Jump to content

Women's World Cup - France 2019

Prydzopolis

By Prydzopolis
in Womens Football

Recommended Posts

Unlimited

Unlimited

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wendybr said:

We score!

Good goal!!

What happened to going back to bed lol 

We may have a chance in the second half, 2-1 down and apparently Brazil’s team makes Brisbane Roar look like an U/12s side in terms of age

They may tire out badly in the second 

Link to comment
Unlimited

Unlimited

Posted
Posted
Just now, btron3000 said:

Kerr was offside and got involved in play. Tell me she didn’t have an impact on that.

She got involved and was being marked by the other player

She was like a metre away from the own goal player

Link to comment
Unlimited

Unlimited

Posted
Posted
Just now, btron3000 said:

Mate.

She was the reason that the defender had to jump to try and clear it.

By that logic, being in an offside position at any time is “offside”

Kerr didn’t play at the ball, she didn’t (personally) gain an advantage from being in that position, and she wasn’t close to the ball 

Those are the three offside considerations that you need to look at after you determine if she’s in an offside position (which she was)

So yes offside position but no offside offence

Link to comment
btron3000

btron3000

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Unlimited said:

By that logic, being in an offside position at any time is “offside”

Kerr didn’t play at the ball, she didn’t (personally) gain an advantage from being in that position, and she wasn’t close to the ball 

No. The logic is that being in an offside position and having an impact on play should be offside.

Kerr didn’t play at the ball? What is jumping for it? Lol

Didn’t get an advantage? The defender jumped for the ball because she was there. The advantage is an own goal that wouldn’t have occurred had Sam not been in the vicinity. It’s the biggest advantage you can get.

 

Tell me that the defender would have jumped for the ball like that had Sam not been there. That should be the ONLY test of “interfering with play”.

How anyone that has played or watched football for any length of time can suggest Kerr wasn’t having an impact on that play is beyond me.

The offside rule is a farce.

Link to comment
Taurus

Taurus

Posted
Posted

If you're seeking an advantage by being in an offside position, the goal shouldn't stand. 

But they took that wording out of the rule, so as to allow passive offsides provided they don't impact play 

Link to comment
mack

mack

Posted
Posted

Under the laws the decision is clearly correct. Being offside isn't an offence. You have to then do something. When you don't touch the ball and don't touch the opposition player, you'd have to do something obvious that interfered with the opponent playing the ball (didn't happen), obstruct vision (didn't happen), or take advantage by a rebound (didn't happen).

I still think the laws should have some kind of exclusion area where a player in an offside position is automatically called for a foul if the ball goes near them.

I'd also add a note that anyone in an offside position when a free kick is taken is called for a foul as they are automatically interfering with the defensive structure of the opposition team.

Link to comment
btron3000

btron3000

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, wendybr said:

What a weird goal!

And even though it went our way...how tedious is waiting for a determination from the VAR.

Totally. 2 min to get the ref to go take another look. Then another min waiting for her. Then the arguments that ensue because no-one understands the decision. 

Just overrule or get on with it within 30 seconds. The sideline tv is stupid.

Link to comment
btron3000

btron3000

Posted
Posted

What a gutsy team. Revived the old Matildas attitude.

They are still a rung below the likes of France, Germany, USA etc. though.

I can’t believe Steph Catley got away with that grapple in the box at the end, given how many pens VAR has given for that. I was feeling ill waiting for that decision.

For a team that had been in the top 10 for so long, there is still a lot of naivety. Leading with a few minutes to go and they are jumping into tackles in midfield and letting the opposition get past them instead of jockeying . They need to do better than that if they want to beat the best teams.

Link to comment
Davo

Davo

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, btron3000 said:

For a team that had been in the top 10 for so long, there is still a lot of naivety. Leading with a few minutes to go and they are jumping into tackles in midfield and letting the opposition get past them instead of jockeying . They need to do better than that if they want to beat the best teams.

Same thing happened against Italy. Player for player we're a better team than them but the Italians knew how to kill the momentum of the game with tactical fouls, winning cheap free kicks, wasting time etc. Our players had not answer to that other than "Plan A harder" and it cost us the game.

Those top teams you mentioned would have gone 3-2 up and completely shut the game down.

Link to comment
MartinTyler

MartinTyler

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, mack said:

Despite scoring twice Brazil really didn't take advantage of the massive space over the top.

I think based on the structure a draw in the final game should be enough to get through to the KO's.

It's still very possible that we could finish 1st 2nd or 3rd in this group. If Brazil beat Italy and everyone beats Jamaica then there's a 3 way tie at the top !!

Link to comment
btron3000

btron3000

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MartinTyler said:

It's still very possible that we could finish 1st 2nd or 3rd in this group. If Brazil beat Italy and everyone beats Jamaica then there's a 3 way tie at the top !!

One extra goal last night would have really put us in a good spot. Would have meant our GD was same as Brasil. If they beat Italy we’d only have to match the score from that game in our game against Jamaica (or overtake Italy GD if they smash Jamaica).

3rd in this group is a death knell. If we qualify at all we’d almost certainly (90%) play France (10% chance we play winner of group B) then USA (or Spain if they beat them).

2nd is tough. Almost certainly play Norway then likely England/Japan in Qtrs and then France or USA (or a team who are good enough to beat both France and USA).

I fear the last minute goal against Italy is going to cost us a much easier run.

Link to comment
btron3000

btron3000

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davo said:

Same thing happened against Italy. Player for player we're a better team than them but the Italians knew how to kill the momentum of the game with tactical fouls, winning cheap free kicks, wasting time etc. Our players had not answer to that other than "Plan A harder" and it cost us the game.

Those top teams you mentioned would have gone 3-2 up and completely shut the game down.

Yeah for all their quality they have not played in a semi of a World Cup or Olympics. I think they lack a bit of composure at times. If they make it that far I’d be surprised if a couple of them didn’t struggle or get shown up by smarter teams.

Link to comment
scarcev

scarcev

Posted
Posted

Was a good win under pressure no doubt but remember this is the same side ranked 6 places below us and we have beaten easily in the past. With the way the group works we will get out of it no problem but we are still nowhere near challenging any of the top teams. We will lose our first knockout game no matter which opposition we face unless we somehow top the group. The siege mentality expressed by Milicic, Kerr and others pre and post game is also concerning, you cannot take that attitude into every game and win simply 'to prove a point' this mentality doesn't last forever as demonstrated by Babbell's 'we are going to finish last cos the pundits said so' mentality at the start of this season, it's good for a few games but not for a tournament.  As for the winning goal, technically it is the correct decision but geez if Kerr is not there that defender lets that ball run through to her keeper, still wondering how Sotirio was involved in play in the Derby disallowed offside goal if Kerr is not involved in play there.

Link to comment
Unlimited

Unlimited

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, scarcev said:

Was a good win under pressure no doubt but remember this is the same side ranked 6 places below us and we have beaten easily in the past. With the way the group works we will get out of it no problem but we are still nowhere near challenging any of the top teams. We will lose our first knockout game no matter which opposition we face unless we somehow top the group. The siege mentality expressed by Milicic, Kerr and others pre and post game is also concerning, you cannot take that attitude into every game and win simply 'to prove a point' this mentality doesn't last forever as demonstrated by Babbell's 'we are going to finish last cos the pundits said so' mentality at the start of this season, it's good for a few games but not for a tournament.  As for the winning goal, technically it is the correct decision but geez if Kerr is not there that defender lets that ball run through to her keeper, still wondering how Sotirio was involved in play in the Derby disallowed offside goal if Kerr is not involved in play there.

They apologised about Sotirio’s derby goal though - they admitted it was wrong 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...