OT: WWC (Soccer) Thread

[todbo]

N

Agree. It's hard to develop a plan to both screen the goalie and let the ball find its way through a melee of players - including having the ball go right through the legs of a French defender. Much more luck than plan but it counts. If it were easy to plan a play like this, you would see it more than once a year.

No need to have the specifics of a goal planned out. Slam a hard shot that ought to be good on its own and good things happen...

 

[stamfordhusky]

How many of you thought that the disallowed US goal by Tobin Heath should have been a good goal? I replayed it several times, freezing it as nearly as possible at the moment of Morgan’s pass to Crystal Dunn, and each time (to my less than totally objective eyes) it appeared that Dunn was on-side when the pass was made.

If that goal had been allowed, then the game would be remembered as a decisive victory by a clearly superior American side, rather than as the US hanging on by their fingernails at the end.

I’m surprised that they did not appear to go to video to review that play. If it was done, it was done very quickly and with almost no fanfare. The TV broadcast did not show a full replay with a focus on the off-side call. I would think that the play was close enough (and important enough) to warrant a full review, even if the call on the field was eventually upheld.

I thought Heath was close to being offside on the second US goal, and that that play also might have been reviewed, but it wasn’t and the goal stood.

Later in the game, they showed a freeze-frame of the U.S. goal that was disallowed. Dunn was definitely offside - but only because a toe was just past the last defender. It was too close for the AR to pop the flag however. Should have let it go - and then let VAR nullify the goal. They definitely reviewed it with VAR, as they are required to do on all plays like that.

As for the second U.S. goal, they also showed a good freeze-frame later in the game that showed she was onside - barely. That play was reviewed by the VAR crew and they concluded that she was onside and did not recommend that the ref make her own review.

When goals are scored or PK's are called, it is ALWAYS reviewed in the VAR booth. Then they may make a recommendation that the ref look at the video - and occasionally may recommend that the ref simply change the call if the mistake was blatant.

 

[Sifaka]

I think that those (including on this board) who said that Rapinoe’s kneeling during the anthem was because she was trying to get attention since her soccer career was on a downward path have been proven wrong in these games.

Even if you don’t agree with someone (either their message or their manner of expressing it), why is it so hard to give them credit for the sincerity of their beliefs (unless you have real evidence to show otherwise)?

Here's a good read that gives more insight:

American Original: How Megan Rapinoe stole the show at the World Cup

After a week of feuding with the President of the United States, Megan Rapinoe delivered in a way only she could.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[eebmg]

So. Does Italy (vs Netherlands) and Sweden (vs Germany) have a chance?


I would not mind having to face Sweden in the Finals and get some more payback.

 

[Centerstream]

Very well stated, and thank you for your willingness to defend freedom of speech. There are too many that do not appreciate the true value of that most precious of our rights and liberties.

And yet BYers do not have freedom of speech on the Women's Basketball forum and we all follow the rules or risk getting suspended. What's the difference?
BTW I am not against the BY rules just making a point.
And let's return to the OP.

 

[Sifaka]

And yet BYers do not have freedom of speech on the Women's Basketball forum and we all follow the rules or risk getting suspended. What's the difference?
BTW I am not against the BY rules just making a point.

The difference is that (1) BY is a private entity, and (2) The First Amendment constrains government from limiting the free speech of citizens and the press.

Here is the relevant text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;



Temery, Nan, Bif, JS, and the Boneyard, neither individually nor collectively are Congress; they are private entities, at whose pleasure we post.

When Congress or another government entity authorized by Congress, attempts to constrain freedom of speech, they contravene the Constitution. When any elected official tells someone else to shut up, because they don't like the content of the speaker's speech or actions, that is legal, albeit contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

 

[eebmg]

I know this is off topic but Netherlands just scored again in the 80' for 2-0 lead.

Edit. Done deal. After a very slow low energy 1st half (0-0), they just dominated the Italians in the 2nd half. Set pieces and headers and at least 2 other shots off the wood work. Nice to have a game where the winner deserves it and no VAR extracurriculars.

 

[JordyG]

Let's go Sweden.

 

[JordyG]

...and ladies and gentlemen, back to our scheduled programming. The English coach just called Bronze the best player in the world. Not the best at her (fullback) position, but best. Period. Wait until he sees the US and their speed in the midfield.

 

[NYCHUSKIES]

Well that wasn't a corner, rather a freekick and I think it was more luck than plan that the goalie was screened. Not great keeping, but it counts.

Its not luck.. i played soccer and ALL soccer teams practice the curtain shot; blocking the goalies peripheral and front view with an outside corner right kick... So no, it was not luck. Sorry, its just thousands of athletes spent hours and hours perfecting their craft that to call it lucky is almost almost a little off setting.

