USF match ...

Well, matching shoes is one thing (and something I don't think I've ever seen at any level of soccer, there are an entire crayola mega size box of colors available), but in a few of the photos from the game I've seen some players wearing boots from the brand with 3 stripes...that would probably be a bigger problem...

Geezaldinho wrote:

decrink wrote:

purple haze wrote:Yeah, that no-call was a crime against soccer.

Didn't we figure it was an advantage call?

replays don't show any advantage call, and it went by a lot quicker than we may have at first thought.

The ref was a long way behind the play, so it's pretty hard to confirm anything about that. she didn't enter the video until she finally stopped play to see how badly Dani was hurt. by then, the keeper had the ball in her possession at about the 12 yard spot.

All of which doesn't explain why the keeper got a free kick at the top of the arc at about the spot Dani went down on the restart.

the only possibility by rule that I can think of is that UP got called for a foul.

bottom line- an incompetent ref who got no help from her AR's

OK... I was behind the goal on this call, and I can tell you what happened.

It was definitely an advantage call. The ref did signal it, though it happened so quickly it was easy to miss. The ball went right to another Pilot (can't remember who now) who shanked a shot - the old Christine Sinclar "hit it with my purse" routine.

Now, I personally don't agree with the advantage call - at that spot in the field, I think you need to call the foul unless the advantage is so clear that it would take a way a true scoring opportunity (and I'm not sure that a left-footed semi-open shot from outside the box qualifies as such). But, that's what the ref determined.

As for why USF was given a "free kick" at the spot of the foul, after the shanked shot, USF had possession of the ball when the ref signaled for play to be stopped because Dani was writhing on the ground. Once she got up and appeared to be OK (I don't believe trainers came onto the field, so Dani could stay in the game), USF was given back possession... in roughly the same area as where Dani went down.

No consipiracy theory here, everyone, and it wasn't a disastrous display of refereeing. Bad advantage call, yes, but she definitely did not call a foul on UP.

Stonehouse wrote:

OK... I was behind the goal on this call, and I can tell you what happened.

It was definitely an advantage call. The ref did signal it, though it happened so quickly it was easy to miss. The ball went right to another Pilot (can't remember who now) who shanked a shot - the old Christine Sinclar "hit it with my purse" routine.

Now, I personally don't agree with the advantage call - at that spot in the field, I think you need to call the foul unless the advantage is so clear that it would take a way a true scoring opportunity (and I'm not sure that a left-footed semi-open shot from outside the box qualifies as such). But, that's what the ref determined.

As for why USF was given a "free kick" at the spot of the foul, after the shanked shot, USF had possession of the ball when the ref signaled for play to be stopped because Dani was writhing on the ground. Once she got up and appeared to be OK (I don't believe trainers came onto the field, so Dani could stay in the game), USF was given back possession... in roughly the same area as where Dani went down.

No consipiracy theory here, everyone, and it wasn't a disastrous display of refereeing. Bad advantage call, yes, but she definitely did not call a foul on UP.

well Stoney, your testimony doesn't absolve the ref, although it does confirm she saw a foul.
The NCAA is very clear on what is to be done when play is stopped because of an injury and what to do if it was due to a foul.

3.4.9 In the event of an injury.
Note: In the event of an injury, only the injured player(s) may be replaced.
The opponent may replace an equal number of players at the same time.
PENALTY—Indirect free kick for the non-offending team from the
location of the ball at the time the infraction is discovered if
the reason for the stoppage of play was the infraction.

A stop for injury isn't listed as one of the possible advantage calls, which agrees with your assessment that it should not factor into things. So even if they were playing under advantage or the keeper had the ball, the stop was for the injury. the advantage call only confirms that there was a foul. The ref is NOT supposed to call "play on" or make hand signals if there is no foul.

Anyway you look at it, it's an indirect free kick for UP. the only question is where the ball was when the injury was discovered. if it was discovered when the ref stopped the game, it was in the keepers hands at the 12 yard spot. Certainly, it was discovered SOMEWHERE along the path between Dani, the shooter, (I think Kendall) and the keeper.


there isn't any scenario under which the team who committed the foul is to get the kick.

It goes back to refs not reading NCAA rules.


And just because we dominated the game is not reason to ignore bad reffing.

Even if the referee only knew FIFA laws she got it wrong. If she stopped play for an injury while the ball was in play, the restart should be a dropped ball.

FIFA laws differ from high-school and college on this. In the latter, one awards an indirect free kick to the team in possession of the ball. The IFK is taken from the point at which the ball was when play was stopped.

Thus, there was no misinterpretation of the rule.

The foul was recognized and advantage given (properly, I think). UP had an open shot at the net form 20 yards, which is a more likely scoring opportunity than a free kick from 22 yards with a wall formed. Once the advantage is given and the shot taken, the foul is over (except that a yellow or red card can be given at the next stoppage of play). We don't get two bites at the cherry: (1) a legitimate scoring chance, then if it doesn't work out, (2) a free kick. If the ball had gone in the net, then we'd all be glad that she had given advantage.

Once play was allowed to continue based on the advantage call, the only reason for a stoppage was to assess Dani's injury. At that point, USF had clear possession of the ball. Hence, the IFK goes to USF at the location of the ball when play was stopped.

SoreKnees wrote:FIFA laws differ from high-school and college on this. In the latter, one awards an indirect free kick to the team in possession of the ball. The IFK is taken from the point at which the ball was when play was stopped.

Except in cases where the injury was due to a foul, per 3.4.9 . the rule doesn't specify anything about possession at the time of stoppage, only about location of the ball and that if a foul caused the injury, the kick is awarded to the offended team. It's a clear ruling against the injury offence. if that's double jeopardy, then tough.

It's the rule, and I think it's written that way so a team can't gain advantage by injury fouls. 3.4.9 is pretty early in the rule book. it's right around proper shin pads and substitution, not in the area of cardable offenses (rule 12). those rules and the advantage clause have nothing to do with 3.4.9

Even if it were, it's no different than being able to come back and card a player after advantage and subsequent stoppage, except in that case a player can even score and you can still award the card. there is double jeopardy there, too.

The foul was recognized and advantage given (properly, I think). UP had an open shot at the net form 20 yards, which is a more likely scoring opportunity than a free kick from 22 yards with a wall formed. Once the advantage is given and the shot taken, the foul is over (except that a yellow or red card can be given at the next stoppage of play). We don't get two bites at the cherry: (1) a legitimate scoring chance, then if it doesn't work out, (2) a free kick. If the ball had gone in the net, then we'd all be glad that she had given advantage.

Once play was allowed to continue based on the advantage call, the only reason for a stoppage was to assess Dani's injury. At that point, USF had clear possession of the ball. Hence, the IFK goes to USF at the location of the ball when play was stopped.

That's right, the stoppage was for the injury, not for the foul, the advantage was for the foul. the stoppage wasn't even made until the advantage was over with. injury is not a foul and therefore not subject to the advantage clause, and the rule is clear about the indirect free kick when the injury stoppage was caused by a foul. I don't see anything in the rule about negating it because of advantage.



In a recent Men's game, referee Richard Heron missed a call because he turned to follow the ball up field. 15 or 20 seconds later, he looked back and saw a UP player on the ground in obvious pain. ( I think the other team had gained possession by then) he stopped play, came back to look at the player and on his way back he called to the AR "what did I miss?" then went into conference with the AR while the player was tended to, after which he awarded the restart to UP.

That's the proper way to make that call, not what happened in the women's game.

He was, by the way, the best ref on Merlo pitch since Sandra Hunt.

Geezaldinho wrote:

He was, by the way, the best ref on Merlo pitch since Sandra Hunt.

I definitely got a different vibe out of him compared to the other referees I've seen this year. Really mellow, but the players stayed in line and seemed to respect him.

Umm... What do Kassi's shoes match?


They match that they are all NIKE boots. USF's were from every manufacture there is on the market. It's not about the color.

Geezaldinho wrote:

SoreKnees wrote:FIFA laws differ from high-school and college on this. In the latter, one awards an indirect free kick to the team in possession of the ball. The IFK is taken from the point at which the ball was when play was stopped.

Except in cases where the injury was due to a foul, per 3.4.9 . the rule doesn't specify anything about possession at the time of stoppage, only about location of the ball and that if a foul caused the injury, the kick is awarded to the offended team. It's a clear ruling against the injury offence. if that's double jeopardy, then tough.

