WCC Semifinal #2: Santa Clara vs Notre Dame [R]

QUOTE=Julius]Notre Dame def. Santa Clara 1-0 in Semifinal 2 of the Women's college cup in Cary, NC Friday. Notre Dame: http://und.collegesports.com/sports/w-soccer/recaps/120304aab.html , Santa Clara: http://santaclarabroncos.collegesports.com/sports/w-soccer/recaps/120304aad.html Your thoughts on this match?[/QUOTE]

Soccer is a funny game and both teams were truly very equal. I felt that the officiating was less than perfect, and it is sad that a game is won or lost because of it. In my opinion, Notre Dame should have been down a player with a second yellow card when Megan Kakadelas was taken down by Melissa Tancredi. There were a lot of trips from behind that were not called and I felt that Santa Clara was quicker and better skilled.

It is sad that the U.S. women's game is taking a liking to that overly physical play. Brazil or someone else will beat us soon, because they will focus more on speed and skill. I am saddened that a referee is afraid to blow a whistle and allows tackles to be made by players who are allowed to play like thugs. How many times after a ball was released did a Notre Dame player still run into a Santa Clara player? Strength is part of the game, but not a lot of cheap shots. Look at shot thrown at Santa Clara defender Jordan Angeli by Notre Dame where she is elbowed in the stomach away from the play and the offensive player runs off looking for a pass with the defender catching her breath on the ground. Where was the call from the linesman who was standing directly in front of the action?

For me, I prefer speed and skill and think Santa Clara had more. I am not saying that Notre Dame is less of a team than Santa Clara, but I hate to see a referee's failure to call a game result in the demise of a team that liked to play the game it should be played. Soccer isn't supposed to be ice hockey on the grass.

U.C.L.A. will physically battle with Notre Dame, I think. Notre Dame is probably the better team. I just wonder if a referee will let the game turn into a brawl.

 

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Osborne could have just as easily gotten a 2nd yellow when she tackled the ND player from behind to prevent a break when she had fallen down. The refs did not have anything to do with the outcome of the game, and I would think that most would agree that ND is actually the more talented team. Have fun watching the better team, the Irish, in the finals tomorrow!

 

True, but SC shouldn't need the ref's help to win.

Not true. USA is not overly physical at all. Brazil is more physical, faster and more skillful - and employs more dirty tricks.

If you're talking about Thorlakson, the contact was unintentional and play continued as it should have.

Intentional elbowing and tripping are penalties in hockey - and it's hockey not ice hockey. The game hardly anyone watches or cares about is field hockey.

Do you mean a bench-clearing brawl? Not likely.

 

WAAAAAAH!

I think this is truly sour grapes. Having watched both games between the teams this year, ND is truly the better and more skilled team. Megan Kakadelas should be thankful that she did not get carded early in the match for unsporting behavior. She dives like a Brazilian.

GO IRISH!

 

I hate all of these types of responses where people want to claim this and that, whether it be refs or players doing (or not doing) certain things. Comments like these take away from what a great game this was.

Was it perfect soccer? No, but it was two very good teams going at each other for 90 minutes. I thought it was fun to watch both teams try to dictate their styles on the match. I thought ND dictated the pace/style in the first half before that tv timeout (I hate these!!). But after the break SC dictated.

The begining of the second half was controlled by SC, but then ND started winning more balls at midfield and shutting down SC's ability to get balls to their frontline. I credit the defense played in midfield and by the backline of the the Irish in winning this game. For the last 25 minutes it seemed like SCU couldn't get a clean pass off in the midfield and/or their forwards couldn't receive the ball without being knocked off the ball. It was just great, solid, physical defense. And it won the game for them after a great defensive effort led to the turnover in midfield that led to the goal. That player (don't know her name) deserves an official assist on that goal!

As I said before, this was a far superior game than the Princeton-UCLA game which was a game of kick and run won by the faster and stronger team. Jerry Smith said it perfectly when he credited the Irish for capitalizing on one of their dangerous opportunities. Both teams had a few, and ND scored on one.

