Not really: I've seen a ton of terrible fouls in the EPL and Spanish League and most merit yellows, if that. Did the Carolina player get a yellow?
So the refereeing gets a bad rap in cases line the one we are talking about. I spent a decade refereeing (but never at the college level) and am a little sensitive about fans going after referees, (although I do the same sometimes) so let me try to paint a picture of how a referee might see things. In particular how this referees might have seen this play. First, remember that the referee is at a huge disadvantage compared to us Monday morning quarterbacks who have the luxury of carefully examining video and parsing it frame by frame. Referees are expected to make quick decisions especially about fouls. (And fans love to rail about "late calls" as if being a few seconds late trying to get it right is a huge sin.) Referees are humans trying their best. They do get a percentage of calls wrong, but, having tried this job for perhaps 700 games (mostly boys high school and weekend and tournaments with higher level club travel teams) I am amazed how many calls they get RIGHT! Refereeing is not an easy job and there is a huge shortage of good top level referees. The Pat Smiths of the world are very rare! The second thing to remember is that the angle of view that the referee has of the play is absolutely critical. Good referees work like crazy to get to the spot that gives them the best view angle to make a decisive call. (But even then even a good ref gets stuck with a bad viewing angle, or sometimes a player cuts in front and obscures his/her view at the critical moment, but the ref does his or her best to get it right (including looking at a linesman for help) but then get's embarrassed if there are video re-plays to dissect by fans. (Hey fans! If you haven't reffed, you can sign up any time!) In this case, the referee had an excellent view of the basic physics, but lacked detail of foot angle and height. The video camera had a worse view of the kinetics, and a better view the ball contact, although it was shielded by TD's plant foot. Given these facts how was the ref to react, given what HE saw? Put yourself in his shoes..... Given the angle he was viewing the action here is what I think he saw. The ref saw AK running hard away from him with maybe only a few degrees of off set. Her trajectory was clear. He would have seen TD's first touch on the ball from her right knee moving the ball from the ref's left to right to separate herself from SS (UNC #2) and then taking another touch with her left foot further moving the ball to the right. She then took three more steps to the (ref's) right and planted her right foot in preparation for a kick with the ball still moving away from her as AK closed in. The ref's view of AK's trajectory would appear to have her moving toward the ball and to the right of TD who was at that time about 12 inches left of the ball (from the ref's perspective.) AK's trajectory as she started her slide to the ball with her left foot was such that her left leg was centered on the ball and her body center of mass was to the right of her leg (from the ref's perspective.) TD then reached out her left leg beyond the ball which was about 18 inches in front of her for a pull back to the right (from the view of the ref) at the same time that AK made contact with the ball. The ball having been pulled back to the right just enough that AK's foot slid off to the left side where TD's foot was and they locked feet - AK's leg pulled out to her left and similarly TD's leg pulled to her left and backwards where the feet disengaged. Please note that on the ref's behalf, the entire sequence in the paragraph immediately above is about one second... or maybe a little less. (See the Stanford hi light video for real time.) Note also that from his perspective, other than two outstretched legs, there was no body contact. (In fact, the bodies missed each other by about three feet.) Note finally that from the ref's perspective he probably could not see the details of AK's foot position, only that she was moving straight towards the ball which was at the point of contact was about 18 inches to the right of TD's body (from the ref's view.) So be honest, if you were in the ref's shoes how would you have called that play?? ...without the advantage of a completely different viewpoint and lots of time to analyze it in slow motion. As I have said above I think a card was deserved, but I did not have to make that decision almost instantly on the field from the ref's position. As I used to say to my players when I did some coaching, "Remember that, like you, the ref is human and may make a mistake or two during the game. Like you, the ref would appreciate you cutting him or her a little slack when in your opinion a mistake occurs." Sports (and especially historical soccer) is based on the assumption of good will. Have fun.
Soccerhunter Honest question. You said that play deserved a card. Red or yellow? I'm a novice compared to you guys. Is that tackle/foul normally yellow carded or red carded? (assuming referee sees it well) As a novice I didn't see that and think red, but again I'm relatively new to this beautiful game. Forget who did it (UNC, Stanford, UCLA, FSU...). Just is that normally a red or yellow? Why?
Honestly, it depends on the referee's judgment, and it depends on the rules governing the match. I have no clue about how the NCAA rules are worded, but here is the FIFA take on cards. If in the opinion of the referee the foul is "careless" there is no card. If the offense is "reckless" then a yellow card is required. If the ref deems the foul to have been accomplished by "excessive force" then a red card (send off) is issued. (No where in the FIFA regulations does it mention or talk about "cleats up".) FIFA is also identifies 4 specific fouls that mandate a direct free kick. The first of which is (quote): "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball." This is the only FIFA reference to "ball first" as a deciding point for the referee. It is about deciding between a direct or indirect (dangerous play) free kick. The decision whether to call a foul or not is left up to the referee who then applies the careless, reckless, or excessive force standard to determine a routine foul, yellow, or red card. So in the incident at the Stanford/North Carolina game even assuming that the referee had the greatest angle and saw everything, some perfectly competent referees would give a red, others a yellow, others would only call a normal foul, and others would "no call" and all would be within the FIFA regulations. The yellow card referee would decide that the play was reckless probably due to the speed at which AK was coming in. The red card refs, would decide based on their own standards (or perhaps direction from a league official) that just coming in with "cleats up" regardless of intent or result qualifies as a red card penalty. The normal foul referee would base his decision on the fact that no specific regulation was violated (eg ball contacted first before contact with player, nor was it a "dangerous play" by the typical examples outlined by FIFA) but in his judgment the play was careless given the speed of approach. All three of these referees (red, yellow, and normal foul) would also couch their call on how they felt the control of the game was going and any possible need to send a message to the teams and coaches to reign in aggressive play. The "no call" referee would be making his or her decision on the judgment that it is not necessarily "careless" to come in fast for a tackle if the ball is reached first and that there was not a foregone conclusion that any body contact would be made. In other words, the tackling player was clearly not going for the offensive player's body or limbs, and there was a possibility that this could have been a clean tackle if the respective feet had stayed on opposite sides of the ball (which might have been the case had TD simply tried to clear the ball rather than pull it at right angles across the path of the tackle, or if the lateral pull back maneuver had been completed in time, the tackler would have slid harmlessly by and there would have been no contact at all. I suspect that we each have our own view of what we would do as a referee in a situation, but there so many nuanced differences in each play and decisions have to be made quickly with a partial view, so many referees have a pre-determined call when a similar decision presents itself. My own (technically unjustified) reason for saying that a Yellow card might be issued is based on overall signaling to players, coaches, and fans that the game is going to be controlled, because the appearance (regardless of detailed analysis of actual fact) would to many give the wrong signal as to what will be allowed. Make sense?
Thanks for the answer. Sounds like an awful lot of subjectivity goes into this. Apparently, not very well delineated in the college game.
You are certainly right about that! The trouble is that many (most?) fans, players, and coaches would like to think that there are objective black or white standards, but as in life, in contact sports this is seldom true. Perhaps American football is the closest to trying to enforce clear objective standards. And to achieve this, there is a crew of 7 (8 for NCAA DI) to try to do the job plus stoppages after every play with access to multiple view video replay in the pro leagues or in highly rated NCAA televised games --and even then I sometimes hear fans disputing the objectivity of refereeing when their team is penalized. Soccer, of course, is a game that can not tolerate constant stoppages because its ball movement sequences (and the defense) involve a flow of strategic and technical execution to get into a position to score or to defend against same. The beautiful game primarily rewards on the fly creativity from all of the ten field players based on tactical and technical training, whereas American football reverses that approach with a premium on memorizing previously rehearsed set plays and superior athletic players when ever the ball is moved, with creativity only as an added bonus in a few key positions. (Not too many genuinely creative interior linemen out there.) All this being said, soccer can be a highly entertaining game from both the player and fan perspective because of its variety of creative chances. If everything is going well, the referee will hardly be a factor from the fan perspective even though he or she is actually setting the tone. You have seen me reference the referee Pat Smith (now deceased) who set the tone and controlled most every game (college and professional) with his engaging personality and infectious love for the game and its players. His presence made everyone want to exemplify good sportsmanship and no one wanted to spoil a good competitive and fun game with foul play and get carded by Patty. How's that for subjective! It worked for that hall of fame referee, but for the rest of us we struggle with the kind of refereeing based on better or worse attempts to apply a set of rules and keep the game safe and end up trying to figure out what interpretation of carding is needed in a particular instance. It is what it is.
