You can't tell crap from that angle. The AR is in good position, shown at the top right of the frame.
Sure you can, you can tell Ratcliffe and Freeman (SB) are the same distance from the 18. If the AR was in such good position he would have raised his flag where he was standing when the ball was kicked. Instead he ran down the sideline after the ball was in the air.
I actually like Angeli doing the PBP. She sticks to the game and doesn't go off on a tangent about something some player posted on instagram or some other stupid thing nobody cares about for 10 minutes...
That's a point in her favor. She isn't super polished and needs more experience to get better, but I'll admit she's been not as bad as some of the PBP persons that have been brought in in past seasons.
Players aren't adjudged offside at the moment the ball is played. They are adjudged in an offside position. The flag only comes up once the assistant referee determines that a player they previously adjudged to be in an offside position materially impacts the play.
I didn't mention anything about when he raised the flag. It isn't visible in the video. I was only referring to his position, which should have been and remained even with the last defender at the time the ball was played. Instead he can be seen running down the sideline when the ball is in the air. Since it can clearly be seen that the offensive player was not behind the last defender at the time the ball was played based on their distances from the 18, it is clear the AR erred. It doesn't really matter if he was out of position or didn't correctly comprehend the position of the players when the ball was played. His movements confirm it was one or the other.
His movements don't confirm anything until he raises a flag. It is only then that he stops. New changes for 2017 LOTG:
orange, IF the AR decided that the player, in the offside position, was involved in the play , he would have raised the flag where he stood. IF he was not sure if there was another attacking player, being onside, could have gotten to the ball first, then he would have waited until he was sure and then raised his flag. Hence, the continual movement of the AR, a few seconds later than the earliest time he could have made the call, did not mean anything, much less for "us" to judge that he was in error about anything.
The error was that there were no players in the offside position when the ball was played. It is clear in the video based on the where the players are in relation to the 18.
Now you are talking about a different thing. This is your opinion. The AR had his. I think the AR had better angle. For me, even on slo-mo replay, you can't be 100% sure if the attacking player was offside or not. Her feet may not have been but her shoulder seemed to be leaning forward and put her in the offside position.
Attempted to create perspective lines which do suggest she was slightly offside. And AR seems to be in good position there. The outside box line has a slight curve on it so if you're fully judging by that, I think it makes her look more onside than she is.
http://equalizersoccer.com/2017/05/03/run-of-play-penalty-kickin-it/ A PK should have been called against Portland. Franch did foul Press in the box.
You have to show me a better angle than that. From that video, it looks like 50-50 ball to me, further more, it was not like Franch bowl Press over with her body, she reached out with her arm to play the ball, just like Press raising her leg high and played the ball. Leg and arm made contact, who fouled whom?
I agree. No way that's a penalty by Franch. She's clearly going for the ball and Press runs into Franch, not the opposite. It's a collision. That's all. .
As long as we are talking about what should have been called, Williams knocked the ball down with her hand just before she got the call against Sonnet in the 75th minute.
I love this. I was going to suggest to orange crusader to re-watch the video with the intent to demonstrate she was offside rather than the intent to demonstrate she was onside, however I know there is no convincing anyone who has made up his/her mind one way that they should have decided the other way. Years ago I decided that arguing possession on balls out of bounds was futile and a waste of energy. And more recently I have decided that arguing offside calls is also not worth the energy. I am convinced that the ARs are correct virtually all of the time, and the other times it does not matter because you can't change the call and you have to play the game regardless of what the game throws at you.
My two cents on the Ratcliffe situation. In a low scoring sport like soccer, the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking player - i.e. even should be onside. From the game feed and replays, Ratcliffe looks even with the Sky Blue defense to me. Even if her arm is offside and her body is even, she should be ruled onside. I think the whole body should have to be clearly in front of the defender to be whistled offside. It's so annoying to have nice plays and finishes (the Gibbons/Ratcliffe goal was more fluky than beautiful, but I'm talking generally) cancelled out because someone's arm or hip was sticking out ahead of the defender. Think about the principle of the offside rule. It's meant to prevent strikers from camping out in from of goal all alone and waiting for someone to launch the ball forward to them, unopposed. Cancelling out good, decent goals based on fractions of inches is not what it was meant to do.
What kills me is when players stop and raise their hands instead of keep playing. SB did it on the other end I think looking for a handball call. But the ball was still in play and you had numbers up. Don't immediately stop and turn toward the ref. We can just call this payback for the ball that clearly went over the line in their 1-1 game last year and wasn't called a goal for those who insist she was onside and they were robbed
You're right that this is the spirit of the rule, but by now many teams, just beacuse of the very existence of it, implemented a defense with 4 players in line and for this to work it's required that off-side calls are quite accurate, or playing on the edge of off-side would be almost as much abusable as the lonely FW sitting in the box. If off-side calls weren't so strict, probably teams would have to recur to a stopper behind the defense, as they were doing in the past. But I generally agree with you that it's a shame when a beautiful goal is disallowed because of a very close off-side call.
I agree. The offensive player should be given the benefit of the doubt in an offside call. Most or all of the body of the attacker should be in front of the defender to be offside..
I agree! Also, when a player has stopped their momentum forward and is attempting to get back on-sides should also not be called.. How is that an advantage?
An arm being in an offside position does not get an offside call under the rule. Any other part of the body does. Here's the tricky part in relation to the suggestions made in the preceding posts: Write the exact language of your proposed rule in clear and concise language that's easy to understand and apply when players are moving at full speed.
I think you are referring to the case when a player was offside when the ball was played by her teammate then get back onside and play the ball. This law is applied as it is written: The player was offside when her teammate played the bal... You can also argue that that player has an advantage if being offside allowed her to get to the ball first. Also the defenders may have forgotten about that offside player because she was behind her.
Sometimes they forget about her as her teammate dribbles to the endline and gets behind everybody, including her! As soon as the ball is dribbled past her, she's onside again! (because the ensuing cross will be a touch-of-the-ball with her behind the ball, etc.)