Video Highlights of UW Game

Here they are!!!

I've watched it a few times now, and while it's quick, you can clearly see a Washington player grabbing Michelle's jersey right at the 1:25 mark, which definitely impeded her and probably resulted in her hitting the deck.

Doesn't change my opinion that it was as generous PK call, but it does affirm that it wasn't just a totally phantom call.

While the sequence goes by so quickly, it is possible that the UW defender's leg ended up tripping Michelle Cruz from behind. If so, I am not sure if that was intentional or incidental.

On a lighter note, when a UW fan kept screaming up top in section B, someone related to our team was able to silence him (for a while at least) with, "I remember my first beer!"

soccerjoy wrote:
On a lighter note, when a UW fan kept screaming up top in section B, someone related to our team was able to silence him (for a while at least) with, "I remember my first beer!"

I do as well, every time I have one. It's the second one, etc. where things get hazy...

I guess it matters when you start the count, doesn't it?

As you said elsewhere, getting back to the subject -

I thought from my viewings that the defender pretty definitely tripped her, with her right foot - probably accidently, but a trip nonetheless. It is hard to tell for absolute sure. And, she might POSSIBLY have gotten a head on the pass, though it would have been a pretty spectacular play.

Just looked at it 4 more times. It really looks like Cruz got tripped.

fan from afar wrote:As you said elsewhere, getting back to the subject -

I thought from my viewings that the defender definitely tripped her, with her right foot - probably accidently, but a trip nonetheless. It is hard to tell for sure. And, she might POSSIBLY have gotten a head on the pass, though it would have been a pretty spectacular play.

Although everything happened so fast and it's hard to stop the video and get a good look, something I noticed is that the ref was right behind the play and appeared to be looking directly at the play based on which he made the call. He looked to be in a better position to see what happened than we -- looking through the camera lens -- were. It appears to me, from the camera's lesser vantage point, to be something he could have left as a non-call. On the other hand, UW's players had been playing with matches throughout the game, pushing and shoving and stepping on heels, constantly pushing the envelope as their yellow cards indicated, and when you do that you're taking a chance you're eventually going to get badly burned.

Well, it's one of those typical bang-bang plays that everyone sees differently. I've watched it again and I conclude no foul. The ref had the whistle and gave the foul so apparently he saw it as one. My opinion counts little, his opinion counts for one goal in this case. I agree that it was generous. Another ref, same moment and it doesn't get called. Add it to my list of 567,421 calls that I have disagreed with over the years. Thing is, I disagree when they are for my team and against my team. It's what makes soccer the best in that opinions matter and the darn game is so subjective anyway...

This should be called the Video Lowlights: it shows all the ugliest fouls. Sadly, when the hardest fouls of the game are ranked, the foul that decided the game ranks down in the low 400s, or maybe wasn't a foul at all.

What about Micaela getting slammed at 0:14? To me that looks like the Husky deliberately knocked Micaela down while she was driving to the goal, then turned to possess the ball. Okay, maybe she managed to touch the ball a bit on her way to knocking Micaela down, but so what? I'd award it a red card as well as a PK. As others have suggested, the 108th-minute foul was undoubtedly something of a make-up call for all the caca he failed to call earlier. Refs are generally reluctant to call any fouls in the box, because that often awards the game result, but it looks like 108 ugly minutes wore down this ref's resistance.

As decrink wrote recently,
"I fear that the women's game is going the way of the men's game. Big, strong, fast and athletic throughout the lineup often beats slow buildup and beautiful soccer." Or, knocking opponents down beats stealing the ball from them.

I don't think it would be all that hard for the refs to bring it all under control, using red and yellow cards under the existing rules (which, very usefully, allow linesmen to draw attention to fouls that the ref is not in position to see.) Apparently the refs need some encouragement from above.

I don't grasp who it is who likes the trend toward physicality. Beautiful soccer is better for players, for fans, and for above-average coaches.

Ok I just watched the aforementioned tackle on Micaela, and haha, a yellow and indirect free kick at MOST... The UW player was able to reach in and shield the ball away and take control of it in one motion, not exactly a malicious Nigel deJong-esque tackle. Sure our player was knocked to the ground as she was dispossessed, but like it or not soccer IS a contact sport. In a highlight video that features literal two armed tackles from behind, I'd hardly consider this be the one worth getting worked up over....

