Agree with all but the diving bit. Lavelle was the one with all the momentum, meaning that - in effect - she generated the contact. Slo-mo is being abused here to establish that contact happened (in a contact sport), but the assumption is that the defender causes it, for reasons that are not clear to me. It's almost - but not quite - analogous to players who "drag" their trailing leg. Before anyone gets bent out of shape, I said "but not quite".
No, a tackle, kick, etc. simply has to be careless to be a foul. Reckless equals a foul plus a yellow card/caution. Excessive force equals a red card. Impeding an opponent is an indirect free kick and requires the player to be out of playing distance of the ball, so is irrelevant here.
Can you quote the rules where it says this? Cheers. Just to save some time... https://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/92/ They literally have 3 explanations for the same type of foul. Seems unnecessarily confusing. Still, the 'foul' was neither careless, reckless, nor was it with excessive force. The US player initiated the contact and had all the force.
Its right there in the part you quoted (I bolded it to help you out): Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: I get it, but your argument over semantics doesn't really change what was said.
Well, my point was you dropped careless and said it wasn't reckless or using excessive force, which I'd agree with because obviously the player didn't see a card. But it was careless, and therefore was a foul. And maybe this is just rubbing me wrong, but as a former referee, it's not semantics when it's literally the way a foul is judged to be simply a foul or to deserve a yellow or red card. You see entire referee trainings only on these three phrases; they're pretty crucial.
Ok, well we can agree to disagree that it was careless or deserving of a foul, and I will revise my statement to say: I don't believe it was careless, reckless, or using excessive force. She was controlled, going for the ball, the contact was minimal (at best), didn't impede the attacker (who dove) and the contact was initiated by the other player. Obviously, the ref gave the foul (which I believe she would not have if the American player didn't dive), but it is what it is. We see much heavier contact and more reckless behavior go unpunished constantly (for example, a defender making a huge sliding tackle that the attacker jumps over but takes them away from a throughball is NEVER called, but should be by the letter of the law and is much more dangerous than what was called in this case).
Is every foul card-worthy to you? Of course not. But you're saying a foul has to be card-worthy in the area to be called a foul and result in a PK. This is, frankly, a nonsensical argument. Your example of a "huge sliding tackle that the attacker jumps over" is an interesting one, though. As far as it being dangerous and card-worthy, I think it matters a lot whether the slide is in front of the attacking player, aimed at ball (or attempting to block it) not at player. From following the BigSoccer Ref Forum, I'm now of the school which says if an attacker has to jump to protect life and limb from the "huge sliding tackle", that's both a foul and card-worthy whether there's contact or not. The other issue, when a slide doesn't threaten to go into an opposing player but impedes them, causing them to leap over - whether that should be considered a foul (and therefore a PK if it's in the area), that to me is an interesting question for which I have no answer.
That's not my argument. My argument is that I don't believe it was a foul at all (which is why I revised my statement to coincide with the semantics of the laws); though even if people subscribe to the belief that it was a foul I still think the American player should have been carded for simulation. The problem is that fouls like this are rarely, if ever, called. It's the same for someone taking out a player who takes a shot; generally speaking if someone gets a shot off on net and then is fouled refs just seem to let the play go as though it was some kind of advantage.
Yeah, there's a convention here we're just all used to, but if someone asks should it be this way or should it be a foul, I just don't know.