World Cup China vs England

[bester]

Are they deliberately sabotaging the VAR explanations so they can get rid of it? Disallowed because a player "Player in an offside position".

Horrendous defending shouldn't be saved by deliberate play considerations. Suppose cases like this were inevitable with the revisions

 

[Big Cat]

Are they deliberately sabotaging the VAR explanations so they can get rid of it? Disallowed because a player "Player in an offside position".

Horrendous defending shouldn't be saved by deliberate play considerations. Suppose cases like this were inevitable with the revisions

Didn't see the Incident, but the I'd summarise the deliberate play thing as, 'if there's any doubt, give offside'

I'm dead against live broadcasting of var comms. Var is very problematic as it is without the public humiliation of verbalising the process. Its not ready for public scrutiny and the culture this side of the pond will tear them to bits. We Refs might want insight, but it's just giving everyone else an even bigger ref bashing stick at this time in the game

 

[Scotty Ref]

You must have good eyes if we're watching the same broadcast. And if the England player touched the ball - which certainly looks to have happened - the only decision could be that the goal should have stood.

The England player doesn’t touch the ball. It comes off the back of the Chinese defender and falls to the England player who was originally offside.

 

[Pembroke]

hmmmm ... her jump was deliberate and as "controlled" as any other header... the LOTG says nothing about contested or not.

Her play was deliberate... for me ..I would not have given this as an offside offence. If the England player touched it either way then any consideration of the defender is irrelevant...Bronze became onside at that point

Extract LOTG 11

"*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

• passing the ball to a team-mate;
• gaining possession of the ball; or
• clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball."

I am agreeing with you. A question for more clarity, how is a defender clearing the ball with the head from a cross in control?

 

[JamesL]

Anyone with a clip of the goal disallowed for offside?

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Anyone with a clip of the goal disallowed for offside?

1:50 here

England thrash China to reach World Cup last 16

Watch highlights as Lauren James produces a sensational performance to help England thrash China 6-1 and reach the Women's World Cup last 16.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[JamesL]

1:50 here

England thrash China to reach World Cup last 16

Watch highlights as Lauren James produces a sensational performance to help England thrash China 6-1 and reach the Women's World Cup last 16.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hmmm
Ok. Not sure she does head it. It seems to come off her back.

I think the reason they aren't calling this a deliberate play is because:

"The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control"

Not saying it is right but it's the only obvious reason. @Steve Fall makes a good point, it's not in the law but the player challenging the defender does Impact their ability to make a controlled header/clearance so it can be argued that offside is not reset from they play for that reason as the result was the movement "achieved limited contact/control"

 

[Mr Dean]

The defender does play the ball deliberately. However, IFAB have changed the definition of deliberate play. Instead of memorising IFAB's wishy washy definition of deliberate play, I think it's easier to use the term 'controlled play' in my matches going forward.

 

[Peter Grove]

The England player doesn’t touch the ball. It comes off the back of the Chinese defender and falls to the England player who was originally offside.

I haven't seen any replays since, but I watched the game and the replays they showed at the time.

It didn't come of the back of the Chinese defender as far as I could see and in any event, for me it was a controlled, successful clearance which sent the ball exactly where she wanted it to go, several yards away from her own goal.

As I saw it, all the following indicators mentioned in the law were present, to show that the player deliberately played the ball:

"The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it."
Definitely true.

"The ball was not moving quickly."
It was more or less of a normal speed cross, not coming at the defender excessively quickly.

"The direction of the ball was not unexpected."
Definitely not coming from an unexpected direction.

"The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control."
The player had plenty of time and her movement was not instinctive. Even if it did come off her back (which I'm not convinced of) it would only because she executed her movement poorly, which is not a disqualifying factor as far as the law goes.

In summary, that's a deliberate play as far as I'm concerned.

 

[JamesL]

It didn't come of the back of the Chinese defender as far as I could see and in any event, for me it was a controlled, successful clearance which sent the ball exactly where she wanted it to go, several yards away from her own goal.

Best I can get with the point of contact which appears to show it coming off the shoulder.

