|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
kick off
|
kick off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43 |
Close play but in super slo-motion it appears that the BE player made contact with the ball prior the touch of the ball by the Waccamaw keeper. Looks like it was a great game and both teams should be congratulated on a well fought match.
ROSS!!! For no reason!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 6
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 6 |
to close to call. so its a good no call
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4 |
Clearly a foul!!! The BE player took out the goalie. This goal should never of counted. Refs MUST make this call to protect the goalie.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 9
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 9 |
clearly a foul against the goal keeper....terrible no call in a close match
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273 |
Looks to me like the player was making an honest go for the ball and it was contact after the fact. The ball got popped out like in any "front of goal" scuffle and someone capitalised. Tough situation for any team, but it looks like they both fought hard and BE just got lucky.
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [it] is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 81
Throw In
|
|
Throw In
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 81 |
So refs are responsible for protecting keepers who don't come out with a sense of purpose? Offensive players should be penalized for making good plays and getting to balls that defenders should have gotten to but didn't? And should BE be penalized because the Waccamaw defender played the ball back into the center of the field?
We've looked at it a bunch of times--no foul.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213 |
I agree fishy. Regardless of who touched the ball first, the offensive player was far too aggressive, running right through the keeper. Play should have been stopped and a yellow card issued
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 815
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 815 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768
World Cup
|
|
World Cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768 |
Quote:
50/50 ball. No foul.
Agreed. Foot on ball before keeper.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418 |
No foul. Good goal by BE.
You may disagree, but you're wrong!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 127
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 127 |
Quote:
Quote:
50/50 ball. No foul.
Agreed. Foot on ball before keeper.
Agreed
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
50/50 ball. No foul.
It was only 50/50 if you admit that that offensive player was going to hit the goile no matter what happened, her failure to pull up was dangerous to the keeper as she was going to run her through weather she caught it or not and that is dangerous.
Basic Definition of dangerous play (the part in quotes is right from 08-09 FIFA rule book):
Any action by a player that is unsafe to him or another player, in the judgment of the referee. When contact is made, the referee will consider whether it was "careless, reckless or there was excessive force".
In fact after watching the video several time I would say the keep was in position and ready to capture the ball when the offensive player iniated contact with her. There was no way the striker was going to get the shot without slaming into keeper. That is what makes it reckless! I can understand the no call by the refs as they do not want to "impact" the game but this one is a no brainer. IF the play was at other end of field I am sure the other team would feel cheated too.
Last edited by The Chief; 05/21/09 02:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 322
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 322 |
Since the Refs deal with these things in realtime with no replays or different camera angles. I believe they handled the call the best they could. I believe Waccamaw still had time on the clock to get the equalizer but just couldn't put it away. 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213 |
Well explained Chief! So many miss that rule (Refs and Coaches). It Does Not matter that she touched the ball first.
It applies in the field, but even more so to the keepers (she was in a vulnerable position and should have been protected).
It's sad, but the officials rarely enforce that rule along with the infringement rule.
"The rules never change....Only the interpretation"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
Basic Definition of dangerous play (the part in quotes is right from 08-09 FIFA rule book):
Any action by a player that is unsafe to him or another player, in the judgment of the referee. When contact is made, the referee will consider whether it was "careless, reckless or there was excessive force".
Remember that the FIFA Laws of the Game do not apply to high school games.
The wording in the NFHS Soccer Rules Book is as follows:
"A player shall not participate in dangerous play, which is an act an official considers likely to cause injury to self or another player (opponent or teammate)."
Same idea, just worded differently. No mention of contact in the NFHS rules though.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768
World Cup
|
|
World Cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768 |
9 to 4 saying no foul currently
Coach P, thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Can't view the video for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
...It's sad, but the officials rarely enforce that rule along with the infringement rule...
Spartan: Just curious, what are you referring to as "the infringement rule"?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213 |
I'm just saying you rarely see it called. It doesn't apply to this play because the keeper did not have control.
I guess my main point is..When enforcing the rules, officials don't do as much as they should to protect the keeper.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Were you referring to "persistent infringement?"
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 541
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 541 |
time for be to move up to 3a for soccer. Once in a blue-moon they have a competitive game against aa 2a opponent.
doubt, schsl would allow it if be wanted to move up.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
VERY rarely called. Had an incident last year in the last minute of a 0-0 game where an opposing forward charged my keeper, put a knee in her midsection, and actually cracked her rib--after the ball had bounced away--no call. Other team scored the game-winner on a wide open goal while she was rolling on the ground in pain. Still no call.
This one doesn't compare...I see two players going for a loose ball. A keeper diving onto someone's foot to try to take the ball can also be called for a dangerous play, by the way.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
Since the Refs deal with these things in realtime with no replays or different camera angles. I believe they handled the call the best they could. I believe Waccamaw still had time on the clock to get the equalizer but just couldn't put it away.
To be clear when I said "no brainer" I am refering to those of us who have the luxury of replay. In real time the call would have been much harder to make, but not impossible. I think refs sometimes get so caught up in the "I do not want to effect the outcome" thing that they forfit thier #1 responsibility on the field PLAYER SAFETY!!!! There should have been no dount in his mind , or the sideline judge, who's job it was to be in position to make a call, that the contact iniated by the striker was a dangerous play.
Is it fair that keepers should get the benefit of the doubt in contact plays??
Yes, if you want to keep them safe, elsewise it becomes open season for keepers to get runover if the fwds can just barely beat them to the ball. You stand still trying to catch a ball and let someone run you over because they can touch it 1/10th of a sec before you.
As for the vote count,, well some one email the losing team I am sure when can run up the numbers 
It's the thought and discussion that counts not the vote outcome. I have not heard any defense of the attacking player and her agressive play, justify her reckless, as in no reguard for keeper injury, move and I will be willing to listen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768
World Cup
|
|
World Cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768 |
10 to 4
Whatever the final thoughts/votes/discussion may be, I hope the keeper is ok.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521 |
Would it be a foul if your daughter was the keeper?
Whether it was a foul or not..I felt it was a wreckless play..Make that 10.5 to 4.5
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Stop the video at 1:33 and you see the keep is going down for the ball and the striker goes fwd into the keeper. There was no way the striker was going to get the ball without making contct with the keeper and that in and of it self was dangerous. Had it been two field players (and keeper was staying upright kicking ball) then a charge would have been called for the way the striker went into her out of control. IMHO it was a charge and should have been called as such. In not makeing the call the ref has said it is ok to plow the keeper over. His desire to not effect the game resulted in his effecting the game by not making a call that no one (well there is always someone questioning every call) would have questioned, at the very least it would be easier to defend the call than the non call!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 541
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 541 |
Reckless/dangerous challenge by the attacker……. Call back the goal and yellow card for the attacker.
so you can blow out the keeper if she doesn't have control? i don't think, so.
