rojo wrote:
I just thought they should have gone to VAR on both. The hand ball and the offsides on the third US goal. I mean basically either one of those calls TOTALLY changes the game.
So you demonstrably don't know the rules yet you're going to offer an opinion on what "they" should have done to correct a call which you demonstrably don't understand the rules for?
You're not getting any smarter are you?
What's soccer ? I think you mean football.
Montesquieu wrote:
While there are clear-cut cases of hand balls, this was not one of them. There are a few things to consider. First, she is in what any soccer player would recognize to be a "natural" position--angled diagonal to the offensive player with her arm slightly away from her body for balance, and at the same angle as her body. As such her arm is not extended to take up space (to the side) in an "unnatural" way. Second, she made no movement toward the ball. Third, she was not attempting to gain an advantage. Fourth, there was such a short distance between the two players that there was no way for her to avoid the ball. For these reasons the ref, who was on top of the play immediately signaled off any call for a hand ball--that is, she recognized while it might have seemed to be a hand ball, it wasn't given the intent of the rule. Are there refs who might have called hand ball--sure, just as there are refs in football that would call pass interference when 90% of the refs wouldn't. The Ukrainian ref was very good today, and my guess is that she'll get the final to ref.
As for the offsides, Dunn's foot is about one or two inches ahead of the French player. Technically, this is offsides. Did it give her an advantage? No.
That is an excellent explanation all the way around. It was a terrific referee so she ruled quickly and properly, along the long-term intent of the rules. No chance that was rightfully a penalty. Otherwise you'd have strikers simply slamming it toward defenders every time they reached the edge of the box, knowing that some of them would turn into penalty kicks.
Unfortunately there are some panic-stricken younger referees who are afraid to make a mistake. They actually take it too far in the other direction and award penalties that never should be called. It is a travesty, given the impact of one goal on the result.
The offsides rule is considerably more harsh than when I started following this sport decades ago. It used to be that they allowed any part of the body to be onside, like passes beyond the line of scrimmage in American football. The soccer rule may not have changed but application of it certainly has. I can think of many long-ago famous goals that would be wiped out via offsides today.
Anyway, the French blew the game by the asinine defensive alignment on the first American set piece goal. I couldn't believe what I was looking at. The two-man wall was at least 2-3 feet too far to their right. They weren't guarding the near post. They were essentially guarding the side of the netting. I was shocked they never adjusted, during all the time it took for the referee to signal the ball in play. This was a right footed inswinger certainty by Rapinoe. If it goes anywhere near those two defenders then it's not a threat at all. It is wide left. Instead they stayed there and left a cavernous gap for Rapinoe to do whatever she wanted.
800 dude wrote:
Exactly right.
Rojo, this comes down to experience with the game. I know I've had reactions similar to yours when watching sports with which I'm less familiar, like American football. A bunch of my friends will jump up and immediately recognize something should be called, and it takes three replays for me to see what they're talking about. When you know a game as well as an elite ref, everything you've seen is a variation on what you've seen before, and the brain can instantly categorize it into one of those boxes.
It's the same for players. Sometimes you an intricate set of passes looks astonishing to someone who doesn't play, but that's because those players aren't holding the position of each player in their head and calculating exactly where they can go; they're thinking in terms of broad patterns. When a number of players respond quickly to the patterns they see, it can look like it's choreographed, but it's not. Chess is another example. Expert (or even average) players can play games in their head and remember perfectly the position of every piece, but if you scatter the pieces randomly on the board, they're no better than a non player at remembering their positions because it's just a ton of data, rather than a handful of larger patterns that they've seen a million times.
The two calls are very different from a VAR perspective. The PSG handball required VAR because it was very fast, and the ref didn't get a good look. Watched live, even from the field, it probably looked like the ball went off the defender's back. But because of the defender's movement, there's no question it's a handball IF it touched his arm. VAR was necessary so the ref could be sure of what actually happened. With O'Hara, the ref knew what happened, and the question was how to interpret it. An inexperienced ref might have used VAR to stall so she could have decided how to interpret it, but that's not what VAR is for. This ref was experienced enough to decide instantly, reflexively that what happened was fine.
That's a post by someone who knows what's what. Do you officiate a game of some sort?
Nope. Thankless job, but props to the people who do it. I played soccer in college and coached high school and club soccer for a few years after.
rojo wrote:
So the family that moved in two houses down is French. In March, the father came over and we watched the PSG game and VAR called a penalty that cost PSG.