Don't whine and complain and make excuses, you only belittle what both these teams did: play a very hard fought, highly competitive game for 90 minutes in the national semi-finals. These are, no doubt, two of the top 5 teams in the nation.

 

Agreed. In my previous post I was pointing out that either team can complain about something during any match.

 

(Disclaimer: I am an SCU fan, USSF Grade 5 ref, NISOA ref who works major Div I conferences as well as 8 NCAA Tourney games in the past 4 years.)

No sour grapes here. I had the opportunity to watch the game from the field on Friday, and again on tape yesterday. Kakadelas was repeatedly legitimately pulled down from behind, and why not, she proved against UNC that her speed could make the difference in the game, good strategy by UND. They were able to get away with it without giving up a goal on any of the restarts.
Tancredi should have certainly been shown her second caution with about :30 remaining in the first half. The foul was tactical, and certainly would be considered "professional" in referee terminology. Look at the situation, center back gets beat on the opposite side of midfield and takes player down late/partially from behind. In all of the training I have had that's a yellow card, period, end of discussion! I am surprised that Seitz did not take the situation presented to her and deal with this in the correct way. AS a FIFA referee she has had numerous clinical discussions where the points of emphasis for the past 3-4 years have been on professional fouls and disent. Remember that upon being issued her first yellow for a similar foul, Tancredi reacted by waiving her hand up in the air in the direction of the referee, a textbook case of visual disent which could have (but I wouldn't have given it either) earned her a second card immediately. She would however have been on my S**t list from that point on. I grasp for a reason why Seitz decided to ignore this behavior. Even more puzzling that she came back and booked Osborne for a similar foul in the first minute of the second half.
Please don't give me any argument that by giving the second yellow, the referee would be changing the game . . . The player makes the decision to commit the foul, the referee is just supposed to make decisions based on the actions of the players and the laws (or rules in NCAAspeak) of the game. It is also interesting to note that Tancredi escaped a yellow for her foul on Iris Mora that resulted in the UCLA PK in the final. There were certainly enough defenders in the vicinity that it was not DOGSO (Denying of Goal Scoring Opportunity), but certainly should have merited a yellow for occurring from behind on a scoring chance.
I'd agree that Osborne could have been issued a second yellow as well, but at least Seitz was consistent in her application here. If no second for Tancredi, then fair for no second yellow to Osborne. In my view, the correct decision would have been for them both to have seen their second yellow. Yes, it would have benefited SCU more, as they would have played a majority of the second half 11 v. 10, but also because Osborne's aggravation of her torn ligaments on the foul she committed surely slowed her play in the second half. Jerry Smith faced the difficult decision of keeping her on the field at much less than 100% for her leadership abilities, or bringing her off for someone more physically healthy, but less experienced in the "big game". That decision may have been easier to make had Lauren Zealear been available to play, but after tearing her ACL last week against the Illini, Smith had very limited options.
The bottom line is exactly what Smith said in the post game press conference. ND was able to put away one of their chances, while the Broncos were not. The Irish were better able to take advantage of the conditions of the match and earned the victory. Congratulations to them on their National Championship, and I will very much look forward to next year's game against the Irish in Santa Clara.

 

Maybe you had a better angle than I did. From where I sat, there was minimal contact on the UCLA penalty kick foul, and it was a blatant dive. Can you comment on this in more detail? How do the refs make the takedown/dive determination?

Also the Chapman takedown late in the UCLA game. The ref not only did not make the call but appeared to yell at Chapman to get up. Are there any guidelines about what a ref can say or yell to the players?

 

I am impressed by your credentials and I know the time and effort involved in attaining a grade 5 USSF license (I am married to a Grade 6 referee who also works major Div. 1 matches). The first part of your credentials, SCU fan, shows in your post. We are all human and see things differently depending on the outcome that we are hoping for.

I watched match on TV as I was not fortunate enough to attend. I am a fan of the Irish and attend almost all of their home matches so naturally I am going to see the match through Irish eyes. You on the other hand will see things through burgundy glasses. Sometimes it will be hard to agree but that is what makes sports, especially soccer, so entertaining.

It does surprise me that a referee would criticize one of their own so harshly. I thought that this was considered bad form.

