2019 Women's World Cup

[Unnamed Trialist]

22 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Agree to disagree I guess.  To me, putting keepers and defenders at (what to me seems an unfair) disadvantage is not the way to increase goal scoring.   If a keeper has to cheat to one side a bit to account for an offside player and gets beat as a result, that isn't a rule interpretation  I can get behind.  

This is an argument that was made when the rule was introduced, but you have to admit that defenders and keepers have done marvellously well in adjusting. Keepers and defenders are far more sophisticated now than even 10 years ago, the tactical nous are superior, and the type of defending more complex. 

Basically having a player in offside position but not affecting play obliges defending units to multi-task. When in the past it was just offside trap, and clear the hell out, repeat ad nauseum.

[The Ref]

5 hours ago, Patrick said:

VAR has officially jumped the shark.  The call, caution, and retake of the penalty against Jamaica was beyond ridiculous.  If the only way you can see that infraction is to run it in slow motion then it should never be called.  Utterly ridiculous.

Indeed, utterly ridiculous.  The assistant was not in the right position also.  The VAR is hurting the game.

[The Ref]

Does "playing the ball" means "touching the ball"?  One could play the ball by running after it without touching it.

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by The Ref

[SoccMan]

10 hours ago, Patrick said:

VAR has officially jumped the shark.  The call, caution, and retake of the penalty against Jamaica was beyond ridiculous.  If the only way you can see that infraction is to run it in slow motion then it should never be called.  Utterly ridiculous.

But they did get it right when you looked at it again. The Jamaican keeper clearly moved of her line before the kick was taken, and it was one of the reasons she was able to stop the penalty. So what’s the problem? They reviewed the kick and it showed that the keeper had moved off the line before the penalty was taken, so after reviewing it they saw that she had come off her line before the kick was taken, therefore, the penalty was taken again. That’s what video review is there for to pick up things like that the ref missed.

[Patrick]

5 minutes ago, SoccMan said:

The Jamaican keeper clearly moved of her line before the kick was taken

It takes slo-mo to see she moved inches ahead of her line milliseconds before the ball was kicked.  I don't believe it helped, I think she had it saved either way.  Almost every 'keeper will move like that and I do not believe it should be up to  VAR review to enforce it.  If it's not obvious at real speed it should not be called.  What's next?  Digitally measuring 10 yards and enforcing 3 inches of encroachment?  If an attacker has a foot inside the 18 on  a PK  will it be retaken if it goes in?  I've seen a lot of feet over lines on throw-ins, will VAR call back a goal if an infraction is seen?

There's a line between fair play enforcement and microscopically managing the game.  That call crossed it by a lot more than the Jamaucan keeper did.

[The Ref]

7 minutes ago, Lofty said:

I have railed for years that referees NEVER require penalties to be retaken for either player encroachment or the goalkeeper prematurely coming off the line. This gives a massive advantage to the keeper who "cheats" the most in a penalty shoot out.

That Jamaican goalkeeper's encroachment was one of the mildest I have ever seen (barely a foot) and THAT is the one they decide needs to be retaken? Unbelievable.

Didn't the rule got changed allowing goalkeeping to keep just one foot on the line.  That saved PK should have not been retaken.  There was another PK, can't remember which, when a white defending player encroached the area and the referee ignored her.

[lamptern]

If VAR was used at the 1999 final, USA might not have won the champion.

The sneaky US goal keeper Briana Scurry tried to move ahead of goal line at every shoot during the shootout. The one she saved was very obvious that she dashed ahead almost more than 2 meters before Chinese player touch  the ball.

9th minute in this video:

 

[rkomar]

1 hour ago, Lofty said:

Yes. "Playing" the ball involves touching it but also has the element of intent. You have not played the ball unless you have touched it.

No, you just need to have the ball within reach to be "playing" it.  That's what makes the difference between shielding the ball and obstruction.

[rkomar]

7 hours ago, Lofty said:

Having the ball within playing distance is not the same thing as playing the ball. You are playing the ball when you touch it. You can shield the ball when it is within playing distance. That is the difference between shielding and obstruction. Read the rule book!

I _have_ read the rules, which aren't as clear as you make out.  Here's an excerpt from the Offside law:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

- interfering with an opponent by:

  - preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or

  - challenging an opponent for the ball or

  - clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

...

Notice how many times "played or touched" comes up.  It sounds to me like FIFA distinguish between the two; they do not mean the exact same thing.  You can "play" the ball by legally preventing someone else from playing it, without touching the ball at all.  That was certainly my interpretation when I was reffing in the past, and I'm sure I wasn't alone in that.

