I really like the PRO video for each of the three cases it covered. In the out of bounds NWSL case, I think it shows quite well the ball was out of bounds. In the Spain-Japan case, it looks to me like the ball was not out of bounds although I am not sure if that is clear and obvious (the first picture is at such an angle that the part of the ball touching the ground clearly is out of bounds but it looks like the inner side of the ball might not be out of bounds and the second picture suggests the inner side of the ball may be directly above the outer edge of the goal line -- although perhaps not clearly and obviously so, in which case the on the field call would stand if over the line calls are subject to the clear and obvious requirement).
Hard tackle in the box in Angel City / Houston on Sunday. At first, I thought this was one of those tackles where even if "she gets the ball", the defender (Paige Nielsen) is going to wipe out the attacker (Michelle Alozie) with a dangerous amount of force. On second look, it's a highly skilled, advanced-level tackle and I like it that Nielsen keeps one leg back, bent at the knee, and only goes in with the leading foot ahead of Alozie to knock the ball away. I'm open to accepting this as clean, hard play, if nothing else to keep the "game is gone" crowd at bay This is the ACFC Save of the Match for #LAvHOU.45’+ | @Paigenielsen #AngelCityFC | @PNCBank pic.twitter.com/cX6mpCHboc— Angel City FC (@weareangelcity) June 26, 2023 I"m glad Angel City tweeted a clip of it. It's a highlight reel tackle that of course wasn't on the official highlight video *** I have to feel for Michelle Alozie. She took some hard hits yesterday (and got no calls on any of them, I don't think) In the 2ned or 3rd minute she got clobbered in the head by Angel City's GK Didi Haracic as she tried to head in a crss. It shows up in the highlights, barely. With no replays or close-ups. Shea Groom had something to say about it For context @NWSL pic.twitter.com/AanHyq2Bwf— Shea Groom (@sheabayy2) June 26, 2023 I guess this is one of those typical plays which get ignored because the "ball is gone" or ball has gone out of play. It's something which frequently bugs me, allowing a lot of desperate, dangerous tackles in the box. It's not supposed to be ice hockey where you're trained to "finish your checks"
It could be considered on the borderline of excessive force, whether she played the ball or not. she does make contact with Alozie in the follow thru. The "but she played the ball crowd" would not like it.
I felt the same way on this tackle. I have no clue how this would have been called had it been outside the box. However the center ref and VAR seemed to think Nielsen got to the ball cleanly and well before Alozie was able to put a foot to it and the follow-through collision was not violent enough to sanction.
The IFAB Frumpheads are going to try out a new offside rule in a few leagues this coming season. (Clicking on the Little Arrow Thingy will take you to the thread) Naturally they're making a mess of things (in chess, we call them patzers). I don't know why they don't just simply ask me?! For a couple years, I've had the idea that an attacker should be onside if either both feet are level with the defender OR his or her head is level with the defender. Attackers judge their position by sight, by visually lining up with the defenders. But then they could still be off by a toenail, a knee, or a shoulder. Who cares? Who really thinks that's an unfair advantage? On the other hand, if they're leaning forward, who really cares if both feet are level with the defenders? Who thinks that's such an unfair advantage? *** It doesn't completely solve the problem that wherever we define the line, onside/offside will potentially be a matter of millimeters BUT how often does the attacker have his or her line-of-sight in line with a defender but then their feet or knees or shoulders are off by a hair? *** While we're at it, instead of the 2nd-to-Last Defender, just make it the last-defender-other-than-the-goalkeeper. 99.9% of the time, that's what it is anyway. If a 'keeper comes out, why should that be either the attacker or the AR's problem?
This is my favortie post from that Referee thread- I don't have a clue about "MLS solution," but this makes gut-level and brain-satisfying sense: If you can’t tell from looking with a naked eye let it go.
