Spoiler alert- USA vs. Canada soccer | Page 7 | The Boneyard

Spoiler alert- USA vs. Canada soccer

Status
Not open for further replies.
meyers7 said:
I can feel for McLoed. I've never seen it called in any competition I've ever witnessed. Don't think I've ever called it in all the years I've reffed.
Expand ...

Too true...some of the delay drama with the faked injuries extends to stretcher rides etc. This was no-nonsense...be interesting to have heard the warning at the beginning of the 2nd half to get a feel for the emphasis added, if any.
 
Clearly, Canada was using gamesmanship in holding the ball and Wambach kept the pressure on the official until they cracked. Canada's only complaint is that despite warnings they didn't get flagged sooner.

If it is in the rules then maybe it should be called more often, not whining about that it is never called and a team abuses the clock.
 
UConn990411 said:
Shots:
USA - 18
Can - 9

Shots on goal:
USA - 7
Can - 7

Corners:
USA - 12
Can - 4

Possession:
USA - 54%
Can - 46%

It was an evenly matched game (at least until overtime #2), but it's hard to argue Canada outplayed the U.S.
Expand ...

Thanks for posting the statistics. I watched the game and my perception was the US did not control the ball by passing it and synchronized their attack. Instead it seems to me that the US just put the ball in front of the goal and hoped that somebody will punch it in. The Canadian did a better job of playing ball control. They were physical. My observations were purely impressions not based on statistics. However, the NYT article seems to validate my impressions with lots of data and quotes from players on both teams.
 
Karina LeBlanc, Canada's backup GK, has tweeted Sepp Blatter, FIFA, and the London OC asking them to review the game.
 
calpedaler said:
Karina LeBlanc, Canada's backup GK, has tweeted Sepp Blatter, FIFA, and the London OC asking them to review the game.
Expand ...

Sepp Blatter...not exactly like taking it to the mountaintop (wiseman-wise)...
 
.-.
Icebear said:
If it is in the rules then maybe it should be called more often, not whining about that it is never called and a team abuses the clock.
Expand ...


Soccer is an unusual sport in regard to how it is officiated. Much of officiating is based on what the players expect, and a big role of the referee is game management. Those items are much more important than certain things that are in the book. The 6-second rule was put into the book maybe 15 years ago to help the refs in game management, but all players in high-level competitions know it will not be called, except perhaps in a very rare situation where a goalkeeper refuses to release the ball when instructed at that moment to release it. If there is a major example of time-wasting the normal punishment is a yellow card to the goalkeeper.

If the referee is competent, time-wasting is no big deal anyway. Simply add extra time - maybe even excessive extra time - to offset any time-wasting. If you tell a player who just wasted 15 seconds that you are adding 30 seconds of time at the end, that player is not likely to waste time again.

There are many unwritten rules and understandings that determine much of how a game is played and officiated. Most who don't follow the game closely don't understand, but that is part of soccer tradition. Things like one-person drop balls and not ending the game in the middle of a corner kick are examples of conventions not in the rule book. Back in 1978, a British ref named Clive Thomas cost Brazil a World Cup game by blowing his whistle when time expired in the middle of a corner kick. He followed the rules perfectly - and was never given a high-level assignment again. His decision to end the game exactly when time expired still shows up on lists of the biggest reffing blunders ever. What he apparently forgot was how the game is supposed to be officiated, as opposed to the letter of the law.
 
stamfordhusky said:
Soccer is an unusual sport in regard to how it is officiated. Much of officiating is based on what the players expect, and a big role of the referee is game management. Those items are much more important than certain things that are in the book. The 6-second rule was put into the book maybe 15 years ago to help the refs in game management, but all players in high-level competitions know it will not be called, except perhaps in a very rare situation where a goalkeeper refuses to release the ball when instructed at that moment to release it. If there is a major example of time-wasting the normal punishment is a yellow card to the goalkeeper.

If the referee is competent, time-wasting is no big deal anyway. Simply add extra time - maybe even excessive extra time - to offset any time-wasting. If you tell a player who just wasted 15 seconds that you are adding 30 seconds of time at the end, that player is not likely to waste time again.

There are many unwritten rules and understandings that determine much of how a game is played and officiated. Most who don't follow the game closely don't understand, but that is part of soccer tradition. Things like one-person drop balls and not ending the game in the middle of a corner kick are examples of conventions not in the rule book. Back in 1978, a British ref named Clive Thomas cost Brazil a World Cup game by blowing his whistle when time expired in the middle of a corner kick. He followed the rules perfectly - and was never given a high-level assignment again. His decision to end the game exactly when time expired still shows up on lists of the biggest reffing blunders ever. What he apparently forgot was how the game is supposed to be officiated, as opposed to the letter of the law.
Expand ...

