Quote:
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?
|
I have not seen any pictures or footage of the Assistant Referee raising a flag for goal kick.
I doubt he made a call that he would stand behind because he had no way of seeing the call since he was on the far side of the field and the play was on the other side of the goal and the goalframe and three players prevented him from seeing the play well enough to make a call.
Alexi Lalas seemed to be talking out of ass to say that the Assistant Referee made a call.
Seems like the Assistant Referee would have said in his microphone that he was not making a call because he could not see the play well enough to make any call.
As far as call on the field, there was no call on the field. the review was done with the idea that the ball had to be definitely out to disallow a goal, which is the absolute right way of looking at it.