Regardless, the match was very exciting and was played between two great teams. I'm already looking forward to next year.

 

After thinking about it more, and watching the replay, I guess that I can understand why the yellow was not issued to Tancrdei on the foul on Mora. There was no excessive force, and Mora still would have had to turn to get a quality shot off. I would not classify the foul as a dive on Mora's part. She got into a position where Tancredi was directly behind her and then slowed down to insure that the contact was made. Think of it as one car following another at high speed down the road, if the back car is following too closely and the front one breaks suddenly, any resulting collision is legally going to be the fault of the trailing car. It was a smart play by a forward who knew she had a defender in a bad position. Had Mora been turned toward goal she would have been foolish to try to draw the foul rather then go at the goal, but seeing that she was moving almost parallel to the goal and headed into a 1 v. 3 situation, she took the chance that the referee would call the foul, which he appropriately did.

In general the takedown/dive/no call is one of the most difficult decisions to make. The keys that I use in spotting the dive is that usually the diver takes off from both feet simultaneously and the fall/landing is usually pretty graceful, with no real risk of self injury. Many dives are actually looked at as no calls. If you are going to go with a dive judgement, the referee has to be 100% sure of it, as it should also earn the offender a yellow card if the whistle is blown. That is why many times you see the referee to do just as he did with Chapman, a "get up" with the arm gesture. It is the referees game management tool for not actually calling the dive when they are not 100% sure. It infers that there was some incidental contact may have occured (whether there actually was or not) where no foul on the defender was warranted. The defense is usually accepting because you didn't call the foul, and the attacker, while not happy they didn't draw the foul, at least hasn't been cautioned. Usually that is good enough to get players to stop diving. The theory is that if they aren't getting the call, they will be more apt to stay on their feet and attempt to make the play. If it doesn't work and the referee is repeatedly telling players to get up, he should be considering blowing the whistle and cautioning for the dive.

I didn't get a good look at the Chapman foul you refer to, but many referees would require something just short of murder to get a third PK call in a game, especially the National Championship. I'm not saying that's correct, but it's the reality of some referees that I know.

Talking to players is a method of player management. It really varies with the referees style and how well the players respond to what the referee is saying. As far as where the line is drawn with what you can or can't say, it really depends. The only certainty is that if you want the player to respect your decision, you should treat the player respectfully. Obviously foul or abusive language is out. It is OK for a referee to have emotion in their voice, shown on their face, or through the length or tone of their whistle. It conveys that they may be unhappy with a foul that may be borderline misconduct, and many players will respond to that before it gets to the point where cautions or send offs are necessary.

 

I certainly didn't intend to harshly criticize a FIFA referee. It was just my view on what I saw. The point of the post was to try to show that there was some merit to the "second yellow for Tancredi argument" that was simply being pushed off as "sour grapes". If there was any tone of harshness to the post, it was directed at those who felt that the SCU fans were simply whining or looking for excuses, and not at the referee.

I know the referee personally, and have worked matches with her in the past. I know she would have asked the crew at the half if there was anything they saw that she missed. If I had been on that crew I certainly would have said something to the effect of "Did you consider a second caution for that last foul on Tancredi?" To which I would have expected the referee to say something along the following:

A) Here's what I saw . . . . and that's why I didn't think it deserved a caution.
or
B) Your right, I maybe should have done that.

Either way, Seitz is certainly one of the elite in the country, and admittedly, I will never reach the experience level that she has. I know from the TV commentary (for whatever that is worth) that I am not alone in thinking that ND was fortunate that there was no second caution. I just had the "courage" to open my mouth (in a virtually anonomus post ) to start the discussion on it. If you look Champion727's post, it has already led to some productive talk between a referee and a fan about other facets of the game. Anything that opens up dialogue between fans and referees and maybe opens up the perspective of the referee to the casual fan has to be good for the game.

 

I agree 100%. That discussion happens in my household on an almost daily basis.

