Women’s world cup

Views: 1616 Posts: 28
Cute
wrote on 12-Jun-19 00:08

Watching the women’s World Cup and can’t help to think how similar it is to watching west Ryde play each week. I mean it’s cute, but very one dimensional, ugly defensive football.

MB
wrote on 12-Jun-19 15:04

what a load of rubbish. Rovers are a hard team that may play route 1, but it's hardly compatible to the womens game.

THE ROCK
wrote on 14-Jun-19 17:06

On a serious note, after watching the Matildas last night have the rules changed? I saw 3 players touch a ball inside their own box off a short goal kick, not to mention the endless advantage being played from Offsides?

Mike Dean
wrote on 14-Jun-19 22:01

THE ROCK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a serious note, after watching the Matildas > last night have the rules changed? > > I saw 3 players touch a ball inside their own box > off a short goal kick, not to mention the endless > advantage being played from Offsides? maybe u haven't kept up with the game/rules https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGTMeL3KiC0

Domestix
wrote on 14-Jun-19 23:09

How'sthe ogre at home going mouyis?

THE ROCK
wrote on 16-Jun-19 21:06

Domestix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How'sthe ogre at home going mouyis? Grow up keyboard warrior

tim walker
wrote on 24-Jun-19 21:01

So it that Alana kennedy foul -a RED CARD or a Yellow Card???

THE ROCK
wrote on 24-Jun-19 21:08

red every day of the week. Last man(woman), shirt holding, striker went to ground. There is all this talk about the high line that the Matildas were playing and i agreed with Milic's tactic, but if your central defenders are slower than their strikers, then you can't leave them isolated like that. Kennedy did the right thing for the team, but it was a red every day of the week.

Bunker
wrote on 25-Jun-19 06:01

Alana Kennedy foul is definitely a Yellow. Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity - has wrongly been interpreted by many as if you're the last defender and make a foul it's an automatic red. If the last touch before a foul is heavy and will clearly go to the keeper or another defender or will head over the goal line for goal kick or clearly heads away from the goal which means there isn't a goal scoring opportunity then the foul isn't a red card offence. On a different note, the Cameroon v England game was disgraceful. Players refusing to play for a while after watching the big screen and disagreeing with VAR for an offside!! Spitting. Chaos.

THE ROCK
wrote on 25-Jun-19 12:08

Did you watch the game Bunker? It was a through ball where the keeper couldn't get it, Kennedy had the girls shirt and pulled her until she fell to ground. Not to mention earlier she was done for speed. A one on one outside the box is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Red every day. Trust me i've been sent for the same thing a few times. Without complaint i might add. You have to call a spade a spade, even if it's Australia.

Interpretation
wrote on 25-Jun-19 13:07

I'm hopeful(?) that over the next 12 months we will have a much clearer idea of how some of the more subjective rules are intended to be interpreted based on VAR experience, i.e. what is, and is not, a hand ball etc. This should help with less variation between referees' interpretations of the rules, even at our level. Australia can feel hard done by against Norway, but not 'ripped off'. I recall 5 different potentially game changing 50/50 incidents that all went against us - 2 'handballs' in the box, Sam Kerr slightly fouled in the box with two hands in her back while jumping for a header, Tamika Yallop blatantly fouled in the box which was apparently not awarded a penalty through VAR due to an offside in the lead up play (even though the offside player did not impact play in ANY way), and Alanna Kennedy's red card, which I believe the keeper would have claimed comfortably before the attacking player could have got there. The trouble is that none of these (other than perhaps the foul on Yallop) were absolutely clear cut wrong decisions, but to have all 5 go against you in the one match is unlucky(?). I cheekily question whether the same decisions would have been made if it happened to the USA. I also believe that there was an un-called foul against an Australian player in the direct lead-up to the Red Card which could have been taken into consideration by VAR. i.e. actually award a free kick to Australia and the potential Red Card incident then becomes irrelevant. Having said that, we had the opposite situation against Brazil, with Sam Kerr not being called offside for a goal, and a strong claim for a foul on a Brazil player in the box right near the end of the match. Swings & round-abouts??

Dick Tracey
wrote on 25-Jun-19 14:01

Bunker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alana Kennedy foul is definitely a Yellow. > > Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity - has > wrongly been interpreted by many as if you're the > last defender and make a foul it's an automatic > red. > > If the last touch before a foul is heavy and will > clearly go to the keeper or another defender or > will head over the goal line for goal kick or > clearly heads away from the goal which means there > isn't a goal scoring opportunity then the foul > isn't a red card offence. > > Chaos. how do you know if her last touch is heavy? as long as you are going to be on a 1-1 with the goalie with * headed [D]irectly towards goal * [D]istance between you & the goalie e.g. edge of box onwards Then it is DOGSO. Red Card.

Dick Tracey
wrote on 25-Jun-19 14:07

THE ROCK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > red every day of the week. > > Last man(woman), shirt holding, striker went to > ground. > > There is all this talk about the high line that > the Matildas were playing and i agreed with > Milic's tactic, but if your central defenders are > slower than their strikers, then you can't leave > them isolated like that. > > Kennedy did the right thing for the team, but it > was a red every day of the week. I know what you mean Rock. It's every simpleton's method whether you can fatty defenders or not. Plenty of people (every weekend) -even park football Pundits - like to yell "Compress them - move up" "Come on fellas, Let's press to the half-way line "

TG
wrote on 25-Jun-19 15:02

Nah yellow card at best they were shoulder to shoulder yes there was shirt pulling but the ball I think was too far away from attackers feet I think the keeper had it covered.if the attacker was a metre in front and she pulled her shirt and went down then yes red card.

Bunker
wrote on 25-Jun-19 21:04

Watched the replay a few times and the through ball was always going to be collected by the Australian goal keeper who was just inside her penalty box and moving towards the ball. If Usain Bolt was the attacker he wouldn't have got to the ball first, probably since he is so unfit... The new rules coming next season will be interesting and hopefully will be communicated well throughout the Clubs and players. Many players, coaches and commentators don't understand the current rules well.

THE ROCK
wrote on 02-Jul-19 11:04

@Bunker, that's irrelevant if the keeper was going to collect it or not. She handled the player, and hence denied a obvious goal scoring opportunity. Foul was outside the box, hence a red card. If it was inside the box, penalty and yellow card. @Interpretation - Can someone please clear up the rules on handball across all levels of the sport. Even the ones who have been playing the game for years don't know what's a handball theses days.

Dick Tracey
wrote on 02-Jul-19 14:04

>>Can someone please clear up the rules on handball across all levels of the sport. Even the ones who have been playing the game for years don't know what's a handball theses days. The VAR rules on Hand Ball has made it a more complicated/confusing issue. Now VAr dictates more often then not - if the the hand/arms are moving & the ball strikes you -it's a handball. INTENT?= not so much

More to talk about
wrote on 02-Jul-19 23:01

https://youtu.be/Zq7GHYOJZKw Thoughts on these

Whaaaat
wrote on 03-Jul-19 14:08

THE ROCK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Bunker, that's irrelevant if the keeper was going > to collect it or not. > > She handled the player, and hence denied a obvious > goal scoring opportunity. > Foul was outside the box, hence a red card. If it > was inside the box, penalty and yellow card. > > > @Interpretation - Can someone please clear up the > rules on handball across all levels of the sport. > Even the ones who have been playing the game for > years don't know what's a handball theses days. How is it irrelevant that the keeper was always going to get to the ball first Its not an obvious goal scoring opportunity if she was never going to get to the ball... How was she supposed to score with the ball in the keepers hands???

Paper Scissors
wrote on 03-Jul-19 15:01

Obviously Rock plays with a different set of rules to everyone else.

Paper Scissors
wrote on 03-Jul-19 17:00

How can you determine the keeper wouldn't have gotten the ball first?

THE ROCK
wrote on 03-Jul-19 17:02

How can you determine that the keeper is going to get the ball first when the striker was held by the defender? and hence fouled.

THE ROCK
wrote on 03-Jul-19 17:03

ok just rewatched it. Defn a foul and last man/women, but the keeper might have got the ball. Hard to tell as she was held and how the keeper would have reacted to a lone striker charging at goal. Interesting read: Slide 80 https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf It's very subjective though

THE ROCK
wrote on 03-Jul-19 17:04

how can you without any doubt assume that the keeper would have got it if the striker was running full pace and not impeded?

Paper Scissors
wrote on 03-Jul-19 17:07

Herein lies the problem Rock, I think the attacker wouldn't have gotten the ball before the keeper. You think the attacker would have gotten there. If this is the case then I can’t see how it can be an OBVIOUS denial of a goal scoring opportunity. That is why I reckon it should have only been a yellow card. That said, I have no idea why she grabbed the attackers jersey as I don’t think the attacker would have gotten anywhere near the ball before the keeper picked it up. But I don’t think you can get a Red Card for being dumb.

Dick Tracey
wrote on 03-Jul-19 18:08

>>But I don’t think you can get a Red Card for being dumb. yyyes, but u sure can get one for being deemed as DOGSO

THE ROCK
wrote on 03-Jul-19 22:03

Paper Scissors, you are 100% correct. There is mud in the water isn't there. However, considering it was initially a red, then reviewed by VAR and given a red, i don't know how you can argue the ref's interpretation of it. Although one does wonder if EGO gets in the way of changing a decision based on VAR.

Bunker
wrote on 04-Jul-19 14:01

The referee's in the Pro ranks will now have their on field performances rated as well as their VAR Review performance evaluated (maybe by a different person) so if their EGO does get in the way they'll be marked down possibly for both decisions which longer term means threatens their position in referee ranks of that league. Question for VAR is how many angles does the ref see and whether there is a right mix of slow motion replays versus real time which can change your perspective. Slow motion suggests every tiny contact and bump looks worse than it is. NRL & Cricket are examples where it takes a while to get the right footage so how long do they wait to get the best view - rock and rolled how they want? Sometimes when you see the ref go to watch a VAR, the screen they have is so small which can't help them.

Author:
Subject: