Don't you think it's possible the US would have generated more scoring opportunities if the game had gotten tied up? Or in overtime? Especially if the red card had still happened? The US was better. A one-goal margin was pretty fair. Little tilt of luck one way - overtime. Little tilt of luck the other way - 3-1. You've all been watching this sport a long time, we've all seen tons of games where the slightly weaker team loses by one and thinks "If Only..." about a couple of plays.
I don't think anyone's saying that USA deserved to lose or go home really when pointing out the luck that they've had, but in my case I just feel like England deserved a tie and at least extra time - and during extra time I'm not saying that US would've lost or something but it would've been interesting for sure So yeah, I think that anyone cheering for England is allowed to be bitter and point out that US were lucky, that's natural I guess. I mean, I was pretty pissed after the semi-final against Germany in 2015 because that's my team. And to just conclude this post and to make it clear; I don't think US have been undeserving of going to the finals or winning the game like the one against Germany four years ago and the one yesterday, it's the way they have one it that's annoying for some fans I guess Although win a tournament you need a bit of luck though, everything from the opposition missing a "clear" goal-scoring opportunity or the ball bouncing in the box the right way to avoid almost tap-ins or whatever
Anyone here have experience with taking video frame by frame and editing it? I've had a bit and that's why VAR scares me. You could take any close offside and depending on the position of the ball at the foot of the server produce two different images; one that appears onside and one that appears offside. There is a significant amount of play/movement with the ball at the foot of the server: a) when they are mere centimeters away from striking a ball, and b) when the passers foot has moved to execute the pass (often considerably in distance) and the ball has come centimeters off it These sound like they are the same thing or negligible but in practice neither can be isolated with existing technology and the difference can be considerable in terms of body movement of the receiver and defender, especially if one party is moving at pace. I think these lines on the field are an oversimplification and false science.
I find that the USA have been far too cautious for my liking. Yes, they've won the matches and that is the only objective. All criticism can be batted away with that fact. However, the 2nd half of every match has been majority defensive. Their opponents need to set up to defend and break quickly. Especially in the first half. Taking the ball to the corner flag when there are five minutes remaining plus inevitably a lot of overtime due to the VAR incidents does not always work. I've seen it fail. There were occasions when attacking would have been much the better option as there was a clear numerical advantage. 3-1 and the match was over. Whoever plays against the USA in the final will know that if they are one down with 10 to go they should only leave one player back when attacking. The feigning of injury certainly stopped after Morgan was left on the touchline for an age by the referee! Not sure what rule she thought she was applying but I approved whilst Ellis clearly didn't! I've never seen a player left on the line for so long waiting to come on. It would have been incredibly controversial had England scored. I hope that the scores are level in the final going into the last 15 minutes. That will be very interesting. I doubt that will be the case. It will probably be 2-0.
No way I'm betting on what the score in the final will be before we even know who the other team is! X'-D
Yes, the foot is in contact with the ball for more than one frame. This is why the rules need to be tidied up for VAR. That said last night's "goal" was offside by the current rules. In the first replay, before it went to VAR, she looked very marginally offside.
I'm not putting money down! I just think that the USA is good enough to be two up against either by half time and will then pull down the shutters. I'd rather it was 4-4 after 75 minutes!
Well, a lot of the raw footage is publicly available, so it should be possible to catch that sort of thing. Also, doing that sort of manipulation real-time? Pretty challenging to say the least, no?
Thanks Steve, I only saw one view and a quick one of that call yesterday, which looks like the one you saw too and that was what it looked like. It was more a general comment on seeing these lines come out all the time like it's an exact science when the technology doesn't support that.
I don't think anyone is saying it is manipulation or deliberately attempting to favour one team or the other by choosing a particular frame. Just that it is possible that someone is onside at the first nano-second of impact and offside at the last nano-second. Personally I'd just put a chip in every player's boots, one in the ball and have a computer programme do the offsides. Quick results. No-one complains about goalline technology. That would need the rule re-writing so that it was the feet that were onside or offside.
That sounds the most viable, though they would have to change the offside rule, since it currently applies to any part of the body allowed to play the ball.
In the LOTG, offside is judged at the "first play or touch of the ball," meaning the first moment of impact, not the last.
