The only thing worse than taking forever to make a VAR call is taking forever to make a VAR call and getting it wrong. There was no conclusive evidence that ball touched Smith, but the primary camera view from behind the goal showed that the ball's direction and spin did NOT change. I have no issue with pulling one back for handball - th…
The only thing worse than taking forever to make a VAR call is taking forever to make a VAR call and getting it wrong. There was no conclusive evidence that ball touched Smith, but the primary camera view from behind the goal showed that the ball's direction and spin did NOT change. I have no issue with pulling one back for handball - them's the rules. But there has to be indisputable evidence that the arm was struck - and there was none.
In our house, we have come to the conclusion that the VAR process has become perverted into a search for minutiae instead of a method for preventing obvious errors. There needs to be a refresher for the VAR's on the "clear and obvious" part of the rule. Having a time limit, perhaps 30 seconds, would help. Not sure after 30 seconds? It must not have been obvious. Suspicious about offside but don't have time to look at all the angles? Have the center ref take a look. Someday, maybe an AI app will draw those lines in a heartbeat.
At least this time it didn't cost points (although who know what that goal difference may mean in October?)
Sinc is acting as the equivalent of a playmaking center in hockey, kinda like what Steve Nash did in hoops. It's working for Smith, and it appears to be working for Sinc and Fleming given their long partnership (what, 120+ matches?). The one for whom I'm not sure it's working is Weaver (and, of course, Moultrie). I don't know how it would go to move Beckie into Sinclair's spot, or to move Smith centrally again and put Beckie out wide. But I will say this... this is the best run of form I've seen from Beckie, and I'm not sure whether it's connected to the role she's playing. My hunch is yes.
I think Weaver’s struggles are more based on a lack of integration with Reyes who isn’t nearly the distributor Kling is, but is the better overall player by a pretty wide margin.
I do think moving more of the distribution to the midfielders instead of the fullbacks will help there. Coffey and Fleming both have good long balls which can open up Weavet in space even if Reyes doesn’t have that skill set in her toolbox
The thing with Weaver is that (from what I can tell) she still has a high work rate. We aren't seeing the goals or the offensive chaos she has brought in the past, but I'm with you on the switch of Kling to Reyes. I think the last two matches are showing that the midfield is starting to play much better, and if teams start to focus on Smith as the scoring threat Weaver should get the opportunities. Lets hope she starts to produce, because we are going to need her.
One of our losses (so many to choose from) had momentary excitement when brunette with ponytail smartly dispossessed somebody in our back third. Who? Had to track the little Lego figure back upfield for awhile to learn it had been Morgan.
I do think the ball hit Smith's forarm, but I also felt she had her arms tucked into her body. She wasn't making her body bigger, nor did she really impact the play. I think the VAR reversal was a bad call. I do think they missed the call against Reyes, so perhaps it ends up as a wash.
That's the weird thing about the rule- if you see it hit her arm then the goal is no good period. Body positioning is irrelevant, not does it have to be handled on the actual shot. Imagine she has her back to the play, the ball grazes her elbow, and two passes later we score - no goal. It's a harsh rule, but FIFA don't want another Hand of God. Of course, we are really debating if VAR saw actual evidence of contact - that's a different issue.
Yes, that's exactly it. If the ball touched Smith's arm then no goal. One of the camera angles showed what looked to me like definite contact, so I think it was the right call. Which is too bad, since it was quite a strike by Beckie. I'm happy it didn't matter in the end. (Well, unless we tie for the Shield on points and lose it on a goal difference of 1! But KC is looking very much like the Shield will be a non-issue for the Thorns.)
Sigh, I'm back to not understanding the handball rule. I thought that if you had your arms tucked into the body it wasn't a handball. Intent doesn't matter, but positioning did. But perhaps they changed the rule (again) just to keep me off balance.
Naw - you are correct for a regular handball call on a DEFENDER. One that could be a penalty if in the box, or otherwise a free kick. It could also apply to an ATTACKER if it was deliberate. There was one last week where the attacker used her hand to keep the ball from going into touch. This can be a yellow or red card if really blatant.
Beckie's case is an extension of the rule that applies specifically to the BUILDUP to a goal when there is ball-hand contact by the ATTACKING team. There is no foul or penalty involved. Any contact wipes out the goal regardless of intent or positioning.
The only thing worse than taking forever to make a VAR call is taking forever to make a VAR call and getting it wrong. There was no conclusive evidence that ball touched Smith, but the primary camera view from behind the goal showed that the ball's direction and spin did NOT change. I have no issue with pulling one back for handball - them's the rules. But there has to be indisputable evidence that the arm was struck - and there was none.
