Womens World Cup

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
tomw24 said:
It hasn't changed the rule. It's just made offside decisions much more accurate. There's no grey area with offside. Either you're on or you're off. White was offside therefore disallowed. With VAR you no longer have any doubt so you can't give any to the attacker any more.
Click to expand...

I know that, and I also thought her toe was offside, but I don't remember pre-VAR TV replays ever revealing that someone's toe was offside and what assistant has the eyesight and reactions to spot an offside toe? It wasn't flagged because the assistant quite reasonably thought she was onside

Accuracy was what we wanted but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences to what we want and this is one for me
I do worry how we'll find the balance between accuracy and spending a lot of time waiting to find out if its a goal/penalty etc.
 
Susan said:
My main issue with it, I guess stems from my annoyance in general with Americans' self-righteous attitude with regards colonisation. Acting the heroic victims all the time, whilst conveniently forgetting their own colonisation of Philippines and the rest.
Click to expand...

The way to look at this is that it had nothing to do with England as a country or anything geopolitical or cultural.

It had to do with Phil Neville, who has been Phil Neville-ing it up the entire tournament talking trash and generally being a cocky dickwad. Plus why is he even managing a women's team with his social media history anyway?

I didn't like the US celebrating goals against Thailand when they were up by double digits. But if you're going to call out the Americans for being arrogant while you are Phil Neville well....that's why you're Phil Neville and no one likes you.

No one can seriously defend that guy. And so, if your team is managed by Phil Neville, then unfortunately you're going to be the victim of some poor sportsmanship. I'm sure it doesn't bother Neville in the slightest, because if it did then he wouldn't still be Phil Neville. So no real harm was done.
 
tomw24 said:
It hasn't changed the rule. It's just made offside decisions much more accurate. There's no grey area with offside. Either you're on or you're off. White was offside therefore disallowed. With VAR you no longer have any doubt so you can't give any to the attacker any more.
Click to expand...

If that’s the case Tom, how come last night your reaction to the England penalty was questioning whether there was enough contact. There’s either contact or not. Offside or not.
 
tomw24 said:
No. Offside is offside. It looked offside when I first saw the replay. VAR was designed to improve the accuracy of the really tight calls. The rules clearly state that you are offside if a body part you can legally score with is beyond the 2nd last defender. You can't add: "unless its really tight". That would be absurd.
Click to expand...

I said “if” I’m my post.

Has the offside rule ever changed? Yes. So time we changed it again.
 
fatletiss said:
If that’s the case Tom, how come last night your reaction to the England penalty was questioning whether there was enough contact. There’s either contact or not. Offside or not.
Click to expand...
Because with fouls/penalties/red cards the guidelines are the original decision should only be overturned if a clear and obvious error has occurred. With offsides, it's clear cut - you're off or you're on. No inbetween.
 
fatletiss said:
I said “if” I’m my post.

Has the offside rule ever changed? Yes. So time we changed it again.
Click to expand...
It's not going to be changed where if you're marginally offside you're onside. The days of "clear daylight" are done.
 
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
The way to look at this is that it had nothing to do with England as a country or anything geopolitical or cultural.

It had to do with Phil Neville, who has been Phil Neville-ing it up the entire tournament talking trash and generally being a cocky dickwad. Plus why is he even managing a women's team with his social media history anyway?

I didn't like the US celebrating goals against Thailand when they were up by double digits. But if you're going to call out the Americans for being arrogant while you are Phil Neville well....that's why you're Phil Neville and no one likes you.

No one can seriously defend that guy. And so, if your team is managed by Phil Neville, then unfortunately you're going to be the victim of some poor sportsmanship. I'm sure it doesn't bother Neville in the slightest, because if it did then he wouldn't still be Phil Neville. So no real harm was done.
Click to expand...

I like Phil Neville.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChilcoSaint
shoot_spiderman said:
I know that, and I also thought her toe was offside, but I don't remember pre-VAR TV replays ever revealing that someone's toe was offside and what assistant has the eyesight and reactions to spot an offside toe? It wasn't flagged because the assistant quite reasonably thought she was onside

Accuracy was what we wanted but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences to what we want and this is one for me
I do worry how we'll find the balance between accuracy and spending a lot of time waiting to find out if its a goal/penalty etc.
Click to expand...

To me, it's more the balance between accuracy and actual spirit of the laws.

If you are .0001 cm offside, did you really alter the play and gain a significant advantage from that .0001 cm? I'd argue no. But, you're still offside under the current interpretation.

On the other hand, if you are 10 yards offside, did you alter the play and gain a significant advantage? I'd argue yes, because you forced the defense to spread out or change shape to try and account for your position. But they're not calling that an offside if you don't actually play the ball. But then, in that same situation if the ball somehow just knicks your boot by .001 cm as it whizzes by you, then suddenly you are offside.

So should we really be focusing on these tiny things that really don't change the outcome instead of the things that do?

If you're going to move the game more towards a machine-like, technical nature in interpreting the rules, that's fine. But then go all the way. If someone is in an offside position, then it's offside. Period. The officials are just human cameras that will be replaced by onfield robot cameras as soon as the technology is there.

But if you're going to keep human judgment and interpretation in the rules, then we are still allowing the officials to botch the important stuff while ridiculously second-guessing the unimportant stuff.

Right? Like a dangerous tackle that happens to just miss someone's ankle is still a dangerous tackle and still a foul. What's important is the determination of intent and degree of danger, not whether the tip of someone's spike just barely azed another player's boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoot_spiderman
tomw24 said:
It's not going to be changed where if you're marginally offside you're onside. The days of "clear daylight" are done.
Click to expand...

That’s my point though. We had it before so why not have it again. Use VAR for a clear gap .... then defenders will take less risk, attackers gain slight favour, more goals, better game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoot_spiderman
fatletiss said:
That’s my point though. We had it before so why not have it again. Use VAR for a clear gap .... then defenders will take less risk, attackers gain slight favour, more goals, better game.
Click to expand...
Fair enough that's your opinion. No point going round in circles as neither of us is going to change our opinions!
 
See this 2nd semi final has attracted as much comment as it deserves.
May as well close this thread - Tournament over <whistle>
 
tomw24 said:
Well my opinion is that the law is correct. Regardless of whether you're an inch off or 3 yards, it's offside either way.
Click to expand...


Did you think the law was correctly interpreted previously when they used “day light” for example?

Do you think interfering with play was a good change?

Should the back pass rule be changed back?

Do you think the current rule and examination by VAR will make he game better?

What I was saying when I used “if” earlier, was Keep the rule and be offside by an inch or a toe, but change the boundary so it’s if the toe breaks the line of day light between, it’s offside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back