What Should We Call The USA-Canada Semifinal?

If they were going to give a foul to her for taking so long, then they should of had the ball at the 2o yard line, since its where the Canadian goalkeeper punted. Yet the referee generously gave the kick at the 15 yard line, which is questionable. Hard to fanthom what this referee was doing.

 

You are assuming you know when the ref made whatever determination she did. Soccer refs don't feel any need to go by when they actually blow the whistle, only when they decide something happened.

But I'll agree this won't be in any "how to ref" tutorials, except maybe as counter examples.

 

Look whether or not we agree on how this foul was handed out, my point is, that normally when you give a foul out, you usually have that ball where the foul occurred. And when that ref called the foul, the player in question, punted the ball from the 20 yard line, in fact the Canadian goalkeeper was close to going over the 20 yard line. The fact that the referee decided in her judgement that the ball should be placed in the 15 yard line is VERY questionable.

I mean I can understand all this if the referee actually blew the whistle at the 15 yard line, but she didn't. So we may have to agree to disagree with this on that point.

 

I think Travesty at Old Trafford covers it.

 

There has been much chettering about the six second rule that isn't terribly well informed.

If you want an interpretation that has the approval of the Professional Soccer Referees Association (PSRA) it's here: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=754

Two points are important. 1) The count does not begin until the keeper is on her feet and able to distribute. 2). " the offense is trivial as long as you are seeing an honest effort to put the ball back into play".

If you want to see how inconsistently it is applied, go to 94:58 on the game clock and count the seconds as Hope Solo gathers the ball wanders out to the edge of the area, fakes a throw then stands around while her team moves upfield. On my feed the camera cuts away after 8 seconds, at which time she is standing looking upfield with the ball in her hands, making no effort to put it into play. Based on the fact that she was standing inside the area and making no move to play the ball, I think an estimate of at least 10 seconds is reasonable. She was not called and and I'm not saying she should have been called.


The call on McLeod was an abomination. The call on Nault was repulsive.

 

It is shame the referee had a bad game as it was really an exceptional one. I will look at it again tonight but the numebr of missed calls, forgotten bookings etc was really annoying.

 

I can understand an American fan being okay with things, but I don't think you have to be Canadian to consider it a travesty.

 

You should be objective. I'm American and I'm ashamed that that's how our ladies got into the final. No matter which medal the U.S. ends up with, it is now tainted. Terrible calls that completely shifted the balance of the game.

And yes, that's calls, plural. The hand ball in the box just compounded the travesty.

 

Another call that was missed by the refs..


Tv commentators discussing the game just now pointed out another huge miss.

Just before the curious 6 second call, they have a clip of Melissa Tancredi clearly and deliberately stomping on Carly Lloyd's head right in front of the USA goal. Obvious send off - as good as anything by Wayne Rooney.

I wonder If fifa will review that?

 

In fact, it is never applied in circumstances like it was applied on Monday. Pedersen should never referee an important match at any level again.

I've watched that more times than I wanted to, and I've still not seen evidence that Matheson touched the ball. Regardless, nowhere in any rule does the number of contacts figure. It's about intent and control of one's body. If there is no intent and the player is not flapping her arms around it's not a foul.

Since you are American, perhaps the USSF publications “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” will help explain it:

12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as “handling the ball” involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player’s hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). “Deliberate contact” means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player’s arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).
NOTE: In most cases in the Laws of the Game, the words “touch,” “play,” and “make contact with” mean the same thing. This is not true in the case of deliberate handling, where the touch, play, or contact by the offending player must be planned and deliberate.​

Christiana Pedersen is incompetent. She turned what was otherwise a classic game into an embarrassment for the sport.

I understand why an American fan is happy with the way things turned out. That doesn't make it right.

 

Pretty good. Certainly using "Old Trafford" is better than simply "Manchester". If there was one particularly infamous travesty in the past (I'm sure there's many in the eyes of Manchester United's rivals), then we could say New Travesty at Old Trafford.

From Canada's point of view the referee is probably the Troll of Old Trafford. Kind of like our Swiss Miss / Swiss Witch / Swiss B*****

 

Actually, it wasn't just before, it happen around minute 55 as I recall when the score was still 1-1. Gotta think losing Tancredi for at least another 35 minutes would have had a pretty big effect on the game. The fact that Tancredi complained about the officiating after the game is more than a little ironic.

The 6 second call -- pretty harsh, I'll agree, but according to recent reports she had been warned. If the situation were reversed I (a US fan) would have been initially pissed at the ref and today may have shifted at least part of the blame to Solo.

 

Tancredi plays like an American. Not fun to watch from the other side, is it?

ETA: Okay, that's harsh. I have not been able to find a decent isolation on the incident. From the angle I have seen, it appears that she stepped on Lloyd deliberately. If so, she deserves to be sanctioned. I will wait for the official review to comment beyond that.

But any US fan who has a problem with Tancredi's general approach to the game really needs to take a look at 20 years of game tapes for the USWNT. Your faves have a habit of leaving wreckage in their wake, none less so than Abby (who is a truly great player for all that). Nobody has ever accused them of being a finesse team.

 

The current 'intent' argument is silly, agreed. Does a player INTEND to foul a player in the box in a 1-1 game. No, they intend to slide tackle the ball away. However there is some leeway allowed to measure 'intent', based on actual actions.

 

Why i can understand its a hard call to make what concerns me more is if the Fifa come's down hard on Canada more or less handing the bronze to France then that would just make things worse.

 

I am afraid they will, they tend to frown on people that claim the game was fixed. I cringed as I watched it, hopefully the punishment will be handed down after the game.

 

Harsh indeed. I don't recall any US players stomping on the heads of opponents recently. But, more to the point, my intent wasn't to indict Tancredi's general style of play or her play in this game (I actually kinda like her), but to counter this general presumption that the 6 second/handling call was the only thing that stood between Canada and glorious victory, and that the ref's favoritism to the US was what lead to those calls. It doesn't defy reason to suggest that the US may have scored in some other way during those last 15-20 minutes (Abby had bounced one off the post). Similarly, there is a pretty good chance that the score would not have been 3-2 Canada had Ms. Tancredi been ushered to the showers in the 55th minute (and therefore no desire to waste time). She's a pretty important piece to the team. All speculation, of course, but isn't that also what's behind the outrage of the Canadian supporters, this feeling that but for the ref Canada wins?

I'll give you the lack of finesse claim, although Heath and Morgan provide some counter-point. It's a physical style of play, certainly. One that Canada is very familiar with. But what good team doesn't play similarly physical? Japan, of course, who may be the most skilled team in the world now. But who else?

 

Six seconds that changed the world.

 

Someone here is definitely carrying a Red card.

Or at least pinko.