I went back and wound back to the 6-second call on the online feed. The goalkeeper claims the corner at 76:36. She is on her feet by 76:40 (4 seconds), not an unreasonable amount of time. The whistle sounds at 76:48 or 76:49 (the clock was off screen during a replay)... 8-9 seconds. That's preposterous. Technically correct, but for an international semifinal in what is considered the second biggest tournament in the women's game, preposterous.
Except her arm was at her side when the ball struck it. The Canada player made herself bigger, in fact the ball actually hit two Canadian arms on the play
Ok, but (and again, not to harp on this), how does that compare to the other periods? There were delays/injuries in all the other periods and the most she gave was 3 minutes. Plus there were multiple substitutions earlier. So it just seems inconsistent. Like you're suddenly going to add a bunch of time at the end of a 15 minute half, after 120 minutes, when everyone is dead tired and the match is 3-3. Once again, probably not technically wrong. But felt unexpected.
Every international rugby official I've seen is far too sensible to make a call like that 6-second IFK.
USA Handball: Distance from kick/time to react - lots of time to react Hand position - natural Canada Handball: Distance from kick/time to react - minimal Hand position - unnatural/making self bigger Both decisions have 1 of the 2 main factors we consider, and IMO the situation are basically the inverse of each other in that sense, but are equally a foul, or equally not a foul. Both or neither. Not one.
Sorry but time to react has no merit when you spread your arms out from your body and completely blocked a shot on goal with your arm, especially when she had the entire minute before the free kick was taken to think, "hey maybe there's gonna be a shot on goal right here and I should spread my arms out like a bird"
Just spoke with a fellow referee. His first words, "I think certain people were wanting the US to win that." And considering NBC pays the most to broadcast the Games, one could easily make a similar conclusion. Or he could just be a bitter Canadian.
I don't know what to tell you. I was watching the end and told my son, "She's going to have to add 3-4 min because of all of those injuries -- I've never seen that much time added to a 15."
The Canadian had no time, she put the arm in front of her body and turned, some refs may call it, some may not. Rapinoe had all the time in the world to pull her arm back, she didn't.
Additionally, the goal was at 2:21. Had she said a minimum of 2, and let the last play develop, no one could really complain. Well, they could, but they shouldn't.
Let's make a scenario here: I'm standing still for 5 seconds, arms at my side watching the a cross come toward me. I let the ball hit my hand. Foul.
And she didn't "let" the ball hit her arm. She had her arms almost behind her back because she knew a crazy bounce might happen off the grass, which is what happened. The Canadian woman jumped at the free kick with her arms expanded, making herself bigger in front of goal on a shot heading for the goal.
OT: If NBC does not show extended highlights of this match tonight during their prime time coverage somebody needs to get a clue @ #30 Rockefeller Plaza.
Any evidence that the referee warned the Canadian keeper before making the 6-second call? To open up the 6-second door, I think you would need to blow your whistle at a goal kick, sprint to the keeper, tell them to knock it off while pointing at your watch, do the no more signal, sprint back out, blow your whistle again while doing the come on let's go signal. THEN you can MAYBE call 6 seconds. Clearly none of that happened. The subsequent PK call was pretty clear cut to me. The "foul" down at the other end moments later was non-existent though. Didn't get to see the whole game. Looking forward to watching the replay.
I was wondering about this too, how are they going to fit 120 minutes into their neat little program (with commercials no less)?
Like you need tonight's broadcast to prove that? Their prime time coverage has actually regressed from 4 years ago, and I didn't think that was possible.
I know this is going of topic, but do you remember when we were kids and you could actually learn something about other countries and cultures from the Olympics because they didn't focus only on Americans? I miss that.
"handles the ball deliberately" (pg. 34) You made a decision allowing the ball to hit you hand. That can be either by choosing to move your arm, or choosing not to. (A little bit of respect would be nice too.) I said I was making a scenario, not explaining what Rapinoe did. I took the same type of situation to the extreme to make a point about your absolutist statement that hands at side = never a handling offense. Watch the replay again, don't exaggerate the handling offense by Canada. Note that I am agreeing the arm was unnatural/making self bigger. Don't get me wrong here, my glasses are not Maple Leaf Red. USA had some very legitimate calls for PKs earlier in the game, and I would have no argument if Tancredi had been dismissed, along with more cautions to both teams.
For what? Unsporting behavior? It can't be for delaying the restart of play, as play was never stopped. If you are actually going to make the call (I don't think you should, mind you), I don't think a caution is in order. In other words, of the three decisions the referee made (calling the IFK, deciding not to issue a caution, and calling the PK), two were correct in my view (no caution and PK) while the other was terrible (the IFK). And, obviously, she was only able to get the second to right because the got the first one, terribly, horribly wrong.
Their entire coverage of this has been really, really poor. They point to the increased ratings as "good" for what they've done. Couldn't be further from the truth.