I think it's really borderline "limited contact/control" but it's far from a successful clearance going exactly where she intended. She is intending to head it and it strikes her on the shoulder.

I'd like to think VAR used some other angles they would have access to, to confirm these factual points which would explain how they reached their decision

 

[Kes]

I think the VAR panel just felt sorry for that shockingly bad Chinese Goalkeeper.

 

[Redster]

If these are the available angles there has to be a question as to whether the England player did get a touch. Looks to have touched her when it came off the shoulder of the Chinese player

It appeared to be a very cursory trip to the monitor for the number of decisions that needed to be made. I accept they may have additional angles, but it didn't appear that many angles could have been consulted in OFR given the time it took

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[Russell Jones]

Allegedly the sensor that is in all the balls can tell when there has been a touch and in this case it showed no second touch from the England attacker after it had been played by / hit the Chinese defender.
When deciding if a play is "Deliberate or Deflection", one of the Considerations is whether the defending player had a clear, unobstructed view of the ball or was instead being challenged by an opponent. As @Big Cat says, we are now in a world where most 'plays' by defenders will be classed as Deflections .. unless it's blindingly obvious that it was a situation where a fully controlled play would be expected.
Based on these two factors I think the officiating team gave the 'FIFA/IFAB expected decision' and will be backed on this.

Overall, these debates will continue at least as long as the term 'Deliberate Play' remains in the Laws but is interpreted in a way that is at odds with it's typical usage in everyday language.

 

[Redster]

Relying on a sensor in the ball to discount a deflection or a grazing of the ball seems fraught with danger to me

 

[goiko]

Sorry, why are we now discussing who touched the ball and how? Lucy (who it came down to) had walked back to an onside position at that point. Now second phase. I thought the first few posts here were correct. Not interfering when the cross came in, so not offside. Unless the rule has changed again?

 

[JamesL]

Sorry, why are we now discussing who touched the ball and how? Lucy (who it came down to) had walked back to an onside position at that point. Now second phase. I thought the first few posts here were correct. Not interfering when the cross came in, so not offside. Unless the rule has changed again?

This is an incorrect interpretation. It's not been this way since I started reffing 12 years ago. If it ever has at all

 

[goiko]

This is an incorrect interpretation. It's not been this way since I started reffing 12 years ago. If it ever has at all

Thanks for the answer, but which bit is incorrect? Are you also saying you can't stand in an offside position while the ball is played to a team mate who then crosses to you when you are now in an onside position?

 

[Russell Jones]

Sorry, why are we now discussing who touched the ball and how? Lucy (who it came down to) had walked back to an onside position at that point. Now second phase. I thought the first few posts here were correct. Not interfering when the cross came in, so not offside. Unless the rule has changed again?

IF the ball touched another England player before ending up with Lucy Bronze, then, as you say, her original position becomes irrelevant (as the new 'snapshot' effectively replaces the old one). On the other hand, if there is no subsequent attacking touch then her original offside position remains 'in play' and is not negated by the (decided to be) deflection off the defender

 

[goiko]

IF the ball touched another England player before ending up with Lucy Bronze, then, as you say, her original position becomes irrelevant (as the new 'snapshot' effectively replaces the old one). On the other hand, if there is no subsequent attacking touch then her original offside position remains 'in play' and is not negated by the (decided to be) deflection off the defender

Oh ok, thanks. "Deflection" of the cross being the important point, as opposed to the defender actually being in control of the ball when playing it

 

[JamesL]

Thanks for the answer, but which bit is incorrect? Are you also saying you can't stand in an offside position while the ball is played to a team mate who then crosses to you when you are now in an onside position?

The second phase bit.
Offside position is judged always at the last play or touch of a team mate, or deliberate play of an opponent.
So the fact, As you say, the player had walked back onside is irrelevant because the ball was not played or touched by a team mate or deliberately played by an opponent before she became involved in active play.
And therefore, she was a player in an offside position when the ball is last played or touched by a team mate.
In your written example you are essentially saying a player couldn't commit an offside offence in their own half as they had "walked back on side by that point"