Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Group D: ENG-SCO-ARG-JPN

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    There seems a very uneven bias toward goalkeepers in all this. Attackers and defenders encroaching strikes me as a far more obvious and frequent transgression.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post

      Yeah. The TSN crew reckoned the ref basically lost control of match and just wanted it over.
      That was my view, I shouted up to Ms Felicity (who took the Sco collapse badly and left the room) “I think the ref’s on strike”

      Comment


        Goalkeepers will adapt. The ones in the U-20 World Cup got used to it to enough of an extent that it didn't seem to massively drag out shootouts.

        Commiserations, obviously, to the Scots of OTF. I was giddy at the end there, though. They'll be out by this time tomorrow anyway, but if that campaign doesn't combine with the newly professional league to cause the increasing visibility of women's football here to snowball, then it'll be thanks to a spectacular act of sabotage from the AFA. What a performance. And I know we're trying not to do comparisons with the men's game here, but if Scaloni's charges showed half the organisation, togetherness and lack of fear the girls just did (and I'm using 'girls' deliberately, because Dalia Ippolito, whose sub did a lot to sway the game in those last twenty minutes, is 17 years old and has been playing for River's first team since the age of 13), I wouldn't be backing Paraguay to beat them in a couple of hours. At this rate, maybe Argentina really should try and host the next edition.

        2003 (played three, lost three, scored one, conceded fifteen) is no longer Argentina's best-ever campaign at an official Women's World Cup.

        Comment


          I was sitting at a bar in Reims tonight ahead of Canada-Holland tomorrow, chatting to a lovely American lad, Andy, who lives just down the road from where I lived just outside DC. Not a soccer player, just loves the game, jacked in his job to come to the WC and then backpack around Europe. So we‘re watching the two games and after each Scottish goal I‘m jumping off my chair and pumping my fist. Andy‘s pleased for me, but when I tell him at 3-0 we will find a way to screw this up he starts laughing at my lack of optimism. No, I tell him, this game will end 3-3. At 3-2 in the 78th. minute he starts to believe me. „The equaliser will come,“ I tell him, „ but not until the fourth minute of injury time.“ When the Argentine penalty was saved, I said that it makes no difference, the fucking VAR. will call it back anyway. The re-take was duly converted in the 94th. minute. „You called it!“ Andy acknowledged. And he also learnt something about what it means to be Scottish.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Janik View Post
            Actually, I won't watch either, as I'll be playing Squash in Luton at the time the games are on. Ah, nuts.
            [Comes bounding in all enthusiastic after a successful evening and having only seen the last 10 minutes of the England game with the sound off] What'd I miss? Anything good?
            [skim reads two pages of joy followed by four of increasing angst, horror and anger] Oh...

            Comment


              Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
              Nice goal. This going to be some last ten minutes
              Not a lot of Football played in it. In fact, between 85:50 (when the Scottish player clatters the Argentine forward) and 93:18, when Bonsegundo retakes the penalty, not a single piece of officially counting play happened. Which is certainly memorable, but maybe not in the way Amor had in mind.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post

                Yeah. The TSN crew reckoned the ref basically lost control of match and just wanted it over.
                That's how it felt to me, too. Not the first match this tournament where it's felt like that either (feisty first half of Netherlands v Cameroon could've had 8" of added time, ref gave it 3).

                VAR isn't the problem, but how long they take to use it is - do they not practice or have any guidance before they plough on with it in front of the whole world?

                Comment


                  I'm not sure how a keeper can time her movements to the split second in the way the laws require. On the retake, she tried to do it by starting behind the line but might actually have been in front of the line when it was struck.

                  OTOH, as Sam says, this might be a case of the coaches not giving it enough attention (or the keeper forgetting the coaching in the heat of the moment). They could be coached to just move sideways I guess.

                  Japan were typically frustrating; technically the better side bit totally inept at finishing.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
                    I'm not sure how a keeper can time her movements to the split second in the way the laws require. On the retake, she tried to do it by starting behind the line but might actually have been in front of the line when it was struck.
                    There was a perception, by some, that she jumped rather than moved off the line. In the replays we saw it was unclear. But really, is this what a game of football has come down to? Who really wants this as a pivotal moment in a game, apart from TV networks, I sure don't.