 

[eebmg]

...and ladies and gentlemen, back to our scheduled programming. The English coach just called Bronze the best player in the world. Not the best at her (fullback) position, but best. Period. Wait until he sees the US and their speed in the midfield.

I think it is funny the 'best player' in the world is named Bronze. Perfect Karma for when England plays for Bronze in the consolation game.

 

[Centerstream]

The difference is that (1) BY is a private entity, and (2) The First Amendment constrains government from limiting the free speech of citizens and the press.

Here is the relevant text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;



Temery, Nan, Bif, JS, and the Boneyard, neither individually nor collectively are Congress; they are private entities, at whose pleasure we post.

When Congress or another government entity authorized by Congress, attempts to constrain freedom of speech, they contravene the Constitution. When any elected official tells someone else to shut up, because they don't like the content of the speaker's speech or actions, that is legal, albeit contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Thanks for the Civics lesson.

 

[eebmg]

Germany playing Sweden. Oops. talk about Geopolitical.

Edit: Quick observation. Germany looks real good. I do not see Sweden winning

Edit 2: Sweden looked better for 10 minutes but Germany just scored in the 16' and look really strong 1-0

Edit 3: Sweden ties it up in 22'. This is a wide open game with alot of talent on both sides

 

[JordyG]

Germany playing Sweden. Oops. talk about Geopolitical.

Edit: Quick observation. Germany looks real good. I do not see Sweden winning

Edit 2: Sweden looked better for 10 minutes but Germany just scored in the 16' and look really strong 1-0

Edit 3: Sweden ties it up in 22'. This is a wide open game with alot of talent on both sides

Sweden started out looking like they felt they couldn't beat this team. I think the goal sort of woke them up.

 

[eebmg]

Sweden started out looking like they felt they couldn't beat this team. I think the goal sort of woke them up.

OMG. Sweden up 2-1 in 47 minute. German Defense ultra porous.

Edit. Sweden wins 2-1. Germany never really put any sustained pressure on.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Its not luck.. i played soccer and ALL soccer teams practice the curtain shot; blocking the goalies peripheral and front view with an outside corner right kick... So no, it was not luck. Sorry, its just thousands of athletes spent hours and hours perfecting their craft that to call it lucky is almost almost a little off setting.

I've played, coached, and reffed soccer for 50 years. It was mostly luck. Yes, teams practice that sort of play - but the main goal is to have a player redirect it past the goalkeeper. Not to have it luckily go right through the legs of a defender and then past the goalie.

 

[JordyG]

I've played, coached, and reffed soccer for 50 years. It was mostly luck. Yes, teams practice that sort of play - but the main goal is to have a player redirect it past the goalkeeper. Not to have it luckily go right through the legs of a defender and then past the goalie.

Its not luck.. i played soccer and ALL soccer teams practice the curtain shot; blocking the goalies peripheral and front view with an outside corner right kick... So no, it was not luck. Sorry, its just thousands of athletes spent hours and hours perfecting their craft that to call it lucky is almost almost a little off setting.

An actual occurrence in my life. A friend of mine flipped a coin once and it landed on its edge. I'll never forget it.

 

[DefenseBB]

You would think so, but the Europeans didn’t really emphasize women’s soccer like they did men’s soccer until the last 10-20 years or so. But that’s no longer the case. Today there’s lots of little girls in Europe kicking soccer balls with dreams of winning a World Cup championship.

I like to think this emphasis was due to the movie “Bend it like Beckham”

 

[meyers7]

Its not luck.. i played soccer and ALL soccer teams practice the curtain shot; blocking the goalies peripheral and front view with an outside corner right kick... So no, it was not luck. Sorry, its just thousands of athletes spent hours and hours perfecting their craft that to call it lucky is almost almost a little off setting.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong here. While they "may" have been trying to create chaos, Ertz was making a front post run as she almost always does (looking for a flik or redirection). That it got through all those players without anybody touching it, and the GK didn't make a very good play...lucky. But like I said it counts. Good job by the US and Rapinoe.

 

[JoePgh]

I've played, coached, and reffed soccer for 50 years. It was mostly luck. Yes, teams practice that sort of play - but the main goal is to have a player redirect it past the goalkeeper. Not to have it luckily go right through the legs of a defender and then past the goalie.