Last edited by letmeputittooyouthisway; 05/21/09 05:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5 |
After watching the clip many times, it is still impossible to see exactly what happened. The referee and his assistant were in the best position to make the call and they did what they felt was right. What is the difference between this play and one where the keeper and the field player go after the ball on a breakaway?
The call that the ref made isn't going to change, so is there really a need to accuse a high school girl of being malicious? If the tables were turned, I doubt you would see anyone from Bishop England saying they were cheated. The referee set a precedent at the start of the game about not calling any hits on the keeper- don't think Waccamaw wasn't just as guilty for hitting the Bishop England keeper.
That said, Waccamaw had a great season. They have really built a good program and they are always dangerous. Their two forwards are one of the best duos in South Carolina high school soccer.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 19
bench
|
|
OP
bench
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 19 |
To clarify, nobody from Waccamaw has accused BE player of being malicious, nor has the word "cheated" been used in this thread. The purpose of this thread was to get positive, different, perspectives on the play to better understand the call. Thanks to all who did that.
BE plays to win. So does Waccamaw. As Gamer18 says, it is always a good game.
Re the goalie - what could have been a serious injury is not.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5 |
I am glad to hear that the keeper is ok. How is the other keeper doing? I heard she was injured in the game against Academic Magnet.
I was not meaning to imply that there was any cheating going on whatsoever. By "cheated" I was trying to say that they felt like it was the wrong call and they were unfairly treated.
The issue about protecting the keeper is prevalent in all levels of soccer. The bottom line is that it is up to the referee and whatever he or she decides is absolute.
I am sure it was a tough call for the ref to make. I am glad, though, that he at least asked the assistant for his take on the situation. I wish that this goal would have not been the game winner. Both teams are too good to have something controversial like this be the deciding factor.
Look out for Waccamaw next year- they'll have a team full of exceptional seniors ready to meet the Bishops' group of great seniors.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854 |
In high school matches, this would be called a foul virtually every time. . .attacker had her leg extended. . .bang-bang in real time. . .foul.
I suspect this being a playoff game impacted the tentative no-call.
"Living well's the best revenge." r.e.m.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
To clarify, nobody from Waccamaw has accused BE player of being malicious, nor has the word "cheated" been used in this thread. The purpose of this thread was to get positive, different, perspectives on the play to better understand the call. Thanks to all who did that.
BE plays to win. So does Waccamaw. As Gamer18 says, it is always a good game.
Re the goalie - what could have been a serious injury is not.
I did use the word, but not in an accusatory way. More say how it would feel to lose a game on a bad no-call. I am by the way fairly impartial having "no dog in the fight" (never a good choice of words on the girls thread  ). I would prefer to see a game won without a questionable call deciding what became the deciding winning score. If the ref let this kind of attack on the keeper go from the begining then it even more highlights my point that he failed to do hi #1 job! And if you are a BE fan and say "OH, it would be ok if we lost this way, well then peraps you have forgotten how it feels to lose, especially when the ref plays such a big part in the loss!
(and please,, I am not saying your girls did not earn a win I am saying the ref allowed a goal that decided a game and he should have not allowed it, you may well have still won but it should have not been on that goal)
Good Luck in your final, and I hope the ref protects your players, and the other teams, becasue everyone deserves to walk away from the game with pride and a feeling of accomplishment (win or lose, really no losers at this level of play just a better team!)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43 |
Quote:
Quote:
I did use the word, but not in an accusatory way. More say how it would feel to lose a game on a bad no-call. I am by the way fairly impartial having "no dog in the fight" (never a good choice of words on the girls thread ). I would prefer to see a game won without a questionable call deciding what became the deciding winning score. If the ref let this kind of attack on the keeper go from the begining then it even more highlights my point that he failed to do hi #1 job! And if you are a BE fan and say "OH, it would be ok if we lost this way, well then peraps you have forgotten how it feels to lose, especially when the ref plays such a big part in the loss!
(and please,, I am not saying your girls did not earn a win I am saying the ref allowed a goal that decided a game and he should have not allowed it, you may well have still won but it should have not been on that goal)
Good Luck in your final, and I hope the ref protects your players, and the other teams, becasue everyone deserves to walk away from the game with pride and a feeling of accomplishment (win or lose, really no losers at this level of play just a better team!)
The game was not decided by a questionable call. In your eyes it was decided by a questionable no call. Had the call been mae and the goal taken away then the game would have been decided by a questionable call had Waccamaw won. If a referee and an AR have to confer and concur that no foul was committed I would have to say they were on top of their game.
How anyone can call that a no-brainer call for a foul is astonishing. 50 50 balls are part of the game forward attacking and keeper coming out, had the BE player chipped the ball over the keep rather than drive the ball into her legs and you have contact afterward who's the foul on?
Great game no call was spot on and proper call by the officials. I also have no dog in the fight and unbiased in my opinion.
ROSS!!! For no reason!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
I called it a no brainer when you have the luxury of seeing it in slo mo on replay!
And again I will say watch the video and tell me how the fwd will not hit the keep on her charge? In fact look closely and I think you will see the fwd missed the ball with her foot at least she does not strike it with the front of her foot and hit keeper stright on, the ball bounces off the keeper because she was plowed into.
If you call that a 50/50 ball then players are required to play under no control and can plow into any player any time as long as they get the ball first! Is that the kind of dangerous play you would encourage? Had the player chipped the ball over the keeper and then plowed the keeper over I would likely stick to my point that the fwd was creating a dangerous/reckless play. The keep had stopped moving fwd and was going down to get the ball the fwd "charged" on into her. It was the fwd's responsibility to avoid contact, every kid knows since swarm ball as 4 yr olds, keeps are not to be run into on purpose and you have to avoid running into them. This young lady left her self no option but to hit the keeper. If she totally misses the ball (not sure she did'nt) are you saying it was ok becasue she was just trying to get to the ball and until the keeper touches it she can do "anything" in an effort to strike the ball?? How aboutn if the keep was actally severly hurt o the play, a very real possibility with the way the fwd hit her, are you then saying well it was just a 50/50 ball and she was'nt being reckless?
Really?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Oh yea and a no call is a questionable call if there is a reason to think a call should have been made.
Failing to act is in fact maing a choice.
My point is that it would have been less arguable had the call been made, you would have a hard time convincing anyone that the hit was not dangerous. So my point stands that the no call was the worse of the two calls he could have made.!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 81
Throw In
|
|
Throw In
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 81 |
So the premise is the ref made a mistake that led to the goal, possibly costing Wac the game. Well, look at the replay again and ask yourself these questions:
1) Why didn't 17 protect her keeper?
