you're talking to deaf american ears. they think the game was called uneven both ways, so that travesty which equalized the game at 3:3 was completely fair and well reffed.
1+1≠3 Simply because a poster (regardless of nationality or ability to hear) thinks the match was "uneven both ways" does not mean they believe the match was well officiated. "Uneven both ways" alone implies the officiating was not good.
I agree with the premise here, but don't kid yourself, Christine Sinclair has been a household name in Canada for years now. She proved herself during the u19's in 2002 when she was still a teenager, and captivated the masses for the first time on the big stage. Regardless of what happened last night, she was already the greatest football to come out of Canada (men included), and the average Canadian has been well aware of that for years.
Maybe a household name to soccer fans, but not to the average Canadian. My Mom now knows who Sinclair is, so does my brother and best friend. She was the main topic of conversation. Two days ago, they didn't know who she was....sorry, that has been my experience. We must run in different circles.
It would appear so. I think most people were familiarized with her starting with the u19's in Edmonton in 2002. 80K in a packed commonwealth as she captained an inexperienced and extremely young Canadian team to the finals. I remember CBC had rediculously high viewers for that game, a record I believe. I don't think I can name a single person I know who wouldn't instantly know who Christine Sinclair is, and this is before yesterday.
More is coming out, and it appears there were warnings, several, given, though not the highly visible/public ones I would have preferred to preceed a call like that. Abby is quoted as saying she did count to the ref several times (a behaviour alone that the ref should not have tolerated) and that the ref did warn by waving to the keeper to get moving, which the keeper acknowledged and put the ball back into active play. IF all is true, at some point a line needs to be drawn. The ref forum has someone who timed all the instances the keeper held the ball, they were almost all over 6, most over 10, a couple approaching 18-20. If all accurate, and if the ref did warn her, then I can see the call being made eventually. As a ref, I'd never make that call unless I had made a spectacle out of one of the public warnings, as in running down, yelling, pointing at my watch. We will probably never know the honest truth of it because FIFA in general doesn't let the refs do news conferences. All that aside, it was a very exciting game to watch!
In the post match interviews on Canadian television, Sinclair actually apologized for letting Canada down.
Given that the NBC highlights don't show the actual incident, I can't show you any video or photo. I'm sure I could go back rewatch the whole game just to capture a screenshot of the incident, but I'm not going to take the time to do so and I don't expect anyone else to either.
Why no red cards to the various americans who stamped on sinclairs foot? once in the first half, another in the second. Both blatantly late? Tancredi played exactly like your precious wambach agressive, in your face, on the edge..always in the middle of things. To call one a "aggressive" player and not the other is incorriect imho. of courst the stomp on the head is a red card, and i certainly don't condone such a thing, should be a sending off, but shes not a "disgusting" player overall who does it every match.
The first time she did she should have been warned. The second time she did it she should have been carded. Waving your arms is not a warning. Warnings about fouls are given verbally, directly and to the point. Wave your arms or point at your watch to emphasize the poiut, sure, but unless you actually spell it out, you haven't issued a warning. Erin McLeod is adamant that the only conversation she had with any official about moving things along was the assistant, who spoke to her at the half in general terms about keeping the game moving. According to her, no reference was made to the 6 second rule. The poster who did the timing also said this: "McLeod always immediately stood up and ran to the top of the area, whereas the smarter mens GK always lay on the ground for 10 seconds and then slowly move to the top of the area. I suspect that this made it seem like McLeod was taking longer than she did."[/quote]
Kyle wasn't chasing the ball going endline, she was above the 18 probably around 24 yrds out, she took a touch foward, and never picked her head up before or after her 1st touch. Kyle elected to shoot and not pass there was more than enough time for Kyle to look and for support.
At least she had an assist off a corner on the 3rd goal, so we can't fault the girl on that one play.
Absolutely Kyle should be blamed. She went for personal glory over the team. Canadian fans can, fault Kyle on that missed opportunity. That shoot she took instand of passing the play took place around the 85th mintue; the higher percentage shot would have been to play the ball to Sinclair than allow the play to develop from there a possible shot or another pass. Kyle attempt was a very low percentage at success. Canada didn't get as many opportunities on goal as us, that play imo was the match.
