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

[hans kraay fan club]

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..............

Off side though, (within the existing off side laws) IS black and white. Regardless of how tight it is. It isn't about it being 'clear and obvious' that she WAS off side. Once the images have proved that she was (however tight) then it is CLEAR that a mistake has been made.

Back to our LBW dismissal - let's say the batsman got a tiny feather of an inside edge on the ball. That wouldn't be 'clear and obvious' to the umpire in real time, but once proven, it is still CLEARLY an error.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I’ve not seen this answered.

But what happens if someone scores from a corner, do they check it was a corner?

Same with throw ins

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I’ve not seen this answered.

But what happens if someone scores from a corner, do they check it was a corner?

Same with throw ins

No - it is clearly defined that they do not.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Psssst - It's probably best not to use Murray as an example in 'close call' offside decisions.

I couldn't resist. You know what I'm like

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

No - it is clearly defined that they do not.

Thanks

I’m not sure how long that will last with VAR.

 

[dazzer6666]

Off side though, (within the existing off side laws) IS black and white. Regardless of how tight it is. It isn't about it being 'clear and obvious' that she WAS off side. Once the images have proved that she was (however tight) then it is CLEAR that a mistake has been made.

Back to our LBW dismissal - let's say the batsman got a tiny feather of an inside edge on the ball. That wouldn't be 'clear and obvious' to the umpire in real time, but once proven, it is still CLEARLY an error.

On the LBW, agreed - but that doesn't impact the hitting/not hitting the stumps question. Cricket laws are also black and white - if it's hitting the stumps (assuming all other foibles of the LBW law are met) then it's out - but they've recognised there needs to be some margin (however small) and a degree of authority left with the on field ref/umpire. This could easily be applied to football.

 

[goldstone]

This whole tournament has been given way too much coverage by the media. Women's football is a minority sport which is really of interest to a relatively small number of people. Even women friends of mine are getting fed up with the wall to wall coverage. It was the lead item on the ITV Ten o' Clock News last night! Why? There are so many more important things going on in the world. Thank god it's all over. Maybe now women's football can go back to being two lines on page 5 of the sports section, where it belongs.

 

[Simster]

This whole tournament has been given way too much coverage by the media. Women's football is a minority sport which is really of interest to a relatively small number of people. Even women friends of mine are getting fed up with the wall to wall coverage. It was the lead item on the ITV Ten o' Clock News last night! Why? There are so many more important things going on in the world. Thank god it's all over. Maybe now women's football can go back to being two lines on page 5 of the sports section, where it belongs.

I saw you had posted on this and absolutely knew it would a load of intolerant Daily Mail bollocks before I read it.

Why don't you fck off this thread and leave it to us football fans eh? Nob.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Off side though, (within the existing off side laws) IS black and white. Regardless of how tight it is. It isn't about it being 'clear and obvious' that she WAS off side. Once the images have proved that she was (however tight) then it is CLEAR that a mistake has been made.

Back to our LBW dismissal - let's say the batsman got a tiny feather of an inside edge on the ball. That wouldn't be 'clear and obvious' to the umpire in real time, but once proven, it is still CLEARLY an error.

I think the issue here is whether VAR invite themselves into the fray only when the error is clear and obvious, or when they feel like it (for whatever reason).

I have a feeling that perhaps the wording of the rules and rubric surrounding are actually fine (I haven't read the text), and that VAR is fine, and that many of us (including me on occasion) are emoting because of resistance to change, irritation with the apparent slowness of the process, and a notion that stealing the immediacy of old school decisions (even if wrong) somehow diminishes the game.

Perhaps it may be time for some of us to cross the rubicon and start another hobby, just as the old football hoolies had to, when society changed and their bellies got fatter and their hair became thin and grey.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

On the LBW, agreed - but that doesn't impact the hitting/not hitting the stumps question. Cricket laws are also black and white - if it's hitting the stumps (assuming all other foibles of the LBW law are met) then it's out - but they've recognised there needs to be some margin (however small) and a degree of authority left with the on field ref/umpire. This could easily be applied to football.

(Despite the fact I've continued it) I don't think the LBW is a good analogy to use. The main reason for the umpire's call fudge in cricket is surely to allow for any tiny inaccuracy in the ball-tracking technology? There is an enormous difference between technology predicting where a ball 'would' have traveled, and a freeze frame of an actual event, illustrating the simple proven fact of where various objects / people are at a chosen moment in time.

 

[Easy 10]

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'.

If we're going down to pixel-width micro-forensics for offside decisions now, then the offside law definitely needs relaxing in favour of the attacker, ie ANY body part level is deemed onside. This gubbins with half a knee making you offside just isn't in the spirit of the game at all. We're all there to see GOALS ffs, not to see officials pouring over replays for 2-3 minutes to try and decipher whether or not a bootlace has flapped offside or not.

Its bad enough watching this all play out at home when you can watch what they're reviewing. Just imagine when you're slumped there in your seat at the Amex hanging around for them to make their mind up, and knowing you've probably got 7 or 8 minutes injury time to stay back for as well (if anyone actually bothers).

VAR will get a lot right, but in its current guise, it will also fvck a lot of games right up as a spectacle.

 

[goldstone]

I saw you had posted on this and absolutely knew it would a load of intolerant Daily Mail bollocks before I read it.

