My counter argument would be she hasn't "clearly attempted to play the ball" yet at this moment. She's about to, but she hasn't yet. You can hate it, but that's how refs are told to interpret this.
She is running towards the ball - if the Chile striker the other night was offside for running towards the ball, not touching it, but the ball going in, then Lloyd is also offside.
The biggest problem is that VAR isn’t applicable below the PL, so there will be inconsistency in decisions between top flight and lower leagues.
What counts as a foul in the PL compared to League 2 are almost different sports so it’s not really comparable anywayThe biggest problem is that VAR isn’t applicable below the PL, so there will be inconsistency in decisions between top flight and lower leagues.
.
The biggest problem is that VAR isn’t applicable below the PL, so there will be inconsistency in decisions between top flight and lower leagues.
Also, going back to last night, a defender is taught to play the ball regardless of the situation. Imagine if the defender left the ball because she believed it’s offside, Lloyd put it in and then the ref still decided she was onside in the first place... Defender would never get selected again.
Look at the Brazil v Australia own goal. If the striker isn’t there the keeper calls the defender to leave it. In the moment, the defender had to react because she can’t be certain offside will be called. How can anyone say that the striker hasn’t interfered?? She runs with every intention of getting the ball and shooting.
It’s another rule that needs to be tweaked.
I was thinking about my problem with VAR and offsides the other day and it's that they go into great detail trying to find out if the attacker is in front of the defender, but they don't seem to pay as much attention to when the ball was played through. Do they look at when the first contact occurs, or when the ball leaves the foot? That could be the difference between onside or offside.
I thought I'd come in here and post this yesterday, and then heard them say the exact same thing on Football Weekly
Their idea about changing the offside rule so that you're onside if any part of your body is level with the last defender is a good one. Being offside by an inch or two under the current rules just feels wrong.
Have to say after watching it's use in the WWC I'm getting a little worried. Don't think it's the system, but the people using it. In todays game White's goal was ruled off for handball, but they took no account of the defender jostling her from behind & probably causing the ball to hit her arm, so no handball for me & the goal should have stood.
probably causing the ball to hit her arm, so no handball for me
IMO the offside law should be changed to clear daylight (ir similar term) between the attacking and defending players and not millimetres of a foot being ahead of play. If any part of the body is level it's onside.
Agreed.
The idea behind the offside rule, like handball, fouls and so on, is simply to prevent a team from getting an unfair advantage. Having a toe a millimetre over an imaginary line is not an unfair advantage and shouldn’t be penalised.
.
The offside rule is the prime example of a rule that seems to have become detached from its original purpose. It’s now a rule for its own sake and goes against the free-flowing spirit of the game. A rule that requires computer technology to enforce, rather than just using it on the rare occasions when the referee misses something obvious, is a bad rule.
VAR is potentially a great thing, but only when it is used to improve the game, not as a means of reinforcing pedantry beyond the ability of the unaided human eye to see.