And that last part of the excerpt is what most who disagree with the decision are thinking about.  Kerr was attempting to play the ball, and Monica was reacting to that when she headed the ball.  You cannot say that Kerr was not involved in the active play.  I guess the referees thought Monica was going to head the ball into her net anyway.

[RJB]

14 hours ago, SoccMan said:

The Jamaican keeper clearly moved of her line before the kick was taken, and it was one of the reasons she was able to stop the penalty.

VAR or not, this is something that keepers have done for many years, and I'd love to see that more enforced.  the '94 World Cup Final comes to mind as particularly egregious. 

And oh dear, that '99 Final video is awful.  She's half way to the ball before it's touched.  I think they've made improvements allowing the keeper to move side-to-side, but they still manage to get forward illegally.

Edited June 15, 2019 by RJB

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, rkomar said:

I _have_ read the rules, which aren't as clear as you make out.  Here's an excerpt from the Offside law:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

- interfering with an opponent by:

  - preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or

  - challenging an opponent for the ball or

  - clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

...

Notice how many times "played or touched" comes up.  It sounds to me like FIFA distinguish between the two; they do not mean the exact same thing.  You can "play" the ball by legally preventing someone else from playing it, without touching the ball at all.  That was certainly my interpretation when I was reffing in the past, and I'm sure I wasn't alone in that.

And that last part of the excerpt is what most who disagree with the decision are thinking about.  Kerr was attempting to play the ball, and Monica was reacting to that when she headed the ball.  You cannot say that Kerr was not involved in the active play.  I guess the referees thought Monica was going to head the ball into her net anyway.

Don't be fooled by @Lofty after making a fool of himself (herself, I don't know) posting pics of US celebrations on this board, which was troll level stuff, we get about 15 irrelevant posts about rule interpretations just to distract us: the biggest glut of useless, mostly off-topic posts from someone on the board in a long time. 

Some posters are basically trolling for the WWC because they really, deep down, hate the women. 

Otherwise we'd be talking about Cameroon-HOlland, where the former were more dangerous and looked better than against us, and the latter only got their act in gear in spurts, and late. I would prefer to beat NZ to not need a result vs. Holland.

[The Ref]

Until the advent of VAR the offsides were mostly the realm of the ARs who's duty was only to raise their flag if the actually saw the offside not just guess that the player surely was offside.  Now it seems that the VAR has taken over the judgement of the ARs.  Is this really better for the game?

[SoccMan]

Look this game needs more changes and VAR is a good start. I’m a hardcore soccer fan it’s the only sport that matters to me. However, the next change I want to see is getting a handle at all the time waisting that happens because of a no running clock like hockey and basketball have for example. Stop the clock at the very least for substitutions and all injuries and voila no more fake injuries to kill the clock and no more taking forever to get off the field when being substituted.

[rkomar]

6 hours ago, SoccMan said:

Look this game needs more changes and VAR is a good start. I’m a hardcore soccer fan it’s the only sport that matters to me. However, the next change I want to see is getting a handle at all the time waisting that happens because of a no running clock like hockey and basketball have for example. Stop the clock at the very least for substitutions and all injuries and voila no more fake injuries to kill the clock and no more taking forever to get off the field when being substituted.

I don't think it's all for wasting time on the clock.  It's also for slowing down the game and taking momentum away from your opponent.  So, even if you stop the clock, I think you'll still see delay tactics.

[The Ref]

Hey Alex Morgan I do not buy your excuse for your team's classless celebrations.  You obviously do not care.  The only thing I tell you and your teammates is do not do it again.

[BreadBoy]

Anybody know who the announcer is that did the play by play for the Cameroon vs Netherlands game? I've heard him a couple of times and he is just amazing. Just enough information, impartial, pronounces everybody's name right (it seems). Really enjoyable to listen to.

[nstarsfan]

21 hours ago, Lofty said:

Alex Morgan responds to goal celebration critics.

I'm not trying to re-ignite the debate on here as I think all positions have been clearly stated already, and indeed I will not respond to replies. I just thought it was fair and proper to give "the accused" a rebuttal.

 

I watched the US feed of the game.  It started with a pre-game where Heather O'Reilly was arrogant.  (She's toned it down since).  Their non-US announcers raised the issue that perhaps the later goal celebrations were too much.  Their American counterparts were defensive.  I think it's obvious that since almost anyone who is associated with the US Soccer program defended it that this is the culture they create. 

