SWEDEN : UNITED STATES Referee: Anastasia PUSTOVOYTOVA (RUS) AR1: Ekaterina KUROCHKINA (RUS) AR2: Petruta IUGULESCU (ROU) FO: Esther STAUBLI (SUI) Reserve AR: Susanne KUNG (SUI) VAR: Danny MAKKELIE (NED) AVAR1: Chistopher BEATH (AUS) AVAR2: Chrysoula KOUROMPYLIA (GRE)
Presumably going to OFR because it is a judgment call as to challenging an opponent, I presume. Close call, though I am inclined to think it was enough to be challenging, but whether clear error? I believe that is the first time the R has not made a change based on the VAR recommending an OFR.
I get the Kerr/Monica one, but this one is different for me. Lloyd was right there and clearly went/challenged for the ball in my opinion. By the rules though, I understand this was a legal goal.
I don't know why that review took so long. I get that it's a subjective referee's decision and so I can see why the CR would go to the monitor, but that wasn't all that different from the Australia-Brazil goal. You'd think someone in the VAR room could tell the CR not to waste her time.
Assume you're talking about the second goal. I was asking the same thing - how can this take that long to review? It's a pretty straightforward call.
And the only way this is even arguably offside is if we're back to the old "she was involved in play because the defender knew she was there" standard. This was not even close for me (under the new standards, which I still don't like).
Exactly. And if the VAR recommended review, technically they are doing so because they believe (and/or AVAR2 believes), that it was clearly wrong to award the goal. I have no idea why this went to review, though. This seemed like an easy goal call to me. No obvious action impacting and she wasn't close enough to physically challenge. Good on the referee for rejecting the VARs' recommendation there.
She wasn’t interfering. I’ll say this for the hundredth time. PIOP is not enough to interfere. Unless sightlines are involved, you need action on part of the PIOP to interfere
The better question is why it was even reviewed. Makkelie is probably universally accepted as the best VAR in the world. I am baffled as to how he sends that down. Unless the AVAR was insistent, I would say that's the first big mistake I can remember him making--particularly because one of the reasons he's so good is that he's been conservative with his interventions.
"Challenged" involves physical contact or close proximity, which I believe the instructions at the FIFA level is within a yard. A "challenge" is literally the type of "challenge" where you could theoretically be called for a foul if you do it carelessly. Jumping to receive the ball--even if you're two yards behind the player who is intercepting it--is not "challenging."
On the Heath goal (which was quite a shot from a tough angle, BTW), is it possible for me to say that I pretty much agree with everyone? I agree that by the letter of FIFA law and what appears to be the instructions from the officiating leadership, it was a good goal. I agree that it probably shouldn't have been sent down for review and that, when sent down, the referee made the right call in ruling that the goal stood. I agree with Aly Wagner that Lloyd really was challenging for the ball and, if you realistically look at the game, was actively involved in play. I agree with JP that if the review takes that long (well over 3 minutes since I am keeping track of stoppage time), it's not clear and obvious. Other organizations do need to take note. I personally think that Lloyd is interfering with play because her position is forcing the Sweden defender to make a play on the ball. However, I know FIFA doesn't agree with me and that this is not going to be called offside. If a play like this is not going to be called offside, FIFA might as well just say to not call offside until the player in an offside position actually touches (i.e. "plays") the ball. To MassRef's point, I think I just heard the best possible explanation I can think of for "challenging". That also helps me know that I made the right offside call early in the season on a comeback offside where the attacker was right on the back of the defender starting to play the ball. At least for me, that's really helpful.
Which is pretty much almost where we are at. The exceptions, other than the sight lines, involve either physical contact or something very close it or an obvious action that distracts or causes the defender to alter their behavior. I know that last one is difficult for people to contrast against situations where simple presence causes a defender to do something. But it's where we are right now.
Agree. Also, announcers should know what's happening and stop being so confused about late offside calls
Hmm. I mean, that never gets called. But it's a head butt into the back of the head. The American player doesn't hit the ball at all and is late. If you do that with your legs, it's a foul. If we are going to take head injuries seriously, maybe we need to reconsider how we handle situations like this.
Glad I learned here a few days ago to expect "Heath's" goal to count because the defender played it, no matter Lloyd's position. Kept me from having what would've been a lot of unnecessary anxiety... Although I don't know if it was actually deflected enough to be counted as an own goal by FIFA. I thought the ref crew was very solid. May we never see refs as blind as JP Dellacamera....
I agree. I get that both of these teams play pretty fairly with the US trying to value possession a lot, but the crew did a very good job calling the game. I thought the foul threshold was spot on. The game did get a little chippy near the end, but the crew did well to tighten the foul calls to make sure nothing came close to boiling over. In a tournament where we've seen some rough officiating (and I'm not even going to discuss VAR here!), this crew was very solid. I would have no problem with them on another US match if that's what it came down to.
Dang I still had a lot of unnecessary anxiety because they took so long I was afraid they were going to get it wrong.
In addition to the above, I have also noticed that as long as the offensive player gets their shot off, the defender can pretty much wipe them out with impunity afterwards. Late contact that would be called a foul after a pass anywhere else on the field is allowed after a shot in the penalty box.