Women's World Cup 2019
- Thread starter InstaFace
- Start date
Morgan out for precautionary reasons (lloyd in). Looked like a possible slight knee contusion live.
This is one of those where at first glance it should absolutely be taken away, but I don't know how they decide who is involved anymore.
EDIT: They let it stand, but I don't see how you can say Lloyd didn't impact the play even though she didn't touch it. The defender absolutely had to play it the way she did due to Lloyd being there.
EDIT: They let it stand, but I don't see how you can say Lloyd didn't impact the play even though she didn't touch it. The defender absolutely had to play it the way she did due to Lloyd being there.
I think the LOG are pretty clear, right? She had to play the ball, interfere with the play or interfere with an opponent and she did neither.
I have no problem with watching VAR to see what Lloyd did after the ball was played to insure she did not run off a defender, which she didn't, but by the LOG, that's a good goal.
I think it's kind of weird that the defender is better off letting the ball go through in that circumstance, but the rule assumes that the defensive player knows whether or not the player is offside, which of course she doesn't, but that's the LOG.
I have no problem with watching VAR to see what Lloyd did after the ball was played to insure she did not run off a defender, which she didn't, but by the LOG, that's a good goal.
I think it's kind of weird that the defender is better off letting the ball go through in that circumstance, but the rule assumes that the defensive player knows whether or not the player is offside, which of course she doesn't, but that's the LOG.
To sum up, attacker being 2 feet offside is less of a threat to the game than a keeper being 2 inches off the line during a penalty kick.
The law is clear, the interpretation of what constitutes interference with the play isn't, though.
if it's missed by the linesman live it stands, it's not hard. spirit of replay is to get stuff right like a handball in the box.
Just to answer your question--any part of the body that can legally score a goal cannot be beyond that line.
Not an expert on the rules, but skimming... it certainly seems like the offside US attacker's effort to play the ball with her chest (despite not contacting it or the defender) impacted the ability/confidence/decision-making of both the defender that ultimately touched the ball and the other one off the ball. Can't see how the intention of VAR would be to not call my interpretation offside.
Acknowledging others might see it differently (but, I think they're wrong).
Acknowledging others might see it differently (but, I think they're wrong).
The FIFA offside guidance gives the following example as not being in active play:
"An attacker in an offside position runs toward the ball, but does not prevent the opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. [Attacker] is not making any gesture or movement which deceives or distracts player B [or the keeper]."
I think VAR was called for to see whether Lloyd did actually interfere with an opponent's ability to play the ball, but I think the ref got it exactly right after reviewing the play. The defender was obvious not interfered with, because she played the ball and Lloyd did not put her under duress. Lloyd did not act unnaturally or distract the keeper, who got in fine position. Making a defender worried is not active play. I know that reasonable minds can differ, but this is to me easily a good goal.
An acceptable use of VAR, and a good confirmation.
https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf
You should have seen the rules discussion we had when a clearly offside Harry Kane drew a penalty that ended up turning an Arsenal win into a 1-1 draw.
It's getting to the point of the NFL catch rule.
I thought that goal took a deflection and it's now an OG. Seems a bit much as it probably would've gone on frame.
Actually, that last replay makes it look like it might have gone across the face of the goal without the deflection.
That looked like a cross that was deflected to me. I don't think it was on goal if it was not deflected.
They must have a better angle? Usually if it's so hard to tell don't they give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player?
I guess the inconsistency to me is they wait longer and let it go more on passes right in front of the goal, but if someone hits a long ball to an offside attacker, they blow the whistle as soon as the attacker takes a step towards the ball. Probably just to save time, but still...
I have no doubt they called it correctly given the current interpretation of the rule, but like the Kane penalty against Arsenal when he was clearly offside, it just seems wrong, doesn't it? If a ball is clearly passed to a player in an offside position, the defense has to react to it (play to the whistle!), so it feels like it should be blown dead at that moment.
Yeah, the idea that sometimes the rules incorporate the idea that a player is in active play if an advantage is gained but other times it's fine to gain an advantage by an offside player is weird.
I think they tried to make the rule as objective as possible so that a straight advantage gained principle would be thought difficult to administer. FIFA prides itself on having one set of laws that it thinks should be applied whether the game is being played at the World Cup or on a sand lot and I guess the idea is that advantage gained is too hard to administer with all the various qualities of refs who call games and so maybe you need to try to be more objective.
The whole rule is so divorced from its seeming purpose, though, that I guess you just have to view it as a textbook that says what the rule is without troubling yourself about whether something should be offside, or you drive yourself crazy. It makes sense as a no cherry picking rule or a rule designed to make defending clear but it gets called even where those issues are not really apparent.
I don't know. tl;dr, yeah, if the rule is going to exist it seems the Lloyd play is kind of why you have the rule.
Chile comes up one goal short.
Rough that Francisca Lara is going to have to live with knowing she had a penalty to advance, and she missed it.
Rough that Francisca Lara is going to have to live with knowing she had a penalty to advance, and she missed it.
Wow, the sequence of things that kept Nigeria in the final 16 between the Chile/Thailand and Scotland/Argentina games is kind of amazing.
Tobin Heath is like an American female Daniel Sturridge. She’s playing her own game, makes asinine decisions, wastes a ton of shots, then when you’re ready to kill her she scores a banger.
Granted, if not for the deflection off the defender the keeper would have caught it easily.
Granted, if not for the deflection off the defender the keeper would have caught it easily.
Karma for getting screwed on the PK? (let's leave aside Scotland got screwed identically)
Yeah whatever you think of Naeher's distribution and defensive organizing, her shot-stopping is not her plus skill. She's good, but not great, nevermind anything approaching Hope Solo. No howlers, but also few above-average-effort saves. It's hard to really get a feel for it though because the US face high-percentage chances so rarely - it's really only in the knockout rounds of the WC and Olympics that it matters, or even comes up. There were a few goals in the last two SheBelieves Cups that I saw and thought "Solo saves that".
Her footwork and positioning generally look good to me, so it's really about having a sixth sense and turbo reflexes. Naeher's instincts could always develop over time, although Solo also brought a level of aggressiveness that added to her ability to perform miracles.
Last edited:
Penalties have certainly been a story of the WC, and the story of Nigeria's ability to hang on to the last third place slot I guess.
It's kind of cool to see two African teams in the knockouts.
Yes, can only be good for the women's game on that continent and worldwide.
Interesting that the NIgerian men are the Super Eagles (knew that), but the women are the Super Falcons, not the Super "Term for female Eagles".
Gonna be hot as balls next week in France. Anything that tests team conditioning should be a plus for the USA. R16 vs Spain on Monday shouldn't be a problem anyway, but the QF next Saturday might be dramatically affected.
It’s great for African football. On the men’s side, no team advanced to the knockout rounds last year. That hasn’t happened since 1982. And the way Senegal went out - on yellow card accumulation - irked a lot of folks who feel that refs stereotype African players as overly-physical and aggressive.
So if Nigeria has gone out due to that penalty retake against France...it just would have been extremely frustrating. A Senegalese friend of mine, who usually supports France, was apoplectic about that call. As he said, “Africans are always getting the shit.”
Hopefully this World Cup generates more money and support for women’s sports on the continent. Maybe even a few of the European pro teams will start to engage and search for talent. On the men’s side, Ligue 1 & the Bundesliga have started building partnerships and programs in West Africa to do this. They could start brining in some women at only incremental cost increases...