there was plenty of time to train a few female refs in the art of watching the game on telly and needlessly interfearing
Women World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Siva
- Start date
Another reason to ditch the anathema that is club marks
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The decision to add VARs was late. For the MWC, there was a lot of training over an extended time. There was not time to train brand new VARs for the WWC in anything close to the same way by the time they decided to add VARs into the mix. I imagine that by the Olympics they will have women trained as VARs (though they are hampered by the fact that I don't believe there is a women's league in the world that uses VARs). Given the issues surrounding video review in this tournament (where I believe all of the VARs are experienced), I find the suggestion that they should have thrown newbies in there quite perplexing.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Not sure you can blame the gender of the referees. The 2nd USA penalty yesterday took 6 minutes to resolve. Ref (From about 5 metres away) gave it. VAR took an age to review THEN sent ref to monitor and the she took an age to......confirm her own decision. It was one of those that could/could not have been given so why not just go with the original decision?
It matters not to me if FIFA have or have not dropped the words 'clear and obvious error' or even if they were there in the first place - 'football expects' VAR to be used for clear errors, not to give teams and refs a 2nd go at every penalty decision and goal - which is the point we seem to have arrived at now.
It matters not to me if FIFA have or have not dropped the words 'clear and obvious error' or even if they were there in the first place - 'football expects' VAR to be used for clear errors, not to give teams and refs a 2nd go at every penalty decision and goal - which is the point we seem to have arrived at now.
Arm by her side smashed at her from a yard away. What can she possibly do?
Her arm was not near her side when it hit her arm. The force of the ball hitting her forced her arm behind her back making it look like her arm was closer after the ball had hit it. This is a foul.
Unnatural position? Intentional? Did she have any opportunity to move? Not a Chance is that handball
Her arm was not near her side when it hit her arm. The force of the ball hitting her forced her arm behind her back making it look like her arm was closer after the ball had hit it. This is a foul.
Don't leave your arm hanging out in the penalty area and block a shot going into the top corner of the goal.
Ball was played across the area, she’s turned her body then ran to close down the attacker. When you’re running, it’s natural for your arms to be moving by her sides.
As you can see by the two images here, her arm has moved towards her body between the ball being struck and it hitting her arm.
If that’s handball I may as well cancel promotion now as I certainly won’t be awarding a penalty for somebody naturally moving and having no time to get out the way of a shot
Were obviously never going to agree because you're using that 2nd image to show its not a foul while I'd use that same image to show this is clearly a foul.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It's pretty clear (and its been pretty clear to most of the world for several years) that there is an impetus on defenders to not have their arms away from their body, especially when they are deliberately taking up space to try to block a shot. While I confess my first reaction seeing this on a small screen was that it was a harsh call, seeing where her arms are I think this is a pretty clear call. (For the sake of the tournament, I'm glad it was called lie and not by video review. And yes, I think if the R had not called it initially, it would have been called after the OFR.)
There has been but IMO, I feel there’s nothing she can do about this. For a player to be closing down an attacker, I don’t see this position as unnatural. When you run, your arms move. If anything, moving your arms behind your back would be more unnatural than what she’s doing, but this is what we are expected to punish apparently.
She’s seen a ball come across the box, turned her body and seen an attacker control it. She’s a split second to close that ball down. You aren’t going to instinctively put your arms behind your back, you’re going to throw yourself towards the ball. Had her arms been higher, I’d agree with the penalty but the gap between her arm and body just simply isn’t enough for me to call unnatural. I envy anyone who can sprint forward without naturally making that movement on the football pitch
Let's be honest... under the direction everywhere in the world other than the UK, that was an offence for the last 3-4 years.
The Laws just finally match up with the direction.
This has been handling in the Premier League too for sometime.
one
RefChat Addict
In a nutshell, in the past, if you have taken actions to make contact with the ball, its a handball. But now it's handball if you have not take actions to avoid contact with the ball.
This incident is a handball, not because she took actions to make contact with the ball (still questionable). Its because of lack of action to avoid contact with the ball.
This incident is a handball, not because she took actions to make contact with the ball (still questionable). Its because of lack of action to avoid contact with the ball.
Give me strength, who gave these lawmakers the oxygen of life to dictate such new pathetic guidances. They've sold out to TV. Absolute garbage decision and goes against 150 years of relative common sense....