It is the same problem in every League around the world. Every referee has a different threshold for yellow and red card and will interpret the same situation with nuances. Hence players and fans complaining about inconsistencies.
Yes. In Mexico US men’s friendly, a Mexican player was red carded for something similar. With a lot of nuance and very little objective clarity, I suspect the best we can hope for is consistency within the game itself from a referee.
I see from the stats that we came a way with a 1-0 win which is good in an ACC away game. It looks like FSU struggled with no shots on goal. It also looks like Rachel Jones must have had a great week in practice as it appears that she has replaced Rachel Dowart who has been starting most games in the non conference schedule. And Jones responded with the lone goal of the game! I'd love to hear a report from anyone who saw the game.
Game was even for the most part. UNC much stronger on counters. Really like Pinto's physicality and speed.. Russio?sp looks to be a very good one. UNC was the stronger side tonight and deserved the win.
Thanks, Tom, your reply answers my question. A 1-0 game often does not tell the truth even looking a stats. Much of the game is always "which team showed up to play tonight." Given FSU's record, talent, and history, this game should only be a temporary blip. I am confident the Noles will do well this season and have a deep run in the NCAAs.
I watched much of this game: North Carolina was very good defensively and came away with a deserved 1-0 win. The Heels might have scored more but missed a couple of pretty good chances: It looked like Andrzejewski had a chance to chip the goalie and score in the first half--the goalie had come running out to challenge her--but she opted instead to pass the ball over to the right to a teammate who was streaking in, but FSU defenders got over to her and nothing came of the opportunity. Russo had at one good chance and one half chance in the second half and missed the net on both. FSU had a lot of the ball in NC's defensive half but the Heels did a good job of pressuring the ball and FSU could not really create any quality chances--a lot of passing around to little effect. The game was very much like FSU's game against Southern Cal--again, the Noles possessed a lot--they are talented--but could create little and the Trojans, like the Heels tonight, had some counter-attacking opportunities. You see how these good teams really nullify each other defensively and quality scoring chances are few.
C'mon guys. Where are the comments on Sunday's match against Clemson? I thought it was an exciting, generally well played although low scoring game, and showing some interesting new developments. What did you think? Some specifics: Clemson played a high pressure, threatening game throughout. They came witihin 6 inches of scoring the opening goal and they could have tied it until the final whistle. Overall, they were a tough, skilled opponent that gave UNC all they could handle. UNC played some really fine, fast passing combinations - involving 4-6 passes. The thing that impressed me most about them was that they were the right passes, on target, except - often - for the final pass. And with that pass, it was invariably the right pass, only not quite right in execution - a little too much pace, or too little allowing an interception, or the angle a little too wide. But, invariably it was the right decision, just not quite right in execution. That makes me think they will get the timing, etc., right, as they go forward. a very exciting prospect! Perhaps the most significant development, in my view, was moving Otto to the center defending mf slot. I had suggested a month or so ago that it would be interesting to see Otto moved to the back line, making it Fox, Otto, W-M, and Ashley. That would have provided more