I will admit to having watched a lot more hockey than soccer. In hockey, both of these methods (screening the goaltender to get a shot through, and deflecting a teammate's shot just enough so that the goaltender can't react to the changed trajectory) are quite common and are intentionally practiced. Really, it's just two variations on the same thing. If you get traffic in front of the goaltender so that he/she can't see the ball/puck as it comes towards him, that increases the chance of a goal. If the player(s) screening the goaltender can tip the shot so that the goalie has to react to changed direction, that also makes a score more likely. The choices are not mutually exclusive, and can be pursued simultaneously. I think that is what happened yesterday: Ertz tried for deflection and didn't get it, but she did screen the goalkeeper so that the shot made its way through all the feet in front of the goal.

 

[stamfordhusky]

I will admit to having watched a lot more hockey than soccer. In hockey, both of these methods (screening the goaltender to get a shot through, and deflecting a teammate's shot just enough so that the goaltender can't react to the changed trajectory) are quite common and are intentionally practiced. Really, it's just two variations on the same thing. If you get traffic in front of the goaltender so that he/she can't see the ball/puck as it comes towards him, that increases the chance of a goal. If the player(s) screening the goaltender can tip the shot so that the goalie has to react to changed direction, that also makes a score more likely. The choices are not mutually exclusive, and can be pursued simultaneously. I think that is what happened yesterday: Ertz tried for deflection and didn't get it, but she did screen the goalkeeper so that the shot made its way through all the feet in front of the goal.

Sure, they try to screen the GK on plays like this. But in practice, the idea is for someone to get a foot on the ball, not for the ball to luckily go through a maze of players, including through the legs of one of them, and ending up going directly in the net.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

You find your edge where yo can get it I guess. Pretty funny stuff here!

US women's soccer staffers stoke controversy after appearing at England's hotel before match

Worried about short sheeting perhaps!

 

[meyers7]

You find your edge where yo can get it I guess. Pretty funny stuff here!

US women's soccer staffers stoke controversy after appearing at England's hotel before match

Worried about short sheeting perhaps!

I've read and seen a couple things on this, but still can't figure out what the deal is yet????? Either side.

 

[JoePgh]

What would be the purpose of visiting your opponent's hotel while their team was at practice? What advantage could be gained by that?

 

[JordyG]

What would be the purpose of visiting your opponent's hotel while their team was at practice? What advantage could be gained by that?

Put a horse head in the coaches bed?

 

[eebmg]

I've read and seen a couple things on this, but still can't figure out what the deal is yet????? Either side.

After thinking about it, I think the issue is that the US advance team was looking at the British Hotel which apparently is nicer so that if they won, they would want to switch from their current hotel to the new one.

Of course, this implies that the US team is so sure of victory that they are scouting their next housing upgrade.


If not, I think this is how Jill Ellis and some of the US players are interpreting the British angst



It is funny that there is also an article on ESPNw about the British team and how their coach Neville is this super genius guy who leaves nothing to chance etc.

 

[meyers7]

After thinking about it, I think the issue is that the US advance team was looking at the British Hotel which apparently is nicer so that if they won, they would want to switch from their current hotel to the new one.

Sorta makes sense. Although to me it seems like staying put in one place would be preferable to moving again. Even if just across town. ???? I assume the USA has a pretty nice hotel, I mean how much better could the Brits' hotel be??

 

[eebmg]

Sorta makes sense. Although to me it seems like staying put in one place would be preferable to moving again. Even if just across town. ???? I assume the USA has a pretty nice hotel, I mean how much better could the Brits' hotel be??

In other follow ups, the USWNT said that this is just normal and they were actually scouting all possibilities like Plan A, Plan B etc. The plans would be different if they lose and need to play the consolation game since the 2 games are in different cities. So I guess the British hotel now is in Lyon where the final is scheduled.

Anyhow, always fun to get under the stuffed collars of the Brits.

 

[meyers7]

In other follow ups, the USWNT said that this is just normal and they were actually scouting all possibilities like Plan A, Plan B etc. The plans would be different if they lose and need to play the consolation game since the 2 games are in different cities. So I guess the British hotel now is in Lyon where the final is scheduled.

Anyhow, always fun to get under the stuffed collars of the Brits.

Well the Semi's are also in Lyon, so I assume all 4 teams are there.

 

[warbler1055]

So today is game day. What Jill Ellis'roster is going to be. Is she going to make any change, i.e. Lindsey Horan start instead of whoever. Ellis was very slow with substitution. Against France, US lost in possession time, shots taken but could have a 3-0 lead if not for the questionable offside call. Ellis did go for a 5-3-2 to protect the lead and it worked. England is looking great against Norway and Neville is making plenty of noise. So it will be a very tough and physical game. My totally biased and unfounded prediction: US will advance!!! What's yours?