(That said, from my home viewing via the interwebs, the referee sure seemed to let the players play quite a bit, and that last penalty, well yeah, as has been iterated already, a pretty generous decision... Maybe he forgot to buy Sophie a going away present...)

DaTruRochin wrote:Ok I just watched the aforementioned tackle on Micaela, and haha, a yellow and indirect free kick at MOST... The UW player was able to reach in and shield the ball away and take control of it in one motion, not exactly a malicious Nigel deJong-esque tackle. Sure our player was knocked to the ground as she was dispossessed, but like it or not soccer IS a contact sport. In a highlight video that features literal two armed tackles from behind, I'd hardly consider this be the one worth getting worked up over....

(That said, from my home viewing via the interwebs, the referee sure seemed to let the players play quite a bit, and that last penalty, well yeah, as has been iterated already, a pretty generous decision... Maybe he forgot to buy Sophie a going away present...)

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment on a couple grounds. first off, if it's a foul at all, it's a PK. It was in the box.

Your taking control in one motion theory is bogus, IMO. looking at it frame by frame, the defender never actually touches the ball until about two seconds after she came in to bowl Micaela over. she came in so hard she overran the ball and had to come back to it. the ball never changed trajectory, so there was no control before that. note the times:










Which leaves us with whether it was legal contact.

12.6.4 Violent Charging. A player shall be penalized for charging an
opponent in a violent manner.
A fair charge consists of a nudge or a contact with the near shoulder,
when both players are in an upright position, within playing distance of
the ball, and have at least one foot on the ground and their arms held
close to the body.

sorry- that doesn't fall under any definition of nudge That I know of. Neither is it with the near shoulder. you will note that in all frames, the defender is leaning back and leading with her hip. Hip checks are an Ice hockey move, not soccer. I have played both sports and Lacrosse, and think I know the difference.

I'm not even sure the defender was ever close enough to play the ball before she tracked it down and finally kicked it. she was close enough to "play" Micaela, obviously, but the ball? -Not sure she could have reached out to touch it.

This play was more deserving of the PK than the call that was actually made.

Oh it is most definitely more PK worth than the one called, but at the same time hardly one vicious enough to deserve a red, or be indicative of the sport turning into a gladiator match...

From personal experience, of all the ways to knock a person over, a hip check is probably the least likely to get called (especially if the ref is out of position) because it so closely mirrors stepping through shielding and gaining possession. Plus the official doesn't have the advantage of a frame by frame break down from a camera that just happens to be in a perfect position to see the play

I didn't say it was a red. I claim it should have been called a foul - an automatic PK call.

The ref out of position claim can be made for any foul, can't it? And so can the not-in - slow - motion excuse. It is, after all, what refs are supposed to be able to judge. That is, in fact, the explanation Webb gave for his not calling the DeJong foul a red card offence. That was perhaps the worst foul I have ever seen live.
The two seconds between player contact and ball contact should be more that enough for even snail reflexes to be able to judge whether it was a step-though or hip check.


.

So, yeah, if Webb couldn't make the DeJong call, I guess we can't expect better from a ref with a 5 grade from USSoccer.

Hahah, well it is the easiest excuse to give. All I'm saying is this particular type of call is tough for a ref to make because it happens quickly and resembles a perfectly legal dispossession (i.e. doesn't involve usage of arms, a blatant trip, etc.). Does that make it not a foul? Of course not. But again it goes back to the time of the game, overall composure of play, etc, etc.

As for the "no red" comment, I was referring to dmw's post.

Side note: Ugh, I wish the NCAA would actually adopt FIFA rules, so higher level officials would actually want to ref these games (Since, from what I understand, the differing rules mean FIFA doesn't count these games for the referee's official credentials)

Other side note: Sounds like DeJong's menacing days may be drawing to a close, between being dropped from Le Oranje, getting called out by Johann Cryuff, and official complaints by the Magpies (not to mention his own teammates, Geez's home slice Tevez). I guess that's what happens when you break 2 legs and nearly collapse a rib cage within a year... Poor Stuart Holden, Xabi Alonso and Hatem Ben Arfa, it came a little late for them...

Then, of course is the issue that in the second frame i show, you can see the defender's hand peeking around Micaela's body. so it wouldn't even be a legal hip check in Hockey, but an illegal lift even in that sport.

