FIFA Women's WC France 2019

steviemc said:
I'm hoping you're on a wind-up? Anyhow, the girls went out with a fight, and I'd much rather see that as opposed to a whimper. Whether you like VAR or not is irrelevant - it does not matter what you think one jot. It's happened and it's here to stay. Hopefully we should see more good decisions than bad ones, but it ain't going' anywhere, so me, you and the rest of the traditional football fans need to suck it up and get used to it.
Click to expand...

Agree.
Easier for some just to slag off and be negative about everything.
 
steviemc said:
I'm hoping you're on a wind-up? Anyhow, the girls went out with a fight, and I'd much rather see that as opposed to a whimper. Whether you like VAR or not is irrelevant - it does not matter what you think one jot. It's happened and it's here to stay. Hopefully we should see more good decisions than bad ones, but it ain't going' anywhere, so me, you and the rest of the traditional football fans need to suck it up and get used to it.
Click to expand...

I’m a big advocate of women’s football, but the quality was sub-standard. Too many simple mistakes and rank amateur passing, with a lot of kick and rush.

As for VAR, whether it’s here to stay or not is irrelevant. As it stands at this moment in time, it’s turning matches into shit shows at the best of times. And the offside rule with VAR has become a bit of a joke. I mean, a toe end?
 
Dubai Blue said:
You can't possibly know 100% that the offside call was right. That's the point.

When the margins are that tight (i.e., no daylight between the players) then the benefit surely has to go with the attacker. And if that requires a law change, then hurry up and change it because we can't keep seeing goals ruled out due to an attacker being onside in one frame but a toe offside in the next.

I guarantee there'll be a frame that shows the ball at Jill Scott's foot while Ellen White is onside. So, in such scenarios, there's "conclusive" evidence that the goal should both stand AND be disallowed. It's so wide open to manipulation that I struggle to believe anyone (even the most ardent VAR supporters) can defend it in its current guise.
Click to expand...
“ open to manipulation” .....nail on head , the real reason for VAR
 
ballinio said:
“ open to manipulation” .....nail on head , the real reason for VAR
Click to expand...
Certainly seems that way.

Referee: "So, Mr. VAR, you're telling me we've got one image that conclusively shows the player onside and another that conclusively shows him/her offside. Which one shall we go with today?"

Only football could maneuver itself into such a farcical situation.
 
Cruel result. Although they didn't play as well as they can, they deserved at least a full time draw. Such fine margins, the fact that White may have been an inch offside when the ball hit Jill Scotts foot is not a clear error and the goal should have stood. If White had scored a tap in rather than being clipped.....
Gutted for Steph. She has enough on her plate without being held accountable.
 
Great game, unlucky to not be a draw at full time. I still bang my head for Neville changing the shape and formation against the USA for this game in the tournament.

Read this morning they’ve not played this formation for 18 months. Wtf !!!
 
Machiavelli said:
Now they are VAR decisions being discussed! What’s the difference?
Click to expand...

Good point

The main difference is the fucking about and the spoiling of celebrations that will and has happened

That I suppose is the real issue I have. It seems unorganised, haphazard even.

In rugby league there is also order amongst the players, they dont harass the officials. In football we do. That has to be sorted
 
Dubai Blue said:
You can't possibly know 100% that the offside call was right. That's the point.

When the margins are that tight (i.e., no daylight between the players) then the benefit surely has to go with the attacker. And if that requires a law change, then hurry up and change it because we can't keep seeing goals ruled out due to an attacker being onside in one frame but a toe offside in the next.

I guarantee there'll be a frame that shows the ball at Jill Scott's foot while Ellen White is onside. So, in such scenarios, there's "conclusive" evidence that the goal should both stand AND be disallowed. It's so wide open to manipulation that I struggle to believe anyone (even the most ardent VAR supporters) can defend it in its current guise.
Click to expand...


