At the highest levels, an AR should be able to recognize an obvious or non-obvious offside offence like this solo. The flag should go up or down, as appropriate. Remember, prior to the ball even arriving, the AR will yell “position, position, position” into the mic to alert the referee that the player is in an offside position IF she becomes involved. So a first piece of the puzzle is already communicated well before the point where a decision needs to be made. Ensuring the referee knows what the AR knows before the ball even arrives helps make these decisions a lot smoother. If there are multiple or dubious parts, even if the OSP question is clear—let’s say the example where the AR can’t tell if a defender or attacker headed the ball last—then a conversation needs to occur over the mics before a decision is made and communicated publicly. So yes, for a moment at least the AR would be standing at attention until they can figure it out. Hopefully it’s done without a conference. At the levels below, I think the GtP still holds. BUT... an aspiring AR needs to take initiative and not simply just stand at attention because they have a player in an offside position who didn’t play the ball. If they KNOW that player didn’t interfere with play, they shouldn’t bother going through the charade. Likewise if they KNOW the player did challenge an opponent, they should just raise the flag and not confuse the issue. It’s really in borderline cases or the interfering with the line of sight or the “who played it last?” situations where that mechanic should be needed.
Huh? The player in an OSP needs to "make an action that has a clear impact on the opponent." What exactly does that mean? Kerr was trying to get on the end of a lofty ball after making a run, with two defenders near her: How is that not making an action with an impact on the opponent? I suppose it depends on how one defines those words--they're pretty broad. And Kerr was in close proximity to the defenders. She was not as close to the player who headed the ball as the other defender, but all three players were clearly in proximity to one another. I'd also say: Is a linesperson really supposed to mentally sort through all of that in 5 seconds or less?! This seems another example of mysteriously complicated FIFA rule-making--like defenders who are supposed to be athletic and defend in the box--but not use their arms(!). Oh, wait: You can use your arms so long as the mostly don't leave your side or extend beyond the mysterious "silhouette." The idea that you must defend well in a fairly large area--which includes twisting and turning to avoid getting KO'd in the head by a driven ball--is ludicrous.
As I have mentioned before, the penalty area is there for a reason. DFK fouls in the area result in penalties. Defenders “chose” not to defend any different inside or outside the area at their own peril. If we didn’t have these rules and the extended permutations of Law 11, there would be WAY less scoring. You want that?
If you only quote parts of things, you can prove anything....the clear action has to “impact on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.” Since the ball never got tot them, there was no impact on the ability of the opponent to play the ball. And yes, the AR (sometimes with the help of the R) is supposed to sort this. And yes, it’s a lot harder than it used to be. Whether we like it or not, IFAB has been actively shrinking what qualifies as active involvement. It isn’t a mistake, it’s an active effort to reduce OS calls and have more goals. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that IFAB wants this to be a goal—and it’s not even a boundary case.
None of us can get in the minds of the old men at IFAB. If I had to guess, they had very little clue something like this would happen, let alone in a World Cup game, let alone where the incident would be highlighted by video review. Now that it's happened I have little doubt they will defend counting this as a goal rather than admit they may have been wrong. Think of it : this is a goal and M'bock-Bathy's beautiful volley which looked like France's 2nd goal in the opening match is not. This is messed up. We can dance around and rationalize the IFAB's decision for them. It's horse puckey.
You do realize their are two separate committees that review all these changes and give their thoughts on them? One are former referees and the other is made of former players, coaches, and technical directors.
@kolabear, I'm sorry but your "now that it's happened" frame is just completely detached from reality. If you take the top 10 domestic men's leagues in the world, this (or something like this) has probably been happening once a week for well over 5 years now (not all leading to goals, of course, but correct non-offside calls on situations like this that lead to goals, corner kicks, or at least obvious goal-scoring opportunities). I don't know you, so I don't know your soccer-watching habits, but it does seem you're more focused on the women's game. Maybe these calls haven't happened as much in the women's game and/or maybe ARs aren't calling them correctly. But this type of play is now (relatively speaking) commonplace in the men's international and professional game. If this play happens in the Bundesliga or EPL or La Liga... no one is expecting a flag. They know it's not coming. And this isn't a flaw in the system. This is the design. People with way more experience in the game than me or you are making these changes. Now, that doesn't mean they always get things right; I have often and loudly posted when I think they get things wrong. But the idea that there are some naive bureaucrats tinkering with the Laws who had no idea what might occur and will have an epiphany and realize the error of their ways because of a play--this play--in a Women's World Cup is, well, naive in itself. No one at the IFAB or FIFA is batting an eye over this. They want this to be a goal. Also, it wasn't "highlighted by video review." The AR screwed up and the VAR fixed a blatantly wrong decision. The way VAR was crafted and implemented, it was designed to make sure this call happens--again, it's not a bug.
It's so common for so long that you and others are posting videos from this year in the MLS and last year in an EPL game and opposing players are outraged and the newspaper headlines call it a controversial goal. The evidence is the problem isn't going away and people - both fans and players - think the interpretation of offside is absurd. I also said completely the opposite about these old men having an epiphany. I know damn well that old men like that don't admit to making mistakes. It doesn't mean that I'm obliged to give them a pass for it.
