OT: WWC (Soccer) Thread

[Centerstream]

Wrong. She clipped the back leg causing the penalty. Based on fact not opinion.

And yet the announcers said that there wasn't a penalty. I didn't see a clear enough shot of any back leg clip. So it is a fact that it was a flop.

And this is the last that I am going to post concerning the flop. What I saw was not a penalty, what you (and others) saw, was considered a penalty. So be it.

 

[Plebe]

Let me understand the rules, White can be offside as long as she does not touch the ball first? I thought soccer was an easy game.

EDIT: and yes I am a casual fan...I come out once every 4 years.

Yes. There is a difference between being in an "offside position* and committing an "offside offense".

A player in an offside position doesn't commit an offense unless she either touches the ball or "interferes with the opponent".

Edit to add: A helpful reference, straight from the horse's mouth: http://theifab.com/laws/chapter/31/section/87/

 

[Mdoggie]

And yet the announcers said that there wasn't a penalty. I didn't see a clear enough shot of any back leg clip. So it is a fact that it was a flop.

And this is the last that I am going to post concerning the flop. What I saw was not a penalty, what you (and others) saw, was considered a penalty. So be it.

Cool

 

[SWHuskyFan]

They did show an angle that made it clear that the US defender made contact with her leg. I don’t know soccer rules well enough to understand the call. It also seemed clear that the contact was caused by White who had to bring her leg back at an odd angle because the pass was a bit behind her. Essentially she kicked our player who wasn’t directly behind her. When their legs made contact, White fell. I don’t think she did this on purpose but there’s nothing Suaerbrun could have done differently to avoid it. Reminded me of the three point shooter in basketball who kicks out their legs and draws a foul on a defender who is running to the side of them.

 

[Plebe]

And yet the announcers said that there wasn't a penalty. I didn't see a clear enough shot of any back leg clip. So it is a fact that it was a flop.

And this is the last that I am going to post concerning the flop. What I saw was not a penalty, what you (and others) saw, was considered a penalty. So be it.

If you're talking about the announcers on Fox, they acknowledged after seeing the replay, from a different angle, that it was indeed a penalty.

 

[Plebe]

They did show an angle that made it clear that the US defender made contact with her leg. I don’t know soccer rules well enough to understand the call. It also seemed clear that the contact was caused by White who had to bring her leg back at an odd angle because the pass was a bit behind her. Essentially she kicked our player who wasn’t directly behind her. When their legs made contact, White fell. I don’t think she did this on purpose but there’s nothing Suaerbrun could have done differently to avoid it. Reminded me of the three point shooter in basketball who kicks out their legs and draws a foul on a defender who is running to the side of them.

No, it has absolutely nothing in common with the basketball play you describe.

White had position and Sauerbrunn clipped her from behind as White prepared to kick the ball. That's a foul, and since it was in the penalty area, it's a penalty. Intent is irrelevant.

What could Sauerbrunn have done differently? Play better position defense in the first place and don't give the opponent a free charge at a ball in front of the goal.

 

[SWHuskyFan]

Yeah, no. She kicked her leg out sideways, that’s why Sauerbrun made contact with her. If her leg goes straight back that doesn’t happen. Thanks for the dismissive response though.

I never questioned intent, my question is about who created the contact. Her awkward kick seemed to do that which was caused by the pass that was slightly behind her.

 

[Plebe]

Yeah, no. She kicked her leg out sideways, that’s why Sauerbrun made contact with her. If her leg goes straight back that doesn’t happen. Thanks for the dismissive response though.

I never questioned intent, my question is about who created the contact. Her awkward kick seemed to do that which was caused by the pass that was slightly behind her.

You certainly implied intent when you drew the comparison to a basketball player kicking the legs out to seek contact and draw a foul.

At this point the best I can do is to humbly and gently suggest that people who are familiar with soccer would not share your interpretation of the play.

 

[Mdoggie]

When my daughter played in the ACC it was said "the only time it isn't a foul is when the ref doesn't call it" Same goes for basketball.

 

[meyers7]

At this point the best I can do is to humbly and gently suggest that people who are familiar with soccer would not share your interpretation of the play.

Exactly.

 

[warbler1055]

I saw the replay several times. White fell and screamed, Sauerbrunn was behind and the whole thing was a blur. I thought there was no penalty but obviously I was wrong or needed new glasses and eyeballs. So the PK was the right call.
My other question is about the offside call on White which denied England the tying goal. Was she or was she not offside. Again, my Sony 75" TV picture was not helpful. I thought the goal was good until it wasn't. So according some rule posted here, the VAR and the referee were wrong to deny England the goal since White was in an offside position and not offside when she got the ball. Did I finally get it right or was I wrong again?