 

Just flew back from North carolina. I had a blast. Friday night's game between ND and Santa Clara was great and not just because ND won, but both teams have great talent. IMO ND just outmuscled santa Clara. I think both santa Clara and Notre Dame could have beaten North carolina. IMO the four deserving teams were in the semifinals.
Sunday's game between Notre Dame and UCLA was a little sloppy, but glad to see Notre Dame win I think the ref made a few errors agains both teams. I stayed in the stands for an extra 20 minutes or so watching ND celebrate.
Also great weekend weather in Raleigh. I actually went to the beach Saturday.

 

Here is an interesting statistic for you ND fans and SCU Fans!!
Santa Clara has beaten UNC i believe 4 out of the last 5 games!

Randy Waldrum and his ND teams has beaten Santa Clara 6 out of 8 games since Waldrum has taken over in 1999!

Congrats to the Irish for winning in dramatic fashion!

 

Really good description of this play. Nice detail on the way that Mora orchestrated the play and how she pulled it off. No dissent from Trancredi on this play as I remember.

Back to the SCU/UND game. What about the head-on between Leslie Osborne and the slender, blond ND midfielder in the second half? Believe it was with about 20 minutes left, not sure. A 50/50 ball in which the 2 players were coming from opposite direction. Head-on collision that injured both players. Looked like shin contusion for the ND player. Was this the play in which Osborne reinjured her ligament? Ankle ligament? Both players shook it off and stayed in the game.

It appeared that the ND player got there first, and that Osborne went into a slide on her left side with cleats flying, especially the right one well up in the air. No card, no call. How did you see this play? Does anything go on a 50/50 ball? What are the guidelines for barreling full-blast into an opponent with cleats in the air? Doesn't it usually bring a card or a call? What was your take on this play?

 

I don't remember the play that you are asking about with around 20 minutes left. I'll have to go back to the tape and see if I can find it.

Regarding Osborne's injury; she actually re-injured it in the tackle she made :33 into the second half. On that tackle she did go sliding with her cleats flying, I believe digging her injured leg into the Notre Dame player. She was correctly shown a yellow card on this play. I'll have to get back to you on the other one. That might be the play where it would be debatable that Osborne may have committed her second cautionable offense refered to in an earlier post. I'll try to check on it when I get a chance.

 

That was probably the play I was referring to. Maybe it was right at the beginning of the second half. If so, that answers the question about the card. There actually was a card on the play - I just missed it. I remember both players grimacing on the ground for about 15-20 seconds, then both shook it off and continued play. Missed the card.

The slender blond ND midfielder shook it off and continued play. If she had been seriously injured and carried off, would the card have been red? Does the extent of the injury play into the ref's card decision?

What about intent? In this case, certainly no intent to injure (50/50 ball and world-class player of impeccable character). But does intent play into the ref's decision? Was that in Osborne's favor on this play?

What are the general guidelines for barreling full-blast into opponent with cleats in the air? Is it pretty much an automatic yellow card? What does it take to make it a red?

 

Intent weighs heavily on determining red/yellow/foul only on this type of situation. At this level player reputation factors in as well, as reputations are pretty well known. Extent of injury can play a part, and is usually a pretty good indicator of intent at this level. Referee just have to be careful about players who feign the serious injury to draw the card (similar to previous discussion on diving).

Back to the specific play . . . think about the conditions leading up to this play. There was a foul which may or may not have warranted a second yellow just prior to the end of the half. I know for sure Osborne verbally expressed her disagreement to Kari Seitz coming off the field regarding the lack of the second yellow to Tancredi. It is a 0-0 National Semifinal game.

So what is the referee thinking about in this case . . . intent to play the ball by the fouling player - it appeared possible/probable. . . nature of foul was exposed studs - yellow card. . . possible retaliation from foul at end of 1st half - tipped by displeasure voiced at halftime (player feels that referee not doing their job takes the law into their own hands). . . happened near the ND bench (if I remember correctly), is fouling player trying to send a "message" to other team. . . .Looking at all of that brings the conclusion that a yellow card is certainly the right call here. Recognizes ball was 50/50 but the challenge was reckless, probably in retaliation, and in an area of the field where the referee must absolutely show control of the match.

Had the play been against a player in possession, from behind, caused a broken leg, then you'd be looking a straight red card. None of those were a consideration on this one.

