Australian fans explode after Kerr stunner ruled out, while tactics guru explains why

Simple. If you are offside and stand in a defender’s way, then you are interfering with play and it is an offence. Moving to block the defender is irrelevant, just being there immobile but offside is enough. Just because this sort of call is not made consistently does not mean the ref was wrong. I think it is stupid to have an attacking move depend on the referee ignoring offside players. I hope Gustafson learns from this.

Freeze the video at the moment the kick is taken. 1, 2 Two Matilda's remain offside when the ball is struck... Then 3,4 they both proceed to grapple with the Swedish defenders illegally Then 5..the player with trailing run behind Kerr wrestles the Swedish defenders from behind. I'm as disappointed as everyone else...but the girls were naive when they telegraphed the illegal screen to the ref before the kick was taken The fact that these are often ignored doesn't change the fact that they are offences and the ref got it right. If you still can't see it.....Just ask yourself how you would feel if it happened up the other end.

Max you are right in your comment. The issue I have is that its impossible to see ANY obstructing going on. We don't have to get out of their way. A player can stand their ground and its up to the opponent to go around us if they want to get to the ball. Not one Aussie player moved across to obstruct their path. So where was the foul?

5 reasons? Really? No offside, no movement to obstruct anyone. What 5 are you talking about?

Big Mig you are wrong on all counts. They stand in an offside position before the kick is taken to disrupt their defensive line. If you freeze it at the time of the ball played, everyone is on-side. There is no movement of any aussie players to check/obstruct any of the Swedes. We do NOT have to get out of their way and we can stand our ground. Which is what we did. A perfectly legal goal that sadly changed the complexion of the game.

I dont think Sheek even watched the game. If he had have, he wouldn't be making such silly comments.

Thanks captain obvious but everyone already knows Sweden are a better team. The Matilda's matched them, scored a ripper which was not allowed for some reason that eggheads are struggling to justify, and lost from a flukey goal. Don't be so miserable and give them some credit. Nothing in those comments sounded whingey to me, just acknowledging a bad call, making jokes about it, and encouraging the Matilda's to get on with it. If that bothers you so much, you have the problem, as well as all the other people on here complaining about hypothetical whingers. People are allowed to be disappointed when something disappointing happens. It's normal.

She is not offside when the ball is kicked, as for obstruction, that occurs all the time with nothing pulled up. Also you can't tell if there was obstruction without a view from behind the goal. If van Egmond is not moving how is it obstruction if the Swedish girl runs into her?

I recommend you read up on the actual rules. Pay particular attention to those relating to "Obstruction" (not blocking)....and "passive offside"

The problem is did it really affect the defence or not? A defender can also run into an attacker and claim they were blocked. Did you also see reasons as to why every decision is made/not made. Unless you have access to a different angle or a close-up, it is hard to tell anything, Considering that the same tactics have been employed throughout and this is the only one called up it is disappointing, especially on the consistency front.

Watching the video frame by frame I can see at least 5 reasons for the ref to blow her whistle.

Fair point. I haven't seen it in the men's games, maybe it crept in to the women's game of late.

And if you have watched most of the games, you would see that the Matildas are not the only team that does it. Yet this is the only one I can remember in this tournament that has been called. People want consistency from the refs. I would rather the same call made even though incorrect than to have the inconsistency, and I think there is where most people have the issue - other teams have set up for free kicks the same way and no calls like the one made have happened.

But then shouldn't the offside (if obvious) be called straight away? As they are offside before the goal is scored, not the other way around. They have stated that they let the play go and then check, the same could have happened here, so as not to deny a goal being scored. This is why the Swedish girl who was very much offside was allowed to keep playing while VAR checked, it was so obvious she was offside, but allowed to continue. Same could have happened here, what did the ref have to lose? VAR either backs her decision or doesn't, then the debate is over.

I don't know enough about the rules to say how correct it was. I watched bits of a few games and every time there was a corner or penalty near the goals there was heavy blocking going on and I never saw a penalty called. Maybe they were called in other games I didn't see. One of the problems with refereeing is consistency. I would suggest that if we looked at this referee and other referee's games through out the tournament there would have seen similar blocking not called. Some days refs are pedantic and some days they are not. You just have to play the ref.

This is the problem with modern day sport. We've got dumb, mindless people who think just because their twitter comments can be immediately read by millions of people, they're somehow experts. Bruce McAvenay was panned for some harmless comment that I think was quite okay. I can't even remember what he said that some people found mildly offensive. But then I come from a different generation, not the 'instantly offended' generation of today. Today too many people just twitch their fingers on their mobiles before they think.

100% There was no goal, it wasn't disallowed...and there is nothing the VAR might have done about it.

Better judges than me can determine whether the free kick blown against the Matildas was justified or not. But surely the claims about using VAR are straw clutching? The whistle was clearly blown before Kerr makes contact with the ball, and long before it ends up in the net. VAR surely can't make a ruling on a goal that has been 'scored' after play has been stopped by the referee? The terminology being used by many is all wrong. The goal wasn't "disallowed" at all. Play was stopped before it was scored.

Reading online news bulletins this morning, we're demonstrating that Aussies are as pathetic as anyone else when it comes to crying foul. Stop blaming the ref & accept the Matildas simply weren't good enough.

Good one Tony, and appreciate your opinion pieces.