No one said a word and Olssen accepted it immediately. I know that can't be the standard for everything, but in a "strange" situation like this, I think it's telling that there was no protest. Makes it seem like Olssen did something and got caught.
I was curious about it, but didn't see a replay, so not sure how close they were to each other, etc. Amazing goal by England.
Most entertaining, for sure. Two goals that will lead highlight shows on this tournament for years to come.
So, though I am not pleased with the final score, it looked like Skomina ran a nice quiet match. Any big concerns?
He actually missed cautioning Carroll for PI. In the second half, Carroll fouled and got a 'no more' from Skomina. Late in the game, Carroll commits another foul, advantage played (terrible advantage btw...went right back to England) and Skomina never goes back to caution Carroll. As for the caution for blocking the kick - no protest by anyone, so I'll assume he was right.
I didn't see a replay either. I'm guessing Hart was trying to launch a counter attack Olssen, a defender did the old cross in front of the GK as he kicks it because I don't want to run 80 yards.
Surprised noone has commented on the 2nd England goal. On the play, England has a player in an offside position directly between the ball and the GK, and then scores in large part because the GK didn't read the shot correctly ( a sure sign of a screened GK). So to me, that goal should not have counted.
No way. We've been talking about the lack of referee controversy. If Skomina took that ball out of the net, we'd be talking about it for four years and his career might be over. From an actual application of the Laws standpoint, I also don't think there's a good case to begin with. First, the goal was scored "in large part" to a beautiful strike that had amazing movement on it. Was the keeper partially screened? Probably. But that ball went up and dipped down furiously--it's possible he saw it the whole way or at least once it reached its apex. And, even if he didn't, ask yourself who actually screened him? Was it the English player in an offside position or was it one of his own three men that were between him and the ball? I can't tell from two good replays behind the goal--not sure how a referee and/or AR are supposed to tell, first time, from their angles. Sometimes we, as referees, would do well to remember the mantra "first, do no harm." This would be a dubious and questionable offside decision juxtaposed against surely what will be one of the goals of the tournament. It would also be a legalistic and confusing call, that's rarely made--and should only be made when it's obvious. Why would a referee want to insert himself there? Why do you, as a fan, want the referee to insert himself?
I agree with this, but a better analysis is to remove the English player from the picture (figuratively of course) and then ask "would the goal still be scored?" The answer in this case is clearly yes, therefore no offside. PH
Agreed with that and it's a standard I always advocate. However, the original poster (CanadaFTW) seemed to be convinced that the goalkeeper might have saved it, if not for the attacker screening him, so I tried to address the dubious nature of that claim, rather than flat-out say the ball would have gone in anyway (which, like you, I also believe).
I agree with most of what you are saying, though I still think the attacker helped to screen the GK. I have watched far too much hockey, and it is quite clear that the more people in front, the harder it is for the GK to find the puck. The same principle applies here even if the attacker in the offside position wasn't the key to the screen.
But you can't compare a hockey goalmouth to a soccer goalmouth. One or two large men in a very small area easily obscure everything in hockey giving the keeper no chance to see anything. There is much more room in soccer, and in particular in this case when the ball came from 20 yards out. And a puck is less than 10% (?) of the size of the soccer ball, which also matters. So sorry, not a valid comparison for me! It is always very dicey to try to compare what goes on in soccer matches with other sports. I think it is best to leave other sports out of these discussions entirely. PH
20 yards is essentially the distance of a point shot in hockey, so the distance is essentially correct. The size is a big difference, but the key to screens (and deflections) is that the GK is unable to correctly read the shot and follow the initial flight of the ball, which is still a pretty small area. I also maintain that this goal only happened because the GK was screened. I do agree that this was primarily from his defenders and a couple of onside English players, and I assume that is why you are all arguing a good goal. But if we removed all of the onside screeners, this to me would be an extremely obvious no-goal as the English player in the offside position is directly between the GK and the strike. You all seem to be taking the PoV that since players who were onside were screening the GK that the player who was offside screening the GK is irrelevent, and I believe that is flawed. Finally, I agree that I am likely barking up the wrong tree.
No this is not my PoV at all. Even if all the other players were not there, leaving only the one English player this would still not be penalized for being in the offside position. Again, take him away, and you seen that the ball goes in. The OS player has to be a lot nearer the keeper to be genuinely interfering. Woof woof! PH
I just saw a replay showing that the ball did take a deflection off of a Swedish defender immediately after Walcott struck the ball. So, I'm of the opinion that this had something to do with the wrong footing the Keeper, more so than screening the GK.
I am partially playing devils advocate here, but this is the first comment that I really disagree with. Without the other mass of players, you have a player in an offside position directly between the ball and the GK, and that is clear cut offside.
No it is not! Position alone is not used as the sole criterion any more. It used to be called this way many years ago, when you would see many goals disallowed for other players in offside positions. But now, you have to consider other factors. As I said before, the English player was too far out to be considered as having a affect on the keeper. If he was right in front of him, and interfering, then yes it would be offside. As I said before, the crew got this one right, whereas there has been a tendency, as noted on these boards, for ARs to be very conservative with their decisions in other matches. PH
If you are in an offside position and directly between the GK and the ball when the ball is struck resulting in a goal, you are offside. I have not seen any instructions that go against my statement.
Well, perhaps this will convince you. If not, then nothing will. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jun/14/you-ref-trevillion-wayne-rooney One last word: the offside Law and interpretation were changed to encourage goals, not to find reasons to disallow them. Not that it is a factor, but I don't recall the keeper or defenders raising much of a complaint. If they felt the keeper was affected, I am sure they would have been all over the referee. PH