Can't tell anything from the narrow range of that video.
This one at least has a broader view.
Here's the moment the ball is passed. Smith is off by a body lean, Mal isn't.
Was Tarciane drawn to Smith or the ball? I can't tell.
New USWNT head coach
- Thread starter whatithink
- Start date
Can't tell anything from the narrow range of that video.
This one at least has a broader view.
Here's the moment the ball is passed. Smith is off by a body lean, Mal isn't.
Was Tarciane drawn to Smith or the ball? I can't tell.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Forgive me, but how is the rule written for these matches in the Olympics? What part of the body is supposed to be used when judging offside or not - is it the feet? torso? arms? head? furthest part over in the direction of the goal on the field? I think I'm aware that that has changed over the last season in Premier League, to make it somewhat less likely to be called compared to prior - but I have no idea of the specific circumstances these women were playing in.
SOOOO clear that she was on. I don't know what that other person is talking about.
I think it's head body or feet..........any part of the body that can "play the ball".
If it's SOOOO clear, why was the first thing out of the announcer's mouth, "probably offside but the flag stays down for now"?
I'm not saying it should have been called, but to say Smith didn't affect the play is questionable.
I'm basing my comment on the photo that was posted. Not when the actual play happened. When the actual play happened, to the naked eye, I can see why the announcer mentioned offside because it looked very close in real time. OR........maybe the announcer had their eye on Smith who WAS in an offside position.
My point is the rule is subjective. The official has to determine how much influence the "offside" player had. That's difficult to determine unless you're a mind reader.
whatithink
GOLD
It hardly matters. The 3 Brazilian defenders were yards behind both US players. Both US players went towards the ball before Smith peeled off into the center. Swanson was still in the clear.
If Smith had done nothing, Swanson would still have received the ball 2-3 yards ahead of any Brazilian. It was a super ball played to a super run - the 2 defenders closest to Swanson were out of position and/or the defender playing Swanson on was way out of position. To me, that's why it was ruled that Smith didn't interfere, because the defenders had zero chance of getting there before Swanson irrespective of Smith.
The rule has gotten more narrow for what qualifies as being involved in the play. Used to be that being in a sufficiently threatening position qualified: if the goalie needed to worry about you, then you counted towards offside. They changed it so that an uninvolved person in an offside position doesn’t count, regardless of whether the goalie would need to worry about you.
In other words, Tarciane was supposed to know in real time that Smith was off side, choose to ignore her, and focus on Mal. Ridiculous, but I think that’s the rule.
whatithink
GOLD
If you impede the GK, physically or even line of sight, you will be offside. Defenders know that they have to just play and let VAR figure it out. Its the same as it ever was, i.e. play to the whistle. The Brazilian defenders tried to cover back, but they were too far behind the play and couldn't make it in time. It was a great through ball, but it was also really silly defending against a forward line that has 3 players that can out pace your backline.
In the old days, we used to call this an offside trap. Forward(s) are beyond the last defender. Offsides. Smith and Swanson are what... 10 yards apart from each other when it's hit and less than 5 when it arrives... and the ball was sent between them? LOL. I wonder how this goes over if it's the U.S. giving up the goal.
Well said. I see the men's side of soccer run plays all the time with a player in the offside position. While this wasn't a purposeful play, Swanson said afterwards that she was yelling at Smith to leave that ball alone because she knew she was in the offside position.
Maybe it is subjective (irony intended). Lots of things in this sport are, starting with something so simple as how long the games should last.
Re-reading Law 11, and going through the list in 11.2, I can't see how you make the call, unless you think that Smith was intentionally impeding another player are made a failed attempt to play the ball. Based on what went down making the call would require a lot more conjecture than not.
Most people lack the ability to be unbiased when personal interest is on the line. So there would always be questions by those on the losing end of what is perceived to be a close call.
I wouldn't say a lot of things are subjective. Wishy washy more than subjective... like 'what is a hand ball' that seems to change almost yearly and can't ever be reviewed in less than 5 looks and 5 minutes. Extra time is subjective and offsides has become subjective. Not much else is.
To say you're not offside because you're not involved in the play makes sense when you're 20-30 yards away but that's not the case here. Again, I'm not arguing it was offside but if you watch Swanson's reaction immediately after the goal, at :14, she's looking at the AR. And if you stop the video when the pass is made at :07, you could easily argue both strikers are off. The ball was hit to Sanchez's right side and she was off. I was wrong earlier... it was not hit between them, but they were only a couple of yards apart.
Mallory Swanson scores to put U.S. up 1-0 in gold medal match
See American soccer player Mallory Swanson score the first goal in the women's soccer gold medal match against Brazil.
www.nbcnews.com
As of a few minutes ago there was a report that Mauricio Pochettino has agreed to coach the USMNT. Not officially confirmed.
Confirmed. Poch is the coach. Wow!
outside!
DA
They showed the offside analysis on TV. When the pass was made, Swanson was onside, Smith was offside. The referee decided Smith did not interfere with play. My opinion is that even if Smith had frozen when the pass was made, Swanson would have had an excellent chance of scoring.I wouldn't say a lot of things are subjective. Wishy washy more than subjective... like 'what is a hand ball' that seems to change almost yearly and can't ever be reviewed in less than 5 looks and 5 minutes. Extra time is subjective and offsides has become subjective. Not much else is.
To say you're not offside because you're not involved in the play makes sense when you're 20-30 yards away but that's not the case here. Again, I'm not arguing it was offside but if you watch Swanson's reaction immediately after the goal, at :14, she's looking at the AR. And if you stop the video when the pass is made at :07, you could easily argue both strikers are off. The ball was hit to Sanchez's right side and she was off. I was wrong earlier... it was not hit between them, but they were only a couple of yards apart.
Mallory Swanson scores to put U.S. up 1-0 in gold medal match
See American soccer player Mallory Swanson score the first goal in the women's soccer gold medal match against Brazil.
Soccerfan2
GOLD
Having watched the process of selection over many years and having had a kid in a number of camps including in this cycle, I can say all of the kids selected have more than enough skill. There are plenty more players in the pool who do as well. I think the biggest advantage Spain has over us is their tactical knowledge. Youth coaches’ livelihoods depend more on their sales skills than their teaching abilities. I don’t think a 1-0 loss is anything to worry about. These girls only get to prepare together in camp a few times, and the team isn’t even in its final form until pre-camp. But, if we want YNT to be better, we need coaches downstream of YNT and within YNT at the younger ages who can teach them more.