                    Comment


                      Commiserations, Scotland. That's right up there with the most painful/farcical meltdowns in the history of international sport.

                      As for the penalty retakes, it would be OK if it really was "just applying the rules, and everyone knows them now". But that's not how it will play out. The second yellow card will not be given to the keeper, more often than not. At some stage in this tournament it may happen (in a shootout as mentioned upthread), a keeper will get sent off and global headlines will be made and a referee's head will be photoshopped and diplomatic relations will be severed, but for the most part it will be "common sense", defined as "not applying the rules consistently".

                      Comment


                        Hats off to Argentina, Sam, and the manager’s bold subbies- it looked like he was having a go at Banini/ giving someone a runout but the fresh legs and the direct runs at a tiring defence pulled off a near miracle.
                        I hope the miracle happens later with 2 draws...

                        Comment


                          That was so typically Scottish. Optus Sport do 24-minute mini matches, so I put it on whilst making my breakfast. By the time I'd chopped up my fruit and was ready to settle down and start eating we were 3-0 up and cruising. However I did notice I was only halfway through the broadcast, and at that point I knew it wasn't because we'd go on and score six or seven. Christ, that was painful.

                          Comment


                            I just watched the highlights again. At 3-0 the commentator stopped hedging, and simply announced Argentina's elimination. Well, you would, wouldn't you?

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Bizarre Löw Triangle View Post
                              Nice way to secure Nigeria's progress after Monday night though (who have more reason to feel aggrieved really)
                              Secure? They're out when Cameroon - New Zealand ends with a two-goal difference either way, and a 3-0 Chile win over Thailand. Far from impossible.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                Goalkeepers will adapt. The ones in the U-20 World Cup got used to it to enough of an extent that it didn't seem to massively drag out shootouts.

                                Commiserations, obviously, to the Scots of OTF. I was giddy at the end there, though. They'll be out by this time tomorrow anyway, but if that campaign doesn't combine with the newly professional league to cause the increasing visibility of women's football here to snowball, then it'll be thanks to a spectacular act of sabotage from the AFA. What a performance. And I know we're trying not to do comparisons with the men's game here, but if Scaloni's charges showed half the organisation, togetherness and lack of fear the girls just did (and I'm using 'girls' deliberately, because Dalia Ippolito, whose sub did a lot to sway the game in those last twenty minutes, is 17 years old and has been playing for River's first team since the age of 13), I wouldn't be backing Paraguay to beat them in a couple of hours. At this rate, maybe Argentina really should try and host the next edition.

                                2003 (played three, lost three, scored one, conceded fifteen) is no longer Argentina's best-ever campaign at an official Women's World Cup.
                                Yes, I think the thing that gets lost from Scotland's historic collapse is that Argentina enjoyed an excellent campaign. Two strong defensive performances against two of the best teams in the world followed by a back-from-the-dead comeback against a good but mentally fragile Scotland team is a great return for a team that wasn't ranked by FIFA three years ago.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                                  I'd have gone with 'Scottenham Hotspur'.
                                  And that's why I'm the ideas man and you're the script consultant. What a team we make.

                                  Comment


                                    Felicitaciones, Senoras! Amazing comeback. Bielsa will be pleased- the Sweatettes made hapless Leeds look like non-chokers

                                    On VAR- it must be obvious that it's making many and potentially all televised games farcical. If every line decision is referred, games will last all night and the actual referee is largely redundant.

                                    Allowing the refs and the broadcasters to decide what goes upstairs is the problem. Cricket manages pretty well with the teams allowed to challenge 2 obviously wrong decisions in a game of 600 set -pieces.
                                    Last edited by Duncan Gardner; 20-06-2019, 09:11.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by hobbes View Post
                                      And that's why I'm the ideas man and you're the script consultant. What a team we make.
                                      Ha.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
                                        I'm not sure how a keeper can time her movements to the split second in the way the laws require. On the retake, she tried to do it by starting behind the line but might actually have been in front of the line when it was struck.

