~Soccer Thread~

[ALA2262]

Best game of the tournament.  Wow, chipiness, controversy VAR decisions, a PK save in what, the 81st minute?

Unbelievable call on the penalty shot. IMO the player was never touched, much less fouled. She went down because she missed the ball. Like Charlie Brown when Lucy pulls the ball away from him.

[utee94]

Unbelievable call on the penalty shot. IMO the player was never touched, much less fouled. She went down because she missed the ball. Like Charlie Brown when Lucy pulls the ball away from him.

Looked highly questionable to me, too.  If anything, it appeared the Brit kicked her leg back oddly after whiffing on the ball, and that's what initiated any potential contact.  Good thing it didn't affect the outcome.

[SFBadger96]

I thought it was the right call. Tough, but correct. Sauerbrunn's shin brushed the shooters calf as she was bringing it off the ground and pushed it off her line. It doesn't take much contact to alter the shot. Not the worst foul you've ever seen, but denied the attacking player her shot--and she had established position with a direct shot on net from point blank range. That's denial of a goal scoring opportunity (with an attempt to play the ball, so a caution, not a send off). And--if what I describe above is what happened--Sauerbrunn's penalty probably preserved the win. Is there a chance Naeher makes the save there? Yes. She was in position and making the right play on it, but that's a low percentage save.

Call on the offside was correct, and tough, too. It's like being pregnant: you are or your aren't, there's no close. And she was off. In the "old" days that call relied entirely on the assistant referee and it was a 50/50 call. VAR is frustrating, but for those people who think the rules should be enforced as written, this is an improvement (same for the keepers staying on their line during PKs).

[rolltidefan]

i didn't see any contact until after the ball was past her, and minimal at that. looked like a straight dive to me.

but the offside var was questionable at best. that was the narrowest of lines offsides i might have ever seen.

i really love the way the uswnt plays... when they play soccer and not the bs time wasting tactics. i absolutely loathe taking the ball in the corner like we do. we gave up 3-4 great chances at a 3rd goal just to waste 10-20 seconds when there were 10+ minutes left. our counter is deadly, lets end the game instead of milking it dry.

[SFBadger96]

i didn't see any contact until after the ball was past her, and minimal at that. looked like a straight dive to me.

I added my thoughts on the offside above.

As for the contact, the replay we saw on TV was a poor one to show the contact because it started late. The contact is as White is lifting her right foot off the grass. It was minor, but it altered her swing. Did she dive afterward? Of course she did. But the contact was there. You can see it here:



After the send off, the time wasting was exactly the right thing to do. With England playing down one, no question the right thing to do is keep possession and burn clock. It was more like the end of a basketball game than I'd like to watch (as a spectator), but still the right call.

[SFBadger96]

Two more thoughts:
1) Naeher was the player of the match for the USA. Her save at the end of the first half was spectacular--I'm stunned that it didn't make it into Fox's highlight reel. Her save on the PK was great, too. While the shot itself was underwhelming, Naeher guessed correctly and made a strong dive; she would have saved a much better shot, too (only a high one would have beat her to that side, which clearly wasn't what the shooter was going for).

2) That send off for England was the nail in the coffin. The Lionesses were largely controlling the match at that point, and a studs-up tackle--in the opponent's half of the pitch!--when you already have a caution in the books is a huge error in judgment. If the English are looking to place blame, start there. With as many chances as they were getting, the additional 11 minutes remaining probably would have provided several more.

[utee94]

I added my thoughts on the offside above.

As for the contact, the replay we saw on TV was a poor one to show the contact because it started late. The contact is as White is lifting her right foot off the grass. It was minor, but it altered her swing. Did she dive afterward? Of course she did. But the contact was there. You can see it here:



After the send off, the time wasting was exactly the right thing to do. With England playing down one, no question the right thing to do is keep possession and burn clock. It was more like the end of a basketball game than I'd like to watch (as a spectator), but still the right call.

Eh, I'm not really seeing what you saw.  The ball is passing her in that shot, she's busy whiffing and not making contact with it.  Her leg is then thrown weirdly backward, likely in an attempt to initiate contact so she can then take a dive and get a call.  It certainly worked as she intended.  But highly questionable at best and no effect on her play because she was already busy missing the ball.  We can agree to disagree here, won't bother me a bit.  I'm just thankful it didn't affect the outcome of the game.

[SFBadger96]

Disagree (and I guess we can agree to that, but...): this is earlier than what you are describing. What you see here is she is about to plant her left foot, and she is beginning the swing of her right foot toward the ball, but it is thrown off by Sauerbrunn's contact. The whiff (the awkward miss) is at the end of this swing that is just starting here--it hasn't happened yet--and almost certainly this contact caused the miss.