Whilst the rest is open to interpretation from one shit ref to a different shit ref with a tv screen, the fact the powers that be are happy to rule definitively on offside to the cm by drawing a best guess line whilst ignoring a minimum of 12cms difference between frames when both defender and attacker are moving just stinks of blatant ignorance, incompetence and most probably corruption.
 
bluesoup said:
Great game, unlucky to not be a draw at full time. I still bang my head for Neville changing the shape and formation against the USA for this game in the tournament.

Read this morning they’ve not played this formation for 18 months. Wtf !!!
Click to expand...
Why does he keep playing Pat Butcher she has been shit in every game pity she didn’t get sent off earlier in the tournament
 
The English press are loving this! They love a "plucky" loser and a "hard luck" defeat, way more than a successful and efficient winning machine.
 
Does VAR not allow for the players to be level sometimes? They looked level for the goal to me. I thought level was onside. What has happened to the guidelines that the benefit of doubt goes to the attacker? The margin of error of when you freeze the frame must be an issue.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Does VAR not allow for the players to be level sometimes? They looked level for the goal to me. I thought level was onside. What has happened to the guidelines that the benefit of doubt goes to the attacker? The margin of error of when you freeze the frame must be an issue.
Click to expand...

Despite what you think,the fact is she wasn't level.

It was very harsh,and very unlucky,and i think such intervention takes humanity from the game.......but ultimately it was the correct decision.
 
I've really enjoyed this tournament and the England team have really pushed on since the Euros two years ago. They went out fighting last night and held their own against the best team in the world. It was a big improvement on the way they limped out against Holland a couple of years back.

I don't get why some people feel the need to jump straight on here after games to be critical about it. Of course there are more misplaced passes. They haven't had the encouragement, resources or remuneration to compete with the men's game. On top of that, the England team are being asked to adapt under new management and play possession based style of football. It's a big ask but the progress they're making is hugely impressive. You can focus on the mistakes if you want but when some of these sides have hit their stride I think the passages of play have been a joy to watch. It's clearly getting better if you look at the bigger picture.

For the first time in this country I think we have a generation of young girls who will be watching football and knowing it's possible for them to play on a big stage and make some kind of living from it. It's a shame the England team fell short this time put they've continued to push things forward and they deserve credit for their dedication and the levels they've hit.

I think it's also time the FA had a rethink regarding the salary cap. I know they had their reasons for introducing it but with more and more PL clubs throwing more weight behind their teams it might be the right time to remove the barriers. It doesn't seem right that our best players are having to leave in order to make a real living out of the game. The growth of the WSL will surely stall if new fans who want to carry on after watching these tournaments suddenly discover the likes of Lucy Bronze are nowhere to be seen on these shores.
 
FantasyIreland said:
Despite what you think,the fact is she wasn't level.

It was very harsh,and very unlucky,and i think such intervention takes humanity from the game.......but ultimately it was the correct decision.
Click to expand...
In that case I think it would be fairer to use the position of the feet to decide on a position rather than if they are leaning forwards or backwards while they are running. And what would happen in situations where the players are actually level?
 
There is a picture on the back pages of Neville with his arms around Steph's neck. A bit like how you would cuddle your girlfriend just before you stuck your tongue down her throat. Not sure I am comfortable with this,arm around, hugging the players bit. Wonder how it works at the after match dressing room team talk when the girls are getting their kit off ready for a shower.
 
FantasyIreland said:
Despite what you think,the fact is she wasn't level.

It was very harsh,and very unlucky,and i think such intervention takes humanity from the game.......but ultimately it was the correct decision.
Click to expand...
We don't know it was, and that's the point, its a single frame used, who picks that frame ?

With players moving quickly, often in opposite directions, the ball moving quickly, there is still scope for error, because the technology is not up to the job, we don't even know that the lines we see are in perspective.

Not a single USA player appealed, until after the goal was scored, well they would then wouldn't they ?

We've actually gone from encouraging goals (what wins in football) by giving strikers the benefit of the doubt on offside, to discouraging them, but disallowing marginal ones, just to pander to a technology that isn't yet good enough, and we're now saying his (her) big toe was offside, to me its ridiculous that football seems to want to prevent the whole reason we play it, goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top