In our house, we have come to the conclusion that the VAR process has become perverted into a search for minutiae instead of a method for preventing obvious errors. There needs to be a refresher for the VAR's on the "clear and obvious" part of the rule. Having a time limit, perhaps 30 seconds, would help. Not sure after 30 seconds? It must not have been obvious. Suspicious about offside but don't have time to look at all the angles? Have the center ref take a look. Someday, maybe an AI app will draw those lines in a heartbeat.
At least this time it didn't cost points (although who know what that goal difference may mean in October?)
I thought Chicago had a legitimate shot at earning a penalty on Reyes' defensive hand ball in the box that he let go after VAR checked it.
I think that's what makes this VAR decision so bad regarding Beckie's disallowed goal.
I was dead sure that Reyes was going to get called for a handball and penalty on that play. I still don't know why we got away with it.
Agree on all points.
It seemed more than anything a homer call, reversing what was a fatal strike against Red Stars and done so under the most dubious of cases.
Rotation not affected; path not affected. Yes, Soph was RIGHT THERE so she must have done something, yeah? Baloney.
It does not take away the fact we have seen several times now: Beckie is a deadly striker--quick, decisive, accurate. Maybe start her?
Sinc is acting as the equivalent of a playmaking center in hockey, kinda like what Steve Nash did in hoops. It's working for Smith, and it appears to be working for Sinc and Fleming given their long partnership (what, 120+ matches?). The one for whom I'm not sure it's working is Weaver (and, of course, Moultrie). I don't know how it would go to move Beckie into Sinclair's spot, or to move Smith centrally again and put Beckie out wide. But I will say this... this is the best run of form I've seen from Beckie, and I'm not sure whether it's connected to the role she's playing. My hunch is yes.
I think Weaver’s struggles are more based on a lack of integration with Reyes who isn’t nearly the distributor Kling is, but is the better overall player by a pretty wide margin.
I do think moving more of the distribution to the midfielders instead of the fullbacks will help there. Coffey and Fleming both have good long balls which can open up Weavet in space even if Reyes doesn’t have that skill set in her toolbox
The thing with Weaver is that (from what I can tell) she still has a high work rate. We aren't seeing the goals or the offensive chaos she has brought in the past, but I'm with you on the switch of Kling to Reyes. I think the last two matches are showing that the midfield is starting to play much better, and if teams start to focus on Smith as the scoring threat Weaver should get the opportunities. Lets hope she starts to produce, because we are going to need her.
One of our losses (so many to choose from) had momentary excitement when brunette with ponytail smartly dispossessed somebody in our back third. Who? Had to track the little Lego figure back upfield for awhile to learn it had been Morgan.
Doing a lot of work out there, indeed.
I think that's true too. We're blessed with young, fast, aggressive fullbacks, and our mids are adept at distributing.
I do think the ball hit Smith's forarm, but I also felt she had her arms tucked into her body. She wasn't making her body bigger, nor did she really impact the play. I think the VAR reversal was a bad call. I do think they missed the call against Reyes, so perhaps it ends up as a wash.
That's the weird thing about the rule- if you see it hit her arm then the goal is no good period. Body positioning is irrelevant, not does it have to be handled on the actual shot. Imagine she has her back to the play, the ball grazes her elbow, and two passes later we score - no goal. It's a harsh rule, but FIFA don't want another Hand of God. Of course, we are really debating if VAR saw actual evidence of contact - that's a different issue.
Yes, that's exactly it. If the ball touched Smith's arm then no goal. One of the camera angles showed what looked to me like definite contact, so I think it was the right call. Which is too bad, since it was quite a strike by Beckie. I'm happy it didn't matter in the end. (Well, unless we tie for the Shield on points and lose it on a goal difference of 1! But KC is looking very much like the Shield will be a non-issue for the Thorns.)
Sigh, I'm back to not understanding the handball rule. I thought that if you had your arms tucked into the body it wasn't a handball. Intent doesn't matter, but positioning did. But perhaps they changed the rule (again) just to keep me off balance.
Naw - you are correct for a regular handball call on a DEFENDER. One that could be a penalty if in the box, or otherwise a free kick. It could also apply to an ATTACKER if it was deliberate. There was one last week where the attacker used her hand to keep the ball from going into touch. This can be a yellow or red card if really blatant.
Beckie's case is an extension of the rule that applies specifically to the BUILDUP to a goal when there is ball-hand contact by the ATTACKING team. There is no foul or penalty involved. Any contact wipes out the goal regardless of intent or positioning.
Thanks for the clarification. That is a clear explanation, and one I needed.