                                        OTOH, as Sam says, this might be a case of the coaches not giving it enough attention (or the keeper forgetting the coaching in the heat of the moment). They could be coached to just move sideways I guess.
                                        I think 'keepers will tell you if they just go sideways, the ball will go in even if they get a full hand on it. You need your weight going forwards to counteract the momentum of the ball. Also the mechanics of diving need a weight transfer, cf. Alexander's effort on the second goal. She sort of drags her right foot behind her to ensure it stays on the line (which I think she managed), but by doing that it meant she had no base to spring from, which is why she ends up doing little more than crumple at the knees slightly whilst staying upright. Which makes the new rules ('keepers are neither allowed to be in front of their line or behind it) nearly impossible to abide by. But that is FIFA's problem, not that of yesterday's ref.

                                        Of more immediate concern for me is whether Alexander was off her line at all when the first penalty was taken! There are two camera angles which are pretty hard to reconcile. The view from the camera inside the net (0:38 in this BBC clip, which again is probably geoblocked so sorry non-UK readers) she is airborne at the moment the ball appears struck, having jump from a position on the line just as the striker was approaching the ball. However, when she lands a fraction of a second later she is well in front of her line (her left foot plants with ~50cm of grass between it and the line), meaning the jump was forwards and not straight up. It strongly appears from that that she moved forwards early and was airborne and in front of the line when contact was made with the kick.
                                        However, the side view in the same clip shows something so different I would swear it was not the same incident if I didn't know better. Here, at 0:44-0:45 (the moment the ball is struck helpfully paused by the TV director), Alexander's left foot is barely in front of the line. If it's in front of the line at all. It's certainly close enough to be ambiguous, on that shot.
                                        Of the two, I think it's the side view that is more reliable. Because what I think is happening from the view from the in-goal camera is that you can't judge the exact moment the striker contacts the ball - where you think it happens is actually a fraction of a second after the contact (which of course you are blindsided to by the ball), when the ball is already in motion. And as Alexander is coming forwards, that misjudgement of the moment of contact makes her look further forward than she really was.


                                        So all told, f*cking unlucky Scotland. Again. What should have been a good experience has become a sickening one. I'm sure there will be defiant claims that the players had a wonderful time apart from the last game, but it can't help but be tainted by how every key decision went against them. What ought to have been a gift to the SFA in growing the Women's game on from here has becoming a much more delicate than it ought to have been. Encouraging sporty youngsters into something where the possibility of pain and heartbreak has been clearly demonstrated is a much trickier sell than being able to reference joy and success.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post
                                          Allowing the refs and the broadcasters to decide what goes upstairs is the problem. Cricket manages pretty well with the teams allowed to challenge 2 obviously wrong decisions in a game of 600 set -pieces.
                                          This. Football has got the process so, so wrong.

                                          Argentina were making no claims for a retake, and neither were France against Nigeria. The chances of either referring such a marginal thing were very low, if there was a cost to doing so of losing their only review of the match. Except, of course, if imp is right and 'keeper genuinely do routinely encroach... If that is true, then any team that misses a late penalty will give it a try in much the same way that a teams prime batsman will be given far more scope for speculative reviews than the no. 8.

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by Janik View Post
                                            What ought to have been a gift to the SFA in growing the Women's game on from here has becoming a much more delicate than it ought to have been. Encouraging sporty youngsters into something where the possibility of pain and heartbreak has been clearly demonstrated is a much trickier sell than being able to reference joy and success
                                            My young cousins Naima and Zara might disagree. They're 9 and big into football- both ball-girls at the u-19 Women Euros in Belfast last year. Of course we qualified as hosts and weren't disgraced, but they're old enough to realise that weak football teams tend to lose a lot. It hasn't reduced the enthusiasm that I can see.

