular to the pitch, how is that line defined against the attacker/defender. There WILL be a margin of error here that absolutely calls in to doubt the decision. The big thing for me is 'when the ball is played' - I can't believe it is possible to nail this down to a micro second, it would be incredibly difficult to do so with any great degree of accuracy. Let's say, conservatively, that the 'playing the ball' timing is accurate to within 1/10th of a second. At top speed Usain Bolt runs, 12.5m in a second, so 1.25 in 1/10th of a second. Again conservatively, we'll say that a football runs at 1/2 that speed so they will achieve 62.5cm in that some time. Add to that a defender running the other way....

Anyway, the calcs may be debatable but offside, for sure, is not binary or absolute.

 

[pastafarian]

Yep, surely we all want to see MORE goals whereas VAR keeps taking them away. Make the rule that the player has to be a fully in front of the other player to be off side, not a toe or a nipple or a strand of hair. Ridiculous.

In fairness though, if there was a var ruling against exceptionally large nipples in a ladies match i would want to see that replay multiple times just to make sure beyond reasonable doubt

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

There has to be questions about the tech as well, how accurate is the perpendicular to the pitch, how is that line defined against the attacker/defender. There WILL be a margin of error here that absolutely calls in to doubt the decision. The big thing for me is 'when the ball is played' - I can't believe it is possible to nail this down to a micro second, it would be incredibly difficult to do so with any great degree of accuracy. Let's say, conservatively, that the 'playing the ball' timing is accurate to within 1/10th of a second. At top speed Usain Bolt runs, 12.5m in a second, so 1.25 in 1/10th of a second. Again conservatively, we'll say that a football runs at 1/2 that speed so they will achieve 62.5cm in that some time. Add to that a defender running the other way....

Anyway, the calcs may be debatable but offside, for sure, is not binary or absolute.

Yeah, there is no attempt to introduce an 'umpires call' margin of error.

On the other hand I know that if we were the defending team and that goal wasn't ruled out, I'd be pretty annoyed

 

[maltaseagull]

Yeah that aside I think it was a very watchable game. The standard of the best 8 teams is pretty watchable imo.

Agreed. Some very skilful players and some of the passing in last night's game was superb.

 

[Stat Brother]

Something we can all agree on

[tweet]1146143580286857221[/tweet]



1-0 USA.

 

[brightn'ove]

There has to be questions about the tech as well, how accurate is the perpendicular to the pitch, how is that line defined against the attacker/defender. There WILL be a margin of error here that absolutely calls in to doubt the decision. The big thing for me is 'when the ball is played' - I can't believe it is possible to nail this down to a micro second, it would be incredibly difficult to do so with any great degree of accuracy. Let's say, conservatively, that the 'playing the ball' timing is accurate to within 1/10th of a second. At top speed Usain Bolt runs, 12.5m in a second, so 1.25 in 1/10th of a second. Again conservatively, we'll say that a football runs at 1/2 that speed so they will achieve 62.5cm in that some time. Add to that a defender running the other way....

Anyway, the calcs may be debatable but offside, for sure, is not binary or absolute.

The view we get is not how VAR decides offside, they use Hawkeye technology to place the lines, it is put in line with the farthest forward scoring part of the body. In that screen grab you can see a line drawn down towards the ground from Ellen’s shoulder.

VAR is not getting these calls wrong, the offside rule is just not fit for purpose. I wouldn’t be surprised if as with the handball rule we see a return to a clearer definition of offside (clear daylight or using only the feet as the point to measure from). At the moment VAR is getting it right based on the current rule. The rule needs to change.