You Make the Call

Wow, now I know I'm getting old; I tried to project it on a wall to make it bigger and all I can see are moving blobs. As best I can tell, the keeper was way out, maybe even beyond the 18, slid in for the ball and got clocked. Having seen that time and time again with a daughter in the job, looked pretty par for the course, the only thing I'm missing is if she got any ball or if the attacker targeted her or was it just a tough collision.

 

I think the ref's in many a women's college soccer game base their calls on close-up views similar to the one in the video.

 

aww, c'mon. you can't tell much of anything about the details of that play from that angle, ecept possibly that it clearly wasn't a shoulder to shoulder challenge

Fortunately, another angle has surfaced, which clearly shows a yellow was deservedly called.
here's the link.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAn6x6hMqUo"]another view[/ame]

 

C'mon, that was only Nigel's second strike

 

Actually, after spending a couple months looking at that, I'm not entirely sure why Nigel wasn't brought up on attempted homicide charges.

 

DeJong's a punk. I had a player like him many years ago that took half a season to break of the reckless challenges. Sure, he still had his rep as an enforcer, but learned to do it within the spirit and letter of the laws. Much happier player after that. His mom was pretty happy too. Gotta keep the soccer moms happy!

 

Looked at it a few times.... Yes a foul was called (you can hear the whistle) and it is good that the ref wasn't completely shielded (he was moving actively to keep his view.)

The keeper picks up the ball and then is forcefully shoved down by the forward. A clear yellow, IMO.

 

Man! you can see a lot more than I can.

I'll agree a whistle is heard. that's about all I'll concede from your statement. I'm not saying you are wrong, mind you, but I think you might be seeing what you want to.

I thought the whistle might have been for offside or from another field, because it seems before contact to me. at that distance there should have been a frame or so delay. But everyone stopped running, so maybe you are right on this count.

as to seing the nature of the foul - you clearly have the well honed eyes of a ref, because I can't see what is going on in the two frames around contact. it could be a push on a keeper with possession. it could also be keeper obstruction without possession fouling the forward. I'll admit that's less probable, but those frames don't tell us.

here they are:


(keeper obscured completely by another red player.)

(all I can see is the ass of the keeper - this is, I think, the time of contact)

if you can see keeper possession you are way more clear eyed that I.

the first frame I can see the ball shows it clear of both players.

Here's the first frame I see the ball - (the white blob left of the ref).



as far as the ref being in position, SHE looks like her direct view might be blocked by another red kit.(second frame)
At least those hips and that run look female to me. watch the few seconds before the call and tell me that's a guy running.


You can also see the assistant on the right, who makes no foul wave motions they love to make (or offside motions) with the flag. he/she just holds it out a little, perhaps motioning the line of the restart. (or maybe it was a random move)

I did come up with a Culver-Stockton v. Hannibal-LaGrange game description that seems to match this incident (HLG won, 1-0), but it doesn't really tell us much more about whether the injury was a foul or the gender of the ref. it's the only recent Culver-Stockton game that lists a keeper injury, however.

Here's the box score of the game, which lists no cautions or ejections (of course, it lists no refs, either)

http://www.dakstats.com/WebSync/Pag...sg=WSO&sea=NAIWSO_2010&team=2376&compID=29389

I think the video I referenced is clearer about that call.

 

often times when I take video on a portable device, the sound and the image are noticeable out of sync, so the confusion related to the timing of the whistle's audio vs. the image, should not necessarily be considered correctly aligned, in fact, it's likely not aligned properly.

 

There is a lot more detail in the 720p version. Looks like the GK has the ball and the forward doesn't make an effort to avoid the collision. Looks much clearer than the pictures you've posted though.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJZe5URx3Bk"]YouTube - College GK gets fouled crop[/ame]

 

Much closer to the goal than I initially thought and based on this, I'm not sure the keeper has possession before the collision. As the parent of a keeper and having shown the original video to Junior, her comment was "Why did she try to pick it up with the striker that close?"

Why indeed. I guess her eyes are better than mine.

 

That is a lot clearer. In this version you can see the forward clearly folllowing the ball and trying to sweep it left around the keeper, which she ultimately does.

You can also see the keeper bending at the waist and presenting her head to the contact. Perhaps a few sessions with a good keeper coach would help there. I've seen putting you head down to ball level called as dangerous play, especially in youth play.

What I still can't see is a frame that shows the keeper had possession, just that she reached down for the ball. And there was contact. It is a live ball.


I guess it depends on what level of protection the ref is willing to give a player. Depending on the level of play, i've seen calls in the EPL as a play-on or college called either way on a similar ball. Often it depends on who touched the ball first. You sure won't see an EPL keeper bending over without protecting himself. They aren't that trusting.

Last year there was a PK and a PK and ejection of the keeper in the same game on plays that were similar challenges. The timing was everything.
The red card was given to the keeper by none other than Joe Pimental, of last year's BYU- NMU hair pulling no-call fame. This refutes the claim that he doesn't own a card.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01ETCv-v80g&feature=player_popout#"]YouTube - UP Women's Soccer Highlights vs. Gonzaga (10/10/09)[/ame]!

it's a great video to argue over though, which is why I think it was presented.

 

Yeah, over there refs will defend the deJong call, even though Webb himself admits he made the wrong decision in giving just the yellow.

Did you ever find out if a card was given?

 

I am not going to look up the law and its interpretation, but my recollection is that if the keeper has control of the ball a field player cannot kick the ball.

In reality these plays are always bang bang and it is difficult to determine if the keeper had "control". If the ball squirts loose, then the keeper probably didn't have control seems to be the usual thought pattern. In my viewing of the replay there is an attacker who appears to get between the play and the referee right at the crucial moment. Hard to call what you didn't see.

 

In the Portland video, I think that usually keepers get more of the benefit of the doubt. That 1st PK is not always called and I think the 2nd is usually only a PK and not a red card, because DOGSO is rarely called. But I can also see the rationale for it being called the way it was, and I think the red was probably because of the earlier infraction.

 

There is only one sentence I rule 12 ( cautionable offences)

That calls for a caution for a violent challenge to a keeper while in possession of the ball. That would seem to mean more than just touching it, but I haven't looked up what the referee interpretations say.

Rule 12 also calls for a red for DOGSO obstruction, but doesn't define that, either. But I do recall that ref interpretations there call for the 4 "d's" to all be present.( ussoccer)

There was an extensive discussion on PilotNation last year on the second call.( and on the takedown in the box on Kendall Johnson, which was ruled a goal kick). I recall that a retired referee defended a DOGSO decision, but said that even if it wasn't there was obstruction and dangerous play. The keeper never played the ball.

In post game interviews, the keeper said she wasn't a dirty player. She didn't say it wasn't a foul.

The first PK wasn't a card, BTW, only a PK.

 

I don't think she is a dirty player just based on this video. She appeared to be trying to make a play on the ball on both pk's, she just never quite got to it in time.

 

yeah, I don't think there was any malice either, but she didn't get close to playing the ball on the second, which is why I think she felt she had to defend herself in the newspaper.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not in any official's handbook.