[R] NCAA Final

Discussion in 'Women's College' started by nsa, Dec 7, 2008.

  1. speedoblobb

    speedoblobb New Member

    Sep 1, 2003
    CHAPEL HILL
    The defenders looked like they froze. Looked like deer in the headlights. How could 5 defenders watch Nogueira do the little dance and watch her send one in the net with less than 2 minutes left? It was just like the first goal from ND, the defenders were asleep....
     
  2. onfirst

    onfirst Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Is it a known fact that Nogueira actually didnt make the U-20 team or was it by her or Ansons choice that she didnt make the team? Did Anson make a deal that Washington and Klingenberg could go if Casey stayed?
     
  3. tarheelfan490

    tarheelfan490 New Member

    Nov 12, 2004
    arlington, va
    i'm glad someone else pointed this out. she's a very skilled player, but every time i see her play i'm disappointed by her whining and her embarrassing antics
     
  4. speedoblobb

    speedoblobb New Member

    Sep 1, 2003
    CHAPEL HILL
    She's the one who screamed at the ball-girl on tv, isn't she?
     
  5. soccer05

    soccer05 New Member

    Sep 7, 2004
    Check out this link/http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081208/SPORTS13/812080375/-1/XML
    Those words best describe the attitude of Notre Dame head coach Randy Waldrum and star forward Kerri Hanks as they told their reaction to a crucial non-call of an apparent foul inside the penalty box with under 30 seconds to play in Notre Dame's heartbreaking 2-1 loss to North Carolina in the championship game of the Women's College Cup Sunday afternoon.

    To his credit, Waldrum fought off the temptation to say what he really thought about the call, simply telling the assembled throng to watch the ESPN replay to see what actually happened. The normally affable Waldrum chased referee George Vergera off the field after the final whistle to protest the non-call on which Hanks was tripped as she drove for a game-tying shot. Had the call been made, Notre Dame (26-1-0) would have had a penalty kick and may have sent the game into overtime. "What was said (to Vergera) is probably better kept between me and him," Waldrum hissed.


    But Hanks, perhaps the best player ever to play at Notre Dame, was given the go-ahead from Waldrum to say what she thought and her eyes blazed with disgust. "If you are going to call the foul for UNC (that led to the Tar Heels' first goal), you are going to call (the foul on me). I was running and I know she did not mean to trip me but it was in the box and she was the last player. It should have been a call."

    Even North Carolina coach Anson Dorrance, who recorded his 100th tournament victory with the win, was not defending Vergera's swallowed whistle. "I've got the game on Tivo at home," Dorrance said. "I'll look at it from there. Give me a call tomorrow and I will tell you what I think."
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    All this being said, a game is a game and it was fought by both sides very hard. Congratulations to both teams for great seasons! I have been a member of this site for 4 years and have never been one to name call about any player as we are not on the field, in the locker room, part of there everyday routine, etc. I am very tired of UNC fans picking on Hanks..( a symptom of being in the limelight I know) BUT so much of it is unjustified! She has been the ultimate team player this year. She has kept her attidude in check this year and has played with more passion then any player I have seen, she continually works harder in practice to get better and make her team better, she is constantly reaching out to the younger fans and the community and she has achieved some incredible results! Give her the credit she so deserves!
     
  6. casocrfan

    casocrfan Member

    Nov 25, 2004
    San Francisco
    The ref was inconsistent and sloppy, but so was the game. It was very uneven, the ball was constantly in the air and being tipped, flicked and pushed in very awkward ways. That's a really hard game to officiate. I don't think the center did a good job, but I can understand why. This was not one of the better final four games. It was exciting from the stand point of who was going to win, but the game itself was frustrating to watch for a non-partisan fan. Not much rhythm and very little skilled (except for CN - wow, what great goals!!) showcased.
     
  7. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My own brief thoughts on the officiating:
    * The offsides call in the first half was inexcusable. WTF was Vergara thinking making that call from out of position when his AR didn't flag it?

