FCKC 2016

To make matters worse, 2 more retirements announced yesterday.

 

Brittany Taylor is a pro's pro.

 

Well, you unfortunately picked one of the calls the ref got right.

Groom got sent off for a second yellow going in late on a keeper in possession of the ball. If you are late, you jump over the keeper or figure out how to avoid contact. You don't slide in feet first.
It's a pretty automatic call.

But the ref did get a pile of stuff wrong.

 

Normally, I've agreed with the cards that Groom has received. But I thought this was a fair 50/50 ball, and Groom did a fairly good job trying to avoid the contact. Though, Groom should know by now not to risk it when she's already got a yellow.

Remember when the biggest complaint was that the PBP guy was boring. Well, now the PBP is no longer boring!

 

If by 50-50, you mean a yard and a half late, then yeah. She's already sliding with no chance whatever at the ball. It's dead when Betos pins it.




She went through Sonnet to get the keeper, which seems distant from avoiding contact.
Eminently yellow.

 

And did you not notice the Thorn defender sitting on Groom there? That's why Groom went down. She couldn't jump through the defender. But she did pull her legs back to try to avoid the contact with Betos.

 

Groom tried to hold up at the last second once she committed.
She wasn't trying to strike the goalkeeper as hard as she could.
She was actually trying to avoid contact with the goalkeeper once she committed for the ball.
2nd yellow was harsh there.

 

The Portland defender is shielding, which is legal, when Groom decides to undercut her legs, which is why she is getting low, she never sat on Groom, but was propelled over Betos by the hit from behind. The next frames actually show her getting launched over Betos.

Here is groom going to ground. Sonnet sitting on her ( which never happened) has nothing to do with her going into her slide.


Then she runs into sonnet from behind ( itself a foul) and then gets Betos.




And Sonnet is beyond the play after the hit from behind. No sitting occurred.

She committed to the ball well before any contact and was late to it, as the first frame in this post shows. There are no additional steps.
Had she not try to hold up ( bent her knees) it would have been straight red.

Refs protect keepers from late hits. Learn that or get cautioned, which was her result.
It was the easiest call of the night.
I have seen yellow cards for merely dragging a foot over a keeper.

 

I never said it wasn't. Just that she impeded Groom from being able to jump over Betos.

Sorry, but that did not happen. I know you're a Thorns fan so you're gonna be biased towards your team, but there was absolutely no malicious intent in Grooms action.

I never said she said on Groom, I said she was sitting on Groom in the picture you showed, as she is quite clearly in the sitting position.

That is Groom attempting to slow down and stop. If she was attempting to slide there, her slide would've missed the ball completely (look how close she is to the ball, she's maybe a foot away?). Watch it closely and you can see her momentum slows, then she hits the Thorns defender and flops to the ground. Look where her feet are:

Neither one was extended. She's sitting on both of them because she was trying to avoid Betos.

Look, I'm not saying it wasn't a penalty against Groom. It was. Keepers need to be protected, that's why most 50/50 calls go in their favor. It's just not a yellow card, IMHO.

 

You said she was sitting on Groom. You said nothing about sitting position.

to answer that, no, I never saw her sitting on Groom. I saw Groom sliding low under her from behind. Tell you what, I'll do it to you and see if you keep your knees straight.

No, that is Groom finishing a slide she started 5 yards away. She will eventually slide to a stop.

that's bunk. The play is dead is when Betos pins the ball. She's halfway into her slide a yard and a half from where Betos made the ball dead by pinning it.
Sonnet's shoe is close to a foot ( one is inside it)

You aren't going to get the 50-50 support from a ref if they have to stop play for injury. A keeper is a special case.

Here's what NISOA, the college officials say in directly addressing the situation. They follow FIFA and get their training through the USSF programs. I don't see it directly addressed in FIFA teaching, but if you want, go to the referees forum and ask them.

So, the foul call is the minimum. I think you are kidding yourself if you think this was anything like minimum contact.

Safety for the keeper is the most important consideration.


You have an obligation to avoid the keeper, whether she has the ball or not. If she has pinned the ball with her arm or hand against anything, including any body part, play is dead and you have no right to challenge.

I don't dispute she didn't make a stiff legged tackle. As I said, had she not bent her legs, she could easily draw red.


So we'll just disagree on the severity of the foul. At least you agree it was one. But when play has to be stopped for injury, you can be pretty confident that a foul by an attacker will be cautioned. There was a lot of crap this ref got wrong. This wasn't one of those things. It is fully supported in referee guidelines.

 

I thought Groom pretty clearly was trying to pull up. The problem was, it was too late. She was going in at max speed for a ball she wasn't going to get to, with a player between her and the keeper and she went through them feet first. The difficulty for her, I think, was that she got herself in trouble when she started out in a way that could be called reckless, and then even though she tried to pull up she wasn't fully successful and got Betos. I don't think it's sufficient to say, "Sorry, I was going so fast for a ball I wasn't going to get to that even though I tried to stop, I still slid into you -- feet first." Especially for Groom, she should have better judgment by now and the fact that she seems not to suggests that she won't cut it out until she/her team gets some pretty serious repercussions. (Do I remember correctly that earlier, Brynjarsdotter was called for a foul on Barnhart that really looked like a 50-50 ball? If my memory is right, the ref already had sent a message about laying off the keepers.)