                                            Naima even had a starring role on youtube- the Irish Cup was paraded at their primary school round the corner from Seaview Stadium

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by Janik View Post
                                              I think 'keepers will tell you if they just go sideways, the ball will go in even if they get a full hand on it. You need your weight going forwards to counteract the momentum of the ball. Also the mechanics of diving need a weight transfer, cf. Alexander's effort on the second goal. She sort of drags her right foot behind her to ensure it stays on the line (which I think she managed), but by doing that it meant she had no base to spring from, which is why she ends up doing little more than crumple at the knees slightly whilst staying upright. Which makes the new rules ('keepers are neither allowed to be in front of their line or behind it) nearly impossible to abide by. But that is FIFA's problem, not that of yesterday's ref.

                                              Of more immediate concern for me is whether Alexander was off her line at all when the first penalty was taken! There are two camera angles which are pretty hard to reconcile. The view from the camera inside the net (0:38 in this BBC clip, which again is probably geoblocked so sorry non-UK readers) she is airborne at the moment the ball appears struck, having jump from a position on the line just as the striker was approaching the ball. However, when she lands a fraction of a second later she is well in front of her line (her left foot plants with ~50cm of grass between it and the line), meaning the jump was forwards and not straight up. It strongly appears from that that she moved forwards early and was airborne and in front of the line when contact was made with the kick.
                                              However, the side view in the same clip shows something so different I would swear it was not the same incident if I didn't know better. Here, at 0:44-0:45 (the moment the ball is struck helpfully paused by the TV director), Alexander's left foot is barely in front of the line. If it's in front of the line at all. It's certainly close enough to be ambiguous, on that shot.
                                              Of the two, I think it's the side view that is more reliable. Because what I think is happening from the view from the in-goal camera is that you can't judge the exact moment the striker contacts the ball - where you think it happens is actually a fraction of a second after the contact (which of course you are blindsided to by the ball), when the ball is already in motion. And as Alexander is coming forwards, that misjudgement of the moment of contact makes her look further forward than she really was.
                                              imo it's more likely to be parallax? The side on view isn't quite side on so it's hard to distinguish between "on" and "up in the air and in front of".

                                              Comment


                                                Probably a combination of both. It is the same incident, so there is an explanation for the seeming mismatch.

                                                Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post
                                                My young cousins Naima and Zara might disagree. They're 9 and big into football- both ball-girls at the u-19 Women Euros in Belfast last year. Of course we qualified as hosts and weren't disgraced, but they're old enough to realise that weak football teams tend to lose a lot. It hasn't reduced the enthusiasm that I can see.

                                                Naima even had a starring role on youtube- the Irish Cup was paraded at their primary school round the corner from Seaview Stadium.
                                                Scotland are not a weak side, though. They have some extremely good players, though with limited depth in their squad. They have played decently, albeit not up to the level most experts believe they are capable of. What has happened to them is they have been reffed/VARed out of the tournament. That is a different kettle of fish to a side everyone expected to struggle going out early, and rather harder to build a positive narrative out of.

                                                Comment


                                                  @ Janik- 2 separate issues. The first is much more significant and positive- the game will grow in Scotland largely for the reason you give, ie the women's team are quite good with infrastructure/ investment etc to suggest they can maintain and improve that.

                                                  They blew one game because the players choked / coach made bad decisions/ ref had a very poor game. They'll get over it, just like the NI team got over conceding 12 to the Dutch in qualifying.

                                                  As I said above, VAR was always going to be a bit of a joke during the 'teething' process, but that's over now and it's just a farce. Which pundits you'd expect to be more imaginative (Paudge Nevin, Caroline Barker) don't seem to have addressed. The problem isn't technology or player discipline, but a plain bad idea

                                                  PS have I mentioned a new OTF fundraising scheme? Fines for all messaging narrative memes

                                                  Comment


                                                    It's all three games where the Scots have had no luck with officials.

                                                    Game 1 - have a dubious penalty for handball given against them during a 2-1 defeat
                                                    Game 2 - have a much more clear cut penalty for handball not given for them during a 2-1 defeat
                                                    Game 3 - everything that happened yesterday. The ref and her fourth official getting confused so play was allowed to restart for the move that led to the penalty whilst Scotland were making a sub (they only had 10 players on the pitch at the time play got back underway) is probably the most egregious of the lot, even than the Japan handball.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X