    * The offsides call in the second half was unfortunate, but it's the sort of call that I see missed with some regularity, and at higher levels of play than this.

    * Why on earth did they put one of the U.S.'s three women's FIFA centers (Sandra Serafini) on a line?

    * I turned the game off in disgust when UNC scored the winner, so I didn't see the controversial no-call at the end.
     
  8. speedoblobb

    speedoblobb New Member

    Sep 1, 2003
    CHAPEL HILL
    Sandra would have done worse in the center, i.m.o. Looking at it all again, I don't think the ref was much worse than the average day in the Barclays English Premier League. Soccer will never change anything and so many important games will be decided on a whim. So it goes....
     
  9. soccermum

    soccermum New Member

    Sep 24, 2006
    I believe that the AR originally did flag the offsides but put the flag down when the player returned to an onsides position. However, the whistle had already been blown. It was the wrong call, but more understandable in that circumstance.
     
  10. angel3

    angel3 New Member

    Aug 6, 2008
    I am not sure I follow what you said.
    It's either offside or it is not.
    Flag is not supposed to be raised for a player merely being in an offside position unless the ball is passed to her.

    If the AR raises a flag at any time, it means offside is committed, the center should blow the whistle and make the offside call and the AR does not lower the flag until the whistle is blown or the center waves her off if he does not agree with the offside call.

    If a player is in an offside position and the ball is not played to her, no flag should be raised. If she returns to an onside position and the ball is passed to her then she is on, not at any time should the flag be raised.

    The touchline review of the play started with Hanks and the defenders running toward the ball together. You can also see the AR running down the line with the play, the flag was down by her side the whole time.
     
  11. UNC4EVER

    UNC4EVER Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    Thanks, Soccer05.

    I appreciate the link, though I find it disappointing on several levels. I think (on balance) the "sour grapes" focus on the last few seconds detracts from the excellent effort by both teams.

    On the final run by Hanks: With 14 seconds on the clock, Eveland appears to stumble and make contact with Hanks-- not her feet; rather, somewhere higher:hip side, back? and Hanks goes sprawling. I can't tell why Hanks goes down; maybe she is forced off balance, maybe she's in the box with 14 seconds and she takes the dive? I've never felt Hanks wasn't smart, and it surely would not be the first time Hanks has sought to sell a foul. After looking at it several times, I think it is a good no-call for the following reasons: (i) it is clearly unintended contact; (ii) Hanks has never touched the ball and is not in possession; (iii) it is not clear she is going to win possession and she is not correct -- Eveland is not the last defender-- there is another Heel goalside; (iv) Heels are numbers up (4vs2) in the box when Hanks goes down. Its an unfortunate contact at the end of the game, but Hanks (who has never established possession) is not deprived of a clear opportunity. [You can take this for what you think its worth-- perhaps you'll feel my handle says it all?]

    IMO, it is at most ambiguous, and from a player with a track record for diving. I think the ref. was trying to avoid game changing calls, as when he ruled the advantage on Barg's late tackle on McDonald at the top of the box several seconds before Nogueira's second goal. I would not have been nearly as pleased with this win if it had come from a second direct kick with two minutes left. I don't care what team it is-- I don't think you want to put people on the line for things like this Hanks contact at the end of a game.

    To the personalities: I can't recall another college player making these sorts of comments about the officals in the game of women's college soccer. Seems to me like this could be a first.

    Hanks: Hanks is my only exception to the rule of not teeing-off on college players. I have seen comments on this forum about Hanks that I felt were mean-spirited, and i've disapproved. I felt, watching her play this year, that she had matured as a player and a person, and certainly the number of assists she has created speaks to her ability and sophistication as a tactical player. But I feel Hanks brings a lot of stuff on herself by her behavior, and by making these comments she goes out on a low note, rather than a high one. I give Hanks credit for being an excellent college player; my disappointment is that I feel she is too emotionally fragile and too poorly behaved to be a role-model or an icon. Every time I think otherwise, she does something to set me straight. I wish her the best in all her future endeavors, and I'll find it easier to root for this exceptionally talented ND squad when I no longer have to watch her bad behavior.
     
