RefSix

AUS BRA

#1
Great OFR inactive offside own goal header... brilliant drama and they get it right!

Ace from the AR not to flag (edit: or not)
Ace from VAR to suggest the check (edit: or not)
Ace from the ref to check the OFR for interference (edit: or not)
Ace to give the (own) goal (edit: or argh)
 
Last edited:
#4
Not a call that should have required the VAR to be involved at all. This is pretty straightforward under modern Law 11.

I hate VR, but this is the kind of play the corrects an error and gives a supporting argument in favor of VR.
 
#6
Great OFR inactive offside own goal header... brilliant drama and they get it right!

Ace from the AR not to flag (edit: or not)
Ace from VAR to suggest the check (edit: or not)
Ace from the ref to check the OFR for interference (edit: or not)
Ace to give the (own) goal (edit: or argh)
I don't mean to beat up @santa sangria , but this fundamentally misunderstands how AR is supposed to work. Let's assume for a moment that The AR had not flagged. In that case:
*The VAR doesn't make a decision to check--the VAR checks every goal for OS and for fouls is the attacking phase of play
*If the AR had raised the flag, then the VAR should not have recommended an OFR--the VAR only recommends an OFR if the VAR identifies a clear error that the VAR believes should be fixed
*Yes, the R technically makes a decision on whether to do the OFR--but it would be very strange for an R to say tot eh VAR "Yes, I know you say you saw a clear error on the replay, but I'm not going to take a look."

But I do agree that the VAR and R appropriately fixed the AR's error on this.

As an aside, I would like to think that if my AR flagged this I would be aware enough to go talk to the AR before accepting the OS call, and that with the explanation we would then conclude it was not OS. (Aside to the aside: as flag procedures have been taught in the US, the AR would not raise the flag on this play. ARs have been instructed that if they think there is an OS offense on someone who did not touch the ball, the AR should stand still--the idea being that on those interference plays the R also has information and there should be a discussion before a decision is made.)
 
#7

Here's the clip if anyone who didn't watch the match wants to view it.

That incident occurs at 1:23 but watch the whole video because it was a thrilling match.
 
#8
VAR has rightfully taken its share of lumps in the WWC competition so far. This was a case where it did help the game.

While I personally think this could be construed as Kerr challenging for the ball and putting herself into an advantageous position, the generally accepted guidance is that this is a good goal under the Laws.
 

frank_ref

Well-Known Member
#9
I haven't reffed for a few years so I get that the laws have changed. But, to me, the attacker goes for the ball, influences play, and pretty much causes the goal, all from a clearly offside position. I'm disappointed to see it stand.
 

lincs22

Supply League Observer
Staff member
Observer/Tutor
#10
Do we know which of the assistants gave the offside, as Sian Massey was on the game as AR1? Or was it the Swiss AR?
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#12
I haven't reffed for a few years so I get that the laws have changed. But, to me, the attacker goes for the ball, influences play, and pretty much causes the goal, all from a clearly offside position. I'm disappointed to see it stand.
It's clearly the correct decision to allow the goal to stand according to my understanding of the Law as it stands. I can understand why you're disappointed by this as the current guidance often causes controversy and debate
 
#13
I haven't reffed for a few years so I get that the laws have changed. But, to me, the attacker goes for the ball, influences play, and pretty much causes the goal, all from a clearly offside position. I'm disappointed to see it stand.
You may not like it (and I'm not sure I totally agree with every aspect of the new provisions) but the law is pretty clear now that the attacker has to do something that either prevents an opponent from playing the ball or clearly impacts on their ability to play it. Nothing Kerr did, met those criteria as far as I could judge and obviously the referee saw it the same way.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#14
I don't mind it the way it is now. The laws don't want to reward poor play or poor decision making by defenders even if there is a possible indirect influence by an attacker in offside position.
 
#15
You may not like it (and I'm not sure I totally agree with every aspect of the new provisions) but the law is pretty clear now that the attacker has to do something that either prevents an opponent from playing the ball or clearly impacts on their ability to play it. Nothing Kerr did, met those criteria as far as I could judge and obviously the referee saw it the same way.
The law book could be clearer on this... in a case like this where the attacker is challenging "another" defender for the ball but it doesn't reach them...
 
#16
The law book could be clearer on this... in a case like this where the attacker is challenging "another" defender for the ball but it doesn't reach them...
I think it's pretty clear as written and as taught. You can't challenge for a ball that isn't there to challenge for. (Whether it has to actually reach can be debated, but the ball here never got close to them and the defender in question never had any chance whatsoever to get to the ball--any interference with that defender had nothing to do with the goal being scored--and that's where IFAB is going with its revisions/interpretations.) If the ball had not been headed by the defender and instead went to where the OSP player was seeking the ball, this would be an easy call for challenging an opponent. IMHO, this is an easy call, and makes sense.

Where, IMO, the modern Law 11 gets squirrelly is that if instead of an own goal the other defender's head ball had gone to the two competing players, it could not be OS, as the ball would have been last played by a defender. So the misplay by the defender would cleanse the OS, even though the attacker was clearly getting an advantage from that OSP at the time her teammate crossed the ball. Far, far different from when I started reffing years ago.
 
Top