Germany - US , WNT PK

Discussion in 'Referee' started by rcleopard, Oct 6, 2003.

  1. seanT

    seanT Member

    Feb 15, 2000
    Washington, DC

    I could not agree more. The handballs were more worrisome to me because she saw them. I don't think she saw the Milbret collision very well. And with my fan hat on I was screaming for a "persistent infringment' card.
     
  2. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    I don't think the two incidents were at all comparable. I haven't seen video of the game so I'm still going with my impression from the live shot and the only replay - the keeper made a save on the ball after Milbrett played it.

    But the header from Wambach was quite different: the keeper had position, went up and got the ball. Wambach ran towards the keeper and jumped in her direction. She fouled the keeper as soon as she collided with her in that way.

    To me that was the funniest incident of the game as afterwards Wambach was walking around confused - I could only assume it was over that call - as if she wondered why that call went against her.
     
  3. kevbrunton

    kevbrunton New Member

    Feb 27, 2001
    Edwardsburg, MI
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You said that they keeper had position, went up and got the ball. But she didn't get the ball -- Wambach got it before she did and that's why it bounced free.

    They are similar because in both cases a player went for a ball and made contact with an opponent at nearly the same instant as possibly touching the ball. In Wambach's case, she very definitely made contact with the ball but still got a foul called on her (not in a PK situation). In the Keeper's case, she may or may not have made contact with the ball but no foul was called (in a PK situation).

    This is just like the handling scenarios -- outside the penalty area the calls were made. Inside the penalty area, no call made.
     
  4. SoCalRef

    SoCalRef New Member

    Oct 6, 2003
    San Diego
    As far as the questionable handling non-call. I just rewatched the replay of that play and the german defender put her arm back to block the ball. It was a subtle move that I'm sure Sonia could not see from her position 30 yards away, but the AR should have seen itfrom 15 yards away. As the defender was running her arm was moving forward then as the cross was made she moved it backward in an unnatural motion and when she handled the ball she tried to sell it as an accident by moving her arm behind her back.
     
  5. kevbrunton

    kevbrunton New Member

    Feb 27, 2001
    Edwardsburg, MI
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's exactly how I saw it as well.
     
  6. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Seems I happen to recall both in the opposite way you did. I thought the keeper got the ball before Wambach collided with her. Like I said, I don't have a video to watch the plays again, so in both cases those are my initial impressions.

    I don't think the incidents are so similar because the keeper going up for the ball with Wambach charging is not a 50/50 situation. The Milbrett collision was a 50/50 situation.
     
  7. kevbrunton

    kevbrunton New Member

    Feb 27, 2001
    Edwardsburg, MI
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Mine isn't by recall -- it's from watching the replay. Wambach got to the ball first. And don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that Wambach SHOULDN'T have been called for the foul -- just that it's inconsistent to call her for a foul and not call the GK in the collision with Millbrett.

    In the Wambach case, the collision was due to Wambach's momentum taking her into the keeper while playing the ball. In the Millbrett case, the GK primarly caused the contact with her momentum taking her into Millbrett while trying to play the ball. That's the similarity in the two situations I am trying to point out.
     
  8. soccerchick584

    soccerchick584 New Member

    Jul 28, 2003
    Tennessee
    I believe that I saw two instances in which I thought a PK would have been appropriate. One was a handball by a German defender in the box. The other was when Rottenberg played Milbrett and not the ball. I've always been taught that when the keeper plays the player and not the ball, a PK and possibly a card is issued. And I've seen that play numerous times, and I keep seeing that the keeper didn't touch the ball. The handball was a fairly obvious call, and on the linesman's side too. But I guess they just didn't see it. Selective eyesight, maybe?
     
  9. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    i haven't watched the game yet -- it's on tape at home -- but it sure sounds like these German soccer players are getting very good at feigning inadvertence on handballs in penalty box :)
     
  10. bungadiri

    bungadiri Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 25, 2002
    Acnestia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Har har...

    Actually that comparison is what came to my mind immediately as I was watching the game. However, I thought then and I still do now exactly as kevbrunton does. The German player deliberately handled the ball to deflect the cross (which I thought was headed in a very playable way to an open Wombach). To finish opening this can of worms: I think the other German "handball," in WC 2002, was nothing of the kind. In that instance it still seems very clear to me that the ball played the hand and the non-call was appropriate.
     

Share This Page