But you just did, what does Abbi have to do with Tancredi's stomp? Nothing, but you will mention it in an attempt to justify it. Much like the complaints of Wambach trying to influence the referee calling the game, many people I have spoken to today were saying it was unfair and changed the outcome of the match. When asked about the Canadian coaches comments about the US before the game their faces go blank and they say "What do you mean?". There were a ton of bad calls in the game, but for some reason many Canadians overlook the ones that went their way and claim the ref had a US bias. Then insist the US fans are biased too. So why is their response to ignore the bad calls that went Canada's way and point out the ones that went the way of the US team...doesn't that go back to the "bad calls against both sides"?
My mistake; we're discussing 2 different plays. Yours was indeed Kyle, on the left: The play I meant was actually by Schmidt on the right, and not Kyle. I remembered it incorrectly (and can't edit now). This may have been the sequence started when Matheson took the ball (and O'Hara's toes no call) off O'Hara's foot. Schmidt had Sinclair at box top center for the cutback pass. I don't fault her -- she's a midfielder, and probably isn't used to 1-v-1-v-1 sandwich chases at high speed deep in the box. I don't think "personal" anything entered into it. More a case of a young(er) player not being able slow the game down in her mind for that field configuration. That comes after you've seen those situations a few times, and have had time to sleep, dream, and update long-term memory.
As the smoke lingers, an investigation has begun. Soccer's governing body has announced it is looking into events that unfolded following Canada's devastating loss to the United States at the London Olympics. Canada lost 4-3 in its semifinal game on Monday, following a series of bizarre calls by the referee. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/2012-summer-games/FIFA+investigate+soccer+match/7052852/story.html#ixzz22tKKdsxHHopefully Sinclair gets to play in the bronze match
And I think this is the truth of the matter. Fact is with a different ref, the game would have been called differently and the outcome could have been much different - in either direction. The 6 second may not have been called, neither or both potential handling of the balls could have been called, the stomp could have been called, the trip on Morgan could have been called . . . who knows. But if behooves people to focus on one aspect as the critical play.
Like I said on The Sun, FIFA does not investigate referees they only do not give them games. Making inflammatory comments about soccer never sits well with FIFA. FIFA is worse than the officiating.
I agree it's not "personal", I shoulduva used a better word to describe the sistutation. I disagree with you that the know of what to do comes from seeing the situation multiple times. From youth levels one learns to always look up to see the field. If one can't/doesn't look up just assume that there is player on the same line as in the middle of the box. Whehter the player with the ball is at the 6, 12 and/or 18 assume that there's someone on whatever line the ball carrier is on. Schmidt and Kyle both should have passed to middle of the box regardless if they looked or not. Assume other players are doing their jobs, if so someone would be there in a supporting position.
Which is a shame since a bronze medal is nothing to sneaze at, especially for a country that has had very limited soccer success in the past (both in the men's and women's game). It's not like they were assured of a gold medal against Japan anyways.
Absolutely! I agree 100%, and I've done so in games I've reffed. Abbey deserved a "enough" type of warning on the first, and a card on the second, hopefully it would stop there. Here we disagree, getting the keepers attention and waving, especially if said keeper acknowledged with a wave, IS a warning. It's not a highly public/visible one, but it is a warning. IF this is true, then the keeper was pushing the limits and trying to nudge the line. I've said it before, I don't agree with how this was handled, but it was technically correct. What would I have liked to have seen: Lay on the whistle to one of Abbey's earlier times (she said she did it 5 or 6). Chew out Abbey, run down, chew out the keeper and visibly warn her. Grab the ball and indirect kick to Canada from where Abbey was (that's why I would have stopped the game, so that's where the restart goes). She shouldn't have to specifically tell the keeper it's a 6 second warning, she knows what shes doing. Yes except his times where not from when she was on the ground, but from when she was on her feet. Also, if you see the times, she NEVER went past 6 seconds on the 3 or so instances after the call, so clearly the call worked to modify her behaviour. I'll say it again, I think it was handled poorly and it's a shame it happened, but it was technically correct.