Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by rkomar

  1. 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.
  2. I think we have the same goal differential, but they have scored more goals than us. So, I think the tie-breaker is in favour of the Netherlands. And I was also pretty impressed with how well we handled the Ferns today. They didn't look nearly as good as they did against the Dutch, which I assume is all down to us.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. I did agree with the call, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Where the Norwegian grabbed a fistful of jersey and dragged the French player down?
  6. VAR is slowing down the game, but I wouldn't say it is ruining it. I don't mind waiting if the ones committing sneaky fouls get caught on camera. I was in agreement with the panel in thinking they got Australia's third goal wrong, even with VAR. But the vast majority of the judgements using VAR look like they are more accurate.
  7. Hey man, stop dragging the CWNT into the mud with the USWNT.
  8. I don't think the Americans can be accused of being overconfident. They ran up the score against Thailand just in case they tie the Swedes later. That shows some self-doubt.
  9. Both the Dutch and Kiwis are going into the tournament on a high note. It's not going to be easy for us to get out of the group. I hope there's more chemistry between our attackers than earlier in the year.
  10. Chapman played left back in that game. Sesselmann was a center back. Our only other options for center back were Zurrer and Moscato. I liked Moscato, but I think she was getting too old at that point. Edit: Oops. Not sure which Chapman we are talking about here. I was talking about the one who was still playing at the time.
  11. I remember my feelings about Sesselmann were different. We had no one better for the position, so I was grateful that she was there. She was quick and brave, and not afraid to head the ball, which was uncommon among the rest of the defenders of the time. And it's not like she stepped on the ball most of the time it came to her. It was a one-off blunder, so I can forgive that. Right after the tournament, our young up-and-comers played in the Panam games. They showed well, but weren't good enough to beat the better teams in that tournament. So, they definitely weren't ready to replace the players we had in the World Cup at that time.
  12. The only thing more disappointing than that would be having more than two national team players in our domestic leagues. The team wouldn't be very good if that were the case. It's disappointing that we don't have any high-level domestic leagues, but given that's the case, I like the stat to be low.
  13. I have to admit that I haven't even watched one NWSL game this year. Not even checked the scores. That's odd, since I watched most of the games last season. There hasn't been much discussion here either. Maybe I am not the only one feeling a bit apathetic towards the NWSL this year. But who knows, maybe I'll catch the bug again after watching my first game. How do others here feel about this season?
  14. The commentators mentioned something about the jerseys being made from recycled plastic collected from beaches around the world. Maybe they were both blue to signify support for cleaning up the oceans.
  15. It got really jerky for me towards the end of the first half. Maybe that's why they killed that stream and started a new one. The Nigerians play pretty rough. I suppose that's part of the experience we were meant to acquire.
  16. It seemed to be a tale of two halves. The commentators mentioned the wind, and I wonder if that was the difference. So many of Canada's long passes veered off target in the second half.
  17. A lot of insulting comments about the Swedes ("turnips"). The bias may not be of the "home" kind, but it's still there. I guess the loss at the Olympics still stings.
  18. I thought the lack of goals on our part was down to the forwards not being on the same page. The attacking rhythm was all out of whack, with forwards and passers being 180 degrees out of phase at the defender's back line. I think that's something that can be improved before the World Cup with time together. So, I'm not ready to despair at this point. Sweden was a good test, and I think it may have been a blessing that we ended up playing them. The Swedes ran and pressed hard for periods, and we were able to withstand it without giving up many quality chances. I hope that that ends up being more valuable than winning gold against a weaker opponent.
  19. Ah! I have only watched the second half of the game with Iceland, and didn't notice her. I just assumed she wasn't there when Beckie was playing in her spot. It's good to hear that she is still in the works. Thanks!
  20. Gabby Carle was on the team that won the NCAA title this year, where she played an important role as an attacking right back. I don't know why she's not on this team, but maybe she didn't want to take a break from school. Anyway, she could be an option for the future if we need that position filled.
  21. There's a very brief write-up of the FA Women's League Cup final between Man City and Arsenal, and Beckie's role in it (TSN). In summary, she done good.
  22. Oh man, now there's a blast from the past. I was in high school in Sudbury when the Pan Am junior games were held there, and Crooks won the gold in the 400m. What made her infamous? I can't remember much from way back then.
  23. Huh! I wonder how D'Angelo is affected by that?
  24. NCAA didn't seem to hurt Lawrence or Buchanan, and Fleming is still a standout. If Huitema went to Stanford or UCLA, I don't see that it would have hurt her development. Those are two of the best programs in the US.
  25. I'm glad to hear that St. Georges got drafted. I thought she was very good for WVU, but she never got much recognition. I was afraid that she would just disappear after college.
  • Create New...