 

Having looked at the tape of the game, was Notre Dame offsides when the ball was sent to Katie? In the replay with the best angle, it clearly looked as if both Katie and the player on the far side of the pass were offsides. When ball released from Chapman, it looked as if Katie was offsides and she continued to come back for the ball and to get into an onsides position. Other player was 5 of more yards offsides in replay in my opinion. Why was there no call? Why was Katie moving back toward the ball if she wasn't in an offsides position?

When is an offsides player not considered in the play? Far side player clearly making a sprint toward goal and arguably involved in play.

Next, why was it that none of the commentators mentioned this fact? In the replay it looks more than clear that one player was clearly offsides and that Katie also appeared to be offsides. Is it the fact that there was so much hype about her that nobody wanted to say anything about it? If the table were turned and it was somebody from Santa Clara and not the marquee player, KT, what would have been said by the commentators? It is funny how that angle of the replay was not repeated. Any thoughts?

Bottom line, second half, Leslie not able to play anywhere near her best, team unable to hold balls in midfield and get good balls to forwards, and Santa Clara just kicking ball out of the back. With Kakadelas and other forwards being hammered with impugnity, maybe it didn't matter if there were balls for them.

Again, looking at tape of game, there is no question that Tancredi shoud have been given the second yellow card with the foul at midfield of Kakadelas. Excellent coment that Tancredi already should have been on the referee's #@% list for dissent to the first yellow card and waving her hand "blowing off" the referee.

Maybe sour grapes? Maybe a fan of the game still feeling slighted with a 16th seed and having to go through North Carolina and then end up with some questionable officiating in a semi-final?

 

An Irish perspective:

I have not studied the game tape but on the goal Thorlakson did a great job of bending her run so she would not be offsides! Thats what a player at the next level can do. She reads and understands the game very well. The player that was in an offsides position was the freshman Cinalli who was not even close to being involved in the goal.

Tancredi could of and probably should of gotten a red card in the second half but that was not the case. But if we are looking at the "what if "factor then you have to mention the Kakadelas miss in the first half that she should of put in the back of the net!

I was at the first game ND v. SCU early in the season when SCU got beat 5-2. I liked the tactical changes SCU made from the 1st game to the Semi's that they were much better in the back but they also should have been better since they went from a 4 backs to a 5 backs. In changing to the 5 backs I don't think that allowed SCU to play the typical attacking/possession type soccer that they are known for. I have been following ND soccer for the past two seasons and they also play an attacking/possession soccer and ND did not play great either but this ND team has found a way to win games all season long! It was not the prettiest game in the world but it was a good battle. The game was a fast paced game with a lot of turnovers (i.e., the giveaway by SCU at midfield that led to the Chapman goal!)

The officiating was not good but there is no way you can question the goal ND scored it was a big time finish by Chapman to take it off her chest and volley it into the bottom corner of the net.

The #16 seed was shocking and 99.9% of coaches, and fans would disagree with it but lets be honest the truth is overall in the women's game that there is more parity and instead of UNC, ND, SCU, and Portland that had a shot at winning the NCAA tourney in the past. It is anyone's game there is a long list of schools if they won it no one would be suprised (Virgina, UCLA, Penn State, etc....) All I am saying is when you get past the 1st round of the NCAA's you are going to get a difficult game! Why complain that you get UNC!? Santa Clara has beaten UNC 4 out of the last 5 games!! You seem to have UNC's number!

 

I am sorry but between all the talk about the referee has anyone mentioned the fact that Santa Clara missed a chance at an open goal inside the six yard box in the first half. Perhaps the referee made some mistakes but bottom line the game was lost on the field by the players not the referee. Our society loves to pass blame rather than accept it. In this game referee's and player's are going to make mistakes we just need to move on and play or watch the game we love so much. Enjoy the men's final four for those of you that will watch it should be fun.

 

I would tend to agree, another immediate indication is that none of the SCU players were looking for the flag as well. In speaking with some members of the SCU defense after the game, Thorlakson being offside was not even brought up. I would say the Irish did well in taking advantage of the turnover.

