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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not going to be changed where if you're marginally offside you're onside. The days of "clear daylight" are done.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
