The Chinese player had a clear break on goal with only the Canadian GK in between. The GK Van Boxmeer went out to meet her to get the ball. The GK missed grabbing the ball, and the Chinese player stepped over her running for the ball just a foot or two ahead of her. The GK tunred around and reached back, There is a debate from looking at the various angles of the video whether there was then contact by the GK on the Chinese player. The Chinese player went down, and there is some argument about whether there was a dive, but it is not clear. The ball went out just left of the goal mouth. The Italian referee, who had a fairly good match overall, with the exception of some questionable minor midfield fouls, determined that a foul was committed by the GK, ostensibly for some sort of obstruction after the Chinese player succeeded in getting past the GK. The ref had to quickly make a decision, and as to whether it was the right one or not, it was an understandable one. It was a judgement call, even after reveiwing the tape, and could not have been determined as incorrect had the NFL instant replay rule been in effect. Once the call was made, the referee had no chouice but to both order a penalty kick and a red card. She had no option under the laws where the obstruction had the effect of preventing a clear chance at a goal, an could not have gotten away with ordering a yellow card only. It is a single decision, not a two part decision as misstated in the FIFA.com article. It certainly devastated the Canadian players (it certainly devastated me as a Canadian fan watching it live on tv). But, that is football, the rules are there for a reason, and I certainly would have been upset if a Canadian forward had been been obstructed by a Chinese player if the roles had been reversed. Perhaps the judgement call was not the best, but it was honestly made. It was certainly more fair than the majority of similiar calls corruptly made by most CONCACAF referees in the men's WCQ or by the majority of calls made by the refs in the Italian leagues. Had the Canadian defence not been asleep at the start of the match, then Van Boxmeer would not have been in the position where she had to commit herself and then reach back causing the referee to make the call she did.
did you watch the game US-Sweden at the 2003 WC-USA ? at the beginning of the match, Briana Scurry brutaly brought down Ljungberg but, she only got yellow, do you think she should've gotten red ?
I saw the Scurry incident and it was similar except it was very clear that Scurry made contact with Ljunberg and Hanna went down very hard as a direct result of the contact. In this case it was not clear at all whether Stacey actually touched the Chinese striker and if she did it was so minor that even in slow motion there was absolutely no indication that it affected her. Basically, the striker jumped over VanBoxmeer at high speed, lost control of the ball and fell on her own accord in the process of landing after a jump at that speed. If the same situation had occurred at the other end of the pitch and no call was made, I wouldn't have batted an eye. It wasn't obvious there was any call required, never mind a pk and red card. The problem is, the whole incident happened very fast in real-time and you can't blame the ref for calling it the way she saw it. The story of the game was THE CALL. Good call or bad, it made the game what it was and pretty much sealed Canada's fate. I was very confident that Canada would beat China but if someone had asked me before the game, "How about this: a) Canada can't play VanBoxmeer b) China gets a one goal handicap c) Canada plays the entire game with only 10 players in 35 degree heat One more thing, "Canada isn't given knowledge of the handicaps until the game starts, so no preparation." Under those circumstances, I would have said "No way Canada can get past China." Any one of those disadvantages, ok Canada has a very good chance. All? No way. In fact I don't know if any 1/4 final winner could have overcome that handicap. Brazil and Germany got through by the skins of their teeth as it was. They would have both lost. USA might have had a chance against Australia. Final score was 2-0. Add a goal for Australia, make the USA play with 10 players for 90 minutes and take out the USA's star keeper (and captain), Harris? Different game. I thought China was in over their heads against Canada before the game. Nothing I saw from the Chinese changed that opinion. China's first and 3'rd goals were gifts, courtesy of the original call. Take away those 2 goals and Canada played them 1-1 over 90 minutes - even being down 1 critical player. Turn the tables around and China wouldn't stand a chance. I've watched a lot of soccer games and have never seen a single call as punishing as the one Canada faced in this game. The Canadian's showed tremendous courage and fought the entire 90 minutes, but the outcome was never really in doubt after THE CALL. It's unfortunate because the Canadian team was very capable of going all the way this time (as they were in 2002). Soccer can be a cruel and unpredictable game. One call or one lucky bounce can make all the difference.
