The one missing here is the 7-minute review for DOGSO in Orlando that PRO said in The Definitive Angle did not reach the correct outcome (a throw-in was given after OFR)
These videos are good in theory but a bit pointless in execution as this is the 3rd one where the guy in the video just always agrees with the ref's decision. Will be shocked if we ever see him go against the ref. In fact they probably purposely pick videos where he agrees with the decision, just so he can say the ref was correct.
Awful terrible horrible call for the Angel City offsides, how can it be a deflection when she’s lifting her leg to try to get the ball away from her goal? No offsides called on the field, not one player on the opposing team thinking it’s an offsides. Isn’t VAR supposed to help controversial calls? There was no controversy here
I think it was a brilliant call. In 2022, IFAB updated the definitions of “deflection” vs “deliberate play” in a memo. For the 2023/2024 LOTG, the Law was revised. They define multiple criteria to consider (for example, distance, direction, ability to position your body and react, is the person stretching to reach it, is the person jumping, etc), so by the new definitions (well it’s a few years old now but “new”) it falls more into the category of “deflection” as someone who reacted and did what she could rather than a deliberate play where she had the time and space and control to set her body and intentionally play that with her thigh instead of an instinctive block. The other huge factor is the last second switch in direction from the deflection right after the header, yet another consideration. All in all, great call given the current Laws, though yes 5 years ago this would’ve been a clean goal. However, with the current Laws, brilliant goal!
In no world is that last offside call correct. Red 14 is 100% trying to play that ball, that is not a deflection. Really, really bad VAR interference in my opinion.
Even if she is "Trying to", is it likely she can control the ball AND either: 1. Clear the ball 2. Pass the ball 3. Gain possession of the ball? I don't think she can reasonable do any of these 3. Therefore, it is a deflection. Read the LOTG considerations, it's a clear and obvious error and a good VAR intervention.
@@AndersMcA I was mostly relying on this section of Law 11: "If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball." However, rewatching at full speed, I think an easy argument can be made that this is "instinctive movement that achieved limited contact/control", so yes good call.
![[#SHORTS CLIP] ครูอึ้ง กรรมการอึ้ง ฮ่าๆ l ซานิเบาได้เบา l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qeBTuMJs4t0/mqdefault.jpg)
Really cool to see what actually happens during one of these reviews
Thank you for this. I was sooooo confused by the Bay FC handball until this video.
I am bummed, but it was the right call.
The one missing here is the 7-minute review for DOGSO in Orlando that PRO said in The Definitive Angle did not reach the correct outcome (a throw-in was given after OFR)
These videos are good in theory but a bit pointless in execution as this is the 3rd one where the guy in the video just always agrees with the ref's decision. Will be shocked if we ever see him go against the ref. In fact they probably purposely pick videos where he agrees with the decision, just so he can say the ref was correct.
Awful terrible horrible call for the Angel City offsides, how can it be a deflection when she’s lifting her leg to try to get the ball away from her goal? No offsides called on the field, not one player on the opposing team thinking it’s an offsides. Isn’t VAR supposed to help controversial calls? There was no controversy here
I think it was a brilliant call. In 2022, IFAB updated the definitions of “deflection” vs “deliberate play” in a memo. For the 2023/2024 LOTG, the Law was revised. They define multiple criteria to consider (for example, distance, direction, ability to position your body and react, is the person stretching to reach it, is the person jumping, etc), so by the new definitions (well it’s a few years old now but “new”) it falls more into the category of “deflection” as someone who reacted and did what she could rather than a deliberate play where she had the time and space and control to set her body and intentionally play that with her thigh instead of an instinctive block. The other huge factor is the last second switch in direction from the deflection right after the header, yet another consideration.
All in all, great call given the current Laws, though yes 5 years ago this would’ve been a clean goal. However, with the current Laws, brilliant goal!
In no world is that last offside call correct. Red 14 is 100% trying to play that ball, that is not a deflection. Really, really bad VAR interference in my opinion.
You think red 14 standing a foot away from the ball flying in to her head is deliberately playing it? Come on
Even if she is "Trying to", is it likely she can control the ball AND either:
1. Clear the ball
2. Pass the ball
3. Gain possession of the ball?
I don't think she can reasonable do any of these 3. Therefore, it is a deflection. Read the LOTG considerations, it's a clear and obvious error and a good VAR intervention.
@@AndersMcA I was mostly relying on this section of Law 11: "If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball."
However, rewatching at full speed, I think an easy argument can be made that this is "instinctive movement that achieved limited contact/control", so yes good call.