I too was at the September SCU/ND game and several SCU games thereafter. The Broncos did not switch their formation, they remained in a 4 back set the entire season. The exposure against UND the first time around was due to the loss of Jess Ballweg for the season in the opening game against Cal Poly, and the season ending injury suffered by Carrie Schuler earlier in the ND game. This left a giant hole in the central back area that Thorlakson and Chapman were able to easily exploit for the final 10-15 minutes of the game. As the season went on, Jordan Angeli (freshman) really matured as a player and the defense really came together. The lack of the typical attacking/possession style was evident all season. I would attribute this to the outside backs (Esquivel and Dalmy) and to a lesser extent, the defensive central mid (Osborne), playing quite a bit more conservatively. We did get to see flashes of Esquivel and Dalmy making some overlaping runs which quite visibly boosted the offensive chances, but not as often as Bronco fans would have hoped.

I really believe that the complaint wasn't so much having to play UNC. You expect that at some point each year you have to beat them to win the title. The travesty to all soccer fans was that this was a thrid round game.
An even bigger complaint rests with the geographical placement into groups. It's really unfair to have to face Stanford and Cal (or the like) in the first two rounds. That might be the source of more frustration. UNC doesn't see Duke every year in the opening weekend, but by the geographical considerations claimed by the seeding committee, they should. It is no different than sending Stanford to Santa Clara repeatedly.

Using the Rocky Mountains as the dividing line (no team East of the Rockies was sent to a site west of the Rockies), a lot of the "West Coast Bias" in the seeding process is that the committee seems to seal off anything from the Rocky Mountains westward, except for letting seeded teams "escape". Out of 29 automatic bids, exactly 5 (Big West, Mountain West, PAC 10, WAC, and WCC) reside west of the Rockies vs. 24 east of the Mississippi. Furthermore, there were only 3 playing sites west of the Rockies. The "power" conferences of the West (WCC and PAC 10) contributed 9 teams to the tournament. Two of those (who were seeded no less!) got shipped to Eastern sites. Two of the three West sites had three "power" conference teams. Over on the East there are 5 "power" conferences (ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 12, Big 10). They contributed 26 teams to the tournament, 28 when you add Washington and Arizona sent over from the west. Of the 13 sites, only 2 had three power conference teams (one of those two included Washington).

Using this model, 2/3=67% "tough" opening sites out west, compared to 2/13=16% "tough" sites out East - making the road much more difficult for West Coast teams.

(Maybe since the PAC 10 and WCC are the only two conferences that don't have conference tournaments, the NCAA committee is forcing them to sort of have one in the first two rounds of the NCAAs?)

What's really interesting is that #14 UCLA and #16 SCU both made it to the College Cup playing strictly "power" conference teams in the tournament (the only other power vs. power matchup in the opening round was Auburn vs. Clemson). That may be the most compelling evidence to how their inappropirate their seeding was.

The bottom line is that either the committee didn't know enough about the WCC and PAC 10 teams (likely), didn't give these teams enough respect (certainly), or intentionally tried to screw them over (least likely). Either way, add that to the "geographical restrictions" and you get a system that is second only to the infamous BCS in failing to provide its fans the best product possible at the conclusion of the season. It will not be fixed until they start looking at the bigger picture and consider seeding closer to a 1-64 format.

 

I agree, and we covered that:

At least from my view, it has now turned in to more of an "educational" discussion. The past is the past, and now it is all about what can we learn from it . . . fans hearing a referee's perspective and interaction in well thought out discussion to enhance their enjoyment of the game, and serious issues the seeding committee needs to address before next November.

 

The wear and tear on player's bodies from having to play much more difficult teams in the first, second and third round of the playoffs can not be ignored. This is a huge factor, as well as traveling all over the country, in how well a team performs as it moves deeper into the playoffs. I've had the opportunity to play in two NCAA tournaments and believe me, the compounding effect is incredible. Combining all of the West coast teams together in the first couple of rounds is just unfair. Since the NCAA just signed a new multi-BILLION dollar BCS TV deal I think they can afford to ship some soccer teams around the country for the playoffs.