Except that the USA wasn't the victim of a referee's mistakes at the World Cup, they were simply beaten (or knocked out on PKs, whatever you want to call it). Anyway, "domination" really means nothing anymore. The team winning often sits back and lets the other team take it to them. If Japan had taken the early lead, you probably would have seen more of Japan defending and the US trying to take it to them. One honest question though. Why was Solo given a yellow card for time-wasting (which is what I thought was the norm) while Canada had to suffer a free kick in the box? What was the difference there? Sorry if this has been answered already. Too tired to look it up.
Was it a goal kick? It's usually yellow for time wasting on goal kicks, IFK for time wasting on punts.
I know she really did not want to effect the game. But, everthing was a warning no matter what the player did. Except in the end when she gave that token yellow card to Abby, and that was a bad yellow she got the ball first.
I do think the handling call was probably harder to make from the field than from the TV. The player's leg was almost at the same position as her arm and I can easily see how the referee could be unsure which was used.
Theres one female referee in the world who is currently doing high level professional men's games. Theres a reason why that referee has done the Olympic and World Cup final in the past 13 months.
Solo, usually 'legally' time wastes. She will usually hold it for around the six seconds. Once the box is clear, she'll drop the ball to the ground and push it forward to kick it. Her leg is far stronger and control better than most female 'keepers. Not saying she doesn't hold it more than six, but it is right around the time usually when she 'puts the ball back into play.'
That miss is not an automatic fail. It all comes down to the answer she gives to "So, lets talk about the Japan free kick in the xx minute. There was calls for a PK, what did you see?" It then goes from there. With one set of eyes and one position on the field (which I am sure hers was very good), it's possible for a bad angle, blocked view, ..... the instant fail is if she answers something like "the ball was played into the wall and US players arm was away from her body, but I still didn't call it"
The classiest thing about that moment was watching the Japanese manager take the non-call in stride. Some, correction, most, other managers would be in the 4th officials face in an instant.
I watched the entire game twice. Once at work (what a great job!) and once at home with a room full of people. We all watched the FK in question. On the play there is movement on the left side of the goal and there was certainly jostling going on at about the time the kick was being hit. Our referee is looking at the movement in the area and is watching the landing area. She is NOT looking at the wall at all. I think the chances of handling in a two person wall on an angled FK is pretty slim. Unfortunately, as we know, slim showed up when she wasn't looking. Also, I'm thinking from the side away from the wall, I bet it looks like a knee. Japan was very unlucky. But, they did let Carli Lloyd walk in from 55 yards out. Someone has to put a foot there. And no one put a foot in on Alex Morgan at the endline on the first goal. Japan's not fouling style of play, while admirable, allows freedom on the ball. It's not that Japan isnt organized on defense, it's that they aren't aggressive. My daughter, who is a college player, said low foul count is not something you ever want.
The Japanese - especially the Coach - are pure class. I loved seeing the girl being substituted turn and bow towards the field being honored for being able to play in the game.
The ball does not absolve you of all sin. When I saw that play live I had no doubt that there would be a caution - ball or not. Just prior to that Steinhaus had been quite demonstrative in warning a Japanese player about foul accumulation. I got hung up at work and did not catch the first 25 minutes or so and missed seeing the alleged handling live. Replays are quite damning, but I haven't gone back to watch the play in the context of live action. How many of us were counting every time a 'keeper handled the ball? All in all it was a pretty classy game (until the US players put on those stupid t-shirts ).
To be honest, this is how I've always thought of it. That's why I was a little surprised to see some of the judgment calls equated--at least on paper--with some of the decisions that would be considered unlawful. But the quote Paper.St.Soap.Co highlights from the USSF document does show that assessors have a lot of latitude on match-critical judgment decisions. Anyway, my point/question was more at the international level. With the competition for spots/assignments so intense and the expectations so high, I would just wonder if the room for acceptable judgment "errors" is much, much narrower (I know it has to be narrower, just sort of wondering how narrow). I know you're very informed on this sort of stuff, Law5, so I'll ask: knowing what you know of the process, do you think Steinhaus got what would be considered a failing score based on this perceived missed penalty? Or is that something that can be overcome? This was a Final, so the point is moot, but... let's say this was a QF... would one call like this take her out of the running for a later match? Just trying to see how a non-call like this compares to major errors we've seen at other big tournaments, like the missed goal at EURO, or the missed goal or the Italian crew's missed offside in South Africa... all three of those caused a world-class crew, under consideration for the Final, to be sent home.