I'm feeling rather surly towards the bureaucracy at the moment. All of them are old guys perfectly content to accept their sinecures and their perks and to provide the Ministry with the facade of respectability. I'd be surprised if any of them have an independent bone left in their bodies. Harumph. Pfumpf. Grrrrr!
Ultimately the game isn’t played for the tinkerers, whomever they are, sitting in that ivory tower. It’s played for the players and supporters. If there is large a disconnect in terms what is felt as fairness in the laws, it’s the tinkerers who’ve got it wrong. They think fans want more and more goals. In which they are correct, to an extent. But not at this cost. This isn’t a concern over players safety, in which there should be plenty of leeway given in modifying the game going against the grain of popular opinion. This is just the pure enjoyment factor .
We want the M'Bock-Bathy goal in the opening match. How does an attacker stay onside? By using their eyes. But they don't have eyes in their feet. (tee-hee!) They're not old referees with nice cushy committee jobs with FIFA or IFAB.
We want to give timely examples. Imagine that. Also, finding recent video is always easier than finding older video. Sorry I couldn't pull that example from matchday 17 of Ligue 1 in 2014 off the top of my head. And water is wet. The Norwegian player also felt she didn't commit a penalty the day prior. So what? If you actually look at the way Staubli explained things to the Brazilian players, they seemed to get it. Will they like it? No. They just lost 3-2 in the World Cup because of it. But if the situation was reversed, they'd expect the goal. Also, to call the AR out again here... if the flag never went up, we wouldn't have the outrage and headlines you allude to below like we do now, because then it wouldn't have been a dreaded "VAR controversy" with the patented spooky music that accompanies that phrase. Sensational headlines off a VAR decision. I know I already said water is wet, but, well, it's still wet. Yes, many fans and players likely feel this way. But key stakeholders, including some of the top former professional players in the world, are at the table dealing with this. And no one seems to care. They are happy this was a goal. You want to raise a pitchfork army, it seems. You're welcome to believe this is the catalyst for change. I'm telling you you're wrong. It's a women's WC group stage match--I say this as someone who is watching as many games as possible in this tournament: this is not the event where a call like this (again, a call that wasn't even on the boundary, as @socal lurker said) will make anyone in power think twice. There has to be a brutally close decision in the UCL or men's World Cup or EURO or deciding week of a top 5 league for things to reverse at all here. I don't see it happening anytime soon, if at all. This "old men" thing is already tiring. The FIFA representative on IFAB, controlling 4 of 8 votes, is Fatma Samoura: a woman from Senegal. The Football Advisory Panel has at least two women on it and plenty of men in their 30s and 40s. The oldest person on the Technical Advisory panel is Brian Hall, who is 58. The Technical Subcommittee has a couple members in their 60s, as representatives of the Home Nations, but the three most influential members are Busacca, Collina and Elleray... I'd put their knowledge and experience and understanding of the game up against anyone here.
For a little levity for us, a WWC guide to procedures from Glennon Doyle - accomplished author, soccer mom, and, oh, Abby Wambach’s wife: https://www.instagram.com/p/BykuMJqhmlR/
Abebe has been pretty close to getting hit by the ball 3 times so far. Mostly when play is being switched from out wide back to the middle of the field. Maybe today we will get to see the dropped ball after it hits a match official.
22nd minute of the match, a not even remotely close offside decision looks to have been given. The Scottish player was at least 2 yards on side compared to the defender directly next to her. Oh no... And it leads directly to a goal on the other end.
I was half watching and it sure looked wrong by a lot. Unfortunately I’m watching in a classroom while giving a test and have no audio and can’t rewind the play.
And Scotland robbed again -- that's a dive for the PK for Japan's second goal. Why is that not reviewable?
Penalty for Japan off very, very light contact by the Scottish defender. She probably can’t complain much because she has tried to grab her shoulder but there is not much contact made. Best outcome would be no PK. I would like to see another replay to see the DOGSO elements because only a yellow was given.
I guess in the world of "clear and obvious error" standards this tournament's pendulum has swung far in the opposite direction of what's been going on in MLS this year if that PK decision is anything to go by. Interesting that all of the former players in the studio agree with the PK decision though.
I’ve gone back and watched this 10 times. There’s no excuse for that. I can’t even come up with an explanation. The best one involves the AR not understanding the offside law (the attacker flagged had drifted into an OSP for a moment in the buildup but then was, like you said, 2 yards onside when the ball was played to her) fully. And that’s not good. It was an atrocious decision.
I mean, the contact was light but that’s the only other complaint. She intentionally grabbed her shoulder to stop her from getting to the ball. There wasn’t any other reason to do that and it was fairly blatant.
It is. It should have been. I’ve got questions for the VAR there. Of course, the decision from the CR in the first place is worse. I guess the VAR reasons there was an arm on the shoulder and once you’re there, there’s no way to say the penalty was clearly wrong.
in the end, for these subjective calls, VAR has added nothing with respect to any sort of consistency. We’re still at the same place we were before, somebody making a judgment call, which varies from game to game and sometimes minute to minute.