Ok, but then Canada’s PK against Davidson in the Olympics would not have met your standard. I think it’s interesting that neither foul was called by the head ref, but by VAR. Reducing the size of the box sounds like a bad Isela on a couple counts. First, it would encourage more fouling and less scoring. Second, narrowing the size of the box sounds like a “tax” on the more skilled players who can score from distance. If you want scoring, this sounds like a bad idea. A foul in the box ( not DOGSO) has been on the books since 1891 without modification. The card penalties has changed, but not the PK. This goes also to the idea of DOGSO as part of the additional penalty. It’s not part of the PK determination. In fact, the penalty in the box for DOGSO has been REDUCED in the box now and isn’t an automatic send off. It’s a pretty young rule, only on the books since the 1990 World Cup, and has seen growing pains as a rule. ( see triple penalty) for comparison, the second to last defender being the test for offside has only been on the books since 1925, and that got modified to being even to that defender in 1990, the same year DOGSO was introduced. These rules are even more recent that the goofy offside and pénalty kick rules the old NASL had. Maybe those are the rules that need tweaking, not the PK in the box. come to think of it, VAR is more recent and obviously not producing the flawless results one would expect. The Fiasco with sending off keepers every time they blinked on PK’s a couple cups ago and required modification mid-tournament shows just how poorly thought out it was and how poor the VAR rule is. Seriously, requiring “clear and obvious” without defining the term is just asking for trouble. i struggle with a bunch of octogenarians at a resort messing with the LOTG any more than absolutely necessary. They are out of touch with the game as currently played and have proven pretty poor in crafting the rules they do come up with. I’m personally more concerned that penalties for head injury fouls are not strict enough, but I fear those old guys would make a mess of it.
Just reading this thread now days later and your incessant negativity and griping about every shortcoming of the team is already very tiring. Please contribute some balanced analysis to the news and analysis forum, rather than just non stop griping. As for Morgan playing CF, despite all the attacks she "screwed up", she ended up scoring and winning outstanding player of the tournament. Who on the US should start over her? And both Pugh and Smith had worse misses than anything Morgan flunked. Sheesh.
A red card is for violent or very reckless/ dangerous play, or for Denial of Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity. The foul on Lavelle was none of those, but was absolutely a foul a foul in the penalty area, which merits a PK. Running into / clipping another player from behind may not be intentional buts its still tripping, which is a foul.
Schedule congestion. When the league made the pre-season tournament matter, they ********ed up an already bad schedule even more.
Yes, the Spirit coach has blamed scheduling. Then he blamed the refs. But, he never took accountability for himself or the players. They have won ONE game out of 13. That is not all on the schedule or the officials. Please.
Was she shown a card at all for tripping Rose? I always thought that was a mandatory thing when a Penalty kick was awarded. Obviously, didn't have to be a red, could have been a yellow, like Becky got when she tripped White in the world cup.
Match box score only shows Sinclair's and Horan's. But I wonder if that is an artifact of the VAR rules; that the penalty was not awarded in the run by the CR, but after VAR consultation IIRC? Is it possible that the PK can be awarded in such circumstance, but not the retroactive card? Every time we go to make stuff a little more complicated, it winds up a lot more complicated...
A card is not mandatory for a PK. A PK is simply awarded when there's a foul in the box that is worthy of a direct free kick. All fouls in the box though are not DOGSO nor are they all reckless or serious foul play. Obviously there's all kinds of direct free kick fouls all over the field that don't get cards. I think the card to Sauerbrunn at the WWC was for DOGSO but was a yellow, not red, because there was an attempt to play the ball.
Under the 2016 rule changes, a DOGSO foul in the box that gets a penalty kick awarded does not get a red card, so that the foul does not receive "triple punishment". It only requires a red card if the foul was one that would be a red card anywhere on the field. Sauerbrunn's foul was arguably DOGSO but not reckless or violent conduct, so the yellow was appropriate in that situation.
It's not the point here, but actually, no, that is not the instruction according to IFAB after the rule changes in 2016: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off. Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)." Basically if it's a "leg" foul in the DOGSO (tripping, etc) with an attempt to play the ball, it's a yellow. If it's a "body" foul even if not serious foul play, then it's a red.
actually the Three Apples post—-refs wouldn’t hand out 3 penalties on an pk call—would of been an nice explanation to German fans still to this today furious that at the 2015 WC semis, where Ertz hand grabbed Popp’s shoulder from the back & pulled her down and while the latter was taking shot inside penalty box.
A L L E G E D L Y You and the grumpy old curmudgeon Dr. Joe Machnik are the only two on the planet with that interpretation. Julie is an ANGEL and did nothing wrong. Occasionally, hj will perform this wellness check on me because he knows that I will respond.
After watching England beat Germany today, I have to admit I somewhat fear them as we near the World Cup. They are skilled and deep. More importantly, they both had a hard edge and competitive fire that I haven't seen from our young American team, and that's something that would seem difficult to instill as we play the Haitis and Costa Ricas and Nigerias of the world.
The just concluded EUROS show that there are a number of European teams that will give the US lots of problems when they play. England, Germany, France even all the way down to Italy and Norway have a t least an average chance of winning any game against the US. The US will enter the tournament as favorites but the "distance" between the best that will be at the tournament and the worst of the teams that earned their way there (New Zealand is the weakest team that I know will be there but New Zealand is a host so has had to earn nothing) is much smaller than it ever has been. This could well be the WWC with the most "upsets" ever. In fact I do not think there will be any blowouts except, maybe, against a couple of the weaker teams from Asia, Africa, CONMEBOL or CONCACAF. That is I do not think any UEFA team ill get beaten badly.
I would beg to differ, England & Germany(and my pre tourney picks) were in the finals for one particular reason,; DEPTH. None of the other Euros had it. Take away one or two of their best players, and all the other favorites(France, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden) fell down along the way. so unless it’s just misreable coaching & conditioning, I’m really fancying US chances based that once again we got the most DEPTH of anybody(thanks to our GIANT infrastructure called TITLE IX). The key thing we were able to win the Concacaf & the revenge game against top rated Canada while missing arguably our 5 best players(Macario, Ertz, S Mewis, Davidson, Dunn). Germany lost yesterday cuz their two best players went missing by the time of the final(so depth wise, they couldn’t replace those two) England had everything in their favor; home advantage/zero injuries/zero Covid cases/top notch coach/a squad recruited from the richest if not most balanced league in Europe(WSL) and still didn’t look impressive in winning. And this was basically the same team members the US beat handily the last time they met at SBC Totally disagree with you on WC; it only added 8 more ‘Thailand’s into the tournament got to add yesterday’s Euro final; just way too physically played, and here was hoping woso would advance technically….
Davidson is one of the US’s five best players??? What exactly has she done at the senior level to earn that status? Same question on Macario. She has only gotten minutes against weak international opponents so far. Hard to say how she will do against quality opponents.
Let’s see if more than 1 non European team can get in the final 8. Last WC U.S. was the only non-European country was in.
That is VERY unlikely to change much. Europe has taken real steps to improve their women's soccer overall. The rest of the world has done little more than pay lip service to improving the women's game. I really think that along with the US and Canada there are a good number of non-European teams that have a good chance at the quarter finals. One is the host Australia (The other host New Zealand is still is pretty bad and the "Home field advantage" cannot raise their level to even get out of their group.) and there are a few teams, like Japan, out of Asia that have a real chance. Neither CAF or CONMEBOL have enough quality to get to the quarters, unless Brazil decides to play soccer instead of treating the WWC as a diving contest. I suspect that the quarters will see 5 maybe 6 teams from Europe and two from CONCACAF and then one from Asia, CAF or CONMEBOL. Of course the WWC is a long way off and teams can improve or deteriorate in all that time. In that time, if they get their act together we could see two and even three teams from CAF and/or CONMEBOL that are not much on the current scene that add a player or two and suddenly jump into contention. But, if nothing much changes, we will see a similar WWC to the last one with the exception that there will be more teams there and the groups will not have bad third place teams advancing. It will be "interesting" and that is somewhat disconcerting.