Just another reason to hate soccer and it's constant gamesmanship with flopping and all that garbage. I love the game. I despise what the international game has become enforce the 6 seconds or else let's make the 30 second clock in basketball as a suggestion and officiate it like handball and kill a possession when the official thinks a team is stalling.

Wambach understood the situation and called attention to it the whole game and it paid off.
 
Icebear said:
Wambach understood the situation and called attention to it the whole game and it paid.
Expand ...


I am sure, however, that Wambach never expected a ref would give an indirect kick in the box. All she was hoping was to get the goalie carded, which would immediately stop any time-wasting, and/or to make sure time was added at the end.
 
stamfordhusky said:
I am sure, however, that Wambach never expected a ref would give an indirect kick in the box. All she was hoping was to get the goalie carded, which would immediately stop any time-wasting, and/or to make sure time was added at the end.
Expand ...
I understand but Canada was given warning a couple of times according to reports. They pushed the limits and got bit.
 
Icebear said:
I understand but Canada was given warning a couple of times according to reports. They pushed the limits and got bit.
Expand ...


They were "warned" but never carded. The normal thing for a ref to do - in fact the only thing - would be to card the goalie. They pushed the limit, expecting that the ref would give out the punishment she is supposed to give out in that situation, i.e a card. One card and everything would have been fine. No need to decide the game on a gotcha call. Competent refs do not do that in soccer.
 
check this out! Canada's Tancredi got away with stomping on Carli Lloyd's head!

ouch
 
.-.
Icebear said:
I understand but Canada was given warning a couple of times according to reports. They pushed the limits and got bit.
Expand ...


The Canadian goalie says that the only warning she got was from the AR at halftime.
 
stamfordhusky said:
Interestingly a number of experienced refs on BigSoccer and other message boards said that they would card any player who did what Wambach did.

Also it is interesting that according to Wambach the goalkeeper on that play only held the ball for 10 seconds - not nearly enough of an infraction for any action.
Expand ...

I counted on replay, with the camera off of the the GK at the end, it was hard to tell exactly when she kicked it, but was still 12-13 sec.
 
cardfan said:
that counts.
Expand ...


Not in real soccer. This is a call that should NEVER be made unless the referee has just warned the player within moments of the offense. The ref should have done what every other ref does if time-wasting becomes extreme, i.e card the keeper. In the world of soccer, calling six seconds at the point is a violation of the rules all the players think they are playing under.
 
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the so-called six second rule. Often a goalkeeper can take 10 or more seconds to release the ball without even violating the letter of the law, never mind the spirit. Here is some official rules guidance from the U.S. Soccer Federation:

-------------------------------------------------------------

The six-second rule was introduced into the Laws of the Game about 20 years ago. This particular portion of the Law is noted for its not being called strictly to the rule — and there is a reason for that. The six-second count does not begin until the goalkeeper is clearly in possession of the ball and ABLE to think about releasing the ball into general play. Not while the goalkeeper is on the ground; not while he or she is recovering from a fall; not while he or she is rising: Only after the goalkeeper is clearly alert and ready to function.
Anything beyond that time is a matter for the individual discretion of the referee, who is the sole judge of the passage of time in a soccer game.
Finally, a point we emphasize in our answers to this and similar questions about goalkeeper release of the ball: Most of the time the offense is trivial as long as you are seeing an honest effort to put the ball back into play.

Also:

Many referees are too eager to begin counting the six seconds, as if those seconds were a magic number that could not be altered through the use of common sense. If you were to keep track of the elapsed time in goalkeeper possession in the top games around the world, you would find that goalkeepers use (and referees allow) anywhere from eight to ten seconds on average. The only time the top referees punish such infringements are when they become habitual and are clearly designed to waste time. Do not let this insignificant matter of a few seconds ruin an otherwise perfectly good game. Remember that the referee can always add time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Note that the 8-10 seconds mentioned above would be in addition to the time used up while on the ground, rising from the ground, getting clear of surrounding players, etc.)
 
.-.
stamfordhusky said:
They were "warned" but never carded. The normal thing for a ref to do - in fact the only thing - would be to card the goalie. They pushed the limit, expecting that the ref would give out the punishment she is supposed to give out in that situation, i.e a card. One card and everything would have been fine. No need to decide the game on a gotcha call. Competent refs do not do that in soccer.
Expand ...
Given what I saw in the last world cup and the current Olympics I question where those competent officials are.

What you posted above was posted earlier and shows how arbitrary and ridiculous the rules are. Players stop play with faux injuries and are miraculously healed when they reach the sidelines. All these things teach disrespect for the sport.
 
Icebear said:
Given what I saw in the last world cup and the current Olympics I question where those competent officials are.
Expand ...


Unfortunately the World Cup has to be politically correct and use referees from every Confederation and many countries. Thus many of the top refs stay home and many mediocre refs get assignments in the preliminary rounds. You will see far better reffing in the EPL and other top leagues than you will in the Olympics or World Cup. Still, it is an almost impossible game to officiate when there is only one referee. Although I have mixed feelings about it, I think the day will come when soccer does what hockey did and add a second center referee.

