It was a bad call. The French apparently are simply being good sports.
Congratulations Canada, in spite of the bad call, and my condolences to France, who outplayed Canada, only to lose to a bad call.
When Kyle first ran into the box, she drew a defender back with her, she ran straight toward the goalie who was coming out of the goalie box. (conditions 1 & 2 satisfied). The referee was not looking. She maintained her position in the goalie’s box, even when the goalie and everyone else had moved farther out from the goal line. To say that having a defender standing in the crease is not an advantage, nor interfering, is ridiculous.
Bad calls are part of the game. This was just a particularly unfortunate one, the referee simply was looking the other direction for the four quick seconds when it happened.
From 4 to 6 seconds in the video, the referee can be seen on the left side of the screen, turning and running toward the far corner while Canada’s Kyle runs into the goalie box.
Here is FIFA rule 11 on offsides.
The people who are defending this as a legitimate goal are arguing that a penalty doesn’t apply because of the three criteria whether the player in the offside position affected the active play. We’re not talking about someone who was on the far right wing. we’re talking about someone who was closest to the opponent’s goalie, and opponent’s goal at the time of the score.
I don’t mind when people disagree with me, well, not much, I mean. It’s the way some people disagree that I find most disagreeable. It’s something I’ve seen in the blogosphere enough to be able to identify it when I see it.
Take the issue of Natural Born Citizenship. To anyone interested in advancing a political career, it’s a dead issue. And everyone who questions it is lumped in with crazy conspiracy theorists. When I first read about it, I was certainly skeptical, (it mostly pertained to Obama’s birth certificate), but I had to admit, there were a lot of questions I didn’t see decent answers to. But here’s the thing. My interest in the subject comes more from the issue of “Anchor Babies”, and so my focus has always been more on understanding the intent of The Constitution. But people who write about politics for a living don’t bother with the distinction. Anyone who questions the outcome of various interpretations is seen as a threat to their cause. Quite frequently, they’ll name a candidate they favour who would be harmed politically by any other outcome than that they support.
While I disagree with Fred Thompson’s ultimate conclusion, I do respect that he laid out his reasoning: “If you have to go outside of The Constitution to answer the question, it’s interpretive.”, paraphrased. That sets a high standard to lay out your case.
Anyway, it’s a subject that comes up from time to time, and I usually only take time for when I’m bored. There’s still some comments on this blog that I haven’t taken the time to sort through. If I didn’t think there was some merit to the question, I wouldn’t spend any time on it.