It's the rule, and I think it's written that way so a team can't gain advantage by injury fouls. 3.4.9 is pretty early in the rule book. it's right around proper shin pads and substitution, not in the area of cardable offenses (rule 12). those rules and the advantage clause have nothing to do with 3.4.9

Even if it were, it's no different than being able to come back and card a player after advantage and subsequent stoppage, except in that case a player can even score and you can still award the card. there is double jeopardy there, too.

The foul was recognized and advantage given (properly, I think). UP had an open shot at the net form 20 yards, which is a more likely scoring opportunity than a free kick from 22 yards with a wall formed. Once the advantage is given and the shot taken, the foul is over (except that a yellow or red card can be given at the next stoppage of play). We don't get two bites at the cherry: (1) a legitimate scoring chance, then if it doesn't work out, (2) a free kick. If the ball had gone in the net, then we'd all be glad that she had given advantage.

Once play was allowed to continue based on the advantage call, the only reason for a stoppage was to assess Dani's injury. At that point, USF had clear possession of the ball. Hence, the IFK goes to USF at the location of the ball when play was stopped.

That's right, the stoppage was for the injury, not for the foul, the advantage was for the foul. the stoppage wasn't even made until the advantage was over with. injury is not a foul and therefore not subject to the advantage clause, and the rule is clear about the indirect free kick when the injury stoppage was caused by a foul. I don't see anything in the rule about negating it because of advantage.



In a recent Men's game, referee Richard Heron missed a call because he turned to follow the ball up field. 15 or 20 seconds later, he looked back and saw a UP player on the ground in obvious pain. ( I think the other team had gained possession by then) he stopped play, came back to look at the player and on his way back he called to the AR "what did I miss?" then went into conference with the AR while the player was tended to, after which he awarded the restart to UP.

That's the proper way to make that call, not what happened in the women's game.

He was, by the way, the best ref on Merlo pitch since Sandra Hunt.

Geez, Geez, that's the most convoluted interpretation of the laws I've heard in awhile. In my opinion, Sore Knees was spot on. It seems like in your interpretation, after the keeper caught the ball (after the advantage was given) and was holding the ball in possession, that the ref should have stopped the game to tend to the injury (that happened from a foul that WASN'T GIVEN) and give the ball to the Pilots for a free kick where Dani was getting over her knock? Thus double jeopardy? I'm missin' something. Sorry, I just don't get this interpretation at all. The example you gave was a different set of circumstances so it doesn't pertain to this event. My knees are sore.

You guys are all so rational and informed and book-learnin' smart: I just want to YELL AT THE REF!

decrink wrote:

Geez, Geez, that's the most convoluted interpretation of the laws I've heard in awhile. In my opinion, Sore Knees was spot on. It seems like in your interpretation, after the keeper caught the ball (after the advantage was given) and was holding the ball in possession, that the ref should have stopped the game to tend to the injury (that happened from a foul that WASN'T GIVEN) and give the ball to the Pilots for a free kick where Dani was getting over her knock? Thus double jeopardy? I'm missin' something. Sorry, I just don't get this interpretation at all. The example you gave was a different set of circumstances so it doesn't pertain to this event. My knees are sore.

Well that's the whole crux of the argument, and it shouldn't be that hard to follow, but maybe I should have included the only sentence in the book where it says a ref can call advantage.

if advantage was given, which both Stoney and Sore Knees say is that case (to tell you the truth, i thought so too, but it was fuzzy to me. you'll see posts of mine accepting both points. I was having Enyeart flashbacks) , then there WAS a foul given, it's just that advantage was also given, per 5.3.3. the ref could come back and award a card if it was cardable, but if he judged it wasn't cardable, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means that "the foul is not to be penalized"

Injury changes all that. Then play must stop and the injury rule applies. it's not in the fouls rule, it's in the injury rule. the foul is then reapplied if it caused the injury, and then not to award a foul, but to only determine who gets the restart. With FIFA that's a dropped ball, In the NCAA the agrieved party gets the ball with an indirect kick if there was a foul, the party in possession gets it if there was no foul. It's not a penalty, it's a restart.

the rule book is at http://nisoa.com/wp-content/docs/nisoa_forms/so11.pdf

Get it, then search on the word advantage. it will only take a minute or two to find and read all the applications of the word and their concepts.

everyone knows there is an advantage rule. I'll wager not many including refs has actually analyzed where the rule is, what is around it, and where it should or should not apply, even if refs think they have. That is especially true if they are trained by the USSF under FIFA rules and then ref NCAA games.

5.3.3 [b]The referee’s power of penalizing shall extend to offenses committed
when play has been suspended or when the ball is out of play. The
referee shall, however, refrain from penalizing in cases in which he
or she is satisfied that by doing so an advantage would be given to
the offending team. When the referee observes a foul that is not to be
penalized, the referee shall call out the words “play on” and signal
accordingly to indicate that the foul has been acknowledged. However,
if the advantage does not materialize, the referee shall then blow the
whistle and award a free kick.

the part in red is the entire advantage rule for fouls. It's just one sentence. There isn't any more to it anywhere, and it's just a clarification of what a ref can call a foul for. The two key sentences that apply here are right next to each other (in red and in bold above) one does not apply without the other. they are inextricably linked in the same paragraph of the same rule. they aren't several rules separated like Sore Knees' application of the advantage rule to injuries.

in no case is there an application other than to offenses committed. there is no advantage claus for field size, substitutions (where the injury rule is), uniform irregularities, or any other rules but violations and offenses. They all have their own consequences that are independent.

The rule does not say if advantage was called you should not stop for injury. I submit if you think there is a threat to a player's safety, you are obligated to stop.
and if you do stop for injury, then you are no longer in the realm of offenses, you are in the injury rule area and how to continue the game.

Again ---AN INJURY IS NOT AN OFFENSE (sorry for the yell) a restart is not (necessarily) a penalty.

I frankly think it's blind spot referees have in their training. we are talking about student athletes. there is nothing more important than their safety, certainly not a goal. if you are sure that a player isn't hurt, then let the flies gather or better yet, award a simulation foul after advantage if you have the conviction, but if you think he is hurt, then you MUST stop play.

referees are taught (or should be) that a players safety is paramount in the game. It is your responsibility that if you judge a player is hurt, you are to IMMEDIATELY stop the game. then you continue according to the rules of fouls and injury restarts. I see refs leave an injured player on the ground all the time and let play continue until a restart, or depend on the opponent to show sportsmanship and kick the ball out. If you ask Cliff McCrath (chief NCAA rules god) about that or ask any NCAA attorney, or probably the insurance agent who holds the policy for referee liability, they will tell you that is not the way to approach an injury situation.

3.4.9 tells you what that is. after you deal with the injury, you award the kick to the offended party. Richard Heron got it right. Heidi Garlick blew it.

Geezaldinho wrote:

Well that's the whole crux of the argument, and it shouldn't be that hard to follow...

Well, the point I believe you are missing (although I admire the distance you've gone to assert it) is that everything changes when the advantage call is given and "completed". Not to push it to the absurd but what if the ball had missed the goal and become a goal kick? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? How about a corner kick? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? How about a goal? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? Plus, was Dani "injured" or suffering from a darn hard tackle with a knock?
You are still using the example from the other game as comparison but they are different situations. In the prior, there was no advantage given and when the AR advised the ref that he had missed a foul, he brought it back and awarded the possession. In my opinion (and I am certainly open to changing upon hearing from the rules interpretation committee or from purple haze who I think has the idea with the "yell at the refs" comment:) any "foul that caused an injury" is gone once the advantage has been awarded and then you move on to normal "possession" rules: free kick for the team in possession.

Oh yeah, and Go Pilots.

decrink wrote:

Geezaldinho wrote:

Well that's the whole crux of the argument, and it shouldn't be that hard to follow...

Well, the point I believe you are missing (although I admire the distance you've gone to assert it) is that everything changes when the advantage call is given and "completed". Not to push it to the absurd but what if the ball had missed the goal and become a goal kick? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? How about a corner kick? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? How about a goal? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? Plus, was Dani "injured" or suffering from a darn hard tackle with a knock?
You are still using the example from the other game as comparison but they are different situations. In the prior, there was no advantage given and when the AR advised the ref that he had missed a foul, he brought it back and awarded the possession. In my opinion (and I am certainly open to changing upon hearing from the rules interpretation committee or from purple haze who I think has the idea with the "yell at the refs" comment:) any "foul that caused an injury" is gone once the advantage has been awarded and then you move on to normal "possession" rules: free kick for the team in possession.

Oh yeah, and Go Pilots.

since you want to use examples that didn't happen, lets go to an example with extreme clarity...

oh look! her head blew off! let's see how the play develops.

by definition, an injury happens when the ref thinks it did and calls stoppage for it. you don't need a doctor. They love that "in the opinion of the referee " phrase. all they need to do is ask themselves "would I feel injured there or should we just play around the carcass?"

lesser decisions are still in the opinion of the referee and can witnessed by the ref stopping play.

Your other rejoinders are all answered by one question.

what caused stoppage of play?


the three stoppages you mention have well established outcomes cause by the ball crossing an end line. you follow those unless you determine injury before they complete, whereupon you follow the injury restart provisions.

none of those things happened, however, so lets deal with what did happen.
We agree there was a foul. (right?)
advantage was called (means the ref thinks there had to be a foul. she can't call advantage otherwise)
we agree the ball went to a player who shot
we agree the shot was corralled by the keeper.

so-- when was stoppage, and under what rule was the ref empowered to stop play?
it was under the injury rule and caused by a foul , and called after all those other things happened. that's a fact.

you can then claim the foul didn't happen, but that's not fact. or you can claim the advantage claus wipes it out, but that's not what the advantage clause says, because it doesn't apply to injury with its own wording. The one sentence advantage claus only refers to stoppage for fouls and doesn't erase the foul. you can still card at the next stoppage even if there was a goal. Sometimes you do get two bites.



Heidi Garlick made a bad call. It wasn't the only one. She just wasn't up to the task.

I suppose we won't convince each other anyway

lets just agree on the Go Pilots thing.

Geezaldinho wrote:

decrink wrote:

Geezaldinho wrote:

Well that's the whole crux of the argument, and it shouldn't be that hard to follow...

Well, the point I believe you are missing (although I admire the distance you've gone to assert it) is that everything changes when the advantage call is given and "completed". Not to push it to the absurd but what if the ball had missed the goal and become a goal kick? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? How about a corner kick? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? How about a goal? Should the ref have awarded the restart at the injury? Plus, was Dani "injured" or suffering from a darn hard tackle with a knock?
You are still using the example from the other game as comparison but they are different situations. In the prior, there was no advantage given and when the AR advised the ref that he had missed a foul, he brought it back and awarded the possession. In my opinion (and I am certainly open to changing upon hearing from the rules interpretation committee or from purple haze who I think has the idea with the "yell at the refs" comment:) any "foul that caused an injury" is gone once the advantage has been awarded and then you move on to normal "possession" rules: free kick for the team in possession.

Oh yeah, and Go Pilots.

since you want to use examples that didn't happen, lets go to an example with extreme clarity...

oh look! her head blew off! let's see how the play develops.

by definition, an injury happens when the ref thinks it did and calls stoppage for it. you don't need a doctor. They love that "in the opinion of the referee " phrase. all they need to do is ask themselves "would I feel injured there or should we just play around the carcass?"

lesser decisions are still in the opinion of the referee and can witnessed by the ref stopping play.

Your other rejoinders are all answered by one question.

what caused stoppage of play?


the three stoppages you mention have well established outcomes cause by the ball crossing an end line. you follow those unless you determine injury before they complete, whereupon you follow the injury restart provisions.

none of those things happened, however, so lets deal with what did happen.
We agree there was a foul. (right?)
advantage was called (means the ref thinks there had to be a foul. she can't call advantage otherwise)
we agree the ball went to a player who shot
we agree the shot was corralled by the keeper.

so-- when was stoppage, and under what rule was the ref empowered to stop play?
it was under the injury rule and caused by a foul , and called after all those other things happened. that's a fact.

you can then claim the foul didn't happen, but that's not fact. or you can claim the advantage claus wipes it out, but that's not what the advantage clause says, because it doesn't apply to injury with its own wording. The one sentence advantage claus only refers to stoppage for fouls and doesn't erase the foul. you can still card at the next stoppage even if there was a goal. Sometimes you do get two bites.



Heidi Garlick made a bad call. It wasn't the only one. She just wasn't up to the task.

I suppose we won't convince each other anyway

lets just agree on the Go Pilots thing.

My head just blew off.