experience and speed. Since then, Bingham has come on well, again in my opinion, and is holding her own skill-wise; speed is going to be a constant issues, and we saw some instances where she could not hold pace against a Clemson forward, but she didn't make any errors that I saw in terms of skills or decisions. But, moving Otto to a position in front of the backs really cleaned up things there. She always positioned herself at the apex of a triangle as an outlet option for a back or the goalie with the ball, taking pressure off the need for an outlet pass to one of the wing backs or a square pass to the other center back. That opened the enter of the midfield up for Otto to serve as a fulcrum for moving the ball up or for her to play give and go up the middle like Fox and Ashley do on the flanks. Otto also provides the covering speed in defense that was really needed, as well as her very strong defensive skills. A great move! I can't quite figure out where that leaves Bailey. Although most comment say UNC is playing a 4-3-3, it looks to me like more of a 4-2-3-1 alignment. The goalie and back 4, with the flanking backs moved forward is pretty clear. Up top, there is the advanced center forward (i.e., Russo) and, it looks like to me, a relatively flat line of 3 attacking mfs - Pinto, Jones, and And. Some where wandering around near the three attacking mfs is Bailey - not really an attacking mf with the 3 forwards in near proximity and not really a regular mf back supporting Otto. I guess you could call the arc of Pinto, Russo, and And a "front 3" and Jones, Bailey, and Otto 3 mfs, but that doesn't seem very coherent. I know UNCs movement off the ball, pressing forwards on defense - especially on turnovers - makes rigorous following a formation pattern unimportant, but it does seem like a bit more conformity to a 4-2-3-1 with Bailey playing a bit closer to Otto - the fulcrum mf - would give them a tighter, more robust alignment. But, whatever, this team is really coming together, even if they didn't score a goal in the run of play Sunday. I look to them to get the fine points of their interactions down so that the final pass clicks. and, when they do, the goals will come. (Jones' goal, which came off a Clemson Center back's header directly to her feet, was a big time, excellent goal, struck with pace, at pace, into the opposite side netting.) One final unusual development might be that Anson starts playing a more traditional style of giving his starters more time to work together and less free substitution.
Love yhour report jbs! My schedule has recently kept me from attending games and (*@!*#*) I will be at a committee meeting in Philadelphia when the Heels play Louisville. I think that that game maybe a turning point in that if Louisville gets fired up they have the talent and speed to be very dangerous, but if UNC steps up their game, it could set the tone for the rest of the season. And I don't think that Anson and Palladino are done tinkering yet. It is not uncommon for them to be making line-up and formation changes into the ACC tournament before they get settled for the NCAAs. With regard to the defense, I think that the lack of speed in the back (Julia is the only one who can generally keep up with a reasonably fast forward) is what has removed the Heels from their decades of the successful three back defense. Otto will help there but we are still speed-vulnerable in the two center back slots. I'd try Otto as a center back and bring in someone like Scarpa as a holding mid. But Otto would need time to get that position under control so it probably won't happen. Also, our backs need to find a mark and get goal side when a cross is likely to come in. The winning goal against Stanford was due to that defensive gaff. The two losses the Heels have experienced so far each involved a defensive mental hiccup.
Thanks, SH, for joining the discussion. Your comments are always interesting and insightful! I, too, share your concern about our lack of speed in the center backs. I think Anson sees W-M as such a natural leader, sophisticated reader of the game, and adequate physical platform that he will feel on balance that she is a big win there. I floated the idea back in early September of moving Otto into the other center back position to increase the speed, technical skill, and read of play there. That, of course, didn't happen, but I love the change Anson did make of moving Otto to the pivot mf position. She provides good covering speed from there that partially addresses the problem and excellent foot and defensive skill. but most important, she provides an much needed forward passing option for moving the ball out of the back. she is really good at finding space between opponent forwards and providing a safe and convenient outlet. My recollection is that early in the season we gave up 3 goals from errant flat passes; none that I recall since then. so, I think we are going to have to live with a slower cb combination with W-M, although I think it is note worthy that Bingman has increased both her skill level and decision making there; just have to give up a certain number of instances where she is beat by quickness and/or speed. The one change that I think could both cover most of the speed problem as well as strengthen the Heels overall structure would be to ask Bailey to play a more traditional double pivot role with Otto as joint dmfs. In the last game, she was wandering all over the top of the formation, serving as a fourth amf (i persist of thinking of this as a 4-2-3-1). That makes 5 forward players - way more than is needed. By having Bailey hold a center dmf position more, she provides additional cover for slower cbs, and she also provides a further attacking dynamic in the dmf, supporting give and goes or dribbles up the middle in combination with Otto. We've got plenty of striking power as it is up top, and either of the central dmfs can join them in selective bursts, rather than providing sustained positioning forward that lets the other team adjust to it. Finally, I want to comment on looking at UNC's formation as basically a 4-2-3-1 vs. a 4-3-3. Given their dynamic play, basic positioning might not be all that different between the two, but in the dynamics the are different. The way we play (or could play) the 4-2-3-1, with the two wing backs advanced, with 2 double pivot dmfs (assuming anchoring Bailey in that role), and the front line of 3 amfs and a central striker, that would give us three lines/units of 4 players each! With the goalie, that would mean UNC is playing 13 vs. 11! How so? The two advanced wing backs end of pretty much aligned with the two pivot dmfs - making 4 defensive mfs. But, when needed, the wings can sprint back (on over the top or through balls) or fall back on defense when the ball is moved beyond the dmfs, to join the two center backs to from a 4-back unit. This alignment and dynamic would, I believe, give UNC a decided advantage against most opponents.
Given the kids they recruit and the underlying philosophy of HOW they play, don't UNC have the decided advantage vs most teams already?
Got to see the Tar Heels take it to Louisville yesterday and would like to hear what more knowledgeable observers think of the team at this point. To my uneducated eye (1) Louisville was not close to UNC's talent and skill, (2) the passing keeps getting crisper and crisper as the rotation gets more certain and players become familiar with each other, (3) Russo is really, really good, (4) every game there seems to be a pass or two in the back that goes awry and leads to an excellent chance for the other team, (5) but the back line keeps getting better and Wubben-Moy and Ashley just exude confidence, (6) Otto is where she ought to be and stabilizes things nicely, and (7) the depth on this team is astounding. In short, lots of reasons for optimism.
I did not see the game yesterday as I was out of town in meetings. But from the stats and Anson's comments it looks to me that we are are on track for an excellent season. We passed the test against a team that has given us fits the last two years. My impression from other's comments is that the passing game it getting better as the season goes along. Our short passing game is good and we are getting the timing and runs better coordinated in the medium to long passes. But the real test of the movement of the ball on the ground will come against the best defensive competition. As long as a team outclasses the defense, the passing game looks brilliant, but when good and organized defenders are involved, the passing weaknesses show up. While Notre Dame may step up and challenge the Heels this week, I think that the Wake game at the end of the season will be the beginnings of real testing as the first of three games (Wake plus ACC tournament). We may have a game or two to work on any deficiencies that are exposed before we get to the second or third round of the NCAAs depending on the draw. I agree with the comment that we are quite deep. It you note that we have a bevy of former regular starters on the bench ready to go, there is no question. Examples would be Annie Kingman, Rachel Dowart (who started this season until the last few games) Zoe Redei, Jessie Scarpa, and Maggie Bill. And this group doesn't include the various other players who are getting a lot of time....Morgan Goff leads this group (and may be our fastest player) followed by Madison Shultz, sydney Spruill, Alex Kimball, and Mary Elliot McCabe. What's not to like? I'm enthused about the remainder of this season. I believe that we will be on a par with the principal challengers for the College Cup... as I see it that would be Stanford, USC, UCLA (with key players returning)..... and OK, OK maybe Santa Clara and FSU (when they get all their international players beck from service elsewhere). ... And it is too early in the season to eliminate some other strong teams who may come on in the latter part of the season. So we'll see, but I really do think that UNC will prove to be one of the top 4.