But, (1) I'm a Portland fan, and (2) I don't claim to have any expertise on what a ref should do in this situation.

PS - We're all assuming the call was for fouling Betos. It could have been for fouling Sonnett. If you look at the stop frames, it seems pretty clear she went into Sonnett, low and from behind, when Betos had her hand on the ball. Isn't that deserving of a yellow?

 

Well, I don't know how you slide, but I slide on the ground, not in the air.

Yes, and Sonnet is already in the sitting position on Groom before Betos has control of it.

LOL. So you're trying to tell me Sonnet wears a US Men's size 13.5 (women's 15)? Because that's the size foot you need to have for your foot to be a foot.

Which is why I said the keeper usually gets it in their favor...

Yes, and she tried, but Sonnet got in the way.

Funny, cause that doesn't seem to be how refs decide. I've seen a player draw blood on another player with their studs and not even get a foul called on them (and this was in the EPL).

That's a good point. It could have been called on that.

 

a slide begins with your last step. It starts in the air unless you are crawling. Gravity brings you to earth.

Ok, have it your way. She fouled Sonnet from behind before she fouled Betos.

Another reach. Your reading comprehension is poor.
1) I referenced the size of a shoe, not a foot. I then mentioned a foot was inside it.
2) I included the word "CLOSE" which you can't read, apparently. My term is a lot more accurate than your fantasy that Groom was " close to a foot away " when Betos had the ball. If her shoe is only 8" long I'm closer than you are.

Which is where you should have quit, because the expectation is exactly what happened.

And Groom should have known that would be the result of the reckless challenge.

I don't think she tried , either did the ref. Sonnet doesn't think she tried. Sonnet was shielding the ball and got knocked over Betos, yet managed to do a better job of avoiding Betos than Groom did. , and Betos, I'm quite sure, doesn't agree with you either.

I invite you to bring that point of view to the referees forum as well. Good luck with it. You go studs up on a player, it's reckless play and quite often red.

Nigel DeJong just got three games rest after the fact for studs to Nagbe's leg. The referee in that case got disciplined for only giving a yellow by having his next gig taken away.

Actually, I did already mention that possibility in post #65 between the first two frames I posted.

It could have been called on either (or both. Reckless play is not limited to fouling one player). But the best justification is the caution for fouling the keeper in possession.

 

The scourge that is stop-frame or slo-mo strikes again, exaggerating how much time someone has to decide on an action or to create intention. That's a bang-bang play, a 50-50 ball, and Groom does well to pull back her studs. It's a judgment call but I'm surprised it's a yellow card. I think it's harsh.

Only the scourge of slo-mo allows you to say "well before any contact". Keepers get in collisions all the time and there aren't cards issued every time they get to the ball first. I'm inclined to defer to the judgment of the referee but no way would I call this an easy call.

 

I can't help myself. "Tried to stop" is no defense. She did not stop. She did not have enough control of her body to stop. It was a foul. 85-90% of trips out in the field of play are due to a player trying to tackle the ball, but they don't get ball and they do trip the player. Tried has nothing to do with it- the foul is based on what actually happens. Yellow or not yellow is in the opinion of the ref.

 

I agree it was a good game, and regardless of the Groom situation, I didn't think the ref was as bad as some thought. I didn't like some of the calls, thought they were inconsistent, but nothing outrageous.

I thought both goals were really great ones. The O'Reilly to Groom was about as perfect execution of that play as you can see. Horan's getting her head to the ball and putting it just inside the post was tremendous. Either could be a goal of the week.

Did Betos get her hand on the PK and tip it off the post for the save? I wasn't sure from the slo mo, but I think that's what happened. If it is, it was a really spectacular save and could qualify for save of the week.

There also were a good number of errant passes by both teams that suggested the players aren't used to each other yet or aren't yet as sharp as they need to be.

 

And her feet are still on the ground... she never took her last step until she ran into Sonnet.

LOL. OK, so let's use this new "Sonnet" foot to measure (even though you freely admit that Sonnet's shoe is more likely closer to half a foot than a full foot...).

This is from the screenshot you posted that I was responding to, just zoomed in:

The red line is approx. the size of Sonnet's shoe (it's hard to tell exactly as it isn't 100% perpendicular to the camera)

So Groom is less than two "Sonnet" feet away. (And Betos, as you can see is more than 2 "Sonnet" yards away). So no, I don't think my saying "maybe a foot away" is any less accurate than your claim that Sonnet's shoe is 12 inches long.

I'm afraid you missed my point completely there, but that's nothing new.

Oh wow! You just admitted a ref got something wrong! Thanks for proving my point even though you couldn't comprehend it.

Well, sorry I missed it. Hey look at that, I can admit I'm wrong. Still waiting to ever see you do that.