Could she have simply been saved for a QF, or did they need her on MD3? It looks like Staubli could have slotted in there pretty easily, unless her first performance was so bad that a second assignment was untenable. Of course, if you bump Yamashita to the QFs, it has to be for the non-Japan match. So now you're either giving her the WC Final rematch, bumping Frappart forward to a semi, or displacing the Rwandan referee, who apparently earned her spot. Even in these smaller tournaments, it is quite a puzzle to figure all this out.
Probably worth saying exactly what we said in the men's tournament... the Bronze Medal game matters. So I could certainly see Yamashita there.
Don't forget that these match-ups were not known before MD3 (in particular, that the WC Final rematch would take place). There is also the matter of confederational neutrality. If Australia loses the SF, would FIFA put Yamashita on the 3/4 playoff? Though as @kolabear pointed out, Monzul and Pustovoitova did handle Great Britain matches in the group stage... Indeed, it is quite fun
Mexico : Brazil - KABAKOV (BUL) Japan : Spain - ORTEGA (PER) Confederations as expected. And I think Kabakov is the expected name on merit (and maybe to avoid the Portuguese connection?). Ortega surprises me based on reputation and assignments but I haven’t seen enough to say if it is deserved. Tessema and Conger are FOs, which feel like consolation prizes. Would be shocked if Elfath doesn’t have one of the medal matches. Figuring out the other referee is a little tougher. If Soares Dias is out, maybe it’s Grinfeld?
Full clip HL of his performance in the Romania vs. New Zealand game - https://fromsmash.com/rounzlortega
Looks like a nope. Obviously there is the time, but it's been a pretty quiet game. My only officiating nitpick is a really really bad corner kick miss right before HT.
Looks bunkum to me but I'm not a referee. Canadian attacker initiates contact, runs into, bumps Tierna Davidson to get her leg near the ball. One angle clearly showed the bump Monzul is experienced, confident ref. I'm surprised she didn't simply reject the VAR
So on paper it looks like that usual foul where the attacker comes out of nowhere and manages to get their leg kicked by an unaware defender. But I'm not entirely sure the Canadian attacker didn't make contact with the defenders leg first and change the path of the American leg which caused the careless kick.
Canadian attacker clearly runs through and bumps Davidson. One angle clearly showed Davidson's body thrown off course by the impact.
Here's the view the referee got. https://i.imgur.com/txwNjm8.mp4 I'm probably even further into the camp of this being a wrong intervention. The Canadian caused contact on the American's left leg which led to her missing the ball. This is the reverse angle which I had to slow down since the referee only got it at full speed. Does the contact on the knee/lower hamstring of the defender look like it caused the American to miss the ball and kick her opponent? https://i.imgur.com/guBoftk.mp4
But I take it, it falls within generally accepted standards and practice?! (I'm not a ref) I'm philosophical about the US going out; they've played badly the entire tournament; but it just doesn't seem right. I feel bad for the young American defender, Davidson
I think it was incorrect for the VAR to get involved as this being a clear and obvious error to not give a PK. Perhaps I'd wonder if my American bias was coming out, but with Mikael having a similar opinion (I think), it makes me feel more confident in my view.
The Canadian initiates the contact, and is now rewarded for it. Bad call, bad reversal of the no foul call on the field. Don't get me wrong I agree with @kolabear above the US has played poorly but to go out on that call is BS.
What's your opinion? I think Davidson misjudged Rose's incoming speed, and Davidson starting kicking just before Rose touched her. [
My opinion is that VAR wasn’t introduced to award highly debatable penalties one yard from the penalty area boundary line with no attacking opportunity in a 0-0 semifinal of an Olympic tournament. It’s a defensible penalty call if made in real time, though I’d find it very distasteful. But in no way whatsoever should this be awarded as a clear error. It’s not. And on top of not being a clear error, back to paragraph 1 it’s not just the type of grave injustice people wanted VAR for. I’m very surprised Raczowkski sent it down. Obviously I don’t know what happened in the VOR but it feels like he found the best angle supporting penalty and ran with it, rather than looking at all angles to see if, comprehensively, it looked and felt like a clear penalty.
IMO, it's a stonewall penalty - one I've seen given numerous times. Defender gets caught out by attacker getting there first, defender takes a swing to kick the ball but ends up kicking the attacker instead. Not sure the VAR could do much else but point out the error, unless there's another angle I've not seen.
Would the call had been different if you flip the two players? Defender comes in, makes contact, misses the ball and then gets kicked?