Show your work because I've just gone through the first half and have no idea what you're talking about. I'll show some of mine shortly but I think this is utter crap.
If the contact is going to bring someone down - and I'm a bit towards the extreme it doesn't even need to be that - then I don't know where you're getting your definition of "trifling" unless it's your friends.
Seeing the play in real-time did nothing to make the contact seem any more significant. In fact, it made it less so IMO.
Gods, we actually think we become experts on the biometrics of human motion. All because we watch slo-mo. Honestly.
It's not very hard become unbalanced when cutting across someone else at speed while reaching. This seems very strange that "because she fell, it must have been a foul".
But if the defender cleats her while she's going by, that's one condition for it being a foul. I'm more of a purist here than most people - but this is why defenders are supposed to be careful in the area, isn't it? Isn't that the purpose, so we have goal-scoring opportunities in the run of play? If a defender makes a great play in a dangerous situation - great! But they cleat someone while they're racing by right in front of you, that's supposed to be on you. Again, I know most people agree with you. I just don't understand it and then I really don't understand it when people complain if a game is ugly. It seems to me there's a cause-and-effect here but I guess it's too philosophical for some people.
Fair point watching on TV. I'm thinking of the referee's view on-the-field. And since video can establish clear contact (probably painful contact), it seems to justify the referee's on-field call. (But yeah I hang out sometimes on the Ref Forum so I'm a bit deferential to them under certain circumstances)
I thought this was a good article about how Spain almost beat the US. Hint: harass Morgan, Heath, and Rapinoe. Every time they touch the ball. https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/uswnt-spain-womens-world-cup-win-worry.html
The thing I take away from this game is that Spain scored the only goal in the run of play. In my view, neither foul in the box prevented a clear scoring opportunity for the USA. Spain is a young team and will learn to avoid those fouls in the future. The other things I noticed were a) Spain’s typical possession game was upset early in the game because of the speed of play, which was very fast, but It appeared that Spain adapted as the game went on. b) Spain’s delivery of long passes into the final third was very good and that caused a lot of problems for the USA’s defence. I’m looking forward to see what this excellent young team looks like in a few years.
I also thought it was a good article. And perhaps the most insightful line was "Both Rapinoe and Heath prefer to have a moment to survey their options, and the American midfield wasn’t able to get them the ball early enough to have that opportunity." I only saw most of the second half, and what I saw was a midfield that could not control possession, win bills or turn around and start attacks. It was reminiscent of the US performance through the Colombia game in '15. That may change with Horan in the field, but if she is healthy, I would also incline to start Morgan Brian. She has big-game experience (in my opinion, without her insertion into the lineup in '15 the US does not win the WWC) and she also has a long-distance shot power that adds an offensive option.
If you're going to copy and paste at least share all of law 12. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct "Impedes an opponent with contact" Hold hands up about intent not being stated, but your attitude is a joke. Went to page, copied part of it, failed to read rest and then having a dig.
Going by this the ref must have really wanted the US to score to have considered that to be 'careless, reckless or using excessive force'. In no way do most people consider that a penalty worthy level of contact, especially with the terrible dive afterward.
You guys can debate with me since I’ve had a day to reflect and cool down, but I think Spain were robbed and despite the stats on paper, were the better team for a majority of the game.
That's the criteria for DOGSO. I swear people are pulling out all sorts of unrelated criteria. The threshold for a PK is a simple foul, any foul, in the box. Period.
The question then becomes "what constitutes a foul, any foul?" And if we're going to call "contact" a foul, then there should have been a whole lot more stoppage time yesterday.
I legitimately hate the USWNT, and think it was an awful way to win. They didn’t deserve it, but I guess that’s how football goes sometimes.
That is some crap the FA put out. It is not the official rules. But to your point (the trip in the box) there is nothing about tripping that requires intent or impediment
No one has claimed mere contact to be a foul. But a studs up, kick out, late to the party, is definitely “careless”. That’s all it takes is careless. I agree that historically, not all refs would have called this. But in the world of VAR, it is going to be called 99% of the time.
This ref didn't even hesitate. VAR had nothing to do with the actual calling of the penalty. It was there to "affirm the decision". Or "not undisprovify, bar, prime". I don't know if it's this thread or another, but someone mentioned slo-mo abuse. This appears to have been slo-mo abuse to absolve a decision using minutiae, when it seems unlikely that it would have been possible for the ref to see "contact" clearly in real-time - though she thought she did. If "contact" is going to be the standard, there's going to be a lot of soft penalties. We may as well just shift whole hog to futsal, where it's called as tightly as basketball. Yes, even "tripping". Costa Rica got screwed last night, too, though no VAR (although it was glorious to see CR be on the wrong side of a dubious penalty for once). There was contact with the Haitian player cutting back across the defender. The Haitian was already on his way down and turned his hips into the (slight) contact. Total dive.
I disagree. In the past, we saw many times where contact in the PA was let go. With the addition of VAR, referees know if there is actual contact VAR is going to see it. Thus referees have lowered their tolerance for contact in the PA knowing it can be reviewed. They don’t like being told they were clearly and obviously wrong. So did VAR call this? No. But the existence of VAR definitely leads to minimal contact fouls in the PA now being called.
Well Spain certainly didn't deserve it, hacking and fouling all over the place, and their only shot on goal coming from a total brainfart from the U.S. keeper and defender. Spain deserved the goal they got, but they also deserved to have 2 PKs called on them. All the arguments thus far to the contrary have been hand waving about "cheap" PKs or how the calls "shouldn't decide the game" without a single coherent argument showing that Spain actually earned a victory with their play on the field. And that's because there is not a single game-related measure where they did. It was an ugly game, and nobody covered themselves in glory, but by the rules of the game the better team left with the victory.
I don't know about awful, but it's certainly preferable to win with goals in the run of play. I think your hatred of the U.S. team might be affecting your perception of the game. The Spanish played well, but I thought the Americans were more dangerous. The second half was a little more even up after the U.S. was clearly better in the first half.