In soccer, The part of the rule about "arms close to the body" I think refers to your OWN body.

Yeah, well unless you expect her to run with her arms taped to her side, I don't see that as preventable, (I mean I don't think anyone would accuse any UW player of being THAT coordinated.) Her arms only swing out to turn her momentum to get the ball 3 yards away



(What are we even arguing about anyway?)

DaTruRochin wrote:

(What are we even arguing about anyway?)

Hitler?

Oh THAT argument again? I'm sure the rest of Pilot Nation really enjoys our banter as well....

Nice to see Washington can play football against Penn State and Rutgers, then switch to a *ahem* "defensive-minded" game against the Pilots. Putting a bunch of players back is one thing, constant fouling is another.

DeJong is a cheap punkazz beyotch, and if I were Dutch I would be embarrassed to see him in an Oranje shirt.

Geezaldinho wrote:I didn't say it was a red. I claim it should have been called a foul - an automatic PK call.

Nope, I've gotta disagree on this one too. When I saw it live from behind the goal I immediately thought it was a good no-call. Shoulder to shoulder and she moved the smaller Micaela right off the ball. I can't stand it when fans think every time a girl gets knocked down its a foul. It was a hard knock tackle, perfectly legal in soccer, shoulder to shoulder. Here I am defending the crappy ref who I already said had a lousy game. But this was not in my opinion, one of his bad calls. Man oh man. I like the Pilots but if they get knocked down, it's not always a foul.

Some games go rough. Pilots better be ready to play in them because that's where the finals are headed. On another note, the Women's national team against China today was a good reminder of where U.S. women's soccer is headed. Long ball. Giveaway. Go Abby. Go Amy. I hope the Pilots can retain their penchant for beautiful soccer but it ain't going to beat the big teams any more. You need size, strength, speed and the ability to knock the opponent on their rear. Just like the above pictures prove.

Where women's soccer is headed?

Where have you been? It's where women's soccer had been trying to climb out of since April Hendichs put us there.

The future of soccer is not long ball. Marta and the Germans and that bunch of little guys from the Iberian peninsula are showing that. If we stay with that we will be in the dustbin of history.

Go Abby will work for a while and it is easier than developing players, (although she already has been doing it about 12 years and her career is sure to decline.)but Amy? Ha!

She has, what - 8 international goals in 5 years? Yeah, that's the path... Let's build the team around that.

She'll get her 100th goal at age 60 at that pace. Just what we want for our target striker.

decrink wrote:It's what makes soccer the best in that opinions matter and the darn game is so subjective anyway...

decrink wrote:Shoulder to shoulder and she moved the smaller Micaela right off the ball. I can't stand it when fans think every time a girl gets knocked down its a foul. It was a hard knock tackle, perfectly legal in soccer, shoulder to shoulder.

So...fans aren't allowed to also be subjective and disagree with you? I agree with Geez that the move was pure hip check and not a legal soccer move. That said, the ref wasn't in a good spot to call it.

I lurk here on pilot nation, and really enjoy the insights and thoughts provided by many of the regular contributors. This forum really adds another dimension to my enjoyment of the women's soccer program.
I don't enjoy commenters that state their opinions as fact.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this was clearly not a "shoulder-to-shoulder" take down as the video shows that the Husky approached on an angle that was easily meant to take out the player first. As it turns out, the ref was in a very good position to make the proper call as you can see by watching just after the ball is turned and you see the ref directly behind the play less than 10 yards away. How he called it a play-on as he did is a mystery. Regardless of how one views the eventual PK call, he missed the first call so had another opportunity to correct his error, whether that was his intent or not. Actually, his performance in this game mirrored the game he called a few weeks earlier, totally inconsistent and unpredictable.

ejjqb wrote: Actually, his performance in this game mirrored the game he called a few weeks earlier, totally inconsistent and unpredictable.

Wait, are we discussing WCC basketball or soccer?

Along those lines, the WCC is being pretty pro active about improving the officiating for hoops, it would be nice if soccer got the same treatment... But I suppose that might be a bit much to ask for a non-revenue sport (But also a reason to adopt FIFA compliant rules, so more skilled officials are willing to actually work the games.... Sigh, I know... )