Poll: WoSoRef / USA-Canada Should it EVER be a PK?

Yes, on the Offensive player for initiating the contact. So, yes a penalty on Rose.

Edit: What the Ref called was correct, which was pretty much a no call. VAR screwed the pooch in my estimation.

 

First: I thought that VAR was mostly employed to analyze calls made by the referee or offside calls. Isn't it unusual for the VAR official to jump in when the referee hasn't made a call? This is the problem with VAR---it's application is inconsistent. In the Australia-GB match, there was what I (and others) think was a dodgy PK call and it did not appear to be reviewed by VAR. If it was, it was very quick (very little stoppage) and I don't recall the referee giving us the box gesture with her hands.

I don't like seeing inadvertent contact in the box turning into a game-deciding PK. Clearly, Davidson was trying to clear the ball with her leg, and Rose darted in front Davidson just as the U.S. player's leg was following through. I would not call a PK foul when the player who's been fouled does not have the ball and is not in a position to get to the ball and get a shot. Maybe Rose could have got to the ball had she not been clipped, possibly, but these are a type of call that I do not like. We saw the same thing in the U.S. v. Spain WC match: The ball bounces between 2 players, a Spanish player swings her leg to kick the ball and inadvertently hits a U.S. player. It was judged a foul in the box--and won the game for the U.S.--even though the U,S. player did not have the ball and the contact did not interfere directly with an goal-scoring chance. A PK on plays like this seems too harsh--it's not like bringing down a player who has the ball and is driving on goal or about to strike the ball. That's different.

 

In hockey if, even inadvertently, you hit someone in the face it is "high sticking." The only exception is on a follow through after playing the puck. It is often summarized by the phrase, "You are responsible for your own stick."
In soccer a similar thing could be stated as, "You are responsible for your own foot or head."

For me there are not nearly enough PKs and other fouls called and way too few yellow/red cards issued.
Some people that say that making the correct calls in all cases would slow down the "game" too much but I would point out that the players that continue to foul will soon prove to be too much of a liability and will be dropped from their respective teams.
There is also some sentiment that refs do not want to impact the match but, obviously to me, not making the calls influences the match much more than actually calling the match correctly.

This was a foul on the US and it was inside the box therefore it was a PK and it was correct to call it and VR did what VR is supposed to do and reviewed the call and told the ref to take a second look, which she did, and overturned her own previous call. VR does not make calls, except offside in some tournaments, VR simply tells the ref that they have seen something that needs to be reviewed. From there the ref decides to look or not look at the VR and decides based on the review she/he sees to overturn her/his own call. That is how VR works and it is how it was applied and, since the US player kicked the foot of the Canadian without getting the ball first (it is part of the decision) and it was inside the box th ref awarded a PK.
VR did NOT award the PK. VR did NOT reverse the refs original call, the ref reversed her own original call.

One more thing I detest VR. I would rather have a few marginal calls than the delays that VR introduces but VR is now the norm and so it must be used and I am as happy as I ever can be that the ref decided to call exactly what she after being told by VR that there might be an error.

 

One of the original purposes of VAR is to catch things that the referee on the field missed, i.e. "hand of god" situations. I don't think it was intended for this type of situation though: a no-call that would have never been controversial.

Also on the Australia-GB match, it was reviewed by VAR. Just because the referee doesn't do the box gesture with her hands doesn't mean it wasn't reviewed. It just means it was reviewed by VAR in the box, and they didn't see a "clear and obvious error." In that case, after review, the VAR will say "check complete" on the referee's mic system. The only time you see the box motion with the hands is if the VAR saw what could be a clear and obvious error (except of in the case of "objective" decisions on offside) and the VAR thinks the referee on the field needs to take a second look: that's an OFR (on-field review), and the referee goes to the screen. Because another referee (the VAR) has said that the referee made a clear and obvious error, you usually see the OFR stand with the VAR's decision, but the referee on the field can reject the recommendation.