I remember being disappointed seeing Rapinoe flip off the ref in one of the WWC games in Winnipeg.  No surprise she was the most blatant with her celebration.

It's up to the coaches and the refs to set the tone for what is and isn't acceptable. Solo got booted for making unsportsmanlike comments after a game but this is merely joy.  Sure Jill.

I think we're really only complaining about the Rapinoe and Morgan celebrations.  I think Rapinoe has shown she can be a punk.  As for Morgan, I don't really get a player counting out her goals.  It shows the players are very concerned about their individual statistics.  Again, I think this is a culture problem. 

I think those from other countries have a different view.  To them this is an international tournament and it matters how you represent yourself.  For the US, that is not a concern as is evident by Trump.  They are focused on themselves.

They are a great team but I can't admire them.  For me, conducting your self with class has always been important.  I found it very disappointing.

As an aside, the lineup they fielded today is the one they should have had out against Thailand.  The starting 11 could have played today.  I think they may lose to France which would be karma.

[Kent]

13 hours ago, nstarsfan said:

I watched the US feed of the game.  It started with a pre-game where Heather O'Reilly was arrogant.  (She's toned it down since).  Their non-US announcers raised the issue that perhaps the later goal celebrations were too much.  Their American counterparts were defensive.  I think it's obvious that since almost anyone who is associated with the US Soccer program defended it that this is the culture they create. 

Didn't this exact same thing happen in a previous World Cup or Olympics with a different coach? I was thinking it was when Pia Sundhage was the coach, but I didn't find anything with a quick googling.

[carolynduthie]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Didn't this exact same thing happen in a previous World Cup or Olympics with a different coach? I was thinking it was when Pia Sundhage was the coach, but I didn't find anything with a quick googling.

During the 2012 Olympic qualification the US beat someone (Dominican Republic?) like 14-0 and there was a bit of this backlash but it was only really the coach who kept going wild after the first few goals, the players were much more toned down. 

[Admin]

This almost feels like a bad PR decision. I can't see how any player can get to this level through the ranks of soccer, or any sport, and think this is a good idea. 

 

 

[Patrick]

Can you jump the shark twice?  Another VAR penalty call, correctly called, followed by a joke of VAR call on the penalty itself.  The calls on keeper moving off the line are simply terrible.  Slow motion looks at high speed plays like that are not, in my opinion, in the spirit of the rules.  Renard missed the goal, after taking a stupid stutter step run up.  The keeper had no influence on that.  Given that the rules also state players must remain outside the box until the ball is kicked, why wasn't the goal called back when the French player entered before the ball was struck?  It may not have affected the play but the rule was still broken.  Rules matter, but so does discretion.  If we are going to call games by the literal rule of the law, but only when it affects scoring, we are going to make the game unwatchable.

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Lofty said:

So, France get to retake a missed penalty (awarded by VAR) because the Nigerian keeper's left heel was literally an inch or two off the line when the ball was struck. And the keeper is booked! This is turning into parody.

Yeah, I haven't been able to watch nearly as much of this tournament as I would like, but I was surprised to see the keeper booked for that. Was the other keeper booked when she was called for the same thing last Friday? It seems incredibly harsh.

And it does seem ridiculous to hold the keeper to these crazy standards but not the outfield players that are entering the box too early (though I wasn't watching for that, so didn't see with my own eyes that it happened on the penalty today).

[The Ref]

Let us not forget that the VAR is not a cientific machine free of errors.  It is just a bunch of other referees looking at screens who are just as subject to error, misjudgments and biases as any other referees.  To penalize a player for an inch off position is inconsistent when the referees don't penalize for throw-ins that are way off the right spot, free kicks taken not where the infraction occur, same with offsides and the list can go on and on.  To say nothing of wrong calls, missed grabbing and pushing,  shirts not tucked in, talking back to the referee, etc.

Edited June 18, 2019 by The Ref

[Patrick]

5 minutes ago, The Ref said:

shirts not tucked in

Is that still a rule?  I thought with the new fabrics and form fitting jetseys that rule was gone.  Most of the jerseys aren't long enough to tuck in anymore.  It's not like the 80s when jerseys fit like a pair of parachute pants 🙂 

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 6/16/2019 at 6:09 AM, Lofty said:

Alex Morgan responds to goal celebration critics.

I'm not trying to re-ignite the debate on here as I think all positions have been clearly stated already, and indeed I will not respond to replies. I just thought it was fair and proper to give "the accused" a rebuttal.

 

Like the 9th picture you have posted of US goal celebrations, you are on the wrong board.