That is not what the advantage law says. Penalizing Wash does not mean Boston has to score, it only needs to realize the advantage. These are the ways to call that play: 1) Do not apply advantage. Stop the game immediately, call the foul and award the PK. That means Wash is penalized once. 2) Apply advantage, if advantage materializes, this means Wash is penalized once. 3) Apply advantage, if advantage does not materialize, call the foul and award the PK, this means Wash is penalized once. If you apply 2 AND 3, you penalize Wash twice.
The advantage rule is designed to not penalize the team that was fouled, it is a stretch to make the jump that that equates to penalizing the team at fault. Playing advantage indicates that the ref 1) saw and acknowledged the foul and 2) there may be more to come, whether it be brought back for a card or in this case a PK being justly awarded. #2 does not penalize WF in any manner, it just allows the play to develop as if there was no call at all. The ref got it right, his timing was just odd. Your argument would only apply of the Breakers scored on the continuation of play AND were also awarded a PK, which would clearly be wrong and would be penalizing WF twice. In any case, regardless of mechanics, the correct team was penalized and the correct team benefitted. From the replay, lousy as it is, I would not have been surprised to see Scurry carded. You can take the thug out of Atlanta but.........
OK the ref could have been quicker but he was right. It happened fast. Scurry came out fouled Hucles, the ref plays advantage, Shot comes in from boston player right away, shot cleared, ref call a PK. All in the space of a second at most. If after Hucles was fouled the Boston player coming in then got the ball & started dribbling for what appears to be forever & there was an almighty scramble in the box & Boston failed to score i could probably see your point.It would be hard to justify the ref calling the play back in that case. If that foul happened in in the middle of the park say, Hucles gets poleaxed the ball falls to a Boston midfielder & she then fails to control it & the ball goes out of play or to the opposition i can guarantee you that the ref would bring that back for the original foul.(meaning the advantage was given but the team failed to take it)Its unfair i know but it happens all the time. I always say that if a foul would be given outside the box in a game then it should be foul in the box all the same. Different rules don't apply to incidents in the penalty area or they shouldn't...but of course we all know they sometimes do.
I wasn't going to get in this contest with you. This is one example, if you need more, I can find more for you: http://asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/21006/
If "she fails to control" ... means the advantage was not realized, of course you call it back. Please read my post again.
Totally off topic from the present conversation, but wanted to add that I read on a Red Stars thread that the league actually only allow three subs. Peter Wilt said they wanted four, but that US Soccer would not approve it.
From Beaulah's write-up: This is probably more suited for the Freedom forum , but who was this? Aly Krieger?
A general question that applies to all teams - did the teams 'pick' or have any say in who they wanted in their allocations? Not sure if re: Krieger the Freedom were dumb, got screwed, or a percentage of each.
The teams and the players each got to indicate their preferences. Gabarra's indicated several places (including to me in conversation) that he specifically requested Krieger, but he also didn't know her contract status at the time. As it turned out, she signed an extension to her contract shortly after the allocations were announced. There's a chance we might get her at the end of the German season in June (we longtime Freedom fans are used to Frauenfussballers coming to the rescue at about that time of year, e.g. Steffi Jones and Sandra Minnert), though it's more likely we'll get her June of 2010.