 

I would have liked to see the same level of outrage when USA received a PK in their WWC 2019 match vs Spain that was, by many points of view, very similar to this call (there wasn't a clear goal chance, the US player wasn't moving towards the opponent goal nor was being particulary dangerous, the DF couldn't basically avoid contact that ended up being mostly accidental, and so on...).

 

I'm trying to take my USA hat off here, and it might still be partly on, but I don't think they're the same play (I say all this, too, having argued in the other thread that while I don't like the call in the US-Canada, and think it should have been a no call, I can see what the referee saw; I'm not salty; I don't think the US deserve to win or anything). From the referee forum, the difference is that in the Rose-Davidson play, Rose makes contact FIRST that changes Davidson's play. Rose makes contact that changes the direction of Davidson's kick and perhaps even causes the contact on Rose's own leg.

In the Spain game, the contact on Lavelle was straight out a careless challenge that ended with actual studs to the leg (which didn't happen in the US-Canada play). No one changed the direction of the Spain's player leg. The contact was minimal, and the foul was soft, but the carelessness was there, as were the studs. And that's a foul.

The other difference, IIRC, is that the US-Spain penalty call was made on the field. The VAR checked it, sent it down for OFR, but the referee stayed with the original call. (And people said it was a bad send-down from the VAR because it wasn't a "clear and obvious error." It was defensible, which is why I'm doing it here. )

Contact happens all the time when a defender is trying to make a play on the ball. The question for a foul is whether it was careless, reckless (yellow card), or with excessive force (red card). I do NOT think it was careless for Davidson to be clearing the ball and then get bumped by Rose that causes Davidson's toe to then make contact with Rose. But, I can see that being defendable as a call, and I do understand that it's called sometimes. I DO think it was careless for the Spain player to just stick her leg out, hoping for a clearance, have bad timing, and catch Lavelle (slightly) with her studs. Those aren't the same in my book.

 

Imagine a precedent of the offensive players initiating contact, throwing (not hyperbole) themselves between a defender and the ball in the box and being rewarded for a PK. Brazil would be impossible to watch.

 

I'm fine with it as long as a Defender (which I was) is allowed to do the very same thing to an attacker. >like that's going to happen<

 

If any player manages to get themselves between the ball and a player from the other team without fouling and the other player plows into, kicks or holds the first player then it is a foul or at least it should be.

It is NOT a trick but it is simply good play to beat another player to the ball.

 

If that occurs, no problem. That isn't what occurred in the Canada game with Davidson.

 

Yes it was. The offensive player, at the time of the contact was, mostly, in between the player and the ball.It is not her fault that the defender played slowly and stupidity. The offensive player was faster and got to the ball ahead of the defender, not much ahead but ahead, then the defender kicked the offensive player's foot. It was fast and mostly obscured from the camera but it was clear that the offensive player's foot was kicked from behind therefore giving the kicking player an unfair advantage.

It was properly called after review under current law.

 

Lavelle didn't have the ball. As I recall, she and a Spanish player both went for the ball with their legs, and the Spanish player inadvertently kicked Lavelle. I think it was a terrible call. It's not as if Lavelle was in a position to strike the ball and score. Again, as I recall, correct me if wrong, it was a loose ball. It wasn't even in front of goal. No team should ever win a match because one player inadvertently kicks another player in the box--unless the inadvertent kick clearly interferes with a goal-scoring chance for the player who got kicked. It's ultimately a very unfair way to decide a game. Yesterday's call against the U.S. was fundamentally unfair--as Davidson was merely clearing the ball when Rose darted in front of her as her leg was in motion. But there are a lot of people in soccer who think some of these rules should be strictly enforced--when IMO the opposite should be the case. PKs should never be awarded unless a foul is egregious, precisely because to call a foul is often to decide the match. Let the players decide the match--not some VAR official making a technical interpretation of a foul. Was there anyone outside of one or two people in the VAR box who thought, when the play occurred, that that was a PK foul? I was watching the match on replay, knew the play in question was coming up, and then when the play occurred I completely missed it. It was only a few seconds after the play happened that I realized, hey, that was it!