I’ve just looked back at the goals England conceded. They were both abysmal. 1st goal. Someone mentioned this on twitter but I’ve only just seen it myself. Beth Mead is unable to track O’Hara’s run because she is fiddling with her hair She’s messing with her hair twice before the goal went in and is left completely flat footed to attempt to follow the run. A gift of space is given to cross the ball. Then Bronze gets under the ball and completely loses her marker. Finally the goalkeepers attempted save isn’t good enough. 2nd goal. Daly jogging back when she could have cut out Press’ pass. Not enough pressure on Horan’s cross by Walsh. Stokes can see Morgan’s run all the way but stutters and then offers minimal if any pressure. Then the goalkeeper lunges forward with her feet leaving her stranded. That is a basic save if she remains composed. Add in the fact that England missed three penalties in this tournament - 3️⃣ - England have missed 3 penalties in the 2019 Women's World Cup. No other team missed more than one in any World Cup tournament (excludes shoot-outs). #FIFAWWC #ENGUSA— Gracenote Live (@GracenoteLive) July 2, 2019 ...of the tournament
The Lioness really needs to stop giving cheap goals. The own goal in 2015 was disaster and the backheader in 2017 also resulted badly.
True. Although it is usually sole individual errors in the past from what I can recall. These instances are numerous lapses from players in the same play. Error after error after error is criminal. You simply can’t offer these type of gifts in semi-finals in any competitive sport.
How do you rate Neville's coaching? I think he's fine overall. At least he tried to make tactic changes against different opponents than stay with the 11 like Sampson did in 2017.
At this high level, it really boils down to mentality. England went into the match knowing they COULD win the match ; the USA went in knowing they WOULD win the match. They find a way to win almost every match they play. Norway had that mentality years back and look at how many time they beat the USA during that period (MANY times, they beat the USA). I do not post often at all in USA forum but I am a USA fan! It was a nervy game to watch (like when I watch Norway ) ; I was really shouting at the t.v. for them to score a 3rd insurance/victory assurance goal. So proud of the ladies. Kudos to the CRS players Naeher and Ertz - Naeher made the first half save and then the PK save - brilliant indeed!
He’s been ok. This is still a bit of a honeymoon period so it’s hard for him to do that badly atm. I think he got tactics wrong in the first half of this game. Formation was too attacking. He’s brought the team together and provided spells of good football. Some of his selections are very questionable. Like trying to play the ball out from the back and starting Millie Bright. I haven’t got a clue what he was doing with penalties and that has been a disaster. Fran Kirby was taking them in qualifying and putting them away fine. Then come tournament time we ended up with Parris because of ‘practice stats’? She looked awful and ended up being dropped for Houghton? Mead, Duggan, Taylor and Kirby all took penalties ahead of Houghton in qualifying.
Yeah, the 442 formation didn't work, especially Parris wasn't in the right position and put Kirby on bench was a big mistake. Taylor should have been put on in the 2nd half I think.
Just dawned on me there are 12 teams in the Olympics. You play three in group and the final would be your sixth game. It will be interesting to see if they meet again and if they do if the outcome is similar.
Bruh, y’all made the US look better than they actually are! Then to give up in the 2nd half... Please don’t get me started on Rachel Daly. She should never wear an England shirt again. I actually said this a few years ago when she stunk up the joint in the SBC(?). Terrible player. WTH was Phil thinking by playing her?!
just me. but i think this is nonsense. really. so you’re saying that fifa has gone to great pains to institute this new decision correction system in their most important tournaments but it’s just a “wool over our eyes” charade? they really don’t have the combination of cameras, microphones, and computers doing the sound and distance computations that isolate the precise moment the ball is hit? that’s not even something that is too difficult to do in this day and age - i don’t think.
The product is HawkEye, will check it out and see if they publish their technology implementation. But from a quick glance it looks to be based on video-replay only.
Some interpolation could be required too depending upon the FPS of the camera for sure. Something else occurs when you strike a ball too: it doesn’t move at the moment you strike it but rather absorbs the energy and is then propelled forward. So if we’re looking for the precise moment the ball isn’t played, it won’t have even moved at the point the offside call needs to be made. This is why, IMO ultimately if you want the right answer in real time, players will need to have waist bands with GPS accurate at 1 in or less (the tech is already there) measuring the position of the players at the portion of their waist closest to the touch line. That could be synced to a mesh pressure sensor in the lining of the ball to measure the precise time in which the ball is struck. Regardless, even today, it’s not perfect but it much more precise than the human eye.