|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 2, 2021 8:10:47 GMT -5
I think oraclesfriend was discussing the game results, but what happened. I did not watch at all. gasoccerforum.com/post/642781-0 loss, ouch. how did Naeher hurt her knee? I'm not a big Teirna Davidson fan, very unathletic in my opinion for a center back. time to start the next generation - I think Health, Lloyd and Pinoes' days should be over. All 3 are painfully slow. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 2, 2021 8:58:05 GMT -5
not sure I agree with the PK call -
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Aug 2, 2021 9:06:39 GMT -5
Horrible call. The defender has no intent of fouling. The attacker drew that foul. Should not have been a penalty. Defender is in the motion of clearing the ball, attacker runs in front to initiate contact. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolo on Aug 2, 2021 9:17:13 GMT -5
Horrible call. The defender has no intent of fouling. The attacker drew that foul. Should not have been a penalty. Defender is in the motion of clearing the ball, attacker runs in front to initiate contact. Oh well. I agree. The Canadian player went through the back/side of our defender and initiated the contact, and yet she gets awarded the penalty? She didn't get there first, the defender did. I'm no soccer rules expert, but that seemed like a nothing play, and certainly not worthy of essentially deciding a game like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Aug 2, 2021 9:28:07 GMT -5
Horrible call. The defender has no intent of fouling. The attacker drew that foul. Should not have been a penalty. Defender is in the motion of clearing the ball, attacker runs in front to initiate contact. Oh well. Tough call but still a foul. Most fouls committed in a game, there’s usually not an intend to foul. So called careless fouls. Just the other player is faster, quicker. One cannot say that a foul to a more skillful or quicker player should not be called because he/she drew the foul for being better. If so, next time I see a high school recreational player fouling a club player I will not call the foul because the fouling player had no intend. The other player was just moving faster. Play on. Let’s see what happens. If the USA defender had just made contact with the ball then one can argue the attacking player was late and the defender motion was natural as she kicked the ball. But that didn’t happen. It was definitely a foul. Unfortunate for the USA team but a good VAR call. |
|
|
|
Post by bolo on Aug 2, 2021 9:50:35 GMT -5
Horrible call. The defender has no intent of fouling. The attacker drew that foul. Should not have been a penalty. Defender is in the motion of clearing the ball, attacker runs in front to initiate contact. Oh well. Tough call but still a foul. Most fouls committed in a game, there’s usually not an intend to foul. So called careless fouls. Just the other player is faster, quicker. One cannot say that a foul to a more skillful or quicker player should not be called because he/she drew the foul for being better. If so, next time I see a high school recreational player fouling a club player I will not call the foul because the fouling player had no intend. The other player was just moving faster. Play on. Let’s see what happens. If the USA defender had just made contact with the ball then one can argue the attacking player was late and the defender motion was natural as she kicked the ball. But that didn’t happen. It was definitely a foul. Unfortunate for the USA team but a good VAR call. First of all, it's "intent", not "intend". Second, in my eyes, the Canadian player initiated the contact from behind as the American defender had already started her motion towards the ball. To me that says no penalty, as the Canadian player was late and had to go through the American to get there. Hell, the Canadian player clearly didn't think it was a penalty either, as she just stood up and walked back up the field without the typical gesturing & calling for a foul that seems to go on with every bit of even questionable contact these days. The players know, and she knew it wasn't a foul. I like VAR to an extent, but much like the discussion last week around offside calls & getting down to a matter of millimeters using VAR, soccer can almost "virtually litigate" itself to death at times, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by justwatching on Aug 2, 2021 10:23:23 GMT -5
That was an obvious penalty in my eyes. Unfortunate, but still a clear penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Aug 2, 2021 10:58:04 GMT -5
What I see in slow motion...contact is initiated as a forearm push from behind by the Canadian (push). THEN the Canadian player leaves her feet jumping into the body of Lavelle (charge). Both of these happen prior to Lavelle kicking the player's leg.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Aug 2, 2021 11:33:59 GMT -5
Horrible call. The defender has no intent of fouling. The attacker drew that foul. Should not have been a penalty. Defender is in the motion of clearing the ball, attacker runs in front to initiate contact. Oh well. Sorry, I know you don’t have much respect for female refs but in this case she was 100% correct and you are wrong. It was definitely a penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Aug 2, 2021 12:08:32 GMT -5
Horrible call. The defender has no intent of fouling. The attacker drew that foul. Should not have been a penalty. Defender is in the motion of clearing the ball, attacker runs in front to initiate contact. Oh well. Sorry, I know you don’t have much respect for female refs but in this case she was 100% correct and you are wrong. It was definitely a penalty. This is similar to a player jumping in front of a goalkeeper as they are punting the ball and being surprised when they get kicked. I vehemently disagree that this was a foul. What else could the defender have done? She has a clear opportunity to clear the ball, is in the motion of clearing, and the attacker puts her body between the ball and her in motion strike. That is not a clear and obvious foul. An unfortunate soccer play, yes. Foul, no. My answer would be the same regardless of the gender of the referee. So please stay on task. |
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Aug 2, 2021 12:25:09 GMT -5
Sorry, I know you don’t have much respect for female refs but in this case she was 100% correct and you are wrong. It was definitely a penalty. This is similar to a player jumping in front of a goalkeeper as they are punting the ball and being surprised when they get kicked. I vehemently disagree that this was a foul. What else could the defender have done? She has a clear opportunity to clear the ball, is in the motion of clearing, and the attacker puts her body between the ball and her in motion strike. That is not a clear and obvious foul. An unfortunate soccer play, yes. Foul, no. My answer would be the same regardless of the gender of the referee. So please stay on task. The Canadian player beat Davidson to the ball and Davidson kicked her instead of the ball. Doesn’t matter whether Davidson was in motion already or not. The Canadian player has every right to step between her and the ball. Davidson should have been more aware of the situation. Looked to me like she didn’t see the Canadian attacker coming. No reasonably high level ref is going to debate that call after seeing it in slow motion on VAR. |
|
|
|
Post by soccernoleuk on Aug 2, 2021 12:36:18 GMT -5
In my opinion it was a foul, and Julie Foudy even stated on the broadcast that she thought it was a foul.
The Canadian player tried to make a play on the ball and was faster to the ball than the defender. As already stated by someone else, the defender didn't see the Canadian coming.
It was an unfortunate foul, but it was a foul IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by bogan on Aug 2, 2021 12:41:21 GMT -5
I think the play was a
|
|
|
|
Post by ball2futbol on Aug 2, 2021 12:55:26 GMT -5
I think the play in one word was: "Painfully Slow" (Okay two words).
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 2, 2021 13:47:09 GMT -5
All I know is this, in 2021, in my opinion the dutch have 3 players that are better than anyone on the current womens team roster.
Daniëlle van de Donk
Lieke Martens
Vivianne Miedema
Clearly winning the olympics and World Cup isn't an easy thing to do. mabye the lack of fans fed into it, but this team really never looked energized, but it was also filled with major issues and players that don't complement each other well.
When rapinoe, health and lloyd are in the game together, you have zero pace and ability to stretch the field.
Mewis, Horan and Ertz are just to similar of players, and nothing dymanic. Horan is kind of like a nagbe, wants to drop nice balls in and watch the play develop and rarely gives ya anything in the final third (which isn't her job i guess).
Ertz needs to play center back. Becky probably has few years left. Dunn can still play. Ohara might be done.
we need better production out of the outside middies, more dynamic play vs just sending balls into the box.
