Off by a toe

Dang I would have loved to play Egypt. No way their defense could handle us right now

wangus12 said:

---

Dang I would have loved to play Egypt. No way their defense could handle us right now

---

For sure, but this is a lesser belgium so far.
Would love to get the chance to swarm them, but they could always keep rounding into form I guess

New Zealand really **** the bed at the end

The 1-1 draw between Egypt and Iran resulted in Belgium winning the group and Egypt finishing 2nd. Egypt is very fortunate that Iran's apparent goal did not count.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

The 1-1 draw between Egypt and Iran resulted in Belgium winning the group and Egypt finishing 2nd. Egypt is very fortunate that Iran's apparent goal did not count.

---

World Cup be like that sometimes

Rewound as I wasn't watching…his toe was offside.

Belgium win big in their last match and win Group G. Egypt hang on for dear life and keep 2nd place. Iran finish with 3 points and a 0 GD so they should be safe in the 3rd round advance, but it'll be close. New Zealand just don't quite have enough and leave their 3rd World Cup still looking for their first World Cup win.

FINAL Group G Standings:
------------------------Pld---W---D---L---GD----Pts
Belgium----------------3---1---2---0___+4----5
Egypt-------------------3---1---2---0___+2----5
Iran----------------------3---0---3---0___0----3
New Zealand---------3---0---1---2___-6----1

Match Day 1 Results:
Belgium 1 : Egypt 1
Iran 2 : New Zealand 2

Match Day 2 Results:
Belgium 0 : Iran 0
New Zealand 1 : Egypt 3

Match Day 3 Results:
Egypt 1 : Iran 1
New Zealand 1 : Belgium 5

There's a player up top that makes him clearly not offsides. How did the review not catch it? I saw it from rewinding. That's probably why they wouldn't show replays on the broadcast.

What am I missing?

ETA: ok I just read an article that explained it. Have to have two players between you and the goal. Normally the goalkeeper is one but here the goalkeeper is up far enough to where there needs to be two players between him and the goal. Never knew that.

Yup, you got it exactly.

In most situations it's assumed that the keeper is the deepest player so the discussion is around the position of the "last defender", but on things like corners in particular the goalkeeper can end up further up field.

That was so harsh for the Persians to celebrate like they won it in 90+2 or whatever only for a computer to determine his toe was an inch past some other dude's heel.

I was rooting for Egypt because I'd rather the usmnt play Egypt then Belgium in R16, but Egypt almost deserved to lose the way they played that second half.

Easily my biggest annoyance with soccer. The spirit of the rule (preventing cherry picking that would make the sport unwatchable) is absolutely justified but these plays involving masses of humanity in the box and a guys toe being further upfield than the second to last defender are completely unrelated to that. That goal was overturned on a technicality that in practice has nothing to do with the goal being scored or the spirit of the rule. Contrast it with hockey's far more reasonable rule to prevent the same.

That's just as bad as calling holding in football on the backside of a play after the ball carrier is 10 yards upfield.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Easily my biggest annoyance with soccer. The spirit of the rule (preventing cherry picking that would make the sport unwatchable) is absolutely justified but these plays involving masses of humanity in the box and a guys toe being further upfield than the second to last defender are completely unrelated to that. That goal was overturned on a technicality that in practice has nothing to do with the goal being scored or the spirit of the rule. Contrast it with hockey's far more reasonable rule to prevent the same.

That's just as bad as calling holding in football on the backside of a play after the ball carrier is 10 yards upfield.

---

Nah… you grab a guy, you grab him. That's holding. It might suck that it had nothing to do with the play, but you still committed an infraction that was obvious enough for a referee to see and flag.
Using a camera to go back in time to see that your foot or hand was pointed in the wrong direction is much more egregious.

LeonardSkinner said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Easily my biggest annoyance with soccer. The spirit of the rule (preventing cherry picking that would make the sport unwatchable) is absolutely justified but these plays involving masses of humanity in the box and a guys toe being further upfield than the second to last defender are completely unrelated to that. That goal was overturned on a technicality that in practice has nothing to do with the goal being scored or the spirit of the rule. Contrast it with hockey's far more reasonable rule to prevent the same.

That's just as bad as calling holding in football on the backside of a play after the ball carrier is 10 yards upfield.

---

Nah… you grab a guy, you grab him. That's holding. It might suck that it had nothing to do with the play, but you still committed an infraction that was obvious enough for a referee to see and flag.
Using a camera to go back in time to see that your foot or hand was pointed in the wrong direction is much more egregious.

---

except for that holding in football happens on pretty much every play. it's annoying, but the truth.

LeonardSkinner said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Easily my biggest annoyance with soccer. The spirit of the rule (preventing cherry picking that would make the sport unwatchable) is absolutely justified but these plays involving masses of humanity in the box and a guys toe being further upfield than the second to last defender are completely unrelated to that. That goal was overturned on a technicality that in practice has nothing to do with the goal being scored or the spirit of the rule. Contrast it with hockey's far more reasonable rule to prevent the same.

That's just as bad as calling holding in football on the backside of a play after the ball carrier is 10 yards upfield.

---

Nah… you grab a guy, you grab him. That's holding. It might suck that it had nothing to do with the play, but you still committed an infraction that was obvious enough for a referee to see and flag.
Using a camera to go back in time to see that your foot or hand was pointed in the wrong direction is much more egregious.

---

Rules in sport don't exist for their own sake like laws against inherently immoral behavior do. A hold is only a hold if it impacts a play. Otherwise it's just two guys in pads grabbing each other.

All rules in every sport exist for a specific functional purpose and lack any inherent basis for their existence. As such, if an action has no impact on a play or game there is no logical basis by which to call it an infraction. Saying a player committed a penalty that had no impact on the play or player safety or any other objective metric is nonsensical. It's like saying someone jaywalked across a road that's closed to all traffic. It doesn't make any sense and is only technical enforcement of a rule that no longer has a functional purpose.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Easily my biggest annoyance with soccer. The spirit of the rule (preventing cherry picking that would make the sport unwatchable) is absolutely justified but these plays involving masses of humanity in the box and a guys toe being further upfield than the second to last defender are completely unrelated to that. That goal was overturned on a technicality that in practice has nothing to do with the goal being scored or the spirit of the rule. Contrast it with hockey's far more reasonable rule to prevent the same.

That's just as bad as calling holding in football on the backside of a play after the ball carrier is 10 yards upfield.

---

Nah… you grab a guy, you grab him. That's holding. It might suck that it had nothing to do with the play, but you still committed an infraction that was obvious enough for a referee to see and flag.
Using a camera to go back in time to see that your foot or hand was pointed in the wrong direction is much more egregious.

---

Rules in sport don't exist for their own sake like laws against inherently immoral behavior do. A hold is only a hold if it impacts a play. Otherwise it's just two guys in pads grabbing each other.

All rules in every sport exist for a specific functional purpose and lack any inherent basis for their existence. As such, if an action has no impact on a play or game there is no logical basis by which to call it an infraction.

---

So if I take a swing at you 80 yards behind a play it shouldn't mean anything?

Mathguy64 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Easily my biggest annoyance with soccer. The spirit of the rule (preventing cherry picking that would make the sport unwatchable) is absolutely justified but these plays involving masses of humanity in the box and a guys toe being further upfield than the second to last defender are completely unrelated to that. That goal was overturned on a technicality that in practice has nothing to do with the goal being scored or the spirit of the rule. Contrast it with hockey's far more reasonable rule to prevent the same.

That's just as bad as calling holding in football on the backside of a play after the ball carrier is 10 yards upfield.

---

Nah… you grab a guy, you grab him. That's holding. It might suck that it had nothing to do with the play, but you still committed an infraction that was obvious enough for a referee to see and flag.
Using a camera to go back in time to see that your foot or hand was pointed in the wrong direction is much more egregious.

---

Rules in sport don't exist for their own sake like laws against inherently immoral behavior do. A hold is only a hold if it impacts a play. Otherwise it's just two guys in pads grabbing each other.

