I can't believe that people are still arguing that a cleat to the leg in the box should not be called. (That's apart from the relative merits of the teams, or who "should" have won.)
I actually have to give credit to the "hate" post. That's the most honest explanation: Blind hatred of our team that colors the whole game for them.
I want to see all of you US fans if the PK was called the other side... So easy to "play" with the powerful side.
That's easy. A lot of us are also the USMNT fanbase, where we have suffered the other side of that for decades. We've memorized all these lectures after hearing them from fans of the traditional soccer powers for years. Again: Yes, it was a "soft" penalty. The kind that is often not called. But also again: There is nothing in the run of play or the stats which suggests Spain was the better team and would have won, e.g. in extra time. Or are you also arguing about the first *clear* PK call?
And because of that other fans you have to do the same, right? If you have suffered because of the men's football, then you have to make suffer the other in women's football. If you know what is to be in the other side don't make the other people feel the same. That's not fair for anyone. And I like Japan's men team too and I have to hear all the same jokes over and over and over again. But is not right to do the same to others talking about women's football. It would be to be the same low level as the others.
The crappiness of the PKs is completely independent of Spain's quality or lack thereof in the run of play. One can't be used as an argument for the other. If soccer were about stats, no one would argue much of anything. And Leicester would have never won a title.
First post. I've been a US fan for years (I'm American) and want the US team to win as much as anyone, but not like this. Don't flop. Rose Lavelle or anyone else. You're better than that. Win the right way. I sure hope the women's game doesn't become the dive fest that the men's game has degenerated to. Anyone who can't admit that she dove is letting their bias overcome their judgement.
Please. She got cleated as she ran by. She took one step and is unable to replant the leg that got cleated. Another victim of slow mo, but she didn’t dive.
Lavelle isn't known for diving. Now Pugh, on the other hand, likes to embellish some touches in the box.
This is how World cups are won. Ask Griezmann lol. Why are some stoppage of play fouls not reviewable to check for dives. Now they using VAR to help the big teams on calls while simply ignoring fouls on small teams. Since USA men’s team always gets the short end of the stick it’s hard to ask the USA fans to be altruistic and not take the big team advantages afforded to the women. Sometimes it’s the fact USA men’s is the minnow and sometimes the ref just hates USA. It’s like a double whammy. Anyone remember the game USA vs Slovenia with the Referee from Mali who hated the USA. He disallowed like 3 goals lol just cause he wanted to.
The USMNT are a powerhouse in CONCACAF and have competed with first tier nations for the last 10 years. They are not minnows like Honduras or Jamaica. A lot of these matches are fixed. FIFA is as dirty as an organization can possibly be, and they’ll do anything to make a France-US clash happen. Voilà. Regardless of what a majority of you think, Lavelle dove. Plain and simple. I guess since this is an American site (based on the name “soccer”?) a majority of the users are biased.
Lavelle's inexperience with diving is likely a contributing factor to the outright obvious nature of her dive yesterday.
You should have just posted a picture of yourself with your fingers in your ears singing "lalalalalala", since that's essentially what you just conveyed rhetorically.
The shame for me is the inability to touch a player in the box. I think players are going to be afraid to shoulder to or shoulder or touch a player anywhere as any incidental contact is a PK. And for sure sooner or later players are going to start shooting at defenders arms. The system is applying the LOTG accurately in situations but the legal system for example often takes into account the spirit of the law. Perhaps it's just me but it seems like that's what's missing here. We can all see the need for a PK for significantly fouling a player in the six shooting on net, but glancing a player say moving away from the net and out of the box and say about 25m from the net doesn't seem like it deserves the same outcome. Perhaps giving referees the decision to award a PK or free kick for fouls in the box depending on DOGSO wouldn't be a bad thing.
This. So far it's been this and people crediting Spain because we gifted them a goal. If our keeper didn't effed up, what highlights do Spain have? 2 near misses? What's so great about them? Japan's transition team is better.
This all leads to consideration of a larger issue. When the laws of the game were first written, and during the earlier years of the game, scoring was more frequent. Thus, calling a penalty kick was less likely to affect the final outcome of the game in an era where five or more goals a game was not considered unusual. A penalty kick in a game with five goals leads to 20% of the scoring. Scoring was higher than it is in the era since the late 1960's and into the present, where many more games end in scores where the aggregate number of goals scored is two or fewer (count up the number of games in any major men's European league and note that on most match days the number of games featuring three or more goals is more often than not a minority of the games). In more than half the games, then, a penalty kick in a game with two or fewer goals is half the scoring. That means that a penalty matters far more now than when the rules were first written. Thus, in the era of decreased scoring, there is a reluctance to call a foul when the consequence is an award of something that leads to a goal 80% of the time. Thus, awarding a penalty in an era of half the games having two goals or fewer is akin to awarding 40% of the expected scoring in over half the games. That is on some visceral level "too much" of an impact on the game. So, fewer penalties get called. Thought thus needs to be given on whether some "in between" types of fouls result in something of significance but less consequence than 40% of expected scoring. Perhaps a penalty kick to be taken from the line instead of the penalty mark should be considered. That probably gets converted less than half the time, reducing the impact of such a foul to awarding an expected 20% of the scoring, similar to the impact in the earlier eras.
Not at all. I’m just saying that if you argue something against the US, you are automatically considered wrong since this is an American site.
It will soon be a moot point. France will overpower a poor US Woman's Team. I predict a comprehensive 3-1 French victory. There will be no favorable FIFI calls for the US against the home team. This is the most underwhelming US Woman's WC side in the competition's history. Relying on Rapinoe and Lloyd one more time is not a winning strategy.