I also strongly feel that VAR officials should not interfere in matches--should not jump in and review a play when the referee made no call. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this sort of intervention by the VAR official is rare, yes? It shouldn't happen at all. VAR intervention like this opening a can of worms. You do that and you'll have VAR officials scrutinizing every bit of contact in the box--it will be freakin' nightmare. And for what it's worth, I'm not a particular fan of the U.S. I simply can't stand these cheap wins that result from really cheap, letter-of-the-law calls.

 

The bottom line for me on the call is this: Major tournament matches should not be decided on technicalities, and that's what you had here. If you follow basketball in the U.S., you might have heard an old saying about how officials should call big games: "Let 'em play." Let the players play. And officials, generally, in big games, do that: They don't call as many fouls as they might in a regular, less important game, so as to let the players decide the game. They let things go--they "swallow their whistles," to use another term. You see it in ice hockey as well. Game 7 of the Stanley Cup playoffs (deciding championship game): the officials make very few penalty calls. And you certainly don't have somebody up in a video-review box jumping in late in a basketball, hockey or baseball game and making contact with the on-court or on-field official, and saying, "Hey, we think that might have been a foul." You can't do it.

Beyond the VAR interference issue, I'd also say that the punishment, on a play like this, exceeds the crime. In instances of inadvertent contact that has not directly prevented a goal-scoring chance, I'd like to see some sort of lesser penalty--maybe award Canada a corner kick. You've penalized the U.S. for the foul, but you've not made it likely that they'll lose the game. The odds are lower of scoring on a corner kick than a PK, and that would seem fair to me.

 

I

Oh my.... why have a penalty area then if infractions within are open for interpretation of intent or likelihood of a scoring chance? Did Canada's handball in the 2012 semifinal deny a goalscoring opportunity? Was there intent? No. Deemed an infraction though so a penalty was given.

Was the 6 second infraction decision in the same match a technicality that impacted the outcome of an important match? Yes. Moreso a technicality than a foul in the penalty area for certain... obviously not as impactful in the moment though.

I understand the concern regarding the penalty call in this match but, really, if it was deemed a foul and in the box then it is a penalty. It is nothing else. Foul? Penalty.... regardless of which nation for whom you cheer.

 

No, if Rose had gotten there cleanly then yes, what your saying would be correct. She contacted the defender prior to getting there in front of her, turned Davidson into the contact with her. And before you say, she hit her from the legal shoulder to shoulder side, you can not turn someone like Rose did Davidson from a side impact. She contacted her from the back, infact, pay attention you can clearly see Rose's right fore arm in Davidson's back number. Pretty sure that's pretty impossible on a legal shoulder to shoulder impact. Try it out, let me know.

 

Where she was fouled should have been taken into consideration. She was AT THE EDGE OF THE BOX. Maybe I could be somewhat persuaded if this happened directly in front of the goal…. But never having possession, coming from behind and then flopping desperately at the end at the edge of the box, is quite ridiculous. Should have been a no call, and keep playing.

That said, the way the US played the whole tournament up to that point, that play was pretty much par for the course. The game shouldn’t even have been dependent on that single play anyway….

 

I can somehow get behind most of what you wrote here (although I don't agree with the premise and I am still persuaded it was a legitimate PK call), but saying that Rose was "flopping desperately" is frankly a misrepresentation: it seems to imply that the Canadian player voluntarily dove, while it seems clear to me that she lost balance because of the kick she received from Davidson.

You can discuss how much you want if she even had any business being there in front of Davidson or if she had made a foul to gain that particular position, but what you can't really claim is that she dove: she was kicked on the leg and subsequentely fell in the very natural way you would fall too if I'd make you lose balance the same way.

 

This discussion is exactly what was pointed out in the Referee Forum. VAR should never have flipped that call on the field as the argument could be made, "precontact" wise or not. Call on the field should have stood.