this is part of the nisoa(college) quiz initiative- so basically its is there a foul or no foul, and if foul, what restart, or was there simulation and therefore yellow https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa2pY0iZBzFxOuvrfQT10uAhYDXcVzP9p if you get all 10 right- which i wouldnt find out until sunday 31st- you will win a case of brussel sprouts and the backstreet boy's greatest hits cd(that is if you are not a nisoa member) nisoa members who submit the actual quiz have a chance to win money
Clip 1: Simulation Clip 2 NO foul Clip 3: Simulation Clip 4: Foul - caution - tactical Clip 5: NO foul Clip 6: Foul - caution to keeper - DOGSO Clip 7: Foul - PK - Caution Clip 8: NO Foul Clip 9:Foul - PK - really close, but the two steps toward the attacker and lifting arms is a foul. Had she just stopped, no foul. Clip 10: NO Foul
1. Simulation 2. no foul 3. simulation, some of my other ref friends were thinking pk, but i think the attacker was down before the defender put out his leg 4. dfk yellow 5. no foul 6. simulation 7. red card , pk, the defender dives at the attacker, cleats up 8. yc pk 9. pk yellow- she looked behind and could see the forward coming 10. no foul, but yet again. some of my ref friends said pk
#1 simulation #2 PK #3 PK #4 foul, YC #5 nothing #6 simulation #7 PK #8 PK #9 yuk. I don't think I'd call this but wouldn't argue against anyone who did. #10 is SFP
#1 get up #2 PK #3 IFK coming out, YC for simulation #4 DFK, YC #5 nothing #6 from that camera angle nothing. It looks like a bad touch but who knows. #7 PK, YC #8 Play advantage and wait. If it doesn’t develop DFK, first contact is outside the area. #9. Oh boy. PK and YC. She couldn’t just set the pick, she had to move into it. It’s the aftermath I don’t like. She said something. You can tell from body language. If you are close enough to hear it that is taunting. #10. RC for SFP in any game I do. PK.
thanks guys so far. what is unfortunate is that on average only about 650 nisoa members have participated
Pretty OT but in clip #1 where is that? That's the widest field I've ever seen...is it 84 yards wide?
It's Houston Baptist University playing the Air Force Academy. If they are playing on one of their home fields, then HBU is in Houston, obviously and Air Force is somewhere in Colorado.
Hills in the background? Can't be Houston. In all seriousness, my wife is in an orchestra that plays at HBU and the performance arts and sports share parking lots. That is no HBU's field.
HBU is located somewhere between Meyerland and Sharpstown. Not an area known for picturesque landscapes. Lots of flooding, though.
Reasonable people can disagree to an extent on a couple of these, where there maybe are shades of grey (particularly #3? to a much lesser extent one or two others). But given the answers quoted, these two clips stand out for me. We've got two people saying PK for #2 an two saying no foul. Two saying no foul for #10 and two others saying PK and a red card. I watched expecting something borderline for each after seeing this discrepancy in answers. And I got to say I'm baffled. There should be zero debate on either of these. #2 is a stone cold PK. The player, who knows he's beat, dives in with his right leg and takes the attacker out from behind with his left knee. What am I missing? How is this simulation? It's not the tackling leg that's the problem (though, that may be a problem, too as it's sort of impossible to tell if there is contact and, if so, how much). It's the second leg that is what makes this an obvious foul. And #10... wow. The defender might have broken #20's leg there. Are people just not seeing what happened or do they honestly think that's okay? You can see the force of the challenge from the studs onto lower leg when the ball isn't even there. Aside from the fact that it probably wasn't premeditated (impossible to know without full context, of course) that's about as dirty as a challenge gets. He mistimed everything, realized the ball was past, and chose at the last moment to just impale his studs on the lower leg of his opponent. There shouldn't even be a challenge here, nevermind one like that.
Mass, part of the beauty of this game is that opinions differ. It’s not about I’m right you’re wrong. We simply see these events differently. But that doesn’t mean either is wrong. You see a player taking out another with his left knee. You’ve supported your call as a referee needs to. But it is not the only supportable call. To me, this was phenomenal defending. Yes, defender is beaten. Instead of giving up, he lunges, but from the side, not the rear. He makes contact with the ball before he contacts player. This is evidence that he is not being careless. The fact that they make contact after the play on the ball is mostly irrelevant as he certainly is not being reckless or dangerous. Those types of entanglements after a slide tackle happen all the time. You have differing calls here because both are defensible and thus “correct” under the laws. Had VAR reviewed, and the standards correctly applied, neither the pk nor the non-call are reversed. As to number 10, you are correct. The first time I watched it was on a shitty laptop. It honestly looked like a stepping on the shoe. Having rewatched it on a new computer, the contact on the shin is clear. You are correct. SFP all day.
mass ref, even after I posted those answers, I went back and changed them when I submitted it. #2 was pk..I had my bias my from #1 carry over #10 I changed to pk and red card. as with sport billy, i went back and watched it on a better screen however on the you tube presentation last night for #10, they didnt see it as a red!
#2 to me looks clean, watch as the ball changes direction. The contact that follows, in my view, is part of the dynamic of the action and is not punishable. I certainly see why the resulting contact “could” be deemed a foul, but let’s not oversimplify and say this is clear cut. #10 is SFP. Only mitigating factor is the contact was “glancing”. In a VAR match, for example, I can see a YC being deemed not a clear/obvious error. EDIT: I think Clip #10 is deceiving ... it “looks” like contact was made on the shin but I think it actually was made on the top of foot. For what it’s worth, Ted Unkel and Chris Penso say NF for Clip #2 and PK-NC for Clip #10 let’s not pretend that we can boil down these incidents into black and white. Gray areas still exist, thank goodness for “ITOOR”!
I'll just say I'm very surprised and choose not to die on this hill, particularly #10. For #2, maybe I'm seeing something with one angle and not the best video feed that no one (or not many other people are seeing) and just leave it at that.
Not carding #10 is strange. That’s a card at midfield all day every day. We can have a reasonable discussion about color depending on the age, level of play, etc. (That’s not red in the EPL I guess) but that is a nasty foul. I can see a professional referee argue that at the highest level that’s not at the level of SFP but to say that’s not even yellow is a head shaker.
The ladies were spot on. The defender made a great play getting the ball before contact with the attacker. But Ted Unkle - WTF? He claims it is a tackle from behind - that shouldn't be called. He then gives a goal kick. Either the attacker got the ball and it is a corner or he didn't get the ball and it is a PK. A goal kick is not really an option. Just awful.
After the touch by the defender in #2 the ball is still playable for the attacker who then gets tripped. I assume the USSF memo "But I got ball!" from some years back is not the way it works in the NISOA games?
It was pretty clear the guys were joking around and providing some comedy while the ladies were giving the actual analysis. Not sure how you failed to spot this.
So Ted was joking during nearly ALL of his “commentary” but his goal kick comment was the one serious thing he said?
Are you seriously arguing this crap? Yes, they were trying and failing to be funny. But they were still giving proper analysis. Ex: the first clip. They were joking about a pool because they still correctly analyzed the play as a dive. No follow up necessary.
here is the answer key https://www.dropbox.com/s/m31d5i9r8... 8 Video Quiz Analysis + Answer Key.pdf?dl=0
Watching again, I now agree with you, however I still think his comment “OBVIOUSLY, a goal kick” wasn’t a real analysis, considering the tone of voice he used. Maybe he was too focused on his comedy routine than watching the clip. I’m just not convinced he intently watched the clip and said goal kick.