Interesting continuation in the Ref Forum (and follow up by PRO, Professional Referees Organization) on the disallowed goal by Jun Endo We may safely conclude that Jun Endo was the victim of a most vile and pernicious injustice
Well, predictably, we had a controversial handball call where the ball hit the "supporting arm" as a defender went to ground to block a shot. That's why I previewed this type of play earlier in the thread. Not so predictably (at least for those who have followed the Premier League's interpretations of the rules), the referee in Orlando/Angel City, Danielle Chesky, called a penalty. 1) Nobody knows what a handball is anymore 2) I certainly don't know if this is a handball offense by current laws and guidelines 3) This is probably not a handball by current laws and guidelines 4) This is a handball 5) See #1 At 7'23 of the highlight video It can definitely be argued this is not a handball under current laws and guidelines. It is also definitely wrong to be satisfied with a "legalistic" conclusion that this is not a handball. The great division in soccer (apart from whether or not to FIRE VLATKO NOW?!?!!!) is between those of us who are both philosophical and romantic about the sport vs. the Pedants, Poohbahs, and Philistines who would destroy the Spirit of the Game by allowing travesties such as this. Don't we want it to be football?! As in a game where everyone, except the goalkeeper, plays with their feet? Unlike American "gridiron" football which we're allowed to derisively dismiss as "hand-egg"? I'm glad that WoSo, Women's Soccer, has a higher proportion of romantics among its fans, unlike men's soccer which is dominated by Pedants, Poohbahs, and Philistines. Even so, I'm disappointed by how many of them are on social media insisting this is not a handball. Again, as a matter of current laws and guidelines, that's a fair enough point to make. But it's not enough to stop there. If this wasn't called a penalty, there'd be tons of outraged people asking why it wasn't called a handball; and it's not enough to be technically correct here, to be satisfied to be right in terms of law. It is a violation of the Spirit of the Game to not call this — and the Premier League examples I gave earlier — as handballs, regardless of what the Pedants, Poohbahs, and Philistines say.
No. Law 5 of the game hasn't changed, and in no way has the game moved to giving some of the authority of the referee to the coach. More than that, it's not needed at the professional level with VAR. The VAR automatically checks certain things and, thanks to numerous camera angles, sees a lot more than the coaches do. And I can only imagine what a cluster throwing a challenge flag would be at the youth level; seriously, hell no.
So.... The VAR penalty review in the 2nd minute of the Arsenal/Wolfsburg Champions League semifinal (2nd leg) turns out to be rather interesting. And depressing. I'll bring it up here for a minute because, even though, obviously it was a European game, we can expect to see similar situations in NWSL. Also, potentially,, at the World Cup. This, to the dismay of many (but perhaps not all, perhaps not even most) is a penalty. Or apparently would have been if VAR had not determined offside in the build-up play on-field review at 1'01 of the highlight video I would like to think the referee (Lina Lehtovaara, Finland) rejected the VAR recommendation of a penalty, but @MassachusettsRef gives a good analysis why it's far more likely that she accepted it, but the penalty was negated by the offside in the build-up. So, comrades of the WoSo Revolution, this is by currently accepted Laws, Guidelines, Party Doctrine — a penalty. Except for the offside. As we all know, the handball laws are a mess, in itself, this is no news. But since I'm thinking of tackling the handball question I'll put this here as a preview and the thing I want to say about this call is that even though I think it's absurd to call a penalty for this, it's also a part of the handball mess that will have to be cleaned up later rather than sooner. The situation where someone has their arm or hand knocked into a ball by an opposing player is infrequent enough that it isn't a high priority to fix, as handball messes go.
I saw this the way you saw it - that Wubben-Moy’s arm was bumped into the path of the ball. Lianne Sanderson’s ( the announcer) view was incorrect. I also think that after the bump and when the ball arrived, her arm was fully within the frame of her torso. She was not deliberately moving hand to ball or ‘making herself bigger.’ NO handball infraction.
P.S. RE Arm Positions I think the Referee Community and/or IFAB made a HUGE mistake several years ago when they introduced the words “natural position.” Anyone who watches the game, or has played it, even at a low level, knows that arms are commonly and naturally away from the body. And yet, players with arms naturally away from their body get called for hand balls all the time. The actual standard being applied is “ball contacts arm/hand positioned away from the frame of the body.”
