SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Waccamaw vs. BE: Goal or Foul?

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!

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...

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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")