C,mon, MR!!! Don't leave us hanging like that. You know there are quite a few of us who beeline to the forums after a situation like that! : )
I'm assuming you are talking about the collision with the keeper in the Women's game around the 73rd minute. I think that was a great no call by the referee. Looked like the US player went into the keeper instead of trying to follow the ball that she played around the keeper.
I think it's got to be a red and DOGSO. But man, it's not a simple call. And I doubt we're going to get consensus here.
Wow, big decision by the Argentine referee. Foul or no foul at about 72min. The keeper comes out the 18 and Alex Morgan in order to avoid contact jumps over the keeper. Her knee hits the keeper in the face and both go down. Foul? No Foul? Announcers were split on their opinions. I say foud and DOGSO. Had Morgan not jumped over both would have collided hard. The keeper initiatled the slide/tackle. What say you? I'll try to post a video link as soon as one becomes available.
Who says she has to follow the ball, though? That seems to be an invented standard. Players in our sport play the ball to one side of a player and run around them on the other side all the time. The goalkeeper slid out to tackle the ball/player. She didn't get the ball whatsoever. Then there was contact between the goalkeeper and the attacker. It seems like the only justification to not call a foul on the goalkeeper is because the contact was with her head. If it had been with the arm or the shoulder, it'd be a no-questions-asked foul.
If that's the case, you need to call a foul on the US. I think it's a red...I can see a case for a foul on the US, but a no-call? No way...
I think the argument for no-call would be that neither of them committed a careless action. I don't buy it, as I think the slide tackle by the New Zealand attacker was careless. But I can see the argument that the American attacker did nothing careless.
I don't think you'll ever see a case where that much contact is made, especially in the head, and it won't be considered a foul. Again, devil's advocate...I think it was a red.
The ref in the USA-NZ game has gotten three major calls wrong. She didn't call 2 fouls (one on NZ and one on the USA) that could/should have been pks. And she blew the call on the NZ keeper.
I am saying incidental contact. I have no red either way. I realize I am going to have almost everyone in strong disagreement with me on this but I see this as nothing. The keeper makes no attempt to actually slide into the player, actually she pulls in her arms to avoid contact. The US player tries to jump over her and hits her in the head. No malice or SFP involved. Sometimes contact is just ugly.
To clarify, you are saying red on the goalkeeper, right? And you see head-to-head contact with that much force when it's not considered a foul. I admit it's really really awkward to see knee to head contact that isn't considered a foul, but I'd argue this is the exception that could prove the rule. However, to reiterate, I think the NZL player committed a foul, so the point should be moot.
So if she hadn't jumped, and was taken down by the keeper it's a clear red, right? Well, she tried to avoid the keeper, was hit by her, and was taken down. Red.
I think the ref missed potential pk calls for/against both teams. The NZ captain took Morgan down earlier and the US player (imo) could have given up the pk.
Yes. And when one player has the ball, and the other causes the ugly contact, we call that a foul. With all due respect, I believe you are WAY over thinking this.
Forget the level of force or potential SFP. What about the argument that the New Zealand player made a careless tackle that didn't get the ball and subsequently caused the American to trip? Or you could say it's an attempted trip. Seems like when a goalkeeper goes to ground like that, 20 yards out, she has a responsibility to get the ball. She missed by a mile and then the only reason the American goes down is because the New Zealand player had gone to ground in the first place. Asked more pointedly: what part of the goalkeeper's body would the American have had to trip over to make it a foul for you? Only her leg? Her torso? Would her shoulder be okay? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'm genuinely interested. Because I get the feeling that people opposed to a foul call here are going to be opposed primarily because it was contact with the head.
outside the penalty area, keepers are like every other player, right? so if a field player had gone out to tackle Morgan with her body upright and her hands out to the side & caught Morgan, it'd be an easy call, right?
So, let's see if I can summarize the discussion here: it's acceptable for a defender to slide towards an oncoming player with no clear play on the ball, and forcing the oncoming player to make a redirection and change her course, as long as defender makes attempts to avoid actual contact after diverting the attacker? In a semi-related situation, if a defender dives headlong towards an attacker and gets kneed in the head, it's a foul on the attacker? As a defender, I've always been intrigued by calls that imply an obligation to get out of someone's way - when the defender has a clearly maintained (usually motionless) position. In this case, the keeper was clearly not static and put herself at risk by sliding in. The reverse of this is expectation that attackers can always get out of the way when they have a head of steam (as in a highly discussed call involving Jones playing for the USMNT a couple of years ago).
I am going to point out again I think the US player caused the contact. She didn't have to jump to follow the ball as someone pointed out but why would she jump at the keeper? She created the incidental contact, not the keeper. Sorry but players can't just disappear, both players did what they could to avoid contact but were unsuccessful. I see it as nothing.