 

[meyers7]

I saw the replay several times. White fell and screamed, Sauerbrunn was behind and the whole thing was a blur. I thought there was no penalty but obviously I was wrong or needed new glasses and eyeballs. So the PK was the right call.
My other question is about the offside call on White which denied England the tying goal. Was she or was she not offside. Again, my Sony 75" TV picture was not helpful. I thought the goal was good until it wasn't. So according some rule posted here, the VAR and the referee were wrong to deny England the goal since White was in an offside position and not offside when she got the ball. Did I finally get it right or was I wrong again?

I think you're confusing 2 different plays.

Play 1 (the PK play) - White is in an offside position, but the ball goes to FB (Stokes) who crosses it to White (now Onside) and Sauerbrunn clips her back leg for the penalty

Play 2 (offside nullified goal) - White is offside (barely only verified by frame by frame dissection) when the ball it passed to her, she turns and slots it past Naeher into the goal. But VAR calls her offside.

 

[Jeff H]

I am a little fed up with the VAR, but both final calls were right and they did't take too long to make the decisions, so good on VAR this time.

 

[Bigboote]

Just a few observations unrelated to officiating:

To me, Naeher looks like a completely different player than she was in January, or even two months ago. I was a doubter, but she’s really come up big the last few games. Kudos to those who believed in her; y’all saw something I didn’t.

Having Press in for Rapinoe, the only negative is lack of continuity. They’re very different players, but I wouldn’t say Rapinoe is clearly better. (I do think having Press come in at the 60’ mark for Heath is a great platoon.). Press is a great offensive player, her speed and relentlessness are great. Rapinoe’s fire is contagious, and she’s steadier than Press.

Rose Lavelle seemed to be everywhere before her injury; hope it’s a minor tweak.

Horan is a beast in the midfield. I hope she can keep from getting another card in the next game. She obviously got under the skin of the English. Ertz is also a wonderful player, and great to have in the game when they go to the 5-3-2.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Horan is a beast in the midfield. I hope she can keep from getting another card in the next game.

We can live with one yellow card next game. Just hope she doesn't get two in that game.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Some highlights from UK game:

 

[Bigboote]

We can live with one yellow card next game. Just hope she doesn't get two in that game.

Thanks for that. I’d thought that yellows in consecutive games would result in removal from the second game, had forgotten that it’s for the following game.

 

[Biff]

Just a thought here.

If we can't discuss Woman's World Cup Soccer with civil discourse and without insulting or denigrating other's opinions then maybe, just maybe we won't be able to discuss Women's World Cup Soccer on this forum.

As I said, just a thought.

 

[eebmg]

Netherlands finally scores in the 98' minute of the first extra period. I was hoping for Sweden since I would have liked the rematch. Netherlands finally win although I think overall Sweden had the better run of play.

 

[brownale]

Why not allow a few more subs per game. Players work their entire life for this chance and may never see the field.

 

[Plebe]

Why not allow a few more subs per game. Players work their entire life for this chance and may never see the field.

Soccer, unlike basketball, by its lineage is its substitution-averse. Just 35 years ago, only one substitution was allowed. In the 1950s, there were no subs. The rule has been gradually 'liberalized' to its current limit of 3, with a 4th allowed in extra time. (International friendly matches allow up to 6 per match.)

The number of substitutes usable in a competitive match has increased from zero—meaning teams were reduced if players' injuries could not allow them to play on—to one (plus another for an injured goalkeeper) in 1958; to two out of a possible five in 1988. With the later increases in substitutions allowed, the number of potential substitute players increased to seven.[14] The number of substitutes increased to two plus one (injured goalkeeper) in 1994,[15] to three in 1995;[16][17] and most recently to a fourth substitute in certain competitions in extra time.[18]​

Substitute (association football) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[j66kicker]

Sue on her way to France...

Injured Bird to attend WC final, cheer on Rapinoe

Sue Bird's rehabilitation on her left knee is continuing, but an upside is that she won't be missing any playing time to attend the Women's World Cup final in Lyon, France, where she'll be supporting girlfriend Megan Rapinoe and the USWNT.

www.espn.com

 

[Engineer90]

I hope the US team loses.

 

[Vowelguy]

I hope the US team loses.

Thank you for your interest in World Cup soccer.

 

[eebmg]

Sue on her way to France...

Injured Bird to attend WC final, cheer on Rapinoe

Sue Bird's rehabilitation on her left knee is continuing, but an upside is that she won't be missing any playing time to attend the Women's World Cup final in Lyon, France, where she'll be supporting girlfriend Megan Rapinoe and the USWNT.

www.espn.com

In the article is buried this sad little tidbit.

Bird's rehabilitation on her left knee is continuing, but the surgery she had in late May was a bit more extensive than initially expected and has put any return this season in question. She said it's similar to her situation in 2013, when she ended up missing the entire season following knee surgery.