[loochy]

Originally Posted by TripleThreat

I think our analysts had a really good counter argument to Japan's 2nd goal.

I get the rule, and from the angle I agree, that ball wasn't out. HOWEVER - like our analyst pointed out, the view was "inconclusive" and therefore they went with the call on the field. However, what was the call on the field? If you watch the replay, Japan is throwing their hands in the air and stop celebrating because the AR has his flag up.

So if we think of this like American Football, you need clear evidence that the ball was inbounds, yet their response was "inconclusive" and then called it a goal. If you're gonna say it's inconclusive and go with the call on the field, how is that a goal? It's like American Football, they go with the call on the field if the replay can't overturn the decision on the field. Same concept here, no?

The head ref can wave off the line though. Nothing the line calls is automatic. When they see something, they'll raise the flag, but the ref has the power to ignore it too.