Semi Finals

[Diamonds are Forever]

8 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

 

I watched all the various angles and never for
a moment saw a penalty. In real time I didn’t think it was a penalty. I really dislike the way video replays are used with football and the time taken to arrive at their stupid final decisions is excruciating. The times where the referee runs over to the side of the park in games is a total joke. The powers that be need to take some advice from sports where it works well like Tennis and Rugby.

 

 

She was definitely clipped, you only really see it from one angle though. In real time I would never have thought it was a penalty and even after about 3 replays was still convinced that it wasn't.

This is where they need to decide how VAR is going to be used. In the end it was the correct decision, but by no definition was that a clear and obvious error, it took the VAR team and then the referee about 2 minutes each to spot it, and plenty people still can't spot it. If they want to get every decision right then they are going to get numerous incidents like this a game and it is going to kill the spectacle.

For me the only way it is going to work is a challenge system. You get say one incorrect challenge a half/match, whatever they decide. It would reduce stoppages and end all the protesting and appealing about reviewing it with VAR. They either back themselves with a challenge or shut up.

[Ira Gaines]

I've always liked the idea of the challenge system. And in a case like that last night, if a manager sees one of their players claim that angrily, you'd probably go ahead and make the challenge.

[Bairnardo]

There needs to be more trust placed in the VAR official. They are watching and advising the ref, then the ref decides if its worth a look, then the ref watches repeatedly for several minutes and arrives at a still dubious decision. The VAR officials are taking the easy road out by just referring that shite back to the ref. For me the best way forward is for the VAR official to simply watch it and say yes or no.

[GordonD]

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

There needs to be more trust placed in the VAR official. They are watching and advising the ref, then the ref decides if its worth a look, then the ref watches repeatedly for several minutes and arrives at a still dubious decision. The VAR officials are taking the easy road out by just referring that shite back to the ref. For me the best way forward is for the VAR official to simply watch it and say yes or no.

Works in rugby and cricket.

[Ira Gaines]

I reckon last night's would go to the referee in almost every circumstance because of just how hard it was to call. Even the ballsiest of VAR refs would be hard pressed not to ask for help. For the most part I agree that the VAR should just be trusted though. It simply doesn't have to be as shite as it is.

[Daydream]

I reckon last night's would go to the referee in almost every circumstance because of just how hard it was to call. Even the ballsiest of VAR refs would be hard pressed not to ask for help. For the most part I agree that the VAR should just be trusted though. It simply doesn't have to be as shite as it is.

Would be good, and last night’s penalty was a good example, if they would explain what rule was applied in making the decision. I’ve no idea if an accidental coming together in the box is a penalty. Didn’t look like a penalty to me but some explanation would be good.

[Bairnardo]

Works in rugby and cricket.

As I have said before, I dont think anyone can disagree that extra help for the ref is a good thing. But the system we have came up with is pish and doesnt fit with what we want or expect from football. People who defend VAR IMO are doing so on the basis of defending the principle of help for the refs and ignoring the fact that it is clumsy and badly implemented.

I also think, and I have mentioned it before, that nailing offsides would go a long way to clearing up so much stuff and given technology these days it could be done eaaily IMO. GPS Tracker in the boots, leaving the linesman only to decide the point at which the ball is played forward and allow the computer to say which boot is closest to goal. VAR official then only needs a very quick look to filter out those maybe not interfering with play

[Binos]

In all common sense

It was never offside, she had one foot in front

And it was never a penalty, it was the tiniest accidental flick

The rule changes/interpredations are absurd and var takes an age to arrive at them

[kennysmassiveego]

[Comrie]

It wasn't offside, but then England have had a questionable offside decision in their favour already in this tournament, so it all evens out over the piece.

It was never a penalty and I'm delighted they missed.

The girl that got sent off was lucky she wasn't given a straight red, it was a nasty one.

[TheScarf]

No penalty for me, because there was no foul on White. 

The offside was dubious IMO.  You've seen the attacker get the benefit of the doubt hundreds of times.  For what it's worth, I think England would've won in ET had White's goal stood.

[Binos]

I don't understand the new offside rule

One foot in front can be due to stride pattern at the very moment of pass, something which doesn't give an advantage and previously blissfully unaware of prior to the nonsense of var

[flyingscot]

1 hour ago, GordonD said:

Works in rugby and cricket.

Rugby has started to go the other way, almost accidentally, by having big screens and referees watching on the big screen. Not always a positive!

Didn't think it was a penalty last night, too difficult to see contact from many angles. The offside I thought wasn't that controversial, people in the pub were saying "that looked off" when they scored so no surprises it got chopped off. 

[Blootoon87]

I'd have to watch it again but I thought it was clearly offside in the replay.

[Marten]

1 hour ago, GordonD said:

Works in rugby and cricket.

I like the review system in cricket. There are 3 options: out, not out or umpire's call. Basically, if no clear decision can be reached quickly (more often than not that applies to LBW), it's "umpire's call" which basically means that the original decision stands, but the appealing side doesn't lose their challenge. That system could work in football.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

She was definitely clipped, you only really see it from one angle though. In real time I would never have thought it was a penalty and even after about 3 replays was still convinced that it wasn't.

This is where they need to decide how VAR is going to be used. In the end it was the correct decision, but by no definition was that a clear and obvious error, it took the VAR team and then the referee about 2 minutes each to spot it, and plenty people still can't spot it. If they want to get every decision right then they are going to get numerous incidents like this a game and it is going to kill the spectacle.

For me the only way it is going to work is a challenge system. You get say one incorrect challenge a half/match, whatever they decide. It would reduce stoppages and end all the protesting and appealing about reviewing it with VAR. They either back themselves with a challenge or shut up.

Same here.

[pozbaird]

10 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

In terms of Hope Solo, she’s tidy but what the f**k were those photos all about? Who thinks a close up of their fanny and arsehole are the business?

Close-ups of that nature are indeed worrying.

 

[Ann Dan Otherthing]

1 hour ago, Binos said:

I don't understand the new offside rule

One foot in front can be due to stride pattern at the very moment of pass, something which doesn't give an advantage and previously blissfully unaware of prior to the nonsense of var

There is no ‘new rule’. If any part of the body that can legally play the ball is in an offside position (which it was), when the ball was played by a teammate, regardless of intent or advantage gained, if the player then plays the ball or impacts an opponent, then they are offside. VAR got that one spot on.

[Ann Dan Otherthing]

2 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

She was definitely clipped, you only really see it from one angle though. In real time I would never have thought it was a penalty and even after about 3 replays was still convinced that it wasn't.

This is where they need to decide how VAR is going to be used. In the end it was the correct decision, but by no definition was that a clear and obvious error, it took the VAR team and then the referee about 2 minutes each to spot it, and plenty people still can't spot it. If they want to get every decision right then they are going to get numerous incidents like this a game and it is going to kill the spectacle.

For me the only way it is going to work is a challenge system. You get say one incorrect challenge a half/match, whatever they decide. It would reduce stoppages and end all the protesting and appealing about reviewing it with VAR. They either back themselves with a challenge or shut up.

For me, the England player’s foot came back up, as she prepared to shoot, and that heel caught the defender’s knee. Certainly no pen for me and justice was done.

[pandarilla]

There is no ‘new rule’. If any part of the body that can legally play the ball is in an offside position (which it was), when the ball was played by a teammate, regardless of intent or advantage gained, if the player then plays the ball or impacts an opponent, then they are offside. VAR got that one spot on.

But there's margin of error in these decisions, and last night's was very, very tight.

At some point we have to have some sort of an 'umpire's call' for offsides.