A week ago, in a Challenge Cup match between North Carolina Courage and Gotham FC, Gotham's GK Michelle Betos was initially given a red card (for DOGSO) for a challenge outside the box on Brittany Ratcliffe. After video review, the card was rescinded and no foul at all was given. There's been a bit of ongoing discussion of it in the Ref Forum and the moderator there expects it to be brought up in PRO's weekly review of VAR decisions Unfortunately for some reason the full-speed clip and the VAR review aren't currently on the same highlight video, but here they are Full-speed at 2'19 of one highlight video VAR review at 5'34 of a separate highlight video Nobody in the Ref Forum thinks DOGSO was the proper call, but as @soccerref69420 says As I mentioned there, this is an example of what I call the Crash-Test Dummy Fallacy, the fallacy that a player is supposed to just let her leg get smashed into so referees can measure the force and severity of the crash (With the aid of multiple camera angles) in order to determine whether to issue a card or not; and that if a player leaps, jumps, swerves, tries to stop in her tracks, she waives her right to expect any punishment for the perpetrator. It belies the sanctimonious statements by PRO that their utmost concern is for the safety of players. It also shows the Limitations of WoSo Journos when it comes to referees. It's something which deserves mention in our thread on that (showing once again the "viral component" of many of my posts as @cpthomas has noticed. Tee-hee!) The journalists have been fairly quiet so far this season about refereeing, at least since the VAR review which took away Jun Endo's wonderful strike for Angel City on Opening Weekend. OF course, they loudly advocated for AR despite the warnings of a handful of fans. So here we are and it'll be interesting to see what PRO says about it in their weekly review
PRO (Professional Referees Association) released this week's edition of Inside Video Reive. In it, they show the VAR process in rescinding the red card for Michelle Betos for a DOGSO tackle on Brittany Ratcliffe in a Challenge Cup match between North Carolina and Gotham FC. It's at 4'11 of the video and it's a shambles Possibly (hopefully), they'll elaborate more in a "Definitive Angle" column but this is word salad and I don't like it all except for the raw conclusion that PRO disagrees with the VAR intervention. PRO claims the situation is simply "too subjective" a call.to warrant on-field video review.. Too subjective about what? About whether the OGSO elements are present? About whether Betos' hand is in a "natural" position, thereby nullifying a handball offense (it's outside the penalty area so Betos is subject to the same rules on using her hands as any other field player). Or subjective whether she went for the ball and therefore it's not a foul? Yeah, she played it with her hand and, still, in what way is this "fairly challenging" by sliding in at Ratcliffe's foot and leg at full speed? Betos charges in with her studs but maybe (PRO says) it's not a foul because when she gets the ball with her hand maybe the arm is in a "natural" position? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but by saying it's simply "too subjective", it allows PRO to reach the (correct) conclusion that VAR shouldn't have intervened? But then what about the DOGSO? It seems everyone besides the center ref (and possibly me) agrees this isn't DOGSO, so isn't there still a question whether to rescind the red card for it? I mean, for me, this is a red card tackle for Serious Foul lay even if there was no contact (following the Crash-Test Dummy Theory), but then at least it should be a yellow card at least, no?
Thanks for posting these. On the handball call, the refs keep saying “natural position “ over and over again, when they really mean ‘“away from her body.” I would argue that having an arm tucked in close to the body when jumping is an unnatural position while the other arm out for balance is natural. On Betos, I did not watch that game, but field players get yellow carded for that kind of barely-touching-the-ball-but-cleaning-out-the-player tackle all the time. For me, that coupled with Betos deliberately handling the ball as she slid through makes Betos’ intent clear: DOGSO. Even if there was a retreating defender back, I think the referee made a correct red card call.
Astonishing "non-call" in Europa League semifinal between Sevilla and Juventus in 1st half stoppage time AT 4'00 of highlight video Now of course we can kvetch about calls all day long, but I mention this here for a couple reasons. 1) It's important for Women's Soccer fans to stay abreast of how bad the officiating is at the highest levels of the men's game. The single biggest difference in refereeing between the men's and women's game is that when bad calls happen in a women's game, the women get blamed for having a 2nd -rate or inferior "product" When blown calls like this happen in NWSL or a Women's World Cup game, there will always be plenty of people who will dismiss the women's game as a joke, as something not worth taking seriously. The joke is on the typical fan who thinks it's much better in the men's game and keep adding to the coffers of the Premier League, Champions League, men's World Cup, etc. 2) It's interesting to note the peculiarity of the VAR protocol for review, the need for a "clear and obvious" error before VAR can recommend a review. First, this is potentially a penalty (and VAR checked for a penalty but apparently decided it was too close to say whether the incident was within the penalty area or not). Second, at least for me, it's potentially a red card .Yeah, I'm in the Red Card School for something like this, but I readily concede for most people it's not a "clear and obvious" red card which the referee missed. But it is clear and obvious, the center referee missed a foul (which could be a red card). But the protocol doesn't allow for a clear and obvious error in calling a foul which was bad enough it "could" be a red card. While understandable that we don't want to review every missed foul, it's frustrating that we go from potential PK and/or red card foul to nothing, nada, zip even though it's clear and obvious that there was a foul which merited at least a yellow card and a free kick just outside the area. 3) Trivia, but the chucklehead center ref is Danny Makkelie, who was the VAR who recommended overturning the 2nd penalty called against Spain in the USA quarterfinal at the 2019 World Cup. I know some people didn't want to see a PK called there (I certainly felt bad about it and wanted the US to have to do better than getting a 2nd PK to advance), but a PK was the reasonable call and it certainly didn't meet the clear and obvious standard for overturning the call. I'm glad to say Hungary's Katalin Kulscár stuck to her guns and rejected Makkelie's intervention
