Refereeing in NCAA Women's Final

I'm no expert, but I'd like to think that after reading a lot in this forum, I can offer an informed opinion:

It looked to me as though she hit the deck once she felt contact. Hard to say, though... why wouldn't she stay up and try to take a good shot on goal? Fortunately, Bohn rendered this issue moot.

Notwithstanding that I'd guess Stone wasn't thinking of the differences between college and FIFA laws, I wasn't sure enough of the rules differences to know whether I should be getting upset at Stone. Anyway, on that play, I was more concerned with whether the foul actually occurred in the box. I'll give the referee a lot of credit for being willing to make a borderline call like that, but I'm not convinced he got it right.

I also though ND should have been awarded a penalty later on when Chapman was tackled in the penalty area -- Stone said it was a clean tackle, but I thought the UCLA defender missed the ball completely.

Fortunately, none of this affects the outcome of the game.

 

This is exactly how I saw it, but I'll admit we never got the best angle on TV. She dropped like a brick at the touch on the back, no pull/tug from what I could tell. Didn't look like a penalty to me.

Stone's an idiot - nuff said about his handling comments. FYI, no difference between college & FIFA regarding this particular issue. As far as the penalty, the best replay didn't get shown until after the game when they showed a replay with the camera looking right straight down the penalty area line. The ND player was clearly straddling the line (i.e., on the line). The line is part of the area, hence, PK.

In my opinion, this was BY FAR, the clearest penalty of the bunch. He had the balls to call one properly ON the line, when a lot of referees wouldn't. Then he let his balls shrivel by calling a very weak makeup on the other end. Then he totally lost them by not making the easiest call of the bunch just because he didn't want to give a 2nd penalty.

Also, how can you say none of this affected the outcome? Any one of those calls going the other way would have affected the outcome.

 

Don't know about you, but the first PK was a bad call.

 

Maybe "affect" wasn't the right word and I should have said "alter"? Here's my reasoning:
* The penalty in UCLA's favor is a neutral event because Bohn makes the save.
* The borderline penalty called in ND's favor is offset by the clear penalty that was not called.
* And even if the borderline penalty was correct, not having the later one called still does not cost ND because ultimately they win the title.

Any one of the errors could have resulted in a different outcome, but it does not appear to me that they did.

 

Ok - I understand and concede that they did not affect the ULTIMATE outcome. But I'd be willing to bet that ND would rather have the 2nd PK called and not have to go to OT & Kicks.


Andy, with due respect, because I do respect and appreciate your work a GREAT deal, I don't think you have the proper angle for a definitive answer. From my recollection, when they showed the replay after the game, the one that was looking right down the 18 yard line, the bodies of the players were directly over the line even though her feet were just outside the line (as shown in your picture). You can tell that the ND player is leaning in (over the line). This wasn't a trip where you'd go more by feet position, this was a body pull where you'd go more by the body position. I have already deleted the game from my recorder, so I can't go back and look at it. I will say that during the game and the replays they showed during the game, I was saying the free kick should have been outside the PA. After the game, when they showed the additional replay from the proper angle, I immediately felt that the referee had got it right. That's my recollection and impression.

Thanks for the pics!

 

1. My angle was far superior to that of the CR, and better than the AR on my side.

One call should never "offset" another. But you're correct that Notre Dame deserved another PK in the dying seconds of regulation.



I'll refrain from posting the extended sequence this time. , but this was all foul.

 

I don't think that in the area/out of the area is the big factor here. Thorlakson commits the "first" foul of the sequence following the handling (see grab around the neck of the UCLA player). I spotted this when I saw it live as well. There were three infractions in 1-2 seconds. Handling by UCLA, grab on Thorlakson, resulting foul by UCLA player. Hand ball should have been called outside the PA. It would be incorrect to say that it was not due to the "advantage" of calling the foul which resulted in the PK. That advantage was gone when Thorlakson committed her foul. Referee should have gone with first foul here. DFK outside the area for handling. If he missed the handling, missed the grab by Thorlakson, and only saw the final UCLA foul . . . it doesn't seem 1/3 is real good recognition for a key moment in an NCAA Final.