I was proud to have been one of the first in my section of the stadium to start doing so. He really deserves nothing else. I was suprised that the crowd was knowledgeable enough to recognize him given the general level of spectator knowledge.
I think there are two separate questions in your last paragraph. First, how bad would Steinhaus' performance be considered? Second, would this keep her from getting further assignments if it had been an earlier round game? I was multi-tasking during the game, watching both track & field and soccer at the same time on the internet feed. (Love the two video option!) (I've officiated track events with gold medal winners Christian Taylor, Ashton Eaton and Olga Rypakova, so I'm not going to miss decathlon and triple jump.) When I saw the incident on the little screen, my immediate reaction was "That's a hand ball." I also have to admit/claim that when I saw it, I wasn't sure which team was wearing which colored shirts. Stuff happens out there. It's easy to be an arm-chair referee, who morphs into a strict assessor. The fact is that all of the FIFA Inspectors have been there themselves. That means that they understand that, at this level, the referee's job is to produce an event. Being technically correct isn't as important as seeing that the game is enjoyable for spectators and, overall, fair. Mortal sin? No. Venial sin? Yeah. "But the effect was so huge!!!!!" At the referee level, it's still just a decision about whether this was a foul or not. Debatable, perhaps, even if 90% of us might have gone the other way, especially when this one is a judgment by the referee about player intent. It is/was "in the opinion of the referee," not "in the opinion of the assessor." I guess what I'm taking a great deal of time to say is that I don't think this would be a "fail" in USSF terms, but at the FIFA level there really isn't a concept of fail so much as inadequate performance. This was not an inadequate performance. Look at Howard Webb in the World Cup final. Did Bibi do a better overall job than Howard? I think so. It's much more about the total performance than one single decision. Second, further assignments are always fraught with so many other considerations at this level. Does the game involve your country or your confederation? What's your reputation, your country's referee reputation? What's your team's performance been, not just yours personally? Who is injured? Has anyone else had a huge mistake, at the level of the WWC defender who caught the ball with both hands but went unpunished? How many other assignments have you or your confederation received already? Who on the FIFA Referee Committee owes somebody else a favor? Who else is a possible contender for those later assignments? You don't get to assign the perfect referee. You still have to choose from the referee crews you have available. Again, long answer that boils down to this was definitely not a disqualification from doing further games.
Setting aside the handling question - which has already been discussed - how would y'all rate her game? I ask because I'd like to compare your opinion to my own, and I'll admit up front, every time I thought a call needed to be made or conversation needed to be had, she was right there. Complete opposite of US-Canada, where I think the referee let way too much go - to the point that even if she was right on the IFK call, she had a really hard time selling it.... It helped that Japan and the US seemed to want to win playing their way - their style - and not trying to muscle the other team off their game. But I will admit, I was impressed with the way she handled the game, and not surprised to be reminded that she is doing professional men's games.
First, Japan plays such a different style of football. Their foul count for the tournament was probably Canada's first half count. Makes the job that much easier. (not that it is easy.) I would have loved to have seen the German Referee on the semi final. See if the warning would have been demonstrative to the GK, much like the final foul warning to Lloyd in the final. It was pretty clear what she was talking to Lloyd about with no ambiguity. That's what we needed in the previous game. However, there were three clear penalty decisions that all went the other way for Japan. All involved sight angles, and I think if she had seen them, they would have all been called.
Have to admit that I didn't watch the full US v Canada match and thus don't know what offence the Canadian keeper committed. One thing is however clear from the fact that she was penalised with and IDFK and that is that she was NOT penalised for "time-wasting" as that cannot be penalised with an IDFK (since the ball, by definition, can't be in play when you delay a restart).
I am not even sure what your point is. The IDFK was for the goalie holding the ball for longer than six seconds.
As I assumed (but did not know, thx for the clearification). So, to answer Rougou's question, the reason for the difference in punishment is that they committed different offences.