2) Why didn't the coach school the players on protecting the keepers? I guarantee a defender moving to the ball, arms at her sides, but in the way of the striker, will NOT get a hindrance call. I've seen players with both arms out at shoulder level not get called for hindrance when they should have.
3) Why did 21 not clear the ball wide? That clear was as much responsible for the goal as anything.
You'll notice that in the laws and in the high school rules there's that annoying phrase, "in the referee's judgment." The center and the AR conferred; they obviously employed their judgment. You can disagree with their judgment, but blaming the goal on the referees misses a lot of other errors made on the play.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
So the problem was the fact that every one else did the wrong thing so it was ok to crash into keeper.
The play stops with the fould the clearance is a mute point in any argument about the dangerous play. Focus on just the play at hand. True the goal was not caused by the foul but if the foul was given then there would be no goal.
Agian I say look at the video and tell me how the fwd was not acting in a dangerous way? No one is defending her play saying it is ok to barrel full speed into keeper, remember with her angle of attack there is no wayshe will not hit keeper.
As for the ref and his judgement I think we have already settled the fact the we have the luxury of replay. My point his that his judgement failed to keep up his 1st responsibility SAFETY OF THE PLAYER!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273 |
So I had this whole thing written up, but I decided it wasn't worth it to post it, so I just have this:
There's a lot more factors involved in this goal than just a questioned call/noncall. I don't think anyone will argue that both teams played and worked hard in this game and I think it's a little much to be using such acerbic language as to accuse someone of "charging" a keeper as if it were an intentional malicious act. Player safety is important, but so is appreciating the game and the players and not putting them down after the fact, whether the act is intentional or not.
The clip looks different depending on the viewer's perspective. To me, it looks fairly obvious that she was going for the ball and then pitched forward off balance as she knocked into the keeper. As a player, I've seen similar things happen and not ever get called. Heck, I had one game with a 1v1 where she was coming at me hard and I was mid-sprint with the ball and as I tried to slip the ball past her, she came down on her knees and her nose collided with my knee mid-step. One broken nose and no goal later, no call.
At any rate, the point is, the rule in the game is that you cannot challenge when the keeper has the ball in her possession, not that you have to back off in a two foot radius when the ball is near her. A good striker continues to challenge the ball until it's in possession of the gk just like a good gk challenges the ball to get it into her possession when it's in her box, then the good striker does whatever they can to get out of the way.
I think we should be applauding the referees for taking the time to consult with each other before making any decision and try to keep away from using such charged language based off of grainy video and personal biases.
These kids played hard and they played their hearts out and I wish BE good luck tomorrow and I know Waccamaw will be waiting next season with even more heart to put into the game.
PS. Before anyone accuses me of not caring about player safety, I say this as someone who will hopefully be in a Orthopaedic Surgery residency in three years with a focus on youth and professional sports medicine for fellowship. And I want to do research on helping prevent ACL injuries in female soccer players.
Last edited by adidaskitten86; 05/21/09 11:25 PM.
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [it] is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1 |
For those of you that attended the match on Tuesday you witnessed two great teams playing yet another State Championship match. I myself would like it to have gone to double OT just for the shear excitement these two teams can generate. But to have it end with which is now a questionable call is a shame. We ask of our teams to be consistent why not the referees? The refs whistled dead no less than 5 dangerous play calls. Why not this one?
After watching the video, I went back to the article in the Sun News where Coach Snyder is quoted, “Sometimes you get sort of a lucky break. I didn’t expect their player to knock the ball out of her own keeper’s hands." This video clip proves the only lucky break he got was the no-call by a ref.
I predict BE by 5 goals against Christ Church.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 322
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 322 |
All posters listen to adidaskitten86 as she has been there and done that for the best teams in SC. Adidaskitten86 I hope after you receive your degree and complete your internship you will find time to help/coach the youth girls in SC soccer to have the same experience you have had though out your years in SC. I wish that you could help SC soccer grow into soccer everyone wishes to see. Thanks for all your time and sacrifice for the love of soccer.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43 |
Quote:
So I had this whole thing written up, but I decided it wasn't worth it to post it, so I just have this:
There's a lot more factors involved in this goal than just a questioned call/noncall. I don't think anyone will argue that both teams played and worked hard in this game and I think it's a little much to be using such acerbic language as to accuse someone of "charging" a keeper as if it were an intentional malicious act. Player safety is important, but so is appreciating the game and the players and not putting them down after the fact, whether the act is intentional or not.
The clip looks different depending on the viewer's perspective. To me, it looks fairly obvious that she was going for the ball and then pitched forward off balance as she knocked into the keeper. As a player, I've seen similar things happen and not ever get called. Heck, I had one game with a 1v1 where she was coming at me hard and I was mid-sprint with the ball and as I tried to slip the ball past her, she came down on her knees and her nose collided with my knee mid-step. One broken nose and no goal later, no call.
At any rate, the point is, the rule in the game is that you cannot challenge when the keeper has the ball in her possession, not that you have to back off in a two foot radius when the ball is near her. A good striker continues to challenge the ball until it's in possession of the gk just like a good gk challenges the ball to get it into her possession when it's in her box, then the good striker does whatever they can to get out of the way.
I think we should be applauding the referees for taking the time to consult with each other before making any decision and try to keep away from using such charged language based off of grainy video and personal biases.
These kids played hard and they played their hearts out and I wish BE good luck tomorrow and I know Waccamaw will be waiting next season with even more heart to put into the game.
PS. Before anyone accuses me of not caring about player safety, I say this as someone who will hopefully be in a Orthopaedic Surgery residency in three years with a focus on youth and professional sports medicine for fellowship. And I want to do research on helping prevent ACL injuries in female soccer players.
Very Well Stated
ROSS!!! For no reason!
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
AK, very well said as usual; great perspective.
Chief, you keep saying nobody is looking at the video and defending the forward's play, so here goes. Finally made it home to my "good" computer and have watched the clip about 20 times consecutively, both slow-mo and full speed, and here's what I see.
75th minute of a scoreless and intense semi-final match; time is ticking down fast on regulation and it's anyone's game. Ball is played in the air into the box, well-placed enough to allow a chance for play before the keeper rounds it up. The purpose of sending this ball in the first place is for the forwards to run onto it before the keeper can collect it or the defenders clear it out.
B-E's #19 does what she is trained and expected to do--go hard for the ball. She comes into the screen in a full-out sprint to the ball locked shoulder-to-shoulder with Waccamaw's also-sprinting #7. When she hit top speed, the ball was still anyone's and the keeper had not begun her charge. Meanwhile the keeper does what she is trained and expected to do--go for the ball before the forwards can take a shot--so she moves at an angle toward the ball, stepping into the path of the sprinting forward and defender.
Waccamaw's #7 breaks off at the last second as she is on a collision course with both the keeper and fellow defender #21, who is coming in from another angle--she is trained not to interfere with the keeper once she has called for the ball. This leaves the B-E forward with a split second to get a touch on the ball--this close to the goal and the keeper, with the keeper committed, a controlled shot isn't necessary; even a slight change in the ball's path could result in a goal. Rather than going in shoulder first, she leans back hard, stretches for and gets a piece of the ball with her leg, and her momentum carries her into the keeper. She rolls away toward the goal at contact and has separated the ball from the keeper with herself in between.
That's the description; now the analysis.
1. What coach, under those circumstances, teaches his players, "I know it's a run-on ball, but judge your speed, how fast the keeper is coming out and at what angle, how fast the ball is moving and in which direction, and if you're not SURE you can get to the ball without colliding
(taking into account all possibilities of the keeper's motion making collision more or less inevitable), just back off and let her have it. Heck, we have a little over 4 minutes left. There'll be other chances."
2. You keep using the word "reckless" as if it were an intentional abandon of safety. The sprint was begun while the ball was still VERY loose and before the keeper stepped directly into her path. Question...have you ever tried to stop or change directions from a full-out sprint, slightly off-balance from someone shoulder-to-shoulder with you, when someone makes the decision to step into your path about ten feet away?
When it's clutch time, competitive players are taught to play with a sense of urgency--which means going hard for every ball, trying to capitalize on every opportunity. I am certainly not condoning any attempt to deliberately plow through a keeper, but neither would I condemn an honest attempt to get to the ball before the keeper does. When you play hard, sometimes collisions happen. What I saw was not an intentional play to take out the keeper; what I saw was a player focused entirely on getting to the ball, stretching with her leg and attempting to keep her body away from impact, and a collision resulted.
Dangerous? There's danger in any play that stretches athletes out to their limits. Reckless and "plowing" the keeper, though? A bit strong. Two players went hard to do their jobs and they collided in the process. Until you've been on the field in the situation, actually PLAYING and making decisions at game speed instead of analyzing possiblilities in slow-mo from an armchair, you don't have much perspective to distinguish "reckless" from "going hard."
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 43 |
Perfectly stated and punctuated as well!!!!!
ROSS!!! For no reason!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213 |
Quote:
Perfectly stated and punctuated as well!!!!!
Not really!
That was a lot said about nothing!
Look at the video 20 more times and read Chiefs explanation 20 more times...then check out the case studies online.
You will then be able to see 20/20
Nothing against any team or player, but that's a foul. Unfortunately, it's one that goes uncalled way to often! I can certainly understand why it was called that way considering the comments that have been posted about the video.
Maybe this video could be used to educate our officials, coaches and players since most of them failed to "make the correct call".
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
You're always going to find "nothing" in what you read if that's what you go looking for. I read Chief's explanation...if saying "that was a foul" 20 times made something undisputably true, there would be a lot of undisputable experts on this board, most of whom would completely disagree with each other constantly.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
And, for the record, I am more taking issue with the implications of "reckless" and "plowing," which would imply wilful intent to endanger and incapacitate.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
And, for the record, I am more taking issue with the implications of "reckless" and "plowing," which would imply wilful intent to endanger and incapacitate.
Early on I gave credit to the Fwd for trying to make a play and I do not think I have ever accused her of trying to hurt the keeper intentionally or playing dirty. I know what it is like to have the "focus' in on an objective to the exclusion of all else, even my own safety.
When I say plowing over I am refering to what happened, she did plow er over with physical contact head on, in fact her knee clearly (as best as I can see) hits the keeper on her left (away from the fwd) leg. This means she crossed the keepers body with hers while trying to get a shot I do not see being taken (I only see an attempt to get the ball no real contact). It is always charging players responsibility to aviod excessive contact not the player being charged. If I am going 30 and you are going 65 on the road you can miss me better than I can avoid you!
My real point on reckless has always been and still is that the play in and of itself was reckless (no willful intention implied, lots of people do reckless things everyday with out realizing it). The fwd could have severely hurt herself or the keeper. I say fwd because she is the one movin at full speed at target with the ability to avoid the keeper (yes, I am sure the defenders position played a part in her path). What I am saying is that the ref allowed this type of contact and sets a standard that is ok. If this is not a foul then any player can run itno another at full speed as long as they are trying to make a play, that is what you are in effect saying when you call this ok.
Please do not read into my comments that I feel this young lady was at fault for her play. Players should play with all the intensity they can. It is the ref who must pull them back when it becomes unsafe, water on the fire if you will. My own daghter would likely have done the same thing and I hope I would have the intestinal fortitude to say the same thing here! A play like tht is a foul because of what could happen not what did. Did the keeper need to end up with a broken leg to prove it was "dangerous"?
If this is safe then I think we are getting close to say end out weighs means. I want my kid and every other kid walking off the field afet every game, this knd of play will eventually not allow that to happen.
If it was a good safe play then lets show it to every team and say this is ok so do it if you have to!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
By the way this is how a great discussion forum should work! The comments and opinions expressed here have been both insightful and respectful. Those on oppisite side have been polite and made thier cases without resorting to name calling and for that I am thankful and proud that we can discuss what we love (the kids and the game) in such an open and respectful way.
Thank you all
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 146
Goal Kick
|
|
Goal Kick
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 146 |
Chief is right, this is a great discussion of a relavant and important topic. Personally, I did not read any of the earlier comments by Chief or others as an attack or criticism of the BE players or coaches. The use of terms like "wreckless" were a direct reference to the various rules (FIFA, NFHS and SCHSL) rules that may be applicable to the play.
I do not have a dog in this specific fight, but I have raised a keeper (graduating this year, god willing) and trained many keepers over the years. While this does not make my opinion worth anything more than any other opinion here, it helps define my perspective.
Coach Chass' opinion is closest to mine and undoubtedly better organized and expressed than I would have done, with one addition. While I believe that referees should "protect a keeper", it is impossible to remove any possibility of injury. A good keeper (such as the Waccamaw keeper) will intentionally put him/herself in situations that increase the chance of injury. My wife stopped going to matches years ago because she cannot stand watching our son stretching out, diving or standing up to 10 players charging at him (sometimes his own teammates).
The BE player did not raise her cleats, push, wrecklessly charge or in any way foul or endanger the keeper before making a play on the ball (whether she reached the ball first or not). As a good keeper does, the keeper went down to block or collect the ball and she was necessarily in a more vulnerable position than a field player that would have remained on his/her feet. It is true that the BE player should be mindful of the position of the defender, but that does not mean that a diving or sliding keeper enjoys a "bubble" of protection and the offense has to back off.
Also, as stated by others before, it was very commendable of the referee to both allow the play to continue (no quick whistle - the ensuing play may not have resulted in a goal) and discuss the play with the AR after play had been stopped (in this case, the goal).
It is unfortunate for both teams that the game ends on a play that knowledgable fans, players and coaches may not agree, but well done by both teams and the referees.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Chief, Good comments, and I completely agree that it is the officials' responsibility to "reel in" the players when intensity turns into an unacceptable level of risk. You've made some very good points; I've also looked at this from a different perspective on many occasions when I've seen my keeper battered and bowled over on similar plays and had to wonder whether this was the time she wouldn't be able to bounce back up and keep playing. Part of it, of course, is her willingness to put herself in harm's way to make the save, and I have seen keepers called and cautioned for putting themselves in the path of a hard-charging attacker. In this case, I just think there split-second difference between a playable ball and one that is "too close" to the keeper to challenge; the forward made the decision to commit to the ball as soon as it was played, and the keeper made the decision to step into her oncoming path to make the save. I think you could make a case for either side, foul or no foul, and even a case for dangerous play on the keeper's part for the way she came into a charging opponent high and open...in this case, for right or for wrong, both officials seemed to agree that it was a playable ball and the forward either had the right to challenge for it or was not reasonably able to alter her path in response to the keeper's motion. You're right...this has been a good debate, and sometimes it's a difference of opinion and perspective that gets people to actually THINK...and that's always a good thing.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 166
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 166 |
Quote:
By the way this is how a great discussion forum should work! The comments and opinions expressed here have been both insightful and respectful. Those on oppisite side have been polite and made thier cases without resorting to name calling and for that I am thankful and proud that we can discuss what we love (the kids and the game) in such an open and respectful way.
Thank you all
Can you imagine how this discussion would have gone on the Georgia forum?? They're vicious over there.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768
World Cup
|
|
World Cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768 |
Quote:
Can you imagine how this discussion would have gone on the Georgia forum?? They're vicious over there.
They get C R A Z Y over on that board! I bet they keep a cooler by the computer!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
another thing to consider...i have seen players go out of their way to avoid contact at the last minute and get hurt more than if they would have continued with the original hit (of course, that is an assumption on my part)
imagine this forward, at top speed, veering to one side at the split-second before contact with the keeper...i can see her being (accidentally) tripped up by one of the defenders and cart wheeling over the keeper, only to land on her head. many other possible, worse injuries come to mind.
i see many people at games who feel that every single time two players run into each other, a foul should be called. remember, soccer is a contact sport. nobody wants to see a player hurt, but it happens.
btw, this is not an opinion on the play in question, merely additional food for thought (if you don't like the taste, just spit it out)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25 |
keep em in 2-A. I want another shot! From playing boys soccer 10 years ago to coaching girls now,"every" season in both have ended against them. It gets old, but I aint scared so let em stay at least one more year. Sorry to change the subject.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521 |
I think to begin with boys games are called tighter than girls games..I see more fouls allowed with girls..I hear the statements that the B.E. player touched the ball first so that makes it okay..Let's say after the goal and the game resumed a player passes the ball up field and the player has to reach over waist high to kick the ball..At the same time an opposing player goes to head this ball away..The ball gets kicked down field barely missing the opposing players head..What happens? Foul!! Dangerous play on the high kick..But the player touched the ball first..Does that make it okay?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521 |
A comment was made that the players cleats were not up..I don't think there is no intention on either player to foul..It was just two players doing what they were trained to do and a foul resulted from it..When a player does a high kick and no one is close..it's not a foul but when others are involved it becomes one..If you were the coach for the keepers team..Would you argue it? Or if a foul was called would you argue that there was no foul?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273 |
People keep bringing up questions and thoughts, so I thought I'd post the link to this still shot. It's blurry, so I circled the striker's foot, the ball, and the keeper's hands in coordinated colours to help any of you stodgy ol' folk who can't see ;-). http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2515/bewaccamaw.png
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [it] is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 213 |
Is this a similar foul? The forward runs into the keeper, who has control of the ball, and kills the bottom of the Keeper's boot with his face. OUCH! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byLfdQPkG8w
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
No kidding! Reckless fouls? HERE are some reckless fouls...prepare to cringe... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52t5ifcmoxM&NR=1
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 409
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 409 |
Quote:
snip
Player safety is important, but so is appreciating the game and the players and not putting them down after the fact, whether the act is intentional or not.
snip
To me, it looks fairly obvious that she was going for the ball and then pitched forward off balance as she knocked into the keeper. As a player, I've seen similar things happen and not ever get called.
snip
At any rate, the point is, the rule in the game is that you cannot challenge when the keeper has the ball in her possession, not that you have to back off in a two foot radius when the ball is near her. A good striker continues to challenge the ball until it's in possession of the gk just like a good gk challenges the ball to get it into her possession when it's in her box, then the good striker does whatever they can to get out of the way.
PS. Before anyone accuses me of not caring about player safety, I say this as someone who will hopefully be in a Orthopaedic Surgery residency in three years with a focus on youth and professional sports medicine for fellowship. And I want to do research on helping prevent ACL injuries in female soccer players.
Wow...I'm writing down your name so, in the future, when I need a surgeon I know who to contact. Very well said.
Here is my point of view with the perspective of "I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm a keeper's dad"
No foal!
I do not see any control of the ball by the keeper. It appears the forward touched the ball before the keeper.
The forward would be concentrating on the ball more than the keeper. The keepers location is not set, so one can not expect the forward from avoiding a collision.
Great competitive play by both the keeper and the forward.
Dangerous? Of course, but every time the ball gets in the box I think it's dangerous (as some other keeper parent said, "I have the anti-acid and defibrillator to prove it")
Reckless? I don't see it! Just good old hard nosed play.
The refs made the right call
“It’s the most wonderful time of the year”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
spartan, do you know if there was a foul called on that play?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
I can understand those who say "No foul" because the play can be seen from either point of view if you choose to say the contact was result of good agressive play by both players.
To me the question is at what point does a ref have to say "Ok, if I allow this type of play I am responsible for the injuries that come with it?".
Ask yourself this, if he calls the foul for a "dangerous" play because of the excessive contact, how critical can anyone be of the call? Do we then say, "Well he robbed the team of a goal because he was protecting a player"? Which side of the argument would you rather be on if the keeper ( or fwd for that matter) was severely injured?
I am more than comfortable saying that I would rather err on the side of player safety when there is a doubt.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Along the same lines as your question about injuries, how about this one: do you feel that a referee is responsible for ANY injury on the field? Even those where absolutely no foul has occurred?
If referees decide they will be responsible for every injury that might occur on the field, I believe they will start second-guessing everything they do. If that happens, I believe many matches will never end, because the whistle will be constantly blowing.
Now, if you do make sweeping changes as to how/when referees make "dangerous play" calls, i.e., tell referees to make the calls based mostly on goalkeeper safety, I believe you will then see many/most goalkeepers take advantage of that - they will start putting themselves into more "dangerous" situations, knowing the referee is going to make calls in their favor.
That could potentially lead to a worse situation than now exists. Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Your question carries the concept to a non-logical conclusion. If a player blows put thier knee tring to turn to fast on a bad field is that the ref fault? No of course not, and yes soccer is a contact sport but the contact is limited and managed. A ref has to decide at what point a play become to aggressive even if the play is legal. That is my point, just because it is legal does not mean it is safe.
How often do you see high kicks called (especially in girls games) even though no one was hit by the foot? Why would the ref call it if a player was not hit? What pourpose does it serve to call that foul if no player was hurt or even contacted with the kick? Of course you know why, it is about prevent it (ther injury) next time! To me this is along those same lines.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
I don't believe we disagree on the need to protect players (whether they be goalkeepers or field players) from the "dangerous play" of others, but at what point a player's actions should be considered "dangerous" (or, if you prefer, "too aggressive")
To attempt to clarify what I'm talking about, let's say that "potential contact" between attacker and goalkeeper is ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "attacker too aggressive," and 10 being "goalkeeper too aggressive." Let's define "potential contact" as a keeper and an attacker approaching each other, with the ball between them (not just them getting ready to shake hands) and both players are attempting to gain control of the ball.
What exactly is a "1-10" is not important at the moment, just assume for the sake of argument that you have 100 referees standing there, and they all agree (yeah, I realize that is illogical in and of itself).
Assume that a ranking of 5 means that attacker and goalkeeper are both approaching the ball at the same speed, have an equal chance of gaining possession first, and this is considered fair play, there is no foul, no dangerous play, etc. (however you want to word it, consider it a 50/50 ball).
Assume that currently, all referees consider anything above or below a 5 ranking to be considered dangerous play (and thus, called a foul, illegal, etc).
What I believe you are wanting to do is move the location of a 5, to what is currently a 3 or a 4, so that more emphasis is placed on goalkeeper safety. So, now, the level of attacker-aggressiveness that is considered acceptable has been lowered. Is this correct?
What I'm saying is that, if this happens, there are plenty of goalkeepers who will recognize this and take advantage of it. And some of them will start playing more aggressively, knowing that there is a very good chance the referee will make a call in their favor.
Not illogical at all - it is otherwise known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
I am begining to think that this soccer thing is too hard! Logic and math and getting 100 refs to agree on something wooo this is way harder than baseball where the strike zone is always the same with every ump (right??).
You are right in that some player will alway take advantage of the rules and refs. "Cheating" is part of the game in every sport, just see the Wando/Mauldin thread where it is obvious that the Mauldin player is preventing a Wando player from a "clear" (not my word) scoring attempt. IN a playoff game, where ref will not give red cards unless you decapitate someone (and then only if you do it meanly) this type of play is to be expected under your argument, and low and behold it is (tatic was used two game in a row).
Protecting the keepers is much like they protect the QB in football. Thye are given an "unfair" advantage because of the vaulnarability of the position. The fast moving fwd, much like the blitzing LB or lineman, is responsible for ensuring that they are under control when attacking so as to be able to change thier angle based on the Keepers/QB's movements. It is the speedboat vs sailboat argument, the faster more manuverable most aviod the slower less manverable. Is it totally fair to attacker,,,??? NO, but if applied at both ends of the field it is equal. To me being equal makes more sense than fair in this situation, becuase fair results in the eventual serious injury where equal had a much better chance of avoiding it.
Now back to the video, if you watch it several time stopping it at 1:32,1:33 you will clearly (even thru the blur) see that the keeper is going to the ground to cover the ball when hit. Her fwd speed is basically almost zero and she is in process of reaching for the ball, and no she does not have control but I think control would only be important if the fwd actually hit it without colliding into her. The fwd in her effort to make a play collides with the keeper preventing her from getting the ball due to her physical contact, it also take her out for any follow on play. I am not sure the fwd made any significant controlled contact with the ball that was not the result of the collision, but even if she did it was only made after the collison became enevitable, she did clearly pull back on contact though showing (to me) no intention to hurt the keeper.
I will stand on the idea that the fast moving fwd is responsible for avoiding the slow moving, and very predictable keeper. We all knew what she was going to do, grab the ball! The fwd was responsible for making a play without plowing into the keeper, if she can not do it then she must avoid slaming into a defenseless keep in the process of going to the ground to get the ball. If the fwd touches the ball away from the keep with hitting her then it is a great play and we have no discussion, if she pulls up short or wide taking a kick at it without clobbering the keeper then again good play. Run into keeper at full speed with only a stabbing chance of hitting the ball? Not a good play. IMHO
Funny but I think only the fact that the keeper is'nt laying there hurt keeps the ref from calling the foul. If she were my keeper I would tell her stay down holding your knee until play is stopped if a fwd plows you over. "Cheating"?? maybe maybe not but I do not have to sub a keeper if she is run over and "hurt", I get to go out and talk to her without a sub having to come on. After all if we are going to let them be run over we better let tham take advantage of the rules. Imagine how much harder the refs discussion is with my keeper rolling (maybe a good wailing cry too) on the ground at thier feet!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Just curious...has the keeper who is in that video seen it? Do you know her "before" and "after" thoughts regarding whether a foul should have been called or not?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Would be intereting but along same lines how does the fwd feel about it? My guess each would have thier own opinion for obvious reasons. How much harder (more agressively) does she think she could go in and still not get a call. If it happened to her keeper how would she feel? Maybe ask the other keeper if she thinks it was a foul?
Even more intresting show the clip to some refs (minus the sound) and see how many think it might have been a foul and how many say, "no way it was clean". I'll admit thats not really fair to them but it would make an interesting "study", especially if you stop the film just after the collision and make them decide without knowing a goal is the result?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
We keep talking about the keeper as if she is the "victim" in this or any similar matchup--the assumption seems to be that in a 50-50 situation, the keeper has the right to go to the ball and possess it, and the attacking player has a duty to retreat to allow her to do so without contact. You talk about the "helpless" keeper, but I think this is a faulty assumption; in my experience, a well-trained keeper going after a loose ball is anything but "helpless." In the case of this video, the keeper went in knees-first with her body upright and exposed, and did not take a stance to protect herself from impact. In many cases, though, it's the keeper who controls the moment and point of impact, and the forward who ends up doing unplanned acrobatics.
Here's an alternate situation: an attacking player gets a breakaway and is dribbling in fast on a 1v1 with the keeper. To prevent the easy shot, the keeper waits for a slightly longer touch, charges out and meets her at about the PK spot, slides to ground with her body between ball and goal and wraps the ball up right in front of the forward's foot. The forward can't stop in time, contacts the ball at the keeper's midsection, trips, and face-plants in the grass.
Did the keeper commit a foul, or was she going after a ball that wasn't under control? Did the forward commit a foul for not pulling back to avoid the keeper as soon as she began her charge, since it was obvious where the keeper was going? Was it a great save, or should there be a card and a PK awarded?
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 148
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 148 |
Being at the game and a devout Waccamaw supporter, the situation is as simple as this.
The keeper made a good play to make the block but the forward did nothing wrong as she was going for the ball in an attempt to score. Neither player did anything illegal and it was just unfortunate that the ball rebounded out to another Bishop England player. She placed her shot well and it turned out to be the game winner. Had the keeper been able to get right back up after the collision she still would not have saved the shot. In the end, it's unfortunate but completely legal and the referee made the correct decision.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
chief, so basically, you are assuming you know how the keeper in the video feels about the play - for all you know, she might even disagree with you...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
chief, so basically, you are assuming you know how the keeper in the video feels about the play - for all you know, she might even disagree with you...
Can you point out where I said what I thought she might feel like I knew? What I said was I think the keeper and fwd would likely have different opinions. Not with standing that for all I know she migght say no big deal "its cool" or what ever the equivilent is for the kids today.
Do you know? Do you know how the fwd feels? How about the refs?
I have no real care about the game or goal except I see it as another case where a ref lets play get to the point where injuries are more likely because they try and allow playoff games to be won on the field by the players and not by thier calls. Sadly the players know this and turn up the agression a little cause if the ref are going to hold back on the fouls the players are going to push the envlope just a little more. FMHs had a players sent to hospital during upstate game because of concussion from elbow hit, clean or dirty, who knows, but physical for sure. It is a contact sport but refs have to draw the line between hiting and playing.
It's human nature some call it, "play till the yellow card comes out".
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Just like this case it is a hard call, but I would be on the side of saying to keeper placed her self in that position by diving on the ball so I would not blame the fwd for the contact. If the keep is only playing the ball and not the keepers legs then I would say keep made clean play. If keep went feet first at the fwds legs then I would likely say foul was commited by keeper. As I said before I would tend to err on the keepers side because in the box they have the "right of way". If the player managed to tap ball under/over keeper in you hypothetical then made the same amount of contact we see in video I would say no foul (for fwd) becasue keeper created the contact with her play. In the video as far as I can tell the keeper did not create the contact, had the fwd hit the keeps arm on her way by then maybe no foul but instead the fwd ends up T-boning keeper. As for your point about the keeps positioning I agree she could have done a better job, but I do not want to critize the effort to much. In a clinical way I am sure it could be broken down by for errors but I would leave that to her coach. I have seen several keepers who have "punished" fwds for just such a charge, without being trying to be sexist I would say most boys keepers look to clober a fwd who offers the chance for this kind of contact (Elbows and Knees are often the first part of a keeper a fwd will meet). In fact I saw a simiular play this year where the keeper just went for the kick and "knockout" blow on the fwd. Ball got booted away out of bounds and fwd got to meet ground with keeper on top. Ref was seen talking??/cautioning?? both as they got up . Hey I guess if this was easy and cut and dried it would'nt be nearly as fun  Hopefully they can meet again next year.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 281
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 281 |
Just jumping in to add a thought. I was once told by a high level assessor (national level) that there is no such thing as a "dangerous play" once contact is made. If contact is made, it immediately becomes a direct free kick for kicking, holding, etc.
As for whether or not this was a foul, I will not judge. BUT, why, when the keeper didn't get up and was grabbing her knee (an indication of a serious injury) was play not immediately stopped for injury with an indirect free kick given to BE because they had possession after the attempted clearance?
"Boys, even if it means dying on the pitch, we must win!" Marc-Vivien Foe 1975 - 2003
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Not to take anything away from player safety--I have taken issue before with how long it took for an official to stop play after a player went down and didn't move--but imagine a game where a team could immediately stop a dangerous scoring threat simply by falling down and clutching a knee?
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
(And yes, I'm playing devil's advocate again--there's nothing that frustrates me more than watching a ball go into the net when my goalkeeper is on the ground after getting bulldozed--but gotta look at it from all points objectively. If the officials immediately blew the play dead every time someone went down (especially in front of the goal), how much more flopping would be done to take away advantage?)
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273 |
As a player, sometimes you need a minute or a couple seconds to stretch out the knee or ankle you smacked against the other player's--which, for the record, hurts like a bitca and may take a moment to get over, but isn't usually worth coming out for--or to catch your breath. You could end up with a lot of pointless stoppages when it's just someone taking their time to roll up to their feet. Waiting to see if they're just reacting and then pop up or seriously in pain is usually the most logical way to handle that.
However, I do have to say that if the ref is taking too long to call an obviously injured player, growing up, it was considered the players' responsibility to knock the ball out of bounds as a courtesy.
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [it] is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Agreed...what hurts initially isn't always a serious injury...sometimes it just takes a minute to shake it off. With sportsmanlike teams, if they realize a player isn't getting up and isn't being attended to by the officials, the ball will be kicked out. Prominent example and compliments to the Stratford High girls last year when we played them--I had a player go down hard and not move. The center ref did not stop play, which was in our defensive third, and yelled "play on" when he was directed to the girl who still had not moved. The entire Stratford team simply stopped and refused to go to the ball despite advantage and repeated calls of "play on" until we finally got a whistle...great example of sportsmanship and class.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
It is play like that which makes soccer such a special sport. Teams who respect the traditions of the game are learing more about themselves than they realize. And while on the subject kind of makes a point about refs not "protecting" the players quite a much as they should! 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Chief, well, when you said "My guess each would have thier own opinion for obvious reasons" and since you have made it clear that you feel the play in question is an obvious foul, that kinda led me to believe you were assuming how she felt about it. My bad.
I just think it's interesting, since you're using this particular play as your main example, that we do not know how either of the players (who were actually involved in the collision) feel about it. I don't really care how any of the other players on the field at the time feel about it (at least, not any more so than any of the posters on this thread), I like to know the thoughts of the people "truly involved," which in this case, in my mind, is two people - forward and keeper. Chances are, the keeper feels the same way you do - but I'd like to know that for a fact - one way or the other.
I don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other - just giving my two cents worth...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
According to my sources, the forward feels like everyone was just playing hard and doing their jobs, is a little embarrassed about losing her balance, is glad they won and nobody got hurt, and can't believe people are still talking about this, or that it caused such controversy in the first place. She seems to think it's odd to go from unknown to infamous in one play, while still remaining anonymous.
As for the keeper, I have no idea.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 69
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 69 |
I have been following and am glad to actually hear the thoughts of the players. As a keepers dad I have seen many similar plays, mostly in club ball, that were no calls, and can only think of one that was called. I think it was in the Georgia State Cup and the refs might have been advised to keep a sharper eye out for safety. My keeper daughter is also a ref and I asked her to watch the video. She said she would not have called it but might have cautioned the forward.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 58
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 58 |
No foul... 50/50 ball. Keeper didn't have any type of possession; both keeper and forward met at the same time. Well done to refs for not stopping the play.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
; both keeper and forward met at the same time.
Not even sure what this means?? Is there a way they could have met at a different??? 
When is a ball no longer 50/50? I quess if we answer that question we have a better starting point to say what is to agressive and what is not.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
I think what SB meant to say was, both players arrived at the ball at the same time.
Not sure if whether the ball is a 50/50 is the determiner of what is "too aggressive"...two players with an equal chance can either take steps to minimize impact, go after each other with intent to win or maim trying, or any degree in between.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
What I meant was at what point do we not call a ball 50/50? Because until under physical control, based on what we have seen posted so far, the ball is always 50/50. Not trying to be flipant just wondering if we have apoint where we would say a ball is not 50/50? As long as a player can get a foot to it before it is under control is it not then always 50/50? An equal chance of touching the ball will always exist until it is actually under the keepers control, wont it? If the ball is bouncing off the ground up into keepers hands but a fwd is able to hit it with a foot, knee or what ever (no hand ) before the keeper grabs it was it not a 50/50 ball?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
I see what you're saying...I think I would define a 50/50 ball as one a player has a realistic chance of winning away before the other player can take possession. Usually we use the term to determine whether a player should continue to attack the ball (if it is up for grabs) or set and prepare to defend (if it's obvious the other player will get control first). There is no defending against a keeper's right to punt the ball out once it's in her possession, though, so I think with the goal in sight and the keeper coming, there is more pressure to go after the ball rather than take a more conservative approach and try to win it right back, which would be possible if it were anyone other than the keeper gaining possession.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
If by met you mean the Fwd ran into the keeper as ball arrived then yes it was at same time. I do not hink you can say the keep ran into or got in path of fwd is such a way that fwd could not avoid running her over (just my opinion from watching video, which could be understandably different for others). To me the fwd's contact with the keeper interfered with her(keepers) ability to continue playing the ball. Intentional or not her contact was made in an effort to play a ball she was not in control of and one the keeper was about to be in control of. Without the fwds contact I believe the keeper easily captures the ball, but had the keeper be one or two step back I do not think the fwd would have had "control" of the ball at the point of impact. To me this means it was not a 50/50 ball because the fwd had much less chance of gaining control of the ball at the point of contact than the keeper. If the fwd touches(notice I said touches, not controls) the ball with minimal contact with keeper than I would say no foul, else in intrest of protecting keepers from the fact that all balls are 50/50 until controled I would call an interference foul. (based on what you wrote "50/50 ball. Keeper didn't have any type of possession")
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Yes my point, as I wrote while you were replying , is that I felt the keeper had a better than 50/50 chance for "control" and the fwd less the 50/50 give the point of impact. The fwd interfered with the keeper's ability to control the ball much more than the keeper interfered with the fwd ability to gain control of the ball. Basically remove the each from the play and the keeper has control at that spot, the fwd is still chasing the ball and may get a touch there but not a controlling touch (IMHO). So who really had a better than 50/50 chance for control there (using my logic I will say keeper)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Of course, you could also make the argument that given her unique ability to use her hands in conjunction with the rest of her body, the keeper has a greater chance of controlling the ball in what would be an otherwise 50/50 situation; in this particular situation, I think a forward's job is as much to deny the keeper control of the ball (thereby denying the opportunity to punt it out and keeping her own team's scoring opportunities alive) as it is to actually control the ball herself. A ball loose in the box is as easily one player's as another's...a ball in the keeper's hands is undeniably "under control" and will end any scoring chance until another buildup is possible.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
(And I am really chuckling at the idea of an official making a call based on "well, she was ABOUT to be in control if the other player hadn't challenged for it.")
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273 |
I'd actually argue that the keeper's hands were a foot and a half or two from the ball and that given her approach and given a speedy attacker, the attacker could be more likely to get a foot on that ball and slip it around her. I doubt they'd score or even maintain control, but given the trajectories, it's more likely that the momentum and positioning of the striker made them more apt to make it to the ball than a keeper who is immobile and dropping to her knees to receive a ball.
Also, physics aside, I think I read somewhere that as soon as a goalkeeper gets even a finger on the ball, you back off (you being the attacker); the correlative then is that until the keeper gets a finger on the ball, it's not in their possession and free to challenge. It's not a written rule of course, but food for thought. I'll try to find it again.
Last edited by adidaskitten86; 06/02/09 05:29 AM.
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [it] is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
(And I am really chuckling at the idea of an official making a call based on "well, she was ABOUT to be in control if the other player hadn't challenged for it.")
Yes would be a good laugh seeing the coach of the other team flipping out at the call! I can see the hat on the ground now!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
it's more likely that the momentum and positioning of the striker made them more apt to make it to the ball than a keeper who is immobile and dropping to her knees to receive a ball.
But under this sceniario the fwd ran into a keeper in position to receive the ball interfereing with a player in an established position. Weather or not she had control she should not be run over if her position is established.
If the keeper ran into a fwd pursuing a ball would we call that interference? What if the fwd was just about to shoot and the keeper runs into her just before she can kick the ball (say the keeper is trying to get to the ball to kick it and actually touchess it before the fwd then slam fwd to ground with body contact, taking her out of the play, is that a foul? I would have to say so based on the conversation over 50/50 balls.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855 |
Quote:
in this particular situation, I think a forward's job is as much to deny the keeper control of the ball (thereby denying the opportunity to punt it out and keeping her own team's scoring opportunities alive) as it is to actually control the ball herself.
Of course this means it is the keepers job to deny the controlling contact with the ball to the fwd. I wold have rather seen her come in for the kick and deliver a blow to the fwd rather than get pommeled because she thought the fwd would pull up rather than run her down, but as we have already said it could have been played better and one should never trust the opponent to do the safe thing because they are not thinking about safety at that point (not saying they should, a stiker is a striker because they see ball/net and think score). Oh and never ever trust the ref to save the day! Just be happy when they do becuase next time it will be the other guy/gal they save not you 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273 |
Again, devil's advocate, but you could argue that the keeper made an inappropriate approach to the ball given the situation and thus made herself more of a roadblock than than necessary. Can you blame a striker who is merely trying to fairly win a 50/50 ball when a keeper comes in with the wrong technique or merely just "establishes" their position with no intent to actually challenge the ball? Allowing that on a regular basis could result in abuse by goalkeepers.
Last edited by adidaskitten86; 06/02/09 01:15 PM.
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [it] is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
|
|
|
|
