Youtubers that I follow who frequently upload games: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8oFYSzgWxJQNHkCxQjZn0g; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1PDLIhjorClWHx6FpYLGgQ; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8FHc06x1T7v6TzoLxVG6bg. Two of these have posted the Costa Rica game, chances are good that the Mexico game will appear soon.
OK, I guarantee this video will put this handball debate to rest. I watched the Arsenal vs Leicester City game this morning (#1 and #3 teams in the English Premier League). There were 3 inadvertent handballs in the penalty box by the same team that were 10x more egregious than the one in the Mexico game and either blocked shots or took away a major advantage. None of them were called handballs and every announcer and analyst agreed they were without a doubt not handballs because they were inadvertent. I also added the Mexico handball and Carli's PK to the end of the video. Also note that the handball didn't take any advantage away from the US (not that it matters) as the ball was going directly to two Mexico players and no US player was in the same zip code. If these 3 are not handballs, there's no way in hell it was a handball in the Mexico game.
I agree that it was a very bad call by the ref. That's two penalty kicks the US have received in this tournament as gifts from the refs. Either or both of them could make a difference whether Mexico or Costa Rica goes to the Olympics. Real, real bad. The rule says "deliberate handling" of the ball. No way that was deliberate.
And this Referee was blamed for it. Any handball that The hand spread out from the body Changed the ball's direction Can be called.
To quote the rule book: “Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement…” It wasn't deliberate, the Mexican player didn't move her hand toward the ball, the ball could certainly be considered unexpected, and just because her arm was extended "does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement."
Well, I did see contact. Heath missed Romero, but got her foot thereat. Then Romero's kick-already-in-motion followed through into Heath's sole from below. So I thought (only half in jest) that Romero fouled Heath That unexpected pain can, indeed, make you fall down from pain or real structural injury. We saw the same thing on O'Hara's kung fu goal vs. Germany, when RB Tabea Kemme swung full roundhouse to volley it clear, but O'Hara's shoe won the race and was already there. Kemme was injured so bad she needed trainers to help her hop into the end zone. Careful there, that logic is a bit too jingoistic even for a rivalry game. You don't seriously believe any athlete is "faking" at that speed, at this level of sport? That's really unflattering.
Well, if the rule means exactly what it says, it wasn't handling the ball because the player was a woman. Really, though, in the box defenders would be well advised not to have their hands/arms extended out from their bodies. I can imagine a player making herself as big as possible with her arms out, but with them (1) not moving towards the ball but rather being stationary, (2) when close to the opponent and the ball. Part of the issue in that case is, when in the box in front of the goal almost any ball coming towards you should be expected in general, so that if your arm is extended and gets hit it's hard to say it's completely unexpected or unintentional. It still doesn't absolutely mean it's handling, but a player runs the risk of a handling call. Some refs will make it and some won't. And, as Cuellar said, the ref has to make the call immediately so it can happen. Keep your arms compact with your body and it's far less likely. Still, an unfortunate call. It doesn't, however, mean that the game would have ended in a tie without the call.
My question is this: Are the rules different in essence or interpretation for the EPL vs Concacaf or vs Fifa? I have seen many penalty calls in Fifa play only because the hand was extended, regardless of intent, which has set a strong precedent in the game. I think it depends on the refs interpretation, but it seems many refs either don't know or don't care about intent.
Honestly, not seriously, no. Even before you called me out on it. I thought about the severe implausibility of those theories as I was writing that post. Feelings took over logic temporarily. Once again, I did disclaim my very obvious bias. In my defense, excruciating pain seems unlikely in this case given how quickly Romero gets back up. And I concede that the U.S. did get the benefit of many other controversial calls, not the least of which led to the PK [which I still don't think is by any means the most crystal-clear non-handball of all time]. But the nature of that particular foul against Heath bothered me. I re-watched that part from the sideline cam and I think I see what you're saying. I can see Romero clipping Tobin as they compete for the ball. The forced-perspective replay, and apparently my own perspective from the opposite side, makes it appear that they completely missed each other. And I thought replays were supposed to make things clearer. But there was still no aggression, intentional or unintentional, by Tobin against Romero, and I consider that a necessary ingredient of a foul. The unexpected pain was the sole cause of the foul and not Tobin's play. And a player going to the ground does not always necessitate a foul. At the beginning of the 41st minute, a Mexican player plowed through Horan with little to no contact on the ball with no foul called. That inconsistency really upset me.
In real game it's impossible to decide deliberate handball in a lot of situation. She obviously spread out her arm and extended the area of defending.
this has nothing to do with what i'm saying. yes, that's obvious though, she doesn't want to emulate Lloyd's DMid play but Horan's been better so far in her short career as dmid
I re-watched the play, the defender moves her arm in a typical running motion that was not outstretched in an unnatural manner, in addition, there were no US players in the area of play and no advantage gained by the defender due to the contact with her hand. A good ref would take all of this into account when determining if a penalty kick should be awarded.
This game reeeeeeeeeeeally reminded me of the 1-0 win over Trinidad and Tobago in KC in October 2014. Bunker Bunker Bunker.
I had the same thought. Another game where the US didn't play well and couldn't break down the bunker.
I found a really good 720p version of the USA vs Mexico match. The whole match can be viewed via one link.
You just gotta take the semi-colon at the end out of the first two. The link someone posted to the 720p video is one of those links. The game is now up on NBCSN streaming.
Thanks on the first part. What match are you referring to in the 2nd sentence? Can you provide a link? If you're referring to the USA vs Mexico match, the replay still requires a valid cable subscription and login authorization. I don't see a any reference for today's match vs P.R. on NBC, what gives?
those 2 statements don't have to go together. they don't here. in fact, the u.s. played well. the fact that they couldn't break down the bunker just reinforces a common rule in football. the weaker team can beat the stronger if they bunker and counter. it's happened numerous times....plus, this mexico team, which just beat s. korea (several steps above them in the fifa rankings) 2-0 away, didn't bunker and counter. they used their discipline mainly to bunker. the u.s. had the vast majority of the possession, outshot them 16-2, and created the only real chances of the game. they played well.
Agree that the two statements don't have to go together but disagree that they don't go together here. Yes, the US had more possession and had numerous chances, but I don't think they played well. Not terrible play, but not good either. There were just way too many poor touches and giveaways from almost every player for me to say that they played well.
the opponent and their closing down approach determines your touch in many games. our play will be much better today, even with bench players starting. you're thinking of the mexico we always beat handily. this is a different/better mexico team.
Ellis came into tournament saying she feels she has a roster which can solve low blocks. This game putting that to the test. Long time left.— Jeff Kassouf (@JeffKassouf) February 13, 2016 I can't find a direct quote (maybe somebody has it) . . . but Jeff Kassouf attributes Jill Ellis saying (before the Mexico game) that she feels the US has a roster which can solve low block. Well that obviously wasn't the case. Not to mention the absurdity of having the personal make-up of a roster being the solution to a tactical challenge on the field.
No, I'm not. If you read one of my earlier posts above where I break down the game a little, I gave a ton of credit to Mexico and said they looked better than they had in years. But the US had a ton of unforced errors in this game, even giving the ball away when players were under no pressure. But hey, we can agree to disagree.