A&H

Women World Cup 2019

The Referee Store
No it's not. VAR never should have sent that down for review. You can dislike that it's onside, but with the current LOTG it's a good goal.
 
The pass was made orginally to the player that made the attempt to score,that is way it is offside
 
In law she is not offside.

The argument you will get is that the only reason that the defender played the ball is because the U.S. Player was stood behind her and was therefore gaining an advantagechick whilst being true, is not a valid reason in law for awarding an offside decision
 
cwyeary said:
No it's not. VAR never should have sent that down for review. You can dislike that it's onside, but with the current LOTG it's a good goal.
Click to expand...

The only possible question I can see is whether the OSP player was close enough to be considered challenging an opponent for the ball. At first blush I leaned that way, but she really doesn't. She's reasonably close, but there is no physical contact and she doesn't go up after the ball in a way that interferes with the defender. A few years ago, this was clearly OS; now, it is clearly not.

I would love to hear what went on in the VAR booth for this to get sent down--it took a long time. And then it took a long time for the R to disagree with the VAR and keep the goal. (I believe this is the first time in the WWC that an R has not followed the suggestion coming down from the VAR.)
 
Australia's winner against Brazil was scored in a similar fashion. If anything it was more of an offside than this goal. Kerr interfered with a defender who had no possibility of playing the ball and the other defender who did play the ball was aware of Kerr's presence in the vicinity. That instance was flagged by AR and correctly overruled after review.
 
Siva said:
The pass was made orginally to the player that made the attempt to score,that is way it is offside
Click to expand...
I suggest that you take a look in the rear section of the book which provides clear guidance to show that this is not an offside offence.
Screenshot_20190621_073311_com.google.android.apps.pdfviewer.png

Whilst I to a certain degree sympathise with the defender, and agree the likelihood is that the defender acted based on the presence of the attacker that is not enough in law to give offside.
 
socal lurker said:
The only possible question I can see is whether the OSP player was close enough to be considered challenging an opponent for the ball. At first blush I leaned that way, but she really doesn't. She's reasonably close, but there is no physical contact and she doesn't go up after the ball in a way that interferes with the defender. A few years ago, this was clearly OS; now, it is clearly not.
Click to expand...
This. Couldn't have put it better myself.
 
Siva said:
Why it is a OG?
Click to expand...
It wasn't overwhelmingly obvious from some angles but from the angle that was most closely in line with the direction the ball was traveling, I'd say the original shot was probably going just wide before taking a deflection off the defender. Incidentally that's nothing to do with the Laws of the Game and not a decision that either the referee or VAR is required to make.
 
IFAB often speaks about "what football expects" however this is a clear example of correct application of law being at odds with that.

Judging by the feedback on this across multiple sites, from many people inside of football, it seems that "football expects" that the goal should have been disallowed based on the fact that the defender only played the ball because there was an attacker behind her, who as it happened was in an offside position.

The major problem I see is that often "football expects" certain things through a blind ignorance of the laws of the game, which is absolutely the case in this situation. As soon as you read the Offside Law, you can very quickly see that none of the criteria for offside were met.
 
"What football expects" is designed for gray areas of the law or where the law is silent. Most sports rules have some version of referee authority to fill in the gaps, which is what this is. It has no application when--as here--the Law is completely clear. This was an easy decision--the only mystery here is why it took so long and why the VAR sent it down to the field.
 
jofusref said:
finally a great decision in the australia norway ggame on field referee making a correct decision
Click to expand...
There seems to be far too decisions being looked at with an OFR during this tournament. There’s been a couple of stone wall penalties being waved away and then overturned. It has the feel of the referees either becoming reliant on the technology, or simply not up to standard and if it is a case of being reliant on technology, then they are making it look like they aren’t up to standard.

All in all, I don’t think the referees in this tournament were ready for VAR
 
QuaverRef said:
All in all, I don’t think the referees in this tournament were ready for VAR
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that FIFA did not want to use VAR, presumably at least in part because the refs and ARs would have no experience with it. The players objected that they were being treated differently from men, and FIFA agreed to use it. Why is anyone surprised there would be a learning curve for the Rs and ARs?
 
Commentators on the BBC did question whether some of the officials are good enough to be at the world cup, insinuating that maybe FIFA were so set on have all female match officials they selected people that aren't ready.

One of their arguments was that less experienced officials might use VAR as a crutch because they doubt their ability and if it's wrong var takes the blame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top