Off Topic Well done Lionesses

It was never a penalty in the first place, horrendous decision from the referee.

Agreed regarding third place matches, they should just be scrapped completely.

 

I'm so glad that they are finally home as there is a stack of washing up in the sink and I have run out of clean shirts!

 

It was a pen, there’s contact and she’s not gone looking for it - but VAR is a waste of time because it’s still down to human interpretation and right and wrong decisions cancel themselves out anyway. The life it sucks out of the game is just not worth it.

 

Didn't bother watching the game as,like pre-Season or International friendlies,it's a waste of time and I'd rather be doing something else.

 

Sorry, but swinging your foot back to shoot and slightly grazing the defender's leg behind you should never be a penalty kick in any discipline of the sport. But yes, the wider issue with VAR is that most of the laws of the game are largely open to interpretation and are referees frequently implement these inconsistently. One man's (or woman's) idea of a handball or penalty incident typically differs to another person's during the run of a game.

So while VAR frequently corrects incorrect 'black and white' decisions, such as offside decisions (you're either offside or you're not, no middle ground), the negatives like harsher punishment for accidental handballs and drawn-out confusions during matches impacts on the entertainment and enjoyment of the sport.

If VAR is done correctly, it will be an invaluable tool to assist referees in mitigating their human errors. In its current incarnation, or how it was frequently misused in the women's World Cup, it's drawn out refereeing decisions, often been used incorrectly by the officials and is dominating headlines for the wrong reasons. Hopefully it will be a more positive story for the upcoming Premier League season, where it will undoubtedly receive a watchful baptism of fire.

 

No different to clipping heels. If the defender has her feet that close to the opponent she is risking a tangle, simple as that. There doesn't need to be any intent. If the defender doesn't make contact there's a very high chance of a goal, so it's a pen all day long for me.

Having said that, clear and obvious, no. I couldn't even see the contact so overturning with VAR is wrong if that is how we understand it should be used. My view is just that the ref's decision should be final and get on with it.

For me the biggest problem is with the fractional offside decisions, because frankly there is not a discreet point in time when the ball is actually played. Is it when the foot is making contact with the ball (which will be for perhaps a second or more) or is it when there is clear daylight between the foot and the ball after contact? It's also very much dependent on the camera angle being perfectly in line with the defender and attacker. Because there is a margin of error, these fractional offside decisions should not be overturned. The original judgement of the linesman should stand. Not raising their flag, by the way, is another issue. There's no reason why the flag can't be raised and then the passage of play continue to see if a goal results.

 

With regard to the whole offside debate, wouldn’t it be helpful if we could go right back to basics?

The offside rule was introduced to stop “goal-hanging”.I would like to see the rule and it’s interpretation clarified so that unless the forward is getting a clear advantage from being in an offside position play continues.Whether that’s practically possible would no doubt be subject to heated discussion!!

 

Regarding offside, you both raise valid points chaps. The main problem with allowing 'margins for error' for offside decisions will undoubtedly be interpreted differently by referees, as we're seeing with penalty and handball decisions, thereby making a previous black or white decision more ambiguous and confusing.

One way I'd amend the offside law to swing the balance back in favour to the attacking player is to say you're not offside with your front foot, but your back foot. That way, attackers will naturally get the benefit in level offside calls.

 

Or, how about saying, you have 20 seconds for the VAR to make a decision and if he wants the ref to have a look then you have another 20 seconds pitch side for the ref.

Fouls are different, there can be different angles and tangles to look at. Offside is looking across the line. If you can't do it quickly then it's a marginal decision and the linesman's decision stands OR the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt.

Another idea is a twist on yours nuggets, how about daylight between the defender's foot and the attackers?

Or use the rules and technology employed in the 100m sprint where they are able to be accurate.

big al is absolutely right that the purpose is to stop goal hanging, so it doesn't matter if it's measured by a foot or a chest or anything else.

 

A timer for the referee could work - especially if they need to go over to the pitch-side monitor to visualise what they're being told. But do we want to force them to come to the 'right' decision? Another solution I've seen mentioned, and possibly the one that would cut down on frequent delays and wrong decisions, is similar to tennis players with Hawkeye and give managers two 'challenges' per half (for example) to assess referee decisions when they want it. One downside to that approach is that it won't necessarily correct every wrong offside / penalty decisions, such as if the manager has run out of challenges or mistakenly doesn't use it. Fourth official will in theory receive immediate notification by manager if they want to use a challenge and could communicate to the referee via the headset during a a break in play. Food for thought perhaps?

I think we've got to embrace VAR - or learn to tolerate it at the higher levels - due to FIFA strongly supporting it and the fact that referees clearly need assistance in the modern game, which is much quicker than previous generations. It's rightly received criticism for some aspects, but it has generally made referees call on-pitch decisions more consistently and has certainly helped officials get more decisions right than wrong. which they previously would not have done so.

The main issue with VAR is that it has forced referees and officials to be harsher and stricter when calling for fouls and handballs. The only way FIFA will drop VAR is if it impacts on the bottom line and they lose sponsors over it.

 

I think the challenge thing would cause even longer delays if it were the manager. The manager can't see what's going on so he would either be relying on his players or other staff or take time to review an incident before making a challenge. A solution could be the captain but I don't think we want to put that on the shoulders of a player in crucial games.

 

I know it’s not ‘woke’ but in my humble opinion a women’s team would not be able to compete with a men’s team, the odd lady may come along that could possibly do a job in a men’s team but I think if it was the case that women could play as well as men then they would be playing in the professional proper leagues.

Just my opinion.

 

I don't care if its women's football or men's or a pub team, VAR or not, if you can't score from a pen you don't deserve anything.
The passing is so poor and the defence and goalkeeping barely schoolboy standard as borne out v Sweden.

 

There was an FA ban on women's football on football grounds for 50 years and the establishment used the press to create the myth that women's bodies weren't suitable to play football. Before that they often drew huge crowds of up to 50,000. The women's game only slowly got going again in the 70's and was subjected to all this sort of nonsense for most of the next 50 years. Even now it's still miles away from a level playing field.

If you're wondering why the women's game didn't take off elsewhere, France, Germany, Brazil and many others all banned women's football too.