I'm trying to go with that (the MLS standard of just eyeballing it) as my working hypothesis, but I'm a little uneasy about it as I just mentioned in the Ref Forum OL Reign had a beautiful Elyse Bennett goal called back last week in Portland at 1'04 of the highlights The 2nd (replay) angle at 1'30 is a better angle and includes a freeze frame. Staying onside is a close call by its nature with attackers trying to "hang off" the shoulder of a defender. When ARs wrongly call an attacker offside it will be almost impossible for VAR to declare a "clear and obvious error" by simply eyeballing it. What does seem "clear and obvious" on the Elyse Bennett goal is the AR is not properly positioned in line with the 2nd-to-Last-Defender. Here's where my suggestion may help that we define an attacker as onside if both feet are level with the 2LD (2nd-to-Last-Defender). I'm leery, as many people are, of drawing lines to check an offside call BUT THE WORST PART IS WHEN YOU START DRAWING VERTICAL LINES — to shoulder, armpits, whatever. By saying an attacker is onside when their feet are level with the 2LD's feet, then we can eliminate the need to draw the vertical lines, which seems so artificial and prone to error *** In my diagram, the blue line (as in ice hockey) is the offside line
Many people — notably San Diego coach Casey Stoney — were calling for a penalty for a tackle by Sam Staab in the 35th minute of the San Diego/ Washington Spirit match over the weekend Should it have been a @sandiegowavefc penalty? 👀Tune in to all the NWSL After Dark chaos on @paramountplus. 📲 pic.twitter.com/y19hB0tGCK— Attacking Third (@AttackingThird) July 9, 2023 (did the direct link to Twitter work?! That clown Elon Musk has been messing with the ability to embed Tweets the last week or so) When the Coach complains, I have to take notice. It's a good topic for discussion, but I have to say by modern referee standards, it's a clean tackle and I can accept it (more-or-less). I'm not a big fan of "she got the ball", but it's the way the game has been called in the penalty area for years, I think — and at least the defender (Staab) gets the ball without colliding with the attacker first. I have a much harder time accepting tackles where a defender sticks her leg over a running attacker, blocking the attacker's leg in an attempt to "get the ball". On the other hand, when a defender barely nudges the ball,, couldn't we call the trip? The attacker has a right to pursue the ball, doesn't she? But I'm the only one who even thinks like that, a minority of one (as usual)
Ref calls a PK, it is a PK. The ref does not call a PK, it is not a PK. Neither is a clear and obvious error. Perhaps a way to look at it is: Do you want to tell a defender that when the attacking player has overhit a touch so that the defender cleanly can strike the ball to safety, the defender cannot strike the ball because the attacker might trip over her extended leg? I do not think it would be for the good of the game to tell the defender that.
I think that's a reasonable way to look at it — I have a much harder time when the defender reaches their leg over and in front of the attacker, obstructing the attacker's leg in the effort to "get the ball". But I don't have a handy highlight clip to illustrate it. There is, perhaps, an interesting question about when the defender barely nudges the ball but takes the attacker down so she can't pursue it. She, the defender, "gets the ball", but doesn't an attacker have the right to pursue it without being taken down? (Again, I'm the only one apparently who even thinks like this). Another, rather lovely example, is from the Women's Champions League semi-final between Arsenal and Wolfsburg (played in front of a sold-out Wembley Stadium if I recall correctly) At 1'35 of the highlights Katie McCabe (that lovable Irish troublemaker who we hope to see a lot of at the World Cup) makes a great effort to tip the ball away from Wolfsburg's Lena Oberdorf (going to see a lot of her at the World Cup, too!) — but McCabe barely nudges the ball; if she doesn't take out Oberdorf, Oberdorf can still run onto it. The referee (Lina Lehtovaara — we're going to see her, too, at the World Cup!) recognizes the excellent technique, allows the play to go on and it results in a fantastic goal by Stina Blackstenius (and we're going to see her at the World Cup, too, perhaps tormenting the US!) *** There is a typical, mundane play where a defender sweeps a ball out over the touchline from an attacker, taking out the attacker in the process. Bodies go flying but no one thinks twice about it. It's not even something I have a handy clip of it because it's such an ordinary play it doesn't wind up on a highlights video. That's kind of the analogy we're following here. The defender is allowed to take out (trip) the attacker because the defender gets the ball and only trips the attacker on the follow-through, without driving into the attacker directly with her studs. But also there's no problem, I'm suggesting, because the ball gets knocked cleanly out of bounds; there's no play to be had on the ball. Is there reason to think the analogy doesn't quite hold up when the defender barely nudges it away? I don't think it's a huge crisis in the game, but it may be worth pondering
In the San Diego v Washington situation, I thought exactly about what should happen if a defender barely nudges the ball and takes out the attacker. I think that is a much more difficult situation in terms of what is for the good of the game, since it brings into the equation a more significant possibility of the defender injuring the attacker. In the actual situation, it seems to me the risk of injury is not as great.