U.S. will be in unless they really screw up, the other three and Japan have a fair chance. Since the WWC isn't in Europe this time I doubt it will be 7 UEFA teams in QF (particularly so when UEFA currently only have 6 top-team, sorry Norway). The exact number depends a lot on who play who in the round of 16.
Brazil keeps performing an step below the US, they won a tough one vs Colombia in the South America final, winning 1-0, but highlights showed Colombia had plenty of chances(the US looked way more comfortable beating them). Brazil’s best performances keep coming from Debinha & Kerolin, yet notice, their NC Courage squad is currently in last place in the NWSL standings. Australia’s problem they haven’t been able to produce another younger golden generation like they did last decade, so they still depend on an aging squad. Might of not been the brightest move that all their best players transferred Europe, thus weakening their own domestic league, which had space available during the winter months when their players were previously part of the NWSL. A few years back they were ranked as high as #5, but since fallen to #12. Their saving grace might be hosting the WC(usually brings the best out, though apparently the Mexicans didn’t know that!) Canada’s always going to be a tough, they could have the best back line in the business, they need to find someone for the aging Sinclair upfront though. Not sure if they were all into preparing to be their best at Concacaf(since 4 teams were going to qualify)they got the same eco soccer system we got(basically play through US college) but with only 9 times less the population. Noticed that Canadian woso fans have pretty much disappeared off this BS forum, so not much more info on what else is going on over there/dunno the updates on the pro league they were supposedly to start only other competitive outsider could be Japan. If you didn’t notice, there’s a cultist following(among BS posters) for their team, since guessing they play sort of an higher ‘purist’ techno standard of the game, but the reality is they’ve fallen from #1 to #13 in FIFA rankings in an decade. However, their top players lately been ditching Europe & Asia play in the NWSL, so maybe hope for them yet!
Half the roster plays in NWSL and Europe while the rest plays in Brazil, I believe they can get there. Even though their club team NCC is not doing great, thats not the same for their NT. Don't know why the Aussies have fallen since most are at Europe. We all figure they would get better. I mean Sam Kerr is doing great in Chelsea but guess somethings off with the players playing in Europe. Figure with most gone to Europe the younger players in Australia have a chance to play and get experience and are new generation. I'm sure Canada tried hard since they want to win. Didn't provide much problems to the U.S., still was able to hold down to 1 goal based on penalty. Their favorite method to win I guess. Why are the Japanese ditching Europe and Asia?
Why do you listen to what @hotjam2 says? Mana Iwabuchi and Yui Hasegawa, arguably Japan's best players, are in England at Arsenal and West Ham respectively. Starting CB Moeka Minami just signed with Roma in Italy.
Possibly because there is a larger Japanese community in the US than Europe and the level of play in Asia is not as good as many would like. That is just speculation but I base it on some slight understanding of the Japanese culture or at least the culture that I have experienced in the past. Personally, if I were a female Japanese soccer player I would choose Europe but I am neither Japanese or Female so what do I know. There could also be some visa/work permit issues that make it harder for Japanese people to play in Europe and I have heard that in a lot of places there are limits on "foreign" players. That never seems to make sense to me but international politics and biases are not exactly something I understand. It is clear to me that quality of play and coaching is often better in Europe, at least for the last couple of years, than anywhere else in the world but the differences are pretty small. So that makes really understanding why Japanese players are choosing the US over Europe quite hard for me. I do wonder if it not more of a statistical anomaly than anything "real."