Women's National Teams
About CSN
Member & Site Info
CMNT
CWNT
CanPL
The Voyageurs
2019 Women's World Cup
By admin, June 7 in Women's National Teams
dyslexic nam 5,389
Without wanting to get into the odd dick-measuring exercise that this thread seems to have devolved into, I will say that the modern interpretation of the offside rule has always been problematic to me under certain circumstances. If a player is deemed inactive (ie. Acceptably offside) because s/he didn't touch the ball, that decision doesn't seem to factor in the impact they can have on the defending players and keeper who likely can't be certain whether or not they are offside (and that this is recognized correctly by officials) and thus whether or not play will be blown down in they receive the ball. To me, that always seems like it puts the defending team at a disadvantage since they have to account for both onside and offside players and act as if anyone except those who are in a blatantly obvious offside position are still possible recipients of the ball. That dividing of defensive attention has always seemed to me like it has to impact the play whether the offside player ends up being "actively involved" in the eventual final pass/shot or not - just insofar as it impacts the defending players' efforts.
Sport Shaman reacted to this
16 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:
To me, that always seems like it puts the defending team at a disadvantage since they have to account for both onside and offside players
I get that, I do, but I think the interpretation of the rule encourages more offence and goal scoring, something soccer desperately needs, and also disincentivizes a team playing an off-side trap game. If the rule interpretation is that interference requires a touch of the ball and everyone understands that then I am OK with a player in an off-side position affecting the play.
7 minutes ago, Patrick said:
Agree to disagree I guess. To me, putting keepers and defenders at (what to me seems an unfair) disadvantage is not the way to increase goal scoring. If a keeper has to cheat to one side a bit to account for an offside player and gets beat as a result, that isn't a rule interpretation I can get behind.
Unnamed Trialist 4,081
Also playing was an unknown trialist
This is an argument that was made when the rule was introduced, but you have to admit that defenders and keepers have done marvellously well in adjusting. Keepers and defenders are far more sophisticated now than even 10 years ago, the tactical nous are superior, and the type of defending more complex.
Basically having a player in offside position but not affecting play obliges defending units to multi-task. When in the past it was just offside trap, and clear the hell out, repeat ad nauseum.
The Ref 234
Senior Paidup Member
5 hours ago, Patrick said:
VAR has officially jumped the shark. The call, caution, and retake of the penalty against Jamaica was beyond ridiculous. If the only way you can see that infraction is to run it in slow motion then it should never be called. Utterly ridiculous.
Indeed, utterly ridiculous. The assistant was not in the right position also. The VAR is hurting the game.
Does "playing the ball" means "touching the ball"? One could play the ball by running after it without touching it.
Edited June 14 by The Ref
SoccMan 84
10 hours ago, Patrick said:
But they did get it right when you looked at it again. The Jamaican keeper clearly moved of her line before the kick was taken, and it was one of the reasons she was able to stop the penalty. So what's the problem? They reviewed the kick and it showed that the keeper had moved off the line before the penalty was taken, so after reviewing it they saw that she had come off her line before the kick was taken, therefore, the penalty was taken again. That's what video review is there for to pick up things like that the ref missed.
5 minutes ago, SoccMan said:
The Jamaican keeper clearly moved of her line before the kick was taken
It takes slo-mo to see she moved inches ahead of her line milliseconds before the ball was kicked. I don't believe it helped, I think she had it saved either way. Almost every 'keeper will move like that and I do not believe it should be up to VAR review to enforce it. If it's not obvious at real speed it should not be called. What's next? Digitally measuring 10 yards and enforcing 3 inches of encroachment? If an attacker has a foot inside the 18 on a PK will it be retaken if it goes in? I've seen a lot of feet over lines on throw-ins, will VAR call back a goal if an infraction is seen?
There's a line between fair play enforcement and microscopically managing the game. That call crossed it by a lot more than the Jamaucan keeper did.
Kent reacted to this
Lofty 2,554
Late Game Sub
6 hours ago, The Ref said:
Yes. "Playing" the ball involves touching it but also has the element of intent. You have not played the ball unless you have touched it.
However, you can unintentionally touch the ball (maybe you didn't even see it coming), in which case it could be said that you did not "play" it.
I think that is why the rule specifies both "playing" the ball and "touching" it.
The offside rule is what it is. It is defined quite clearly in the rule book. If this thread degenerates into a debate on what is wrong with it and what we all think it should be, we are going to be here a while. And I think that discussion belongs elsewhere anyway.
I have railed for years that referees NEVER require penalties to be retaken for either player encroachment or the goalkeeper prematurely coming off the line. This gives a massive advantage to the keeper who "cheats" the most in a penalty shoot out.
That Jamaican goalkeeper's encroachment was one of the mildest I have ever seen (barely a foot) and THAT is the one they decide needs to be retaken? Unbelievable.
Getting back to the actual game, Argentina's keeper today was outstanding against England. Made about 4 fabulous stops, including a brilliant penalty save.
Dominant performance by England though, in spite of the meagre 1-0 scoreline. Near the end, as England were seeing out the game, from around +2:00 to +3:30 or so, I counted 34 consecutive passes. This is definitely the best England Women's team I have seen.
7 minutes ago, Lofty said:
Didn't the rule got changed allowing goalkeeping to keep just one foot on the line. That saved PK should have not been retaken. There was another PK, can't remember which, when a white defending player encroached the area and the referee ignored her.
lamptern 41
If VAR was used at the 1999 final, USA might not have won the champion.
The sneaky US goal keeper Briana Scurry tried to move ahead of goal line at every shoot during the shootout. The one she saved was very obvious that she dashed ahead almost more than 2 meters before Chinese player touch the ball.
9th minute in this video:
rkomar 132
1 hour ago, Lofty said:
No, you just need to have the ball within reach to be "playing" it. That's what makes the difference between shielding the ball and obstruction.
57 minutes ago, rkomar said:
Having the ball within playing distance is not the same thing as playing the ball. You are playing the ball when you touch it. You can shield the ball when it is within playing distance. That is the difference between shielding and obstruction. Read the rule book!
Yes, but the Jamaican keeper did not have one foot on the line at the moment the ball was kicked.
7 hours ago, Lofty said:
I _have_ read the rules, which aren't as clear as you make out. Here's an excerpt from the Offside law:
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or
- challenging an opponent for the ball or
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
Notice how many times "played or touched" comes up. It sounds to me like FIFA distinguish between the two; they do not mean the exact same thing. You can "play" the ball by legally preventing someone else from playing it, without touching the ball at all. That was certainly my interpretation when I was reffing in the past, and I'm sure I wasn't alone in that.
And that last part of the excerpt is what most who disagree with the decision are thinking about. Kerr was attempting to play the ball, and Monica was reacting to that when she headed the ball. You cannot say that Kerr was not involved in the active play. I guess the referees thought Monica was going to head the ball into her net anyway.
RJB 25
14 hours ago, SoccMan said:
The Jamaican keeper clearly moved of her line before the kick was taken, and it was one of the reasons she was able to stop the penalty.
VAR or not, this is something that keepers have done for many years, and I'd love to see that more enforced. the '94 World Cup Final comes to mind as particularly egregious.
And oh dear, that '99 Final video is awful. She's half way to the ball before it's touched. I think they've made improvements allowing the keeper to move side-to-side, but they still manage to get forward illegally.
Edited June 15 by RJB
lamptern and Lofty reacted to this
2 hours ago, rkomar said:
There is an "Interpretations" section in the rule book which clarifies exactly what is meant by each of those three conditions. I quoted it in an earlier post.
I'm not going to go around in circles with you on the difference between "playing" and "touching" the ball.
Don't be fooled by @Lofty after making a fool of himself (herself, I don't know) posting pics of US celebrations on this board, which was troll level stuff, we get about 15 irrelevant posts about rule interpretations just to distract us: the biggest glut of useless, mostly off-topic posts from someone on the board in a long time.
Some posters are basically trolling for the WWC because they really, deep down, hate the women.
Otherwise we'd be talking about Cameroon-HOlland, where the former were more dangerous and looked better than against us, and the latter only got their act in gear in spurts, and late. I would prefer to beat NZ to not need a result vs. Holland.
paul-collins reacted to this
Until the advent of VAR the offsides were mostly the realm of the ARs who's duty was only to raise their flag if the actually saw the offside not just guess that the player surely was offside. Now it seems that the VAR has taken over the judgement of the ARs. Is this really better for the game?
Patrick and Lofty reacted to this
Look this game needs more changes and VAR is a good start. I'm a hardcore soccer fan it's the only sport that matters to me. However, the next change I want to see is getting a handle at all the time waisting that happens because of a no running clock like hockey and basketball have for example. Stop the clock at the very least for substitutions and all injuries and voila no more fake injuries to kill the clock and no more taking forever to get off the field when being substituted.
3 hours ago, SoccMan said:
Exactly. Just stop the clock for all the things that cause time to be added and:
1. The half/game ends at 45/90 mins.
2. No more recording of goals at the ludicrous 90+3!!
VISIBLE CLOCK.
I don't think it's all for wasting time on the clock. It's also for slowing down the game and taking momentum away from your opponent. So, even if you stop the clock, I think you'll still see delay tactics.
1 hour ago, rkomar said:
You would at least remove the time wasting benefit, which would be a step in the right direction.
Canada vs Cuba
Canada vs USA
Premier Podcast S01E15: Table Rond
By Rintaran
L1O Review: Feels Like Summer
5 Things Valour FC Need to Figure Out this Month
Forge's Board E5: Spring Season Roundup
Raphael Ohin's Introduction is Bringing the Best out of Louis Beland-Goyette
Canada 2 – 3 Haiti: Individual mistakes compounded by Herdman's rigid planning
By El Diego
Thoughts after Canada's 4-0 win over Martinique and looking ahead
Forge's Board E4: Red Cards and #Raingate
Maple Leaf Forever! - Canada - Cameroon: Like They Drew It Up
By Lord Bob
Maple Leaf Forever! - Canadian 2019 Women's World Cup Preview Part 3: Canada
Maple Leaf Forever! - Canadian 2019 Women's World Cup Preview Part 2: The Big Picture
Maple Leaf Forever! - Canadian 2019 Women's World Cup Preview Part 1: The Rest of the Group