My emphasis in the quote. Without VAR, the call is the call is the call - I can disagree, but I don't have a problem. WITH VAR - this HAD to be reviewed. What my eyes saw in the replay was Staab cleanly toe-poking the ball in the same direction Hill was running and then clearly and obviously taking out Hill's legs, preventing her from pusuing the ball. That was a foul in my book. Not for the tackle on the ball, but for tripping Hill and preventing her from pursuing the ball.
Check out — while you can — a short clip from another angle that Coach Stoney put on Twitter; she's been fined by the league so she may have to take it down pic.twitter.com/VXxnnsME8E— Casey Stoney MBE 💙 (@CaseyStoney) July 9, 2023 Seeing it from this angle almost made me think the attacker (Rachel Hill?) makes the last touch rather than Staab What this angle makes clear is that Staab's trailing leg also catches Hill on the back of her leg, tripping her. I never disputed that even though it wasn't clear from the broadcast angle. Again, for me, it's important that Staab bent her trailing leg at the knees to minimize the danger of a scissors As Julie Ertz once proudly said — and I reminded the Coach of it — "It's a brutal sport"
The point about Staab trying to minimize the danger is not relevant to me. She cleanly toe poked the ball and then tripped Hill, which prevented Hill from pursuing the ball. Foul in the box. Penalty kick. Whether or not it was a yellow card-worthy foul does not matter to me. I think the ref and the VAR blew the call. SD got screwed.
Wow, what happened to the Referee Forum?! It's disappeared. I'm sure it's temporary, but still it's a shock add: It's probably just a coinkydink, but... did Candor triumph over Credentials at the Referee Forum?!
Huh, but I don't have a yellow card (Look, ma, no yellow card!) I guess I've been banned from the Ref Forum even though my yellow card was terminated early
*shrug* You had one this morning when I posted, but you'll need to talk to one of the Referee forum Moderators. You should have gotten a DM about it.
One immediate benefit of VLATKO stepping down as coach of the US is that the US immediately made it to the final!! At least in the form of Tori Penso who was the center referee for the championship match between Spain and England. Penso, of course, frequently referees NWSL games as well (what do you think are the odds she gets the NWSL championship?!) which should serve as an interesting point of departure to discuss the state of refereeing in the NWSL. I can't find it right now, but somewhere I posted a comment on what seemed to me common characteristics among some of the best referees; Tori Penso and Finland's Lina Lehtovaara being two of the exemplars. I think it will be handy to discuss those characteristics — and contemplate additional ones — as the NWSL season reaches its climax. If I recall, some of the characteristics I mentioned were: They use their personality to manage games, put players at ease, create rapport They find plays in which they allow reasonably physical play to go on; they send a message that you can't just fall to the ground and expect a call; and players at this level of the women's game seem to respect that They have trained themselves to not blow the whistle immediately in order to see if an advantage can materialize. While it makes them seem indecisive to casual fans, again to the players it makes them seem like they know what they're doing
The previous post prompts me to mention something on my mind related to preparedeness for the World Cup: Having observed how much the refs let go in the World Cup without calling fouls, it seems to me that refs in the NWSL are much more likely to call fouls than we saw there. It seems to me this is hurting the USA NWSL players when they get to the World Cup level of competition. Perhaps the refs, in NWSL games, should be allowing a significantly greater level of physical play than they have been allowing. From what I have seen from posters on BS, in the Euro leagues, the players engage in a more physical level of play and the refs allow it.
Alex Morgan created a bit of a stir last weekend with a tweet lambasting the lack of a PK and red card for a tackle on her by Kansas City's Stine Ballsager. I haven't pushed the Forum to address the question of physical play and dangerous tackles — and where the boundaries are for yellow cards and red cards. Here, of course, there's also the question of whether a penalty should be called or not. In what world is this not a penalty and red card, or even foul? Completely reckless and the leg going in for the tackle doesn't even get a ball when I cut her? Just glad I saw her coming and didn't plant on that leg or I'd 100% not be walking today. pic.twitter.com/ruQ2rXtcK3— Alex Morgan (@alexmorgan13) September 17, 2023 There's quite a division of opinion even on Morgan's (X)/Twitter timeline. There's also the beginnings of a back-and-forth on the Referee Forum which is probably worth checking out. I can't quote it directly since I've been banned there (which no doubt warms the heart of the Credentials Sticklers both here and on the Ref Forum) but I'll try a standard link: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2...e-discussion-rs.2124948/page-13#post-41712269 *** Interesting observation which could've provoked a lot of pro-and-con. A lot of Europeans seem to think Americans play too physically and not enough "beautiful soccer". On the other hand, sometimes I think England is the outlier which allows more physical play; even though there are still many English WoSo fans who still think the game is rougher in America, with questionable amounts of evidence to back them up. With a few possible exceptions (the big one being USA/Netherlands), I didn't find the amount of physical play to be much different than what we see in the NWSL but maybe others think otherwise?
Over the last few days discussion continued on both X/Twitter and the Ref Forum over the Balliisager tackle on Alex Morgan. In what world is this not a penalty and red card, or even foul? Completely reckless and the leg going in for the tackle doesn't even get a ball when I cut her? Just glad I saw her coming and didn't plant on that leg or I'd 100% not be walking today. pic.twitter.com/ruQ2rXtcK3— Alex Morgan (@alexmorgan13) September 17, 2023 It's a good topic for comparison which I'll probably use as an example in the future as long as a clip of it remains available. A very good point was made in the Ref Forum by "USSF REF" I tend to think this way (because of my reading of the Ref Forum for several years) but also have noticed lots of exceptions where referees do not follow this rule of thumb. Furthermore, I've been shocked the last few years how much defenders have been allowed to get away with because "they got the ball", in many cases tackles which were much more reckless and poorly executed than this. (I'll get around to posting some examples eventually) 5 or 10 years ago, I probably would've shared the outrage of Morgan's fans for precisely the reason that the tackle was likely to wipe out someone on the Wave (get it? tee-hee!), but nowadays I see the good technique that a defender like Ballisager uses. As @sjquakes08 says, Is it just luck that Morgan doesn't get hurt? or is it the proper technique of the defender making the tackle? I would add that Ballisager goes in with one foot and keeps her trailing leg bent at the knee, the studs kept away from the opposing player and also reducing the danger of a scissors, trapping Morgan's leg in a vise-like grip should she fall Here's the link to the post https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2...e-discussion-rs.2124948/page-13#post-41716789 (I can't quote directly as I'm persona non grata in the Ref Forum) I'm pretty sure this is rarely or ever called for a PK in Europe or at World Cups (nor England but the refereeing in the Premier League is a shambles and doesn't count for anything); maybe it would be in MLS. But who knows? Maybe I've evolved my thinking in the wrong direction and this should be seen as a foul and a reckless tackle. *** Another important point was made by @Beau Dure It's puzzling to me how many are quibbling over whether Ballisager "got the ball" or not. She blocked the ball with her leg. When defenders are trying to block a ball, they don't care if they wind up blocking it with her foot, her shins or further up her leg. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2...e-discussion-rs.2124948/page-13#post-41720593
One big controversial call on Decision Day will be the red card on Trinity Rodman #WASvNC Trinity Rodman's yellow card elevated to a red card after VAR reviewRed Cards today lead to a playoff suspension pic.twitter.com/5Zejvh15HB— Taylor Vincent (@tayvincent6) October 15, 2023 MLS/NWSL refs are becoming consistent in calling this a red card with VAR; I'm also sure most fans can be persuaded it's a dangerous enough tackle to merit a red card. I'm not a big fan of it here, however, and I seriously question whether the same referees would give a red card here in a game without VAR.