  12. angel3

    angel3 New Member

    Aug 6, 2008
    On the non-call on Hanks at the end. There was contact made, whether it was an accident or not is immaterial. If you can foul a player and not get called because it was an accident then players would do it all day long and twice on Sunday. :)

    Contact was definitely made, I would not have made a call myself in that situation because it was not enough to warrant a game changing call.
    On the other hand, I don't think Hanks made a dive. You see much worse in the men's games.

    I understand Hank's frustration. She has the right to complain. The people who criticized her are actually lamer than she is. :)
     
  13. pipsqueak

    pipsqueak Member

    Nov 15, 2004
    NC
    I agree, and I think this happens a lot and will continue as long as the final game comes so soon after the (very intense) semis. It's just not enough time to recover fully. The effort and heart are there, but the legs can't support the demand, and the quality of play suffers. Of course, any remedy for this introduces problems/issues of its own...
     
  14. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've never liked the rationalization of "a game-changing call". The game changed when the incident occurred, and it's up to the referee then to decide who is favored by the change. Make no mistake about it, the game is changed every bit as much by the lack of a call as it is by a call.

    Personally, I've always thought that Hanks has a tendency to go down easily in the penalty area, and it may be that a reputation for that hurt her in this instance.
     
  15. UncleFugly

    UncleFugly Member

    Aug 12, 2008
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, in womens college soccer. Rely on athleticism and speed. Long ball. Air ball. Clear it. Boot it long in the direction of a forward.

    However, Stanford's Friday game was a very nice example of how it can be played.
     
  16. pipsqueak

    pipsqueak Member

    Nov 15, 2004
    NC
    I think the root problem is that it's still too hard to score in a soccer game. This means that ANY PK is a potential "game changing call". If a player can win a game by "selling" a foul, why NOT go for it? Refs know this and are very skeptical "consumers". Defenders know THIS and are actually made BOLDER in the box (which is bass ackwards and makes it even harder to score - exacerbating the whole problem).

    In basketball and football, by contrast, the zebras will blow a tickle foul well away from the action if it's a "by-the-rules" infraction. The exception, of course, is in a tight game with the clock winding down and the dreaded GCC threatening. Then it's usually "swallow the whistle and let 'em play" - which is actually what I think most fans support.
     
  17. UNC4EVER

    UNC4EVER Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    I think we are mostly agreed here. Not all contact is a foul. Not all infractions are worth calling. I don't think this contact was an infraction. If people disagree with me, I still don't think it was worth a call.

    OK then! I can't really disagree... my bad, it just slipped out...
     
  18. BoxxRocks

    BoxxRocks Member

    Aug 5, 2004
    Club:
    Carolina

    Soccer officiating has always been incredibly opaque to me. The Laws of the Game seem to provide only the most general guidelines, widely interpretable in their application. Sort of like the role of U.S. Constitution relative to the huge body of case precedent decided on the basis thereof. ;->

    Below is the (a?) text of the Laws of the Game governing fouls. Note the first six offenses are grouped separately from the latter four, and must occur "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force" to be called. There's a huge amount of latitude given the officials here, and it's not hard to see how the question of whether contact was accidental or not might be a factor in their decisions. Which I guess is what you're saying when you say "I would not have made a call myself in that situation because it was not enough to warrant a game changing call".

    Anyway my first question to those who think there should have been a call is, which if any of the first six offenses listed below do you think occurred? And if you picked one, do you think it was beyond any doubt (i.e. the official's doubt, not that of we partisans) done in a manner "careless, reckless or using excessive force"?

    As an aside, if you picked "pushes an opponent" -- in my experience players DO in fact do that all day long. If it got called even 10% of the time, the contact sport we know as soccer would cease to exist.