Winning ugly has always been their mentality. I'd like to see the next team called in to be all younger players with skills. Horan, Ertz, Rose, and Mewis will remain central cogs in some capacity, and build around that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Aug 2, 2021 14:07:15 GMT -5
They really should re-write the rule so that even though it may have been a foul, it should not be PK. PKs during a game (excluding shootouts) are converted over 80% of the time. Unless it was a goal scoring opportunity, the free kick resulting from a foul inside of the box should be taken from the closest point outside of the box to the foul. So still punish the foul and reward the team that drew the foul but not with a near automatic goal. That is particularly true of the play in the US-Canada game. The foul occurred hear the edge of the box going away from goal and toward the endline. The most likely result if no foul occurred is a goal kick for USA. To get a near automatic goal for that foul should not happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Aug 2, 2021 14:14:59 GMT -5
What I see in slow motion...contact is initiated as a forearm push from behind by the Canadian (push). THEN the Canadian player leaves her feet jumping into the body of Lavelle (charge). Both of these happen prior to Lavelle kicking the player's leg. You make a good observation. I don't see a foul however (push or charge). I do see the contact but not enough to consider it an illegal push or a charge. At the (faster) speed the Canadian player comes to the play, a push or charge type contact would have sent the USA player to the ground or significantly moved her off the ground. The USA player loses some balance after (unexpectedly) kicking the Canadian player. Nevertheless in this case (push/charge) is a judgement call on intensity-speed-force and point of contact. As per guidance to national referees, assessors, etc., "not getting to the ball first does make a tackle illegal." Unfortunately this was the case. Side note: getting to the ball first does not make the tackle illegal. If the player who gets to the ball first still follows through with the rest of the body in a careless, reckless or excessive force manner, it makes the tackle illegal. It was an unfortunate play for the USA player. I feel the USA player slowed down some to get a better contact with the ball. Unluckily for her and the team, she did not get the ball. Had she gotten the ball and follow a natural through motion (without change of direction or additional intensity-speed) and hit the Canadian player, it would've not been an illegal tackle. Play on. |
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Aug 2, 2021 14:28:26 GMT -5
They really should re-write the rule so that even though it may have been a foul, it should not be PK. PKs during a game (excluding shootouts) are converted over 80% of the time. Unless it was a goal scoring opportunity, the free kick resulting from a foul inside of the box should be taken from the closest point outside of the box to the foul. So still punish the foul and reward the team that drew the foul but not with a near automatic goal. That is particularly true of the play in the US-Canada game. The foul occurred hear the edge of the box going away from goal and toward the endline. The most likely result if no foul occurred is a goal kick for USA. To get a near automatic goal for that foul should not happen. More (bias/unbias) judging power to the referees. I'd go for that. I know the spirit of the game well enough I can make those decisions on the field of play. I can clearly judge what is fair and how much effort has been put in practices, etc., to make a PK call because of a careless foul. Not sure the other team will like my unbias judgement. On the other hand, perhaps the USA defender should check her shoulder better (or know the field position of opposing players), realize a player is coming at a faster speed, then shield the ball (so she gets fouled or the attacking player slows down), or play through instead of trying to kick it first, then gain field and ball possession, then either control the ball, and use her skills to go pass the attacking player, make a clean clear or play (pass) the ball to a teammate. And don't leave it to the Ref/VAR. Of course, we can also accept that sometimes unlucky plays (for one side) happen. Many coaches know these type of plays happen in the penalty area and you can hear them saying "no foul, no foul." what they mean is to be extremely cautious with careless fouls. |
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on Aug 2, 2021 14:34:30 GMT -5
The only thing I have to add to this is  . Couldn't have happened to a finer bunch..... |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Aug 2, 2021 20:26:27 GMT -5
In slow motion it actually looked like Rose (Canadian) kicked Davidson's leg which actually forced Davidson's foot into Rose. That was what it looked like to me from that one angle that they showed us from the side of the players. I think that was why Davidson landed a little off balance. I would say I agree Rose did not think it was a foul. She did not react at all. I think it was just a case of the player's legs getting tangled up with neither player fouling the other.
Regardless it is a moot point now
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Aug 2, 2021 21:33:42 GMT -5
I look at it this way, if Lavelle had the ball inside the Canadian 18 and the exact same sequence of events happens, on whom do they call the foul?
IMO they call it on the Canadian player every time for 1-a push from behind and then 2-a charge (Lavelle was knocked off 2 yards off the ball from behind and the opponent left her feet).
Everything the Canadian player did was careless. Regardless of whether Lavelle touches her she lands on her back.
The view from behind the goal at 3:58 seals it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by atv on Aug 3, 2021 5:29:47 GMT -5
I look at it this way, if Lavelle had the ball inside the Canadian 18 and the exact same sequence of events happens, on whom do they call the foul? IMO they call it on the Canadian player every time for 1-a push from behind and then 2-a charge (Lavelle was knocked off 2 yards off the ball from behind and the opponent left her feet). Everything the Canadian player did was careless. Regardless of whether Lavelle touches her she lands on her back. The view from behind the goal at 3:58 seals it for me. Number 12 for the US is Tierna Davidson, not Rose Lavelle. Deanne Rose is the Canadian |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Aug 3, 2021 8:43:16 GMT -5
Ah, I didn't watch closely, just looked like her in the clips (I didn't listen to Foudy, her voice grates me).
