anyone care to try and explain how this warrants matching reds??? 1380743547360579590 is not a valid tweet id
Contact to the head would be my guess. After they are running up the field following the bodyslam, the player in black appears to make contact with the player in white’s head as she’s pushing her away. The player in white then retaliates with her own head strike.
Portland is appealing their red, gotta think it will be overturned. If I had to guess the referee was not in a great position expecting a last second attempt on the counter and had to guess what happened.
Yesterday, news broke here that Lyonnais & Barcelona will join Portland Thorns & Houston Dash in @iccwomen Aug 18-21 in Portland.Today we're hearing PSG & Bayern Munich are top candidates for Aug 18-21 women's event in Louisville with host Racing & Chicago Red Stars#nwsl— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) April 9, 2021 While I'm not sure how well-thought-out Louisville's idea was when first launched, it's still confirmed, and we'll have four UEFA teams in the US in August this year instead of the three we've had with previous ICCs. PSG looks to keep their streak of US-based friendly tournaments alive.
Yellow for Weaver in body blocking or shielding but ball was long gong before that happened and red for Edmonds punching or having her hand at Weavers face.
It can't be easily seen from this angle (that I guess is the only one we can get), but I've got the feeling that Weaver had her hands at Edmonds' face too, although just for a short moment and in a less spectacular way. If you look at the replay, when Weaver gratuitously blocks Edmonds by grabbing her by her arm/shoulder, Edmonds' head tilts a little to her right: I guess she hit her face and it was one of the things that triggered Edmonds' reaction, along with the fact that it had always been Weaver who had intitiated contact, both during the scrum next to the corner flag and afterwards. Edmonds' RC was surely well deserved, but it's not like Weaver was "innocent" and I guess she deserved red too. Even the fact that she fouled Edmonds when the ball was far away and by directly and deliberatedly aiming to the player, was, alone and it itself, a RC-worthy offense, in my opinion.
My judgement: Edmonds gets a red card for the body slam and suspension for a second game for the hand to the face. Weaver? I see her as defending herself. Give her a yellow for her push of Edmonds, after being body-slammed.
Well first, "we" didn't ask for eight specifically anywhere. Second, these are two separate tournaments, so the fact that there are eight total between them doesn't mean much. We've known (or at least expected) for a long time that there would be two tournaments, so eight total was basically going to be the minimum; the eight talked about earlier was a reflection of ICC wanting to expand year over year to make their tournament more interesting, because each team only playing two games isn't that interesting. Basically, if ICC was able to expand like they had hoped, we would have seen them with at least 8 and Louisville with at least four, for a total of at least 12.
Well this was not a fun find this morning: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/4...der-sarah-gorden-accusations-racial-profiling My bf came to our game against @HoustonDash + after the game he came down steps to talk to me. We were immediately (before he was close 2 me)followed by security and told he would be arrested if he came close. Meanwhile white players were talking to white fam all over the stadium— Sarah Gorden (@sarahlgorden) April 10, 2021 pic.twitter.com/lQy07Ly7xp— Houston Dash (@HoustonDash) April 10, 2021 Gotta say that this Dash statement really, REALLY misses the point and is getting rightly ratioed.
Great catch, I totally agree with you, but if the referee was closer to the scrum she could have seen what Weaver was up. An obstruction call against Weaver and you have none of this complete foolishness. I still don't agree with a red to Weaver, but you make your point well.
League must immediately come out and say (AGAIN) that any racial profiling in any way, shape or form is totally unacceptable and in fact, un-American. Keep saying it from the mountain-top until one day we might see some change.
PRO’s response to the red cards: Got responses from PRO to my pool reporter questions yesterday:“Morgan Weaver was shown a red card for violent conduct and sent off. AR2 informed the referee that after both players got up from the ground and the ball was cleared, Weaver violently charged into the side... (1/3)— Katelyn Best (@BestKabest) April 11, 2021
Guess it really depends on what your definition is of a "violent charge". This smells of PRO tying to justify a wrong decision.
What I think of is, suppose the two were chasing a ball and there was the contact that initially occurred (after the corner scrum was over) between Weaver and Edmonds. Would it have been a foul called on Weaver? Would it have been a yellow card issued to Weaver? Would it have been a straight red card issued to Weaver? I think the answers likely would be maybe, probably not, and no. So, is the rule different when the players are starting back down field chasing the play? If so, how different? I guess we will find out from the appeal. Another question: Has anyone re-looked at the play where Charlie got her initial yellow card? She got her foot to the ball about a foot or two before Rowland got there. Rowland came in upper body first and took a blow somewhere, it is hard to tell but could have been her face. Is there a rule that the player must give way to the keeper even if the player gets to the ball first? I think this is the yellow card Parsons was unhappy about, which he expressed on the second yellow to Charlie (thus red), getting himself a red. Interestingly, the discussion on the referee forum about the red to Weaver is along the lines of the ref let the game get out of control, should have called a foul during the scrum in the corner, and thus would have avoided the ending fiasco. Also, she should have stayed there until the players cleared and let one of the ARs worry about what was going on farther up the field, since the corner where the scrum took place was across the entire field from the AR responsible for that half of the field. Those are interesting refereeing nuances, to me.
Meh... it was an off the ball charge.. There was no reason for Weaver to run into Edmonds like that, but as mentioned above... The ref should have called a foul on the bodyslam, which would have avoided the whole situation..
I keep being persuaded that Weaver hit Edmonds' face too, as difficult as it is to see that from the only angle we have. And if the AR, who was closer, saw that, then the RC for Weaver is fully justified. I tend to believe that, when she awkwardly grabbed Edmonds' arm and shoulder (and by the way I keep believing that such a totally off-the-ball charge was fully RC sanctionable in itself: writing that it was just "maybe" a foul sounds ridiculous to me), Weaver also hit (as shortly and unwillingly as you want) Edmonds' face too. If you think about it, there is also a psychological hint of that (although I sure don't want to "sell" it as a prove): the fact that Edmonds wanted to retaliate by putting her hand to Weaver's face is an indication that probably it was what she felt had been done to her: when you retaliate, you instinctively tend to follow the old "an eye for an eye" adage, by trying to do to others what you feel they've done to you.
but AR2 was way across the pitch, we've seen the replay many times and we still can't be totally certain what exactly took place. I still think the referee crew guessed on the call.
How could an AR possibly be closer? The AR2 at that end of the field is nearly 75 yards away on the other side of the field. The AR1 on that side is at best at the midfield line, which is likely a good 50 yards away with a technical area and who knows what between the incident.
Dash official follow-up: pic.twitter.com/qNdlFugYdc— Houston Dash (@HoustonDash) April 12, 2021 Better, but it still sounds to me like they're avoiding actually naming the problem here - whether it was intentional or not.
I would truly love for the Rose City Riveters to explain this statement to Jaelene Hinkle Daniels: "We support the athletes in the NWSL, & condedemn the targeted harrassment of players." We support the athletes in the NWSL, & condemn targeted harassment of players. We suggest folks read the words of Black players & those who support them; to understand that specific language matters. Remember, impact matters more than intent when it comes to racism & harm.— Rose City Riveters (@PDXRivetersSG) April 13, 2021
Yeah, not the best track record in that regard. If they wanted to support Sarah Gordon, they could've found a less hypocritical way of saying so.
Moultrie and the age issue may be coming to a head: https://theathletic.com/2516805/2021/04/13/olivia-moultrie-nwsl-mls/ (sub required)