I would say it should be red, too. It's probably going to be yellow. But I'm absolutely fine with a red here. No, it should just be red. Sorry.
And it happens at all levels--as she is being cautioned you can see her saying "but I got the ball" or something close to it . . .
Are ARs no longer coming into the field on penalties during regular time because the VAR has the call? First I've noticed that.
I thought yellow was right. While it was high up, it was contact following an actual kick of the ball with no unreasonable force. I am curious what Steinhaus [sp?] saw live--seemed like she had a direct look at it.
I always though the main reason to come in was goal-no goal rather than GK monitoring. I would think GLT would make it obsolete--though I have never given it a second thought until you posted this.
I guess. I suppose it's more clumsy than anything else. In this competition, yellow works. But this is the actual follow-through kick that is completely unacceptable and dangerous (unlike the one the other day, where it was a slip and momentum of the attacker that prompted all the contact). Men's match at most levels, that's SFP. I imagine she just didn't see the actual contact on the knee. In that sort of situation, you want to believe that a defender didn't just swing, miss (mostly) and kneecap the opponent in the penalty area. Your eyes are also on the ball naturally, which is 2 feet below where the contact occurred.
4 out of 5 analysts in studio hate the call. Lalas is the only one who understands it's a foul. Taking the referee course helped. But I'm still baffled how three professional women's players think that's an okay challenge. They think this is what defenders are "paid to do." Jesus. This is insanity.
My favorite is from the BBC live thread where one fan said the French player should have been the one booked for going in two footed.
Because way too many people, especially players, think that intent matters when it comes to big foul/penalty calls. She was trying to clear the ball, missed, and accidentally kicked the other player. Why should that be a penalty? Obviously, we know better...but I guarantee you that's what they think
I think it’s a garbage call as well. I don’t know what defenders are supposed to do anymore. Yeah, someone got cleated — the horror. But the defender played the ball (because that’s what you do in soccer; kick the ball) and caught the opponent accidentally. Is this really what we want VAR doing? Changing World Cup results for routine plays?
Of course. But I can't help think that it is also part of a reflexive action to complain about officiating no matter what. If this doesn't get called, I wonder if any of them sit there and talk about how attacking players simply are not protected. As a former attacker, how do you sit there, though, and not think "wow, reckless kicks like that could end careers?" The instinct to excuse marginal offences in the interest of "she's just trying to play soccer" is fine. But this isn't supposed to be the way you play soccer. I hate to say it, but excusing this makes me feel like these top players just don't expect WC-caliber defenders to be all that skilled. Ensuring that you don't commit this foul really isn't that hard. The comparison they made to handling, where they were talking about how defenders can't have their arms out and now they have to keep their legs in, was laughably absurd.
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Honestly shocked you take this position, because I have always felt your assessments are quite reasonable. Any defender should be able to make a challenge there without putting your cleat into the knee of the opponent. Any defender. From U8 rec all the way to the international level. It really isn't that hard. If you can't do it, it's a foul and, with this point of contact and force, definitely a card. You can follow-through low, with feet colliding, and it's fine. You can not follow through. You can poke the ball instead of trying to clear it with a full-swing. You could go to ground and make a much safer challenge and avoid fouling. You can do so many things other than what the player did here.
The penalty area is marked with lines that should be bright lights to defenders that they need to change the way they defend IN THIS AREA. If this foul occurred outside the area, we wouldn’t even be discussing it, because it’s a 100 per cent foul. The reason the penalty area exists is to increase scoring and limit fouling of attackers. If you chose as a defender to challenge in such a manner within the area, a penalty will be assessed.
Everyone understands the concept of a defender handling a ball they didn't mean to, but it being a PK. Everyone understands a defender tripping an opponent when they didn't mean to, but it still being a PK. Why the struggle to understand an opponent putting her studs into the knee of an opponent when they didn't mean to, so it's a PK?
It’s taken decades, but I believe a majority of people now understand it’s still a foul if a defender sides, pokes the ball away, but still slides through and takes out the attacker with the trailing leg. This is a similar concept.
I just don’t believe that that’s what happened here. I fully understand that if you commit a legal play, but then you come in with a completely separate secondary play that’s illegal, there’s a foul to be called. That’s why the similar play to this one against South Africa was determined to be a penalty. Because it appears that there was a secondary play after the initial tackle. I had a lot less of a problem with that one. The one we’re discussing from today looks like a routine kick of the ball with accidental contact from the foot used to do the kicking. This would also be a lot less bothersome to me if the referee had judged it to be foul play on the field and VAR had let it stand.
The fact that VAR recommended it, and the referee (one of if not THE elite woman referee in the world) agreed that it was a clear an obvious foul is probably a clue that the overwhelming majority of referees (I don't recall if a single referee has dissented) on here are correct in saying this is a foul. "Intentional" was deleted from the definition of fouls more than 30 or so years ago. Players are entitled to kick the ball, but they are required to take an appropriate amount of care to not kick an opponent while doing so. The defender failed to take that appropriate amount of care around here. That failure, plus cleat to high leg contact is an easy foul. (Indeed, note that some very respectable referees are contending that a send off would have been a better choice than the caution.)
But you can’t have carte blanche to follow through as high as you want on an otherwise “legal” play. What it studs continued into the thigh in one motion? The abdomen? The chest? By what you’ve written here, you’d be fine with that if it’s a single motion and one action. I refuse to believe you actually believe that. The South Africa play, to me, was more excusable because of the clear slip and the fact the opponent kept running toward the player as the slip occurred. Still a foul, but more unfortunate than anything. This play, though, again, there is no reason to follow through that high on that clearance. Players need to be responsible for their bodies when committing challenges. When you follow through like that, there is a very high possibility that you will catch your opponent high. That’s why it’s unacceptable. You can’t just go excusing the result because it’s a single motion or whatever. If may be a single motion, but players can still see the likely consequences of their actions after they get the ball. I’m baffled there is so much pushback on this call. In a men’s game, it’s the type of dirty challenge that ends careers. Maybe it’s more of an accident in the women’s game, but it still can end careers. And it’s still a foul and misconduct.