The law is clear, the interpretation of what constitutes interference with the play isn't, though.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.
Just to answer your question--any part of the body that can legally score a goal cannot be beyond that line.What does Offsides look at, her feet are inline but her body is leaning beyond the line.
The FIFA offside guidance gives the following example as not being in active play:The law is clear, the interpretation of what constitutes interference with the play isn't, though.
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.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).
Actually, that last replay makes it look like it might have gone across the face of the goal without the deflection.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.
That looked like a cross that was deflected to me. I don't think it was on goal if it was not deflected.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.
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?Eh, I dunno. Pretty hard to tell.
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...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
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 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.
Karma for getting screwed on the PK? (let's leave aside Scotland got screwed identically)Wow, the sequence of things that kept Nigeria in the final 16 between the Chile/Thailand and Scotland/Argentina games is kind of amazing.
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".Ha, I honestly wouldn't know. I've probably seen her in a 15 games or so between friendlies and tournaments, and in over half of them she touched the ball less than 5 times. I've just seen her try to play the ball out from the back a few times and put her defenders in a bad spot.
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.Karma for getting screwed on the PK? (let's leave aside Scotland got screwed identically)
Yes, can only be good for the women's game on that continent and worldwide.It's kind of cool to see two African teams in the knockouts.
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.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".