And that was the problem with the replays shown--they didn't start early enough for the viewer to really focus on where the foul occurred, which is here.

But don't take my word for it, "I thought there was contact, but if I didn't go for it, she was going to score," Sauerbrunn said after the match.

[ELA]

I think merging with CONMEBOL is the more likely scenario.

Thinking more about this, if they want to expand the World Cup, what about this...

A 4 year cycle where: (1) continental championships (Gold Cup, Euros, Copa America, Nations Cup, etc...) & World Cup preliminaries; (2) World Cup Qualifying; (3) WC Qualifying Stage 2 & Confederations Cup; (4) World Cup.

Then you re-do World Cup Qualifying, and eliminate the continental stages.  Top 56 skip the preliminaries.  Remaining 150ish compete for the remaining 56 spots during Year 1.

Year 2, instead of an expanded "World Cup" you take your 112 teams, and split them into 16 different 7 team groups, with 16 host nations.  Over 3 weeks in the summer, you basically have a 112 team World Cup, where teams simply play the other 6 teams in their groups.  Each of the 16 group winners advance to the Year 4 World Cup, under the current 32 team format.

The 32 2nd and 3rd place teams are re-seeded, and play a 2 leg home and home series against each other during Year 3, with the 16 winners taking the remaining 16 spots in the tournament.  Then in the late summer you still have the Confederations Cup, with the winners of the Year 1 continental cups.

This way you keep the current 32 team format, which I think is close to perfect.  But now makes qualification it's own 3 week event, so that you have world football on the stage every other year.

[utee94]

Disagree (and I guess we can agree to that, but...): this is earlier than what you are describing. What you see here is she is about to plant her left foot, and she is beginning the swing of her right foot toward the ball, but it is thrown off by Sauerbrunn's contact. The whiff (the awkward miss) is at the end of this swing that is just starting here--it hasn't happened yet--and almost certainly this contact caused the miss.

And that was the problem with the replays shown--they didn't start early enough for the viewer to really focus on where the foul occurred, which is here.

But don't take my word for it, "I thought there was contact, but if I didn't go for it, she was going to score," Sauerbrunn said after the match.

Still not gonna agree with you, and players often have no idea what's happening in the heat of the battle with specifics on timing.  So there you have it. *shrug*

[utee94]

Thinking more about this, if they want to expand the World Cup, what about this...

A 4 year cycle where: (1) continental championships (Gold Cup, Euros, Copa America, Nations Cup, etc...) & World Cup preliminaries; (2) World Cup Qualifying; (3) WC Qualifying Stage 2 & Confederations Cup; (4) World Cup.

Then you re-do World Cup Qualifying, and eliminate the continental stages.  Top 56 skip the preliminaries.  Remaining 150ish compete for the remaining 56 spots during Year 1.

Year 2, instead of an expanded "World Cup" you take your 112 teams, and split them into 16 different 7 team groups, with 16 host nations.  Over 3 weeks in the summer, you basically have a 112 team World Cup, where teams simply play the other 6 teams in their groups.  Each of the 16 group winners advance to the Year 4 World Cup, under the current 32 team format.

The 32 2nd and 3rd place teams are re-seeded, and play a 2 leg home and home series against each other during Year 3, with the 16 winners taking the remaining 16 spots in the tournament.  Then in the late summer you still have the Confederations Cup, with the winners of the Year 1 continental cups.

This way you keep the current 32 team format, which I think is close to perfect.  But now makes qualification it's own 3 week event, so that you have world football on the stage every other year.

I like the general idea, as long as we don't ever have to play CONCACAF teams.  

[utee94]

And I can't say I mind seeing Sweden-Netherlands going into overtime.  Can't be anything but good for the USA.  

[SFBadger96]

I was talking with a colleague this morning about the World Cup, these two mildly controversial calls in yesterday's game, and VAR. As we discussed, the reality is that VAR hardly changes anything for 99.9% of soccer in the world. It's only at the most elite level that these discussions will ever take place. For the rest of us, we will continue to live with the referee's decision at that critical moment in the match. And she or he won't have any more than the ARs to talk questionable calls over with before making a final decision.

VAR has resulted in a change to the law relating to keepers leaving their line on PKs--and this World Cup will likely result in referees and ARs paying more attention to whether the keeper leaves her line early. Other than that, futbol as usual (with the new changes to the laws about handling, goal kicks, and drop balls--which also aren't huge changes as far as most players and games are concerned).

[Anonymous Coward]

A really dominant final. And it looks like we found a World Cup MVP.