Tonight, the exact same thing happens and they don't even go to VAR?
Why?
Here is the PSG 'penalty'? I thought it was crazy they called that as the ball clearly wasn't on goal so just let it go. But at the time, I was told if it's a penalty, you call it period. Most people I heard praised the call as being correct.
https://youtu.be/Jnu4LP1Z1mg?t=201Well tonight the US defender clearly hit the ball with her hand in the box in the 86th minute. Not only did they not call it, they refused to go to VAR. Now I'm hearing people on Fox say it was a good call. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
https://twitter.com/BryxW/status/1144709096551006208/video/1Rojo,
I am no football expert but if I recall correctly what happened in this game , it was BALL TO HAND).
The whole game came down to that and they are barely talking about it. Should it have been called or not?
I thought this is a running forum?
Beckenbauer wrote:
I thought this is a running forum?
Soccer is just fartlek running with a ball.
NativeSon wrote:
rojo wrote:
So the family that moved in two houses down is French. In March, the father came over and we watched the PSG game and VAR called a penalty that cost PSG.
Tonight, the exact same thing happens and they don't even go to VAR?
Why?
Here is the PSG 'penalty'? I thought it was crazy they called that as the ball clearly wasn't on goal so just let it go. But at the time, I was told if it's a penalty, you call it period. Most people I heard praised the call as being correct.
https://youtu.be/Jnu4LP1Z1mg?t=201Well tonight the US defender clearly hit the ball with her hand in the box in the 86th minute. Not only did they not call it, they refused to go to VAR. Now I'm hearing people on Fox say it was a good call. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
https://twitter.com/BryxW/status/1144709096551006208/video/1Rojo,
I am no football expert but if I recall correctly what happened in this game , it was BALL TO HAND).
The whole game came down to that and they are barely talking about it. Should it have been called or not?
To be honest, some things are very subjective. Referees wield a lot of power in making decisions.
In such scenarios, the argument is always this;'WAS THE DEFENDER'S HAND IN IT'S NATURAL POSITION'?
I think the US defender's hand was a little away from her body which leads to the question, was/is that a natural position.
I honestly don't know.
A different referee might have awarded it. I'd like to hear from the gurus.
The non-call on the handball was technically correct as was the "barely" offsides call against the US.
What kills me in soccer is the seemingly arbitrary assignment of stoppage time - and neither team knows the amount of stoppage time to be assigned until the end of regulation time.
That's messed up for sure.
rojo wrote:
PS. And can someone tell me why the US was offsides on the third goal?
If you are "even" , are you on or off as it looks even to me?
https://ibb.co/GTzsvqn
Even is onside. Used to be even was offside but they changed rule a long time ago.
To me the picture shows the US is marginally offside, inches but still offside.
Yeah, compared to the Men's World Cup, officiating has been atrocious and inconsistent.
Well, if that isn't a handball, then the one against japan shouldn't have been called, because her hand was in a natural position, and she was even trying to move it out of the way. But the ref called, and it was near the end of the game. Also, the defender was right in front of the player, so distance is a factor as well.
So there must be consistency.
Just bad calls at the wrong time. The terrible penalty call against spain that allowed the USA to win off a penalty kick. Replay showed that the leg wasn't touched, and that game was near the end. You just don't make those type of calls when they are not clear, and two teams are giving it all they have.
Those calls wouldn't have been made in the Men's tourney, because of the time of the match and the closeness of the play and call. The men would have been allowed to play it out. That is something that the women's game need to learn. Those questionable plays should be play-ons, especially when the match is in the 80th min or towards the end.
If a penalty or handball is not a clear cut thing, don't call it.
And if you are making those type of calls, then be consistent with it. Don't call it in one game, then go blind in the other.
Tro789 wrote:
Can someone explain how this was any different because it was called and it cost Japan a trip to the quarterfinals. She literally had zero time to react:
https://mobile.twitter.com/TelemundoSports/status/1143623354517270528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-36011584462084873847.ampproject.net%2F1906282130140%2Fframe.html
If her body was between her arm and the goal, meaning that the ball would have hit her body anyway, it would have been a no call same as O'Hara. She went out with her arms spread to make her body bigger exactly like a goalie would do. That's always getting called no matter the distance. I can't imagine this not getting called in a VAR world.
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
NY Times: Treadmill desks might really be worth it. Does anyone use one?
Narve Nordas (3.34.11) crushed Filip Ingebrigtsen (3:38.91) on Tuesday