    Of the next four offenses, at most only the first two are even in consideration, if that. (I haven't heard anyone allege either holding or a tackle with intent to gain possession but making contact with Hanks before the ball.) But anyway, same question: Which if either of those two does anyone think occurred?

    Back to the "guiding principles vs. established precedent" thing -- in practice there does seem to be a higher bar for crossing those "intent" thresholds when the action is in the PK area. Given all the low-level shoving and jostling and jersey-grabbing that doesn't get called *outside* the area, for better or worse the same level of contact is even less likely to get called in the PK area, not more so.

    Sometimes this reluctance even extends to calling serious fouls that clearly happened in the PK area as having occurred just outside of it (I've done my share of screaming at refs in that scenario).

    Botom line is, when it's my side's attack that gets broken up in the box via some gray-area contact with no PK awarded, this state of affairs makes me furious; when it's the other side, I tend to be much more appreciative of the general reluctance to award PKs. :rolleyes:

    But this particular no-call seems well within the normal discretionary range for these kinds of situations.



     
  19. Smashfoot

    Smashfoot New Member

    Feb 25, 2005
    I agree with what someone said earlier about UNC's 1st goal. CN made a fantastic shot, no question, but either the wall or the keeper should have had that side covered, and neither were there. The shot was so good maybe it goes in regardless, but there was no bend to it, so she basically had a look at an open shot on goal and had the skill to drive it home.
     
  20. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I feel the same way about basketball. It seems like one or two seconds left on the clock is a license to hack a guy trying to make a shot under the hoop, and the referees are too gutless to make the call. The "game-changing call" argument is always in favor of not blowing the whistle, and always ignores the converse change in the game by allowing the illegal conduct.

    (I should be clear that where I didn't see the play involving Hanks, I can't offer any specific commentary about whether it was a good no-call or a failure of courage on the part of the official.)
     
  21. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If you're interested, it's on ESPN360. Go to the ESPN website and click on the ESPN360 tab. Stanford / Notre Dame is also on there as well as many of the U-20 games.
     
  22. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Having had no horse in this race, I'll offer my perspective. I did not think there was any way there would be a pk call when Hanks went down. I would have been shocked if there had been. On the other hand, I thought there should not have been a call when McDonald went down either, especially on seeing the replay. The players were bunched together, legs and feet collided, and she went down. After reading the rule as posted on this thread, my opinion is the same.

    I agree that the Notre Dame line was set wrong on Noguiera's first goal. No way should it have been set so she could hit a straight line drive into the corner. More power to her, though, she took it quickly and put it in.
     
  23. speedoblobb

    speedoblobb New Member

    Sep 1, 2003
    CHAPEL HILL
    As it is with world environmental problems being the result of unprecedented population explosion and almost nobody willing to admit it, soccer's root problem is always ignored. The game was invented when people were slower and much less skilled. Goalies are incredibly athletic these days and scoring is very difficult. To keep the same size goal only makes the referee more important as years go by. Why the goal can't be made larger and thus more goals and less importance for each goal is beyond me. No, I know the answer. Humans are fickle fools and their future is short-term.
     
  24. gogogo

    gogogo Member

    Apr 18, 2002
    As an ND fan I agree with all of this. Hanks got the call in the Minn game; she didn't get it here. That's soccer (wince). ND had its chances but ran into a clutch performance from Casey N and a tough UNC D. We'll get 'em next year!
     
  25. RevsRule

    RevsRule Member+

    NE Revs, LAFC
    Jun 9, 1999
    N. Eastern, Mass
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I really don't like either team in this final and didn't think either played all that well. I expected more ball control from a Dorrance team and generally don't like any teams from Notre Dame. I think their big name gives them a big edge recruiting (NC too) and would be very happy to see two other teams in the final next year. Also, playing the tournament in NC gives NC too big an advantage plus it's too cold in Dec to play there

    I did think the PK was a foul and didn't notice the "no call" people are talking about unless it was near the end of the game. If that was it, it looked like a desperation dive to me. No chance to score so I'll flop and maybe get a PK.
     

Share This Page