As for the women, there are very few good female refs at this point. Too few women seem to want a reffing career, especially outside North America and Scandinavia. Also training is bad and the female refs do not get many high level games to ref. At the Olympics, political correctness again was on display, with each country limited to one ref, and a number of barely qualified refs being given assignments.
 
stamfordhusky said:
If the referee is competent, time-wasting is no big deal anyway. Simply add extra time - maybe even excessive extra time - to offset any time-wasting. If you tell a player who just wasted 15 seconds that you are adding 30 seconds of time at the end,
Expand ...

I'm just a casual fan, but I've never seen that happen even remotely. It seems, to me anyway, that most time wasting is permitted, so long as it's not super excessive. Lots of instances of moderate wasting, which in the end can add up to quite a bit, go unpunished.

The notion that a ref can or does add sufficient time to offset wasting seems a farce to me.
 
stamfordhusky said:
Although I have mixed feelings about it, I think the day will come when soccer does what hockey did and add a second center referee.
Expand ...

The fact that soccer has only 1 ref would be laughable if not for the fact that it's incredibly sad.

I was pleased to see that during the Euro they finally had officials standing next to the goal. Long overdue, but at least a step in the right direction.
 
vowelguy said:
I'm just a casual fan, but I've never seen that happen even remotely. It seems, to me anyway, that most time wasting is permitted, so long as it's not super excessive. Lots of instances of moderate wasting, which in the end can add up to quite a bit, go unpunished.

The notion that a ref can or does add sufficient time to offset wasting seems a farce to me.
Expand ...


When a ref adds 3+ minutes of stoppage time at the end of a half, how do you know none of it was for time-wasting? True, there will not be time added for every little thing, but flagrant time-wasting might well be accounted for. As I said before, however, it's simple to stop it anyway, simply by issuing a card. Then the goalie will release the ball quickly for the rest of the game.
 
.-.
I think you've made your opinion pretty clear...

Look, I HATED the call and felt bad for Canada after the game, but they've proven themselves to be a bunch of bitter duck*ing clowns with the way they've handled things post game. Actually, they proved to be clowns even before the game, when their coach was already blaming the officials in the pre-game press conference.

Terrible call aside, here are the facts: Canada had three leads in the 2nd half, and failed to hold a single one of them. When you blow three separate leads in the 2nd half of a semifinal game, you have yourself to blame more than anyone.

On top of that, it's not like the PK led to the game-winning goal; Canada had over 10 minutes in regulation and 30 minutes in overtime to win the game. Instead, they let up a goal with 30 seconds left in the 2nd overtime. That doesn't negate the horrible call, but they at least had a chance to come back from it...and failed.

Canada has reacted exactly I would expect in this situation - like losers. I hope they get smoked in the bronze medal game and Tancredi suffers a rolled ankle.
 
UConn990411 said:
I think you've made your opinion pretty clear...

Look, I HATED the call and felt bad for Canada after the game, but they've proven themselves to be a bunch of bitter duck*ing clowns with the way they've handled things post game. Actually, they proved to be clowns even before the game, when their coach was already blaming the officials in the pre-game press conference.

Terrible call aside, here are the facts: Canada had three leads in the 2nd half, and failed to hold a single one of them. When you blow three separate leads in the 2nd half of a semifinal game, you have yourself to blame more than anyone.

On top of that, it's not like the PK led to the game-winning goal; Canada had over 10 minutes in regulation and 30 minutes in overtime to win the game. Instead, they let up a goal with 30 seconds left in the 2nd overtime. That doesn't negate the horrible call, but they at least had a chance to come back from it...and failed.

Canada has reacted exactly I would expect in this situation - like losers. I hope they get smoked in the bronze medal game and Tancredi suffers a bad injury.
Expand ...

Wow, I would never wish injury on anyone. Tancredi should be suspended for the game, though.
 
UConn990411 said:
Canada has reacted exactly I would expect in this situation - like losers. I hope they get smoked in the bronze medal game and Tancredi suffers a bad injury.
Expand ...

Wow. I think that is a disgusting comment.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of a rolled ankle (which I edited it to). And while I would never really root an injury, there's nothing more inexcusable in sports than stomping on someone's head.
 
UConn990411 said:
I was thinking more along the lines of a pulled hammy (which I edited it to). And while I would never really root an injury, there's nothing more inexcusable in sports than stomping on someone's head.
Expand ...

I agree with you there. Her behavior on the field, both in her play and her "tude" to the ref, and her post game comments should be reviewed by the Canadian federation and they should take disciplinary action (off the team for some time etc.)

Let's just leave the wishes of personal injury out of it.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,339
Messages
4,565,757
Members
10,467
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom