I don't think France can claim to be hard done by as the US had just scored a disallowed goal for an offside that wasn't.
-
-
Ouch.
(I meant that shove. Under the circumstances, however, it was probably a smart foul).Comment
-
They are indeed, with the question "Un penalty oublié?" at the bottom of the screen for the past ten minutes. As far as I can tell, they're not making that huge a deal out of it, though. "Yeah, could have been, could not have been, that's not why we lost the game" seems to be the general gist of the panelists and players interviewed. I think.Originally posted by Janik View PostComment
-
I don't think it was a penalty, and I think that was a perfectly good goal. French TV hasn't even mentioned that one. It's all irrelevant, because the US won and they deserved to win and Rapinoe shoved two goals up Trump's arse, ha!Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View PostComment
-
But in imp-world was rightly disallowed, i.e. offside that is what the Assistsnt gave on a very marginal call. Suck it up and move on.Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View PostComment
-
Just checking you know it wasn't ruled out by VAR but instead by one of those delayed flags that the Assitant refs now do to keep their calls reviewable?Originally posted by imp View Post
Comment
-
But seeing as it resulted in a goal, I'm not sure why it wasn't VAR-reviewed. Isn't that the point of delaying the flag?Originally posted by Janik View PostComment
-
I think it was, but rather more quickly than before. The referee didn't allow play to immediately restart, and seemed to talk into her mic. We saw a replay with two lines, the one for Dunn indicating her just beyond the French backline when the ball was played. Then play got going again. Given they have these lines on the graphics on offside calls, when there is no ambiguity about who played the pass or whether there was interference with play it should be a rapid and straightforward call. Pause the action at the right time, look at the still, feed the decision to the on-field official. Over in seconds.Originally posted by imp View Post
The point of delaying the flag is to retain the option of VAR reviewing things rather than making it a certainty that a review will happen. Supposedly if the flag goes up prior to the ball going in, then VAR cannot be employed even if the ref hasn't stopped the game. That was reported as one of the arguments Cameroon were using about White's goal in the last-16 - the flag was up during play (replays show this was nonsense) so VAR wasn't not allowed to overturn the call.Last edited by Janik; 28-06-2019, 22:15.Comment
-
The goal scorer wasn't offside. The player who received the ball and played the assist was as offside as the Cameroon player for their disallowed goal.Comment
-
Is that aimed at imp or me? I realise it was Dunn out on the wing who the flag went up against. Heath was on by ten yards or more as she was coming from behind the play.Comment
-
SB and imp seem to think it was wrongly disallowed.Comment
-
I said at the time it was marginal.Comment
-
It's consistent from imp - he has said more than once he doesn't consider a player whose nose is behind the furthest extremity of the last defender to be clearly enough offside to be penalised. And the replay did make it look about that marginal on Dunn. Just as Heath was only that far on in the build up for the USA's second goal, for that matter - the replay showed her beyond the torso of the last French defender, but the defender's arm was extended and that was closer to her byline than any part of Heath. Apparently. If I didn't think this all happened too fast for FIFA to mock up the necessary graphics, one might suggest the backing up of the two razor-fine on field calls* that allowed the game to proceed without long interruptions and overturns was very convenient...
* - both apparently accurate and both given by the same Assistant, who may have just officiated her way into a World Cup Final gig.Comment
-
It was a great second half.Comment
-
Unquestionably the best game of the tournament so far. The chances are it will remain that way until the end as well. The best mix of drama, emotion, in-the-balance outcome, intensity and skill, also the observed side of the coin of mistakes and cheating as well, that we've had.Comment
-
Indeed - we had the red line briefly on French tv, and there was only one red line, as far as I could see/can remember - maybe the second 'offside' line was so close that I couldn't distinguish it in that brief second they showed it. It was a fine goal, and it's a crying shame to disallow fine goals. But at least we moved quickly on, and at least it didn't end up being decisive.Originally posted by Janik View Post
If the AR hadn't flagged, I wonder if it would have been reviewed, because there's no way that would have fallen in the category "obvious error". It's worth repeating what it says in my official media guide to the tournament:
VAR
The use of VAR is guided by a simple maxim" "minimum interference, maximum benefit". [stop snickering over there in the cheap seats.]
This means that the aim is not to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions but to correct obvious errors and deal with serious missed incidents in a few pre-determined match-changing situations [Fifa's emphasis]:
- Goals
- Penalties
- Direct red cards
- Mistaken identity for disciplinary sanctions
Of course all that's open to interpretation too. Would the cancelled US third goal have counted as a "serious missed incident" and an "obvious error"? I wouldn't argue that they were, but the VAR might well do so.
Comment
-
It was a good game, and I felt for France who put the US under a huge amount of pressure.
The fact remains for France that they still haven't progressed past the quarter-finals of any tournament since London 2012. It's a ridiculous legacy of underachievement for a national team who draw the spine of their team from a club that has dominated european football for a decade.Comment
-
L'Équipe today is scandalised by the referee not giving the French their penalty, and gives her 3 out of 10 (I thought she was very good). Though I'm beginning to suspect that they talk out their arses anyway - they gave both the US central defenders, Dahlkemper and Sauerbrunn, 4 out of 10. The pair didn't commit a single foul between them the whole 90 minutes. Given the lack of clear chances the French created, I'd have given them both 7 at least. Which was the mark that the paper gave Amandine Henry... (who had exactly how many decisive moments in this match?). Footnote: L'Équipe is extremely stingy with its marks, so 7 out of 10 is generally reserved for only one or two players per team, if at all - Rapinoe got a 7, as did Ertz and Crystal Dunn.
I'm glad Dunn is getting the plaudits she deserves. I thought she had a very good game against Spain, but I seemed to be the only one. Many were predicting she'd get ravaged by Diani last night, but for me she played even better than the two centre backs.Comment
Comment