What Should We Call The USA-Canada Semifinal?

"Trafford Trafford My Ol' Stompin' Grounds"

 

In my opinion the players should be mad at their coach decided to put the focus on the refs when he started talking about the US players "illegal" actions on freekicks and in the end it burned them. The ref was looking for things on freekicks and spotted a legitimate call that usually is not called.

 

Intend is clearly stated in the interpretation of the law of the games. It does make sense.
Oterhwise FIFA would have reworded the law differently.

 

A Canadian Fine Whine

 

Y'know, I was thinking the reference was to Six Days That Shook the World - American journalist Jack Reed's account of the Bolshevik Revolution (and partly the basis for the Warren Beatty movie Reds). But most of you probably didn't get that. I guess the reference was to (ick) a book on the Kennedy Assassination, which, it can be argued, derived its title from the Jack Reed book.

Which one do we want to go off on a tangent on?!

 

1- the canadian goalkeeper took the ball for 12, 13, 14 ... seconds... blame on her, not on the referee. BTW i haTE losing time tactics. the referee was very well- if other referees do not call that, they are WRONG.period.
2-the ball was defected by two, i repeat, two canadian hands in the area, deflecting a very dangerous ball so...PK very well awarded.
3-the canadian team abused a lot from harsh and illegal contacts, and at least one canadian player should have been ejected- tancredi, so...
when the usa played against brazil, with an incredible refereing against, they had the class to overcome that and eventually won that game. The problem is that the canadian team did not have the class to beat this american team.
for canada to get a win against this USA team at least 3 things were needed:
a- play a very rough and intimidating game- they did that really well indeed-one player at least should have been expelled.. at least..
b-score first- they did that 3 times
c-the usa team not having their usual determination- they had
and they won.
i understand the canadiennes must be angry because they lost again a game against a team that usually beat them... again and again.. but the statistics all point a supremacy of the american team in this game.
it reminds me of a great derby in portugal, Boavista vs FCPorto- Porto usually had the better team, usually carried the game with much more chances to score, attacking all the time because they usually wanted to be champions- but Boavista had the much more confortable attitude of counter-attack, denying all the spaces with "agressive" contacts( more karate or kung fu movements) and always had excuses for the defeats- the referees, bad luck,aliens, the system... whatever..the problem is that , under normal situations, the better team wins- and that was what happenned in Manchester.

 

Its very rare that that call is made it was not what i would call a good game by the ref alla round many calls she did not make on both sides yes there were player son Canada that should have got the boot but same with the States out of all of this Canada even with the lost did show they are one of the top teams in the World.

 

Agreed, a better day for this ref and the game is totally different.

 

I think that rule was rewritten a few years ago to add the intent as clarification.

 

first, I want to give a caution that you are talking about the USSF, which most fifa referees aren't , and Pedersen definitely isn't one.

it would probaly be best to stick with FIFA documents when trying to get a sense of what a referees additional instructions are for international play. if they conflict, always use the fifa documents.

But in this case, since both Canada and the USA use a lot of the same referees in , for example, the MLS and W leagues, it might be OK to use the directons from the "Ask a Referee' documents, at least to get a sense of what Canadian and USA players might expect. Players on both sides would be familiar with how Handling is called by these refs.

I'll chose from the Novenber 2010 edition on handling.

so a referee is instucted to take clues from
1) did the player make themselves "bigger"?
2) was the arm in an un-natural position?
3) would there have been a benefit from what the player did?


after that, reaction time and distance to ball should be used if the first three don't achieve a decision.

i think it is fair to say that Nault, at least, might have made herself bigger with the raised arm. if you want to count Matheson's action, her arm was out also. And ref's will always consider the "chicken wing" Un-natural. since it is in the box, benefit isn't much at issue.

again, this is the USSF, NOT FIFA.

ms Pedersen probably isn't taught exactly that by the Danish federation or UEFA, so there is that caveat, but the instructions she gets are probably not much diferent.


as to Matheson, you have to ask if she had ecnroached. she was running at the ball and looked a lot closer to me than the required 10 yards to the ball when it was kicked (Nault, after all, was set at the 10 yards). that would not be covered under handling, but under USB - failure to respect distance, wouldn't it? That is also a foul. we aren't really sure which she called, are we?

 

6 seconds that changed the game
in 5 steel rings that Brunel struck—
4 goals scored for Team US, but
only 3 for Team Canuck

 

Here we go again. Hope Solo breaks the 6 sec rule at least 3-4 times a game for photo ops for the national audience.

Canada was robbed of a 3:2 victory.

 

Oh, I like that tweak very much.

Six Seconds that Shook the World

 

You like that, do you?

Like I said, someone around here is definitely carrying a Red card. Or at least a Pinko.

 

I gotta say, as a fan of both the USA , specific USA players, and a couple of Canadian players, there isn't much to feel good about that match except the players I like.

The thing is, there is no TARDIS we can use to go back and do it right.

 

Oh, I dunno. It was quite a spectacular match for all that. And again amazed many people with how compelling this sport is.

I feel for the Canadians but I'm also just glad to see them earn respect for their team after their unexpected debacle in the World Cup last year.

(And you would be one to like the Six Days that Shook the World reference -- Jack Reed came from up around Portland if I recall)

 

Well, I know enough about Jack Reed to know it was 10 days, not six, but I was going with the flow.

He was actually a hero of mine in my college days, though I wasn't in Oregon then, and he had nothing to do with Reed College.

The match was spectacular. I was smiling through a big part of it, which might tell you a bit about my Lacrosse background. It still is tainted, no matter who you think is right.

 

That would be the end of it if refs could read minds. Since they can't, advice is given such as is the arm sticking out away from the body.

I've never seen the 6 second rule called in pro soccer.

But I also have rarely seen a team chop down attackers around the edge of the box the way Canada did, and not get punished by calls and cards.

 

The dude from the Opening Ceremonies that Kenneth Branagh was playing. Remember when they tore up the beautiful green countryside to turn it into filthy pollution-spewing sweat shops, creating social upheaval and the industrial revolution, which eventually culminated in the five rings of the Olympics being poured from molten metal and rising from the factory floor and sending a 'golden shower' raining down on the heads all the workers? That was him. (And the ceremony should have stopped right there, in my opinion, while the symbolism was clear.)

 

It should be called Another Bunch Of Canadian Sore Losers At The Olympics.

 

Canadian Bacon - Part 2