This is a bit of a random foray into MLS examples, but a goal for Cincinnati stood after a close call for onside made on the field in their conference semi-final vs Philadelphia tonight. Though the perspective lines aren't definitive of anything, as long as I drew them I thought I'd share it here to illustrate how difficult it can be to eyeball these things on TV. Normally I would draw a blue line to the (second-to-last) defender's foot, but because it's obscured, I drew a red line to the attacker's foot. Of course, offside is defined by the body of both, not just the feet, but this at least helps illustrate where the attacker and defender are along a perspective line — it's almost certainthe attacker's foot is onside relative to the defender's foot; after that, judging whether it's onside relative to the shoulders is, of course, anybody's guess based on this drawing alone. But, It show it's close If we adopted the rule that an attacker was onside if both his/her feet were onside relative to the (second-to-last) defender's feet, VAR could probably accurately verify this call without drawing those ridiculous, arbitrary vertical lines or using black-box 3D graphics technology In the Referee Forum, someone wrote of this picture — without the perspective lines — that it showed the attacker offside and with lines it would "only get worse". Does it? I agree with @Midwest Ref in the Referee Forum that onside is probably the correct call. Also, the following comment from the Ref Forum Again, I can't quote directly because I'm banned from the Ref Forum but here's a link to one of the comments if you want to check out the discussion there https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2...feree-discussion.2128497/page-3#post-41860620
Maybe with the start of the new NWSL season (assuming I'm still allowed to yell at BigSoccer Clouds), I'll start a separate thread for issues on offside calls. Meanwhile, in the Ref Forum there's some discussion of the close offside call in Galatasaray vs Manchester United in (men's) Champions League play. Goal was nullified by a delayed offside call on the field and upheld using the jazzy 3-D black box technology (SAOT / Semi-Automated Offside Technology) I don't have full faith in black box computer graphics technology, but the AR on the field called it offside. It's close so I'm philosophically OK with sticking with the onfield ruling. It's another example, however, of how we might be able to improve things with my suggestion of calling an attacker onside if EITHER both of his or her feet are level with or further from goal than the defender his or her head and at least one foot is level with or further from goal than the defender. That would make possible is a VAR review drawing simple perspective lines to the defender's foot (without either those stupid arbitrary vertical lines or the expensive black box technology) where an attacker can be ruled onside if both feet are not ahead. If this rule was followed, I think it could be relatively clear to show Galatasaray is onside (the attacker in the middle is the one who scored and he's trying to play off the shoulder of the defender closer to the near touchline)
The biggest difference in refereeing between men and women's soccer is that when there's a big mistake in women's soccer, people blame the women or women's sports Mindboggling call today in stoppage time between Manchester City and Tottenham — referee awkwardly signals advantage but then blows the whistle with the attacker on a breakaway. At 12'09 of the highlight video