Good points CAFAN. There is no question that the call had a major effect on what followed, though I don't believe China was ever inover their heads. We don't know how the match would have went without that call, but Canada was in a big hole because of that. I don't remember the Scurry-Ljungberg call that well, RUUDVN. A yellow can be given if the opposing player did not have "a clear chance at a goal"- that is the test set out in the laws. In this case, the Chinese player was heading towards goal and had a clear breakaway (sorry for the hockey term), so if any foul occurred the only option would then have been a red.
THE CALL Trifling contact, as in this case, is not a punishable offence under the Laws of the Game. The referee in her mind sanctioned this as a sending-off offence under Law 12 No. 5. In my view Anna de Toni made three mistakes. 1.- She guessed and assumed as to what happened. 2.- It was trifling contact not an offence punishable with a direct free kick. 3.- Application of sending-off offence No. 5 requires that the opponent (the Chinese player) to be moving towards the goal. If the attacker is clearly moving to the side of the goal this provision does not apply. Good referees increase their level of acceptance as the stakes in games increase as well. Anna de Toni did not. As a matter of interest if one looks at Van Boxmeer's reaction she was puzzled as to why she was being ejected, this could indicate that she did not understand it because she did not trip the attacker. All that it was required in this case was for de Toni to warn the Chinese player for taking a dive with the intent of deceiving the official and then award a goalkick.
Result of today's 1st semifinal: Germany 3 (11'-Krahn, 69'-Behringer, 82'-Hanebeck) USA 1 (16'-Krahn og) De Toni was the ref.
Brazil 0 China 2 (11'-Lou, 42'-Lou) Saturday's games: USA vs Brazil (3rd place) - 4 am EST Germany vs China (championship) - 7 am EST
I caught the 2nd half of the Germany - USA game. Germany's technical skills looked much higher than the USA. Is this typical or a one-off?
I've seen both teams play and the USA plays the prettier game for my money. Usually (and I don't always agree) this is what people really mean when they talk about technical skills. I notice the USA had the edge in time of possession against Germany - uncommon statistic for a 'less technically skilled team'. What skills were you referring to?
I've seen all the matches of both teams in Thailand, and my impression is that their "technical skills" are more or less level. The Americans have a slight advantage in defense, esp the goalkeeper, while the Germans have got more creative attacking players (in numbers!) what makes their attacking capabilities a bit more versatile. Both teams had faced no real challenge in their group, so these matches don't tell us too much about the teams. The play of the Americans seemed to be more "mature", nevertheless - if you understand. While the first half of the semi was rather even, the Americans gained some advantage in midfield for 20 mins into 2nd half - though without producing really good chances. The Germans defended and pressed very well all over the field (even near the American box), cut the passing lanes and didn't allow Woznuk to dominate the run of play - and that was what the Americans were not used to obviously. The rest is history. Back on topic: I agree, in this very game the Germans could show more of their technical skills. But the likes of Woznuk, Gray, Rodriguez and Hanebeck, Mittag, da Mbabi (add a lot of both teams yourself) all of them are extremely talented players technically and tactically, on and off the ball. So it's the question how the game is going and who can make the best of their skills on that very day. This time it was the Germans, and the under-dog roll was a great plus IMO. A hypothetical re-match may go the other way. You simply can't judge on the players' technical abilities from one single match. One more word on the possession figures: I don't believe too much in these statistics. In the end, it only matters how dangerous you are while you're in possession and how many real chances you're producing, not how long (in time) you manage to keep the ball.
Can't agree with that statement - very little difference between Germany and Canada. One win each in previous meetings and a tie in group play with Canada holding the overall gf/ga advantage. China was given a free pass to the semi's courtesy of the ref, otherwise Germany would likely be facing Canada in the finals. If I was the German coach I'd be very pleased things worked out the way they did. I agree, but that wasn't the context. Real scoring chances aside, it's unlikely a 'technically inferior' team would have the edge in possession.
