Right. Never admit error. That’s a great approach. I tried reasoning with you fruitlessly. I raise what is a real issue, as others pointed out and agreed to leave. And here you are. Very classy
Ok. Fair enough. I did however ask you not to respond, which you didn’t do. In any event, I doubt I’ll be returning to this site. I’ve seen enough for me. Peace KCbus. Upon reflection, you seem like a decent guy.
How far we’ve come: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/20...es-appointments.2021943/page-18#post-32657046
Well, it is binary in the sense that there is always an outcome...like a foul. It is either a foul, or it isn't. You either blow the whistle, or you don't. In that sense it is binary. But before that decision is made it is tri-state. Either behind the attacker, in front of the attacker, or LEVEL with the attacker. It says so in the LOTG. If there is no such thing as "level with", then perhaps that text should not be in the LOTG. But it is in the LOTG, which insinuates that there is such a thing as "level with". So in this modern world new world, how would you define "level with"? If I have two thermometers, and one reads 65 and the other reads 66 and there is a margin of error of +- 2deg, then for all intents and purposes, they are the same. That is: equal, or level or whatever term you wish to use. I still have so much to learn in the world of refereeing and there is no doubt some great talent here....but this is one philosophical point I remain firm on.
How can you assert with such confidence that the French player intentionally tried to play her shot into the American defender's hand? Is there some guidance you've followed to make this determination? The fact she and her teammates appealed for the call is somewhere in the IFAB?
How do we know the Dutch player was shooting on goal? Maybe she was aiming for a fan in the 9th row of the stands. This is really the point that prompted you to join the discussion? One that is irrelevant to the actual merits of the decision and was only used to rebut a debating tactic. It seemed to me that she kicked it into her arm and immediately appealed. Perhaps she attempted a cross, executed poorly, and kicked it straight into the arm of her opponent who was a couple yards away. I was giving her credit for being more skilled, but it doesn’t matter. Because the motivation of the attacker is irrelevant to the question of a handball offence, which is the exact point I’ve been making. The motive of the attacker was introduced by someone else. My point is that if she (or any other player) did what the other poster was claiming, it’s not a penalty, despite the argument made. This tournament has really brought out some interesting contributions.
But like 4 lines above that in the LOTG it defines offside as (from memory) having any part of the attackers head, body, or feet closer to the goal line than the second-to-last defender. So while the phrase "level with" does appear in the Laws, it's not a distinct status legally. You either have no part of your head/body/feet closer than the defender, or you're OS. There's a certain margin for error in determining this because nobody is perfect, but VAR has made that margin radically smaller.
Can the mods actually put a stop to the nonsense? Seems like this guy got a yellow, an orange, a slightly more orange, a bit more orange ... Not intending to be critical -- just pointing out that the conversation about the conversation went on for quite a while. I'm still trying to see what people thought about the USA's diving.
Perhaps some of the experienced referees in this forum can correct me here, but this is my understanding of the logic: Not every offense occurs because the player intended to commit it. For example, a player who is attempting to tackle the ball away, even if they manage to successfully get the ball, is also responsible for the "natural" outcome of what happens next, namely that their momentum will continue to push them forward. If their momentum results in an infringement (e.g., following contact with the ball they continue and clean out a player), the fact that they would have preferred their body to stop the moment they reached the ball is irrelevant. Basically, once you initiate movement, you are responsible for the outcome of that decision, even though the laws of physics may cause you to accidentally end up doing something you regret. Further, we should assume that at a high level of play, athletes have a very good sense of what the outcomes of their decisions are likely to be. So, in thinking what this would mean for handling, I believe the answer is that if you run a few steps and stop, you should be aware that one of the consequences of doing so is that unless you are exceptionally strong, your arms will come away from your sides and you will take up more space than you did before. And under the current LOTG, one of the consequences is that this carries with it the risk that the attacker can take advantage of this to draw a foul. What makes this more difficult is that one looks at the Japanese defender and concludes that slamming on the brakes, even at the cost of having her arms come away from her body, is still probably a good football decision and what you would "naturally" expect a defender to do in that situation. But there are plenty of good football decisions which are also infringements -- a tactical foul is often a wise choice despite the penalties it carries. Essentially, I think the way I think about this as a fan is that the attacker here has created the opportunity to draw this foul by forcing the defender to stop suddenly, and then she has been aware enough of the situation to take advantage. If the defender had better anticipation/tactics/etc., she could have avoided it, much as in many situations a foul ultimately occurs because the defender was not quick enough or in the wrong position. Most great defensive plays carry a heavy element of risk if the defender hasn't correctly read the situation and the attacker's intent, and when the defender is astute enough to have gotten it right, it's an outstanding play. What happened here was that instead the attacker was the one astute enough to figure out what the defender was doing and react quickly enough to take advantage and earn a PK. If you don't like this logic, I suppose another way to put it would be to consider the tactical implications of writing the Laws in the other direction. A player could choose to defend, say, a free kick by spinning in place as rapidly as possible, so that her arms would naturally be flung out to her sides...
I have said this a hundred times across the years here on this Forum. The penalty area is there for a reason. The PENALTY for defending the same way inside the area as you do outside the area is greater because you would have 0-0 forever if it wasn’t. The Japanese handling would be a foul anyplace on the field including the penalty area. But, she’s inside the area blocking a shot on goal. It’s the same for a player going to ground inside the area and missing the ball and getting the player lightly. It’s still a foul and still a penalty. Arguing from a defender’s point of view shows your bias against attacking football. I went to the World Cup Final in ‘94 at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. It was one of the most boring displays of football I have ever seen. 0-0 for 120. Awful. I don’t want anything close to that again.
Ok, Don Quixote, you get that windmill! Soccer has defined it, for better or worse: if the AR (or VAR) can tell a toe nail of the attacker is past the the toenail of the defender, it’s OSP. Simple. Without VAR, we tell ARs if they aren’t sure to keep the flag down. With VAR, we accept the limits of the technology and the magic lines that the VARs can draw with it. That is the standard.ou can disagree with the precision of that standard all you want, and dispute the blind faith in technology that ignores its limitations till the cows come home, but that is the standard.
Tennis accepted this a long time ago. If the Hawkeye system shows the ball barely outside the line, it’s out. They don’t fuzz it to take into account the error in the system. People grumble a bit about goal line technology, but it’s been accepted. Am I loving this new development with offside? No. But once you’ve got the technology it’s going to be used with the assumption if accuracy. Same with keepers off the line on pks.
Haha...thank you.....I think? And that is my only point...I don't believe it can. It is just my opinion, backed up with more than a few years of broadcast engineering. And that is the problem. Are we? I only hear that it doesn't have limits. Are we all agreeing that it has limits? That is what I'm saying. It DOES have limits. Yes, sadly, I agree. I DO disagree with precision that is subliminally foisted upon the viewer, that is led to believe there is no margin of error. And I will learn to accept that society has moved in that direction, but that won't stop me from informing as many people as I can, especially those on a referee forum, to understand this. Now..time to move on. ...to that posted speed limit that I disagree with, but I have to learn to accept. Laws are laws. (even though many dispute the accuracy of radar guns, which is why authorities allow for a margin of error.) (EDIT: my underlining and bold in your quote to emphasize what I am referring to)
You obviously haven't been watching the Copa America QFs then... 4 games. 2 goals. Coincidentally, both goals actually came in the same game!
But they should. This was discussed many times between Hawkeye proponents and broadcasters back in 2006. Hawkey's accuracy in Tennis has evolved to sub 5mm (not allowing for ball compression) today. Hawkeye in tennis use 500fps cameras that are fixed and purpose built. GLT is a far more accurate system than VAR offside by exponential factors. GLT (Hawkeye) uses 500 fps cameras and has only one line to paint that is 8 yds long. It's accuracy is +- 1.5cm..and that was a few years ago, so it may have, more than likely has, improved. There was a lot of competition among vendors for the implementation of GLT.
Yes it is...which is why it is written there. Coach: "Hey ref...was that offside?" Ref: "No ...he was level with the center back"
I'm entering the discussion because it seems clear you're hiding behind the nuances of the guidance to suggest these decisions are open and shut cases with little room for interpretation, yet you're willing to co-sign on irrelevant criteria such as whether French players immediately appealing to the ref for handling was an indicator the attacker intentionally tried to create a handling PK, and the subsequent lack of VAR review was consistent with VAR use elsewhere in WWC19. I dont think the Ohara incident nor the Japanese PK should have been given. My issue is you're taking verbiage in the rules which have subjective language (i.e. making oneself bigger, unnatural playing position, etc) and then rendering a level of technical certainty and absolutism that doesn't exist in the language. When there is no absolute, technical criteria, yet you make assertions as if there are, you're not only diminishing the fact that referee human judgement is most certainly still in play, you're attempting to shut down debate by suggesting these are all uncontroversial incidents, and those who dont recognize the clear, technical evidence and form the necessary conclusions must be low level officials or otherwise ignorant of the rules. That perspective and debate tactic is an unfortunate argument from authority in my opinion. Especially in a forum that serves as such a great resource for people genuinely seeking to better understand the game, its rules and how they are applied.
Two things. First, you appear to be doing what you’re accusing me of doing. When did I ever reference the appeal of the French players? If I did, my apologies. But I don’t see it. I rebutted someone else’s argument with my own opinion. But as I said, my opinion on that particularly matter is irrelevant because it’s not handling either way. Second, yet again I’m sorry if people can’t accept this, but at this level there is now supposed to be objective answers here. There’s a great irony in the fact that I’ve been lamenting for 18+ months that VAR was picking apart every handling offence in UEFA, Serie A and beyond. I’ve got a track record of pointing out that handling SHOULD be a subjective decision with limited VAR involvement. But that’s not the way the world works anymore. That argument lost. You or others can scream ITOOR, but these cases are easy now. They are not controversial in the VAR room or in the hotel conference room where FIFA debrief its referees. I’m not trying to shut down debate. I’m trying to inform and I think I’ve been very patient up to a point. There reaches a point where that patience isn’t useful. It serves no one for me to throw up my arms and say “you know, you’re right, reasonable people can disagree here” when I know for a fact that FIFA is telling its referees they they can’t disagree. I’ve said time and time again you can want reality to be different. That’s fine. But you also can’t make it so. You allude to my authority as a moderator, I suspect. I wish you wouldn’t, because I’ve rarely used any moderator powers here for discipline (though international tournaments tend to bring out the need). Instead, perhaps maybe you can imagine I have some authority on the instruction here and am privy to teaching that the common poster here isn’t. But if instead you think this is an equal debate where everyone gets their own opinion and claim at being correct, there’s really nothing else I can do.
There is an interesting book from many years ago called Innumeracy, which talked about many of the issues that people in general have with understanding the meaning of numbers. (Sometimes I think it’s scary how the average voter understands math or science, but I digress.) It’s been a long time since I read it and I don’t have it handy, but I think one of the chapters was on false precision. We see it all the time. Handheld stop watch times reflecting hundredths of a second as if they have meaning are a good starting point. People want precision whether it’s real or not.
Trying to pivot, I like it. If you are talking about when Sam Mewis went down in the area without anyone touching her, it looked to me like she was expecting contact after splitting two defenders. The contact didn't happen. I wouldn't call this a dive and only address it if the player is flopping around trying to get a call. It didn't appear that anyone on the field was wanting anything done when she fell.
Sure, but this variability is measurable. There is a mean and standard deviation. We develop confidence intervals. Those should inform the decision criteria for purely mechanical decisions. An example above... Tennis and goal line technology. The best you can do us say that there is a 95% (or some other threshold) probability that the ball was over the line. When that threshold is met, the buzzer goes off. The next level is that you have trained experts with as much experience as anyone in the world. These people know the the rules and expectations. They make their decisions based on their observations. At some point, we ask the Rev. Thomas Bayes for his thoughts, and we make our best decision. At the end of the day, I may not agree with all of the decisions, and I may not like the rules used to arrive at them, but I accept that decisions made were made fairly in accordance with the rules, which were applied consistently. What more can we ask?