Couple of thoughts on the match. And to be clear Morocco was a deserved winner so my comments about the PK calls wouldn't have changed the outcome. 1. On the first PK I strongly disagree that's a penalty. Harriel is already kicking toward the ball when the Moroccan players comes from his side and tries to play the ball. His leg went in at a position such that it was over Harriel's already moving foot. Harriel didn't kick him as much as the guy put his leg above Harriel. I am not awarding a PK for that. But I can at least see how others would view that differently. 2. Now the 2nd PK is utter garbage. Defender tucks his ball side arm into his body and turns away from the ball. His other arm was in a natural position and not extended such as to make himself bigger, WTF every happened to ball to hand? Like another poster said, if this is who you are supposed to ref these days I am way glad I am retired! IMO an big review and changes need to be made to offside and what constitutes a PK. These inadvertent "fouls" when there is no possible danger in the attacking play is ruining the game. Its already a judgment call. Allow some judgement as to whether there was an honest attacking play or goal scoring situation that was eliminated by the "foul". Neither of these calls rose to that IMO.
It’s great seeing the thread for these major events and having all these random posters come in to spew their ignorant nonsense all over the place
I was discussing the penalties in the comments on another site. The other poster said the referee should have just given IFKs instead of penalties since they weren't that bad. Not that the laws should be changed, mind you, but that the ref had the authority to restart with IFKs in those situations if he wanted to. You just have to shake your head and move on.
It’s great you know everything but unless you comment on the posts in question this is just self-serving claptrap.
I went back to that VAR explanation. If that would have been the voice of a Bond henchman like Jaws from the Roger Moore 1970s Bond movies, that wouldn't have totally shocked me . . .
The raising of the foul bar the last 15 minutes of the US-Japan quarterfinal has been a choice (and it's gone both ways to be totally fair).
No, for me the game was getting too physical. Thought there were two cautions that weren’t even called fouls.
She definitely chose a very high foul bar for the game. I agree that a bit lower would have been better. But I suppose it worked out.
Does VAR review in match PKs. Because the Brazilian keeper was way off her line in saving the French PK.
Of course. Though looks can be deceiving—in Germany Canada, I thought every save was off the line, but when I went back and paused, they actually were just barely over at the moment of contact. Keepers are getting very good T that timing, even though they look off. (I haven’t seen the Brazil one.)
Agreed. PK/no-PK decisions would be nowhere near as controversial if they weren't taking <.10 xG situations and turning them into ~.80 xG situations. The IFAB need to do something so that the punishment is more aligned with the severity of the crime. I don't know if that means shrinking the size of the penalty box, moving the penalty spot back, changing the interpretation of the LOTG, allowing refs to award more DFK's instead of PK's for fouls in the box, or what.....but something has to change.
This has been debated here multiple times. Part of the impact of the Law the way it is is that defenders know they have to be more careful in the PA. That creates an incentive for attackers to get the ball into the PA, and gives a certain degree of extra opportunity to attackers in the PA, which is a good thing. I blame the players, not the Law when there is a foul resulting in a PK that was not a significant attack—what was the player thinking to not be more careful?! I may have related this story in connection with this issue before. A coach I know was a high level college basketball player. After I called a PK with an attacker going across the top of the PA, he called out “she wasn’t shooting,” at first I thought he was confusing sports and thought a player had to be shooting to get a PK. But then I realized he was coaching his team—it was stupid to challenge in a way that risked a PK when the player was not a significant risk. the only concern I have with current PK is how they relate to the growing sense of what is “unnatural” position leading to HB PKs. But that is an issue with how we interpret handling, not with PKs themselves.
One question occurred to me while watching USA-Japan -- ARs have been instructed to keep the flag down on a scoring chance, then raise it after a goal has been scored if they suspect an offside offense has occurred, yes? Multiple times in that game, it seemed to me that the AR kept the flag down, and then the chance was *missed*, but the flag *stayed* down. In at least one case, it meant a corner kick instead of an IFK the other way. Are ARs now hesitating to raise the flag at all?
they are only supposed to delay the flag on OS that is close and there is a scoring opportunity. If there was OS on the CK/IFK scenarios you mention, that means the AR concluded there was not an OS offense. The flag is supposed to go up once the opportunity has passed if a goal is not scored.