All rules in every sport exist for a specific functional purpose and lack any inherent basis for their existence. As such, if an action has no impact on a play or game there is no logical basis by which to call it an infraction.

---

So if I take a swing at you 80 yards behind a play it shouldn't mean anything?

---

Well first of all that's battery. There are actual criminal laws against such behavior apart from the rules governing the sport in question.

Second, the purpose of penalties and ejections for that behavior is player safety. They serve an objective purpose beyond the actual events of the game. I'm talking specifically about rules that exist ONLY to regulate the game play itself, those which outside of that context are just neutral human behaviors.

We dont get to pick and choose when to apply the rules, and if we did then I think the results of that would be even more controversial.

I do wish how it is officiated would result in that goal being allowed, because imo that's not the how that rule is intended to be applied.
Its not to catch someone's toes being closer to goal than the defenders trailing arm.

I dont know how you do it, but somehow it should be based upon your center mass? Or maybe its like, knees up to head and only as wide as your shoulder?

But if the other option is allowing the offensive player the advantage i think that would be a mistake

I could see trunk of the body making sense but that would probably make things impossible for assistants to see it correctly. It's already hard enough for them.

We have a really clean rule now. I understand the frustration about the "spirit of the rule" but how much of our understanding of the "spirit" is that we simply were incapable of applying the rule strictly according to the letter of the rule? I think a fair bit.

PatAg said:

---

We dont get to pick and choose when to apply the rules, and if we did then I think the results of that would be even more controversial.

I do wish how it is officiated would result in that goal being allowed, because imo that's not the how that rule is intended to be applied.
Its not to catch someone's toes being closer to goal than the defenders trailing arm.

I dont know how you do it, but somehow it should be based upon your center mass? Or maybe its like, knees up to head and only as wide as your shoulder?

But if the other option is allowing the offensive player the advantage i think that would be a mistake

---

Go back to the original definition of even is onsides where you needed to be completely past the defender to be offsides. Sure you still get the technical side where a toe keeps you on but it is more in the spirit of the rule. That or go to even is offside which means no overlap at all with a defender. Both of these are easier to officiate and for an attacker to tell he is onsides.

I also think they need to account for the position a player is in when receiving the ball. i.e. the position of the second to last defender at the time a ball is played and when the ball is received matter. If a player moves to a clearly on side position to receive the ball it should not be offsides. The hard part of that is the AR has to account for motion of the defender. If he offense player moved to a onside position and that position is not closer to the goal than the 2nd to last defender the player is onside. This is similar to the hockey blue line rule where an attacker can come back over the blue line to receive a pass.

AustinScubaAg said:

---

PatAg said:

---

We dont get to pick and choose when to apply the rules, and if we did then I think the results of that would be even more controversial.

I do wish how it is officiated would result in that goal being allowed, because imo that's not the how that rule is intended to be applied.
Its not to catch someone's toes being closer to goal than the defenders trailing arm.

I dont know how you do it, but somehow it should be based upon your center mass? Or maybe its like, knees up to head and only as wide as your shoulder?

But if the other option is allowing the offensive player the advantage i think that would be a mistake

---

Go back to the original definition of even is onsides where you needed to be completely past the defender to be offsides. Sure you still get the technical side where a toe keeps you on but it is more in the spirit of the rule. That or go to even is offside which means no overlap at all with a defender. Both of these are easier to officiate and for an attacker to tell he is onsides.

I also think they need to account for the position a player is in when receiving the ball. i.e. the position of the second to last defender at the time a ball is played and when the ball is received matter. If a player moves to a clearly on side position to receive the ball it should not be offsides. The hard part of that is the AR has to account for motion of the defender. If he offense player moved to a onside position and that position is not closer to the goal than the 2nd to last defender the player is onside. This is similar to the hockey blue line rule where an attacker can come back over the blue line to receive a pass.

---

Don't like letting players lurk offside while the ball is played and then run onside to receive it.
You need to be on when its played.

I think it just needs to go back to being called by the naked eye and at live speed. So you could VAR, but a human needs to review and no freeze frame. I think that would help with the "this is clearly on/ off"
And I think it should be 'tie goes to defense' personally