Doing a google search for that scumbag referee Anna de Toni reveals numerous hits because of her blatant screwup. This tournament smelled fishy from the start, just look at the appalling attendances. Both Thailand and Fifa must be losing money big time. Trying to save money by getting young and cheap officials has just backfire in their behind.
this is the kind of game that a team w/ more possesion losing the game, according to statistic on fifa.com live score, the US more percentage on possesion throughout the match, so, this could be an unlucky game for the US.
the semi US-Ger will be broadcasted on tape delay by the FSW and the 3rd place game between US-Bra as well, www.ussoccer.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=129111&itype=113&iCategoryID=0
Eh?! In the end it was a match about nothing. If you win, you earn a bit of glory but you were going to face the States in the semis. I really didn't understand why the Canadians wanted to win that one. Maybe you recall, the Germans had rested the key players. This is a tournament, and you need not dominate each and every match, you need to win the ones that count. I agree with the Nigeria match - that indeed was a problem of attitude again, just like the Euro final vs Spain. On those figures: Simply stated, there are two ways looking at a game, by the figures or by what actually happens on the field. And sorry, a 54:46 advantage in possession is not too surprising if the 54-team is 1-2 down for quite a while. And if you happen to watch the match, you may notice that the Americans earned their possession time by playing the ball in their own half, thanks to the Germans defending their 2-1 agressively all across the field.
I think you answered your own question. Yeah, I know the USA has a tendency to play the ball around a lot without creating as many scoring opportunities as one would expect. But this possession discussion seems to be going in circles - good luck in the finals.
I am surprised about the possession statistic - it didn't seem that way to me watching the 2nd half. I am talking about crosses, shots on goal, turning with the ball. Germany looked much more skillful.
I am seeing this after my last post. Thanks for the explanation. Yes, exactly, Germany looked much more dangerous & skillful on the attack. And that is not the norm in Germany-USA games in my opinion.
US throttles Brazil 3-0 to clinch 3rd. Goals by Hanks, Rapinoe and Woznuk salvage things somewhat. *4* yellow cards, including 2 in the space of a minute for Brazil. Full match report later on, but for now, this will hopefully tide youse over : http://fifa.com/en/womens/comp/U19MatchReport/0,3971,U19W-2004-1-01,00.html
i believe Karry Hanks is the highest goal scorer for the US but, how come she has never started the match until the last one ?
I suspect germany's play in wc 2003 was far more creative than usa play... usa relied far too much on dead balls... the basic question now facing usa-germany, is whether a college and ussf based system is sufficient to compete with a federation-league based system in germany..... playing regularly week in and week out raises the overall caliber of play of more talent and offers the chance for more numbers of skilled creative players... a college based system does NOT offer a sustained caliber of play and the absence of a signficant league MINIMIZES the chances for the late bloomers to emerge.... the more soccer you play over a year at a sustained level of play, the greater the potential soccer depth you have.... another aspect of germany is the dominance of the sport of soccer in the culture...and now with a continued committment to women in the game, the more sound the development base will become.... i'd argue the college system is inherently limited and the development phase into adulthood is required to continue elite level quality in this country... the rest of the world is discovering the female game, and have culturally pro-soccer populations to project growths in the quality of the game... there are too many questions with the usa current approach....the 1st question is an elite league...and that's the one ussf needs to ask and answer very quickly..
Was anyone able to record these games so we can make a Bit Torrent? I'd like to see the technical skills before I comment on them. If someone has a tape or a DVD I can post a "walk-through" or I can do it if someone wants to send me the recording.
Not so sure it is as dark as you portray. And maybe more of our women should be competing in the German & Swedish leagues. I still would like to see a professional league in the USA start back up.
THE GIRLS DID VERY GOOD AND I WAS AMASED WITH THE NIGERIAN DISPLAY WITH GERMANY.MAYBE THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A BETTER CHANCE WITH USA TO QUALIFY FOR SEMI OR FINAL.EVERY TEAM DID WELL TOO .PLS IF ANYONE HAS THE TAPE ,PLS TAKE TIME TO SHARE THEY DONT SHOW SUCH IN USA OR WITH MY SERICE (DISH) I LOOKED FOR IT ON PPV BUT NO WAY.PLS "JUST FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME"