GA Playoff

paytoplay said:
Curious yellow card on the WC goalie leading to the ultimate game winning goal.
Click to expand...

That was a great game. 2 really good teams that play wonderful soccer. They each have bright futures.

IMG had more of the attacking threat for most of the game. That pressure led to their first goal (IMG 1st Goal) and they added a 2nd goal via penalty (PK Clip). WC really ratcheted up the pressure after the 2nd IMG goal, which lead to a beautiful early cross and an IMG og (WC Goal).
 
SoccerLocker said:
That was a great game. 2 really good teams that play wonderful soccer. They each have bright futures.

IMG had more of the attacking threat for most of the game. That pressure led to their first goal (IMG 1st Goal) and they added a 2nd goal via penalty (PK Clip). WC really ratcheted up the pressure after the 2nd IMG goal, which lead to a beautiful early cross and an IMG og (WC Goal).
[/QUOTE
Uh. I watched it a few times now and dont understand how that was that a pk. Looked like the goalie got to the ball first (got possession of the ball before any contact), the attacking player then ran into the goalie and the goalie responds with an arm/elbow back at the attacking player. I suppose I get the yellow for the retaliation (although, why didn't the attacking player also get a yellow?), but why is that a pk? I am confused. What am I missing here? Shame to lose 2-1 on a call like that, especially at this level.
Click to expand...
 
Sike said:
That was a great game. 2 really good teams that play wonderful soccer. They each have bright futures.

IMG had more of the attacking threat for most of the game. That pressure led to their first goal (IMG 1st Goal) and they added a 2nd goal via penalty (PK Clip). WC really ratcheted up the pressure after the 2nd IMG goal, which lead to a beautiful early cross and an IMG og (WC Goal).
Click to expand...
Uh. I watched it a few times now and dont understand how that was that a pk. Looked like the goalie got to the ball first (got possession of the ball before any contact), the attacking player then ran into the goalie and the goalie responds with an arm/elbow back at the attacking player. I suppose I get the yellow for the retaliation (although, why didn't the attacking player also get a yellow?), but why is that a pk? I am confused. What am I missing here? Shame to lose 2-1 on a call like that, especially at this level.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The first foul was done by the attacker. The WC keeper appeared to retaliate in the opinion of the referee and would therefore get the caution. That doesn't change the first penalty and the restart which should have been a free kick by WC going out. The referee appeared to disregard the LoTG and not reward the restart to the fist penalty and went with a restart for the more "egregious" foul which is clearly not how the laws are written.
 
Sike said:
Uh. I watched it a few times now and dont understand how that was that a pk. Looked like the goalie got to the ball first (got possession of the ball before any contact), the attacking player then ran into the goalie and the goalie responds with an arm/elbow back at the attacking player. I suppose I get the yellow for the retaliation (although, why didn't the attacking player also get a yellow?), but why is that a pk? I am confused. What am I missing here? Shame to lose 2-1 on a call like that, especially at this level.
Click to expand...

Clearly a foul on the attacking player for sliding in late on a GK with possession of the ball, but the ref missed it. What the ref did see was the retaliation from the GK by swinging an elbow to the head of another player. Intentional or not: You are responsible for your body and contact with the head of an opponent is dangerous play (i.e. yellow card). It's also a foul in the box by the defending player and a penalty kick is awarded.

This is exactly why you should not retaliate. If the first foul is missed, the retaliation isn't and usually results in a yellow.
 
SoccerLocker said:
Clearly a foul on the attacking player for sliding in late on a GK with possession of the ball, but the ref missed it. What the ref did see was the retaliation from the GK by swinging an elbow to the head of another player. Intentional or not: You are responsible for your body and contact with the head of an opponent is dangerous play (i.e. yellow card). It's also a foul in the box by the defending player and a penalty kick is awarded.

This is exactly why you should not retaliate. If the first foul is missed, the retaliation isn't and usually results in a yellow.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think it was the delay. Keeper clearly thought about it before delivering the elbow. Can't really blame her but she made it pretty obvious it was retaliation.
 
tjinaz said:
Honestly I think it was the delay. Keeper clearly thought about it before delivering the elbow. Can't really blame her but she made it pretty obvious it was retaliation.
Click to expand...
I get it, but man that's a really tough call in a big game. The attacking player is on top of the goalie. Even if the ref somehow missed her running into the goalie, she is laying on top of her when the goalie reacted (how did the ref think she got into that position??). Hard to blame the goalie for reacting, especially when that same goalie got run over earlier in the game with no foul or warning from the ref.
 
MMMM said:
Looks like it was a keeper error that decided one of the U17 semi-final games.

Click to expand...
Keeper has to hold that ball. Without question. But rewatch the play and look at the CB on the left side, she wasn't guarding anyone. The CB closest to the keeper had a forward on either side of her as she was going to cover the net for the keeper. so she was out of the play. The keeper had a forward in front of her and to her left with no defenders around. GK error, yes. But the defense let that goal in.
 
MyDaughtersAKeeper said:
Keeper has to hold that ball. Without question. But rewatch the play and look at the CB on the left side, she wasn't guarding anyone. The CB closest to the keeper had a forward on either side of her as she was going to cover the net for the keeper. so she was out of the play. The keeper had a forward in front of her and to her left with no defenders around. GK error, yes. But the defense let that goal in.
Click to expand...

yes agreed......btw Did the team in white just boot it every time they got it? Looked that way from this clip.......
 
tjinaz said:
yea pretty much thinking its illegal to elbow someone in the face in retaliation.
Click to expand...

I have watched the incident on video in slow motion. There is absolutely no question that the IMG player ran into the GK, which resulted in the GK being pushed over and nearly hitting her head on the ground. It is clear that the IMG player was at fault and should have recieved a foul. How in the world could a referee not make that call is beyond me. As the West Coast GK recoiled and bent her torso upright (she was attempting to gather herself and stand up) she used her left arm to push the IMG player off of her. Here is the part that everyone missed. The West Coast GK actually did not elbow the opposing player in the face. Instead she unintentionally elbowed the opposing player under her arm. The IMG players own arm hit herself in the face. For West Coast to lose the game 2-1 as a result of that terrible, terrible call is quite a shame. The West Coast girls deserved much better.

To their credit they showed up to Sundays third place game and dominated Oklahoma Energy and won 4-2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top