There was a seemingly bizarre VAR decision to rule out Houston's 2nd goal against Gotham FC tonight for a ball going Out-Of-Bounds preceding the goal 3'55 of highlight video It's somewhat similar to a controversy in the Champions League semifinal between Real Madrid and Manchester City 3 or 4 weeks ago. 1) I didn't think VAR could review Out-of-Bounds (that was impression I got from the Ref Forum discussion of Real Madrid/ Manchester City) 2) Even if VAR can, it seems absolutely bizarre that they could rule out Houston's goal for a ball which went Out-Of-Bounds on GOTHAM'S POSSESSION. How can you punish one team for something the other team did on its own possession? I'm not an expert on VAR technicalities, but we'll see what the referee organization (PRO) says next week when they go over VAR decisions from this weekend's games. *** I've also heard some screaming on Twitter that Gotham's GK Abby Smith should've received a red card for colliding with Houston's Diana Ordonez But apparently there was a delayed offside. So I'm assuming (again, we could use an expert on the technical VAR rules), that since no goal was scored, VAR doesn't review the offside call. Once the offside flag goes up with no goal scored, anything that happened after is wiped out, it's like Tom Hagen says, It never existed *** To my surprise, the highlights video shows some of the later cards issued and later on I guess I'll want to talk about Kelly O'Hara's tackle at 5'45 of the video O'Hara gets a yellow card for it but of course some people see it as a red card. Regardless of whether it's a red or a yellow these days, just what the hell is O'Hara doing?
The overturn of Houston's second goal was absolutely correct. Gotham players stopped playing because the ball went out of bounds. Houston doesn't score there if the linesman makes the correct call. It was clear and obvious.
The foul on O'Hara was brutal. She had only recently entered the game so she had no track record of persistent fouling. That probably saved her. That entire final 25 minutes was really chippy for both teams, with several yellow cards awarded.
1) The Gotham players who stopped playing were people who were nowhere near the play. The ones who were involved : the player cleared the ball upfield, the defenders in front of the goal and the keeper did not stop. 2) Anyhow, players are told to keep playing until the whistle. Noone called a play back if someone just stopped playing. 3) The ball was on the center's side of the touch line. She was looking right at the play and she did not make the call. 4) How far back does VAR go back? Is out of bound part of VAR?
Rewatch it. They all stopped around the throw in. That is how the ball got in the box. As for 3) that is what VAR is for. To show the official where they made an error. As for 4) VAR went back to review a hand ball that started a sequence that ultimately led to a goal for Gotham against Washington Spirit last week. Because the play started with a hand ball the goal was disallowed. A similar play happened to Angel City in their opener. AC committed a foul that was not called, played the ball forward and scored. After VAR it was ruled that the official missed the initial foul and there was no goal. Just like this missed out of bounds call. If the official calls it correctly in the first place, there is no goal.
After some initial disagreement, the refs in the Referee Forum (as opposed to the kibitzers like me) have reached a consensus that taking away the Houston goal for the ball being out of play just prior to their possession was the correct call. I'm not at all satisfied with their conclusion, but the moderator there made one interesting point which may help people understand why some situations prior to the goal-scoring team gaining possession should count as part of the build-up to the goal, ie the APP or Attacking Phase of Possession. The example he gave is if ball going Out-Of-Play would've led to a Gotham throw-in rather than a Houston throw-in, and by this I think he means what if it was a Houston player, rather than Bruninha, who passed the ball along the touchline to Yazmeen Ryan, and what if the ball went out but wasn't called. Then Ryan has her pass intercepted, etc. So possession of the ball went from Houston (hypothetical player instead of Bruninha) to Gotham (Ryan) to Houston (Chapman, I think), but even though Gotham had possession of the ball, everyone would be asking for a VAR intervention for the ball going out just before Ryan tried to play it. It's an interesting hypothetical question. I also think it's important that it's only hypothetical here. It's not what happened.
The same type of situation occurred in a Thorns game when a Thorns goal was disallowed due to a hand ball by Adriana Leon earlier in the sequence of play leading up to the goal. The call was that a goal was scored. The play went to a VAR and that is where the hand ball was verified and the goal nullified. I do not have a problem with using VAR in either case. I would like to see, however, the exact language on VAR as the NWSL has chosen to implement it this year. I have not seen it anywhere yet (although I have not done a thorough search).
Gotham had a goal called back a few weeks ago for a handball in their buildup to the goal. I didn't look closely at the Adriana Leon handball (I couldn't make it out clearly in the video I saw), but we all understand VAR will be used to call back goals for fouls and handballs by the attacking team. But in Houston/ Gotham, it wasn't the goal-scoring team (Houston) that was at fault for anything. It was Gotham who (allegedly) lost the ball over the touchline before Houston gained possession. That's what's so strange and makes it hard for people to accept as a VAR-reviewable infraction.
But again, if you watch it, Gotham and Dash players literally stopped playing because it was clearly out of bounds. It had a significant affect on the play. The Dash player walked it right into the box because Gotham had stopped.
Interpreting what happened, I do not think it was that there was an infraction on the play but rather that play should have been stopped and a throw in awarded. This is why I would like to see the specific language of what the NWSL has decided is reviewable. It looks like the rule they are applying is that they will review the entire sequence leading to the goal and if an officiating mistake was made such that there would not have been a goal if the mistake had not been made, then the goal will be nullified (with an exception if the hand ball or foul is committed by the defending team and the ref allows play to continue). If that is the rule they are applying, I do not have a problem. Of import, I think, is that there is no discretion to allow play to continue if the ball has gone out of bounds.
I think in the NWSL, for goals: it appears the VAR reviews most of the buildup prior to the goal to make sure an infraction did not occur which would have stopped play prior to the goal being scored (Jun Endo being the poster child there). The Gotham game call was consistent with that practice. The VAR saw the ball over the end line, last touched by a Gotham player, so the play should have been stopped there and Houston awarded a corner kick. I don't remember the post-VAR restart, but it should have been a Houston corner. IMO whether or not confused players stop playing in anticipation of a whistle is an irrelevant circumstance. As always, players need to play to the whistle period. IMO the whole game was pretty much a bin fire as far as excessive fouling was concerned.
Most of you probably aren't interested in this, but rewatching Manchester City's goal at Real Madrid in the 1st leg of their Champions League semifinal and comparing it to Houston/Gotham FC, I'm more confused than ever. Starting the sequence at 5'37 of the highlights (66'17 game clock) — Real Madrid in white has won possession of the ball, which they lose back to Manchester City. Manchester City then passes the ball along the touchline where there's a question whether the ball goes Out-Of-Play, but the AR doesn't call it OOP so play goes on and Manchester City goes on the attack. If they score here, no one disputes that VAR could review whether the ball went OOP Manchester City has a pass into the box deflected (by #10 Modric I think). Again, if Manchester City regains immediate control after this uncontrolled deflection, no one disputes VAR could/should review the OOP decision. But Madrid's #12 Camavinga controls the ball and attempts a transition pass through the middle where it's intercepted, leading to Kevin DeBruyne's goal (hell of a strike by the way) It seems natural enough to me that Camavinga's pass resets possession and therefore the Attacking Phase of Possession, and that therefore VAR can't go further back into the play , to look at the potential ball Out-Of-Play for instance. I'd forgotten that Camavinga was the only Real Madrid player to make a deliberate pass after the ball went to the touchline. So I'm confused. If I accept the Ref Forum's suggestion that the standard should be one controlled pass by the opposition, that's what happened in Houston/Gotham, isn't it? If Real Madrid / Manchester City is the standard, it's not one completed pass because Camavinga's pass wasn't completed either; it was directly intercepted by the eventual goal-scoring team. Is the crucial difference that the intercepted pass came directly from (an alleged) Out-Of-Play position whereas in Madrid/Manchester, Camavinga is playing on the legal pitch? Why should that matter?! Does that mean that if only Yazmeen Ryan had first dribbled the ball back into play and then made the pass, Houston's goal would stand? Again, why should that matter? I guess I'm inclined to defer to the referees, the referee association (which will comment about it on Saturday in their weekly video), and our Ref Forum. It's not a hill to die on. But it's puzzling and of course if this happened in a major men's game like Real Madrid/ Manchester City we wouldn't have heard the end of it for a while
The referee's organization (PRO) released their Video Week in Review for NWSL this morning and, predictably, they supported the VAR decision to disallow Houston's goal against Gotham. "VAR made a correct decision therefore it was a good VAR intervention" The ball being out-of-bounds looks a little clearer to me now than before (slightly larger video, perhaps?), but I still have to ask, if Spain/ Japan would've been "clear and obvious" to them if they relied on the broadcast camera angles at the last (men's) World Cup in Qatar -> Because here's what a goal line camera showed (and the goal was allowed)