Davidson showed a lack of recovery speed, that's for sure. She had 15 yards on Rose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 3, 2021 9:04:09 GMT -5
Ah, I didn't watch closely, just looked like her in the clips (I didn't listen to Foudy, her voice grates me). Davidson showed a lack of recovery speed, that's for sure. She had 15 yards on Rose. yea, when you go back and watch, makes ya wonder why Davidson was running like a turtle. Very lazy defensively when you rewatch it. For a girl who probably has played soccer her entire live, she looks very uncoordinated. |
|
|
|
Post by bolo on Aug 3, 2021 9:26:29 GMT -5
Ah, I didn't watch closely, just looked like her in the clips (I didn't listen to Foudy, her voice grates me). Davidson showed a lack of recovery speed, that's for sure. She had 15 yards on Rose. yea, when you go back and watch, makes ya wonder why Davidson was running like a turtle. Very lazy defensively when you rewatch it. For a girl who probably has played soccer her entire live, she looks very uncoordinated. Yeah, as critical as I have been of the penalty call, the lazy defending was inexcusable and was the only reason there was even a chance for something like that to happen. I wouldn’t expect to see something like that in a decently-high level youth game, much less from a top tier squad in the Olympics. What was she doing/thinking? |
|
|
|
Post by ball2futbol on Aug 3, 2021 12:12:39 GMT -5
Not sure what was harder to watch. Davidson's lethargic defense or the look of exertion on Lloyd's face as she's a full step and half slower than Canada's backline on every service ball in the second half.
Makeup of Canada's roster had a nice balance of veterans paired with collegiate standouts only a year or two removed from NCAA action.
|
|
|
|
Post by DunwoodySoccerDad on Aug 4, 2021 15:33:22 GMT -5
I didn't get to watch the game live and only saw the replays, but I thought it was a completely horsesh** call. As mightydawg said, that may technically be a penalty but a PK should never be awarded to the other team for that type of play.
Ironically, I was in Chicago over the weekend and took the family to a Red Stars game. Mallory Pugh looked fantastic. She was the best player on the field and I hope she gets the chance to play again soon with the USWNT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 4, 2021 15:37:57 GMT -5
I didn't get to watch the game live and only saw the replays, but I thought it was a completely horsesh** call. As mightydawg said, that may technically be a penalty but a PK should never be awarded to the other team for that type of play. Ironically, I was in Chicago over the weekend and took the family to a Red Stars game. Mallory Pugh looked fantastic. She was the best player on the field and I hope she gets the chance to play again soon with the USWNT. Why is Pugh in the dog house with the staff? I've always been a fan of hers for sure! |
|
|
|
Post by atv on Aug 4, 2021 16:10:50 GMT -5
I didn't get to watch the game live and only saw the replays, but I thought it was a completely horsesh** call. As mightydawg said, that may technically be a penalty but a PK should never be awarded to the other team for that type of play. Ironically, I was in Chicago over the weekend and took the family to a Red Stars game. Mallory Pugh looked fantastic. She was the best player on the field and I hope she gets the chance to play again soon with the USWNT. Amen. Mallory Pugh is an amazing talent. In what world does she not beat out a 39 year old Lloyd that is frankly well past her prime. |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Aug 4, 2021 16:29:55 GMT -5
I didn't get to watch the game live and only saw the replays, but I thought it was a completely horsesh** call. As mightydawg said, that may technically be a penalty but a PK should never be awarded to the other team for that type of play. Ironically, I was in Chicago over the weekend and took the family to a Red Stars game. Mallory Pugh looked fantastic. She was the best player on the field and I hope she gets the chance to play again soon with the USWNT. Why is Pugh in the dog house with the staff? I've always been a fan of hers for sure! She did have a period of time that she was struggling with injury and recovery and when she got back she did not look good. I do think she should be there before Sophia Smith though. Smith has a great future but she has looked weak in every national team friendly she has played in. Seems to be not ready for international play. I do think that Midge Purce should have gone as she can play winger or outside back and she looks dangerous attacking in both situations. What we need is an up and coming striker. Trinity Rodman deserves a look at that. |
|