Why don't you fck off this thread and leave it to us football fans eh? Nob.

It's known as an opinion and everyone's entitled to one. And as far as I know NSC has not yet banned the posting of opinions. If you knew the content of my post before you read it, then why not ignore it if it upsets you so much? And do you really need to swear and call people names? Childish in the extreme.

 

[Stat Brother]

If we're going down to pixel-width micro-forensics for offside decisions now, then the offside law definitely needs relaxing in favour of the attacker, ie ANY body part level is deemed onside. This gubbins with half a knee making you offside just isn't in the spirit of the game at all. We're all there to see GOALS ffs, not to see officials pouring over replays for 2-3 minutes to try and decipher whether or not a bootlace has flapped offside or not.

Its bad enough watching this all play out at home when you can watch what they're reviewing. Just imagine when you're slumped there in your seat at the Amex hanging around for them to make their mind up, and knowing you've probably got 7 or 8 minutes injury time to stay back for as well (if anyone actually bothers).

VAR will get a lot right, but in its current guise, it will also fvck a lot of games right up as a spectacle.

If the lino had flagged offside last night, would you be complaining about that decision today?

 

[dazzer6666]

(Despite the fact I've continued it) I don't think the LBW is a good analogy to use. The main reason for the umpire's call fudge in cricket is surely to allow for any tiny inaccuracy in the ball-tracking technology? There is an enormous difference between technology predicting where a ball 'would' have traveled, and a freeze frame of an actual event, illustrating the simple proven fact of where various objects / people are at a chosen moment in time.

OK, could instead use the umpire reviewing a dodgy catch then, where they give a 'soft signal' that holds unless the video evidence is 100% clear.................

Could probably go on all day with this Bottom line is football needs to rethink how they're using it IMO

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If we're going down to pixel-width micro-forensics for offside decisions now, then the offside law definitely needs relaxing in favour of the attacker, ie ANY body part level is deemed onside. This gubbins with half a knee making you offside just isn't in the spirit of the game at all.

How would that make any difference at all?

You'd still have exactly the same argument - is the attacker COMPLETELY beyond the last defender, or is her heel 3mm still in line? Still comes down to the very same thing.

 

[Simster]

It's known as an opinion and everyone's entitled to one. And as far as I know NSC has not yet banned the posting of opinions. If you knew the content of my post before you read it, then why not ignore it if it upsets you so much? And do you really need to swear and call people names? Childish in the extreme.

Your opinions always amount to intolerant wànk though, don't they? And talking of ignoring, why didn't YOU just ignore the thread rather than posting your usual Daily Mail shit on it?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If we're going down to pixel-width micro-forensics for offside decisions now, then the offside law definitely needs relaxing in favour of the attacker, ie ANY body part level is deemed onside. This gubbins with half a knee making you offside just isn't in the spirit of the game at all. We're all there to see GOALS ffs, not to see officials pouring over replays for 2-3 minutes to try and decipher whether or not a bootlace has flapped offside or not.

Its bad enough watching this all play out at home when you can watch what they're reviewing. Just imagine when you're slumped there in your seat at the Amex hanging around for them to make their mind up, and knowing you've probably got 7 or 8 minutes injury time to stay back for as well (if anyone actually bothers).

VAR will get a lot right, but in its current guise, it will also fvck a lot of games right up as a spectacle.

I can see only flat chested girls playing for England because their boobs may stick out too far.

 

[Easy 10]

If the lino had flagged offside last night, would you be complaining about that decision today?

No. I'd have said it was a really tough call and given her the benefit of the doubt because she'd be watching it once, in realtime.

And despite the freeze-frame, I'm STILL not convinced VAR got it right, because we can't see if that was the precise moment the ball left her foot. Which could and would make a WORLD of difference to the call.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

If we're going down to pixel-width micro-forensics for offside decisions now, then the offside law definitely needs relaxing in favour of the attacker, ie ANY body part level is deemed onside. This gubbins with half a knee making you offside just isn't in the spirit of the game at all. We're all there to see GOALS ffs, not to see officials pouring over replays for 2-3 minutes to try and decipher whether or not a bootlace has flapped offside or not.

Its bad enough watching this all play out at home when you can watch what they're reviewing. Just imagine when you're slumped there in your seat at the Amex hanging around for them to make their mind up, and knowing you've probably got 7 or 8 minutes injury time to stay back for as well (if anyone actually bothers).

VAR will get a lot right, but in its current guise, it will also fvck a lot of games right up as a spectacle.

If VAR can be brought in as a new technology I would make a suggestion to broaden new rules. Not every time the ref blows their whistle BUT, for a VAR whistle, a foul whistle and a substitution, stop the clock and restart on the refs whistle. In fact it isn't even technology, it's common sense, isn't it?

 

[Easy 10]

How would that make any difference at all?

You'd still have exactly the same argument - is the attacker COMPLETELY beyond the last defender, or is her heel 3mm still in line? Still comes down to the very same thing.

No, because if we're down to a call that close, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as its more in line with the spirit of the game and the reason we have the offside law (which is ultimately in place to prevent goalhanging or forwards having a 2 yard head-start on the last defender). You can't persuade me that White had a CLEAR advantage last night over the last defender.

We used to have a 'benefit of the doubt to the attacker' aspect built into the laws. Why not just adhere to that with offside reviews ? It wouldn't even be anything new.