Group F: SWE-USA-CHI-THA

[Sporting]

Every time the commentator mentions "Fischer", I immediately have to say "German Bight".

I like this post.

[tee rex]

Looks like this group won't be providing a 3rd place qualifier, unless there are 2 teams with fewer than 3 points.

Scotland, Cameroon, NZ etc can allow themselves a little more hope.

[Janik]

I'm tipping it to do so, based on the following scores:- France 3-0 Nigeria, Argentina 1-1 Scotland and Chile 2-0 Thailand. Whatever happens in the other games, Chile will also know a target score when they take the field as this group wraps up last.

[Janik]

Chile have a goal disallowed - rightly, IMO - but was it any 'more' an offside than that given the other day in the Aus/Brazil match?

Just watched the highlights of this. The answer to this one is 'yes'. The Chilean forward kicked at the ball as she directly challenged the US 'keeper as the 'keeper was also going for the ball. Kerr was not challenging Monica when she headed it against Australia because she was on the shoulder of the next defender on, two yards further back.

Also there are other aspects of the offside rule that comes into play with this one and not the Australia-Brazil one. Here is what I understand is the current advice for officials:-

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
...
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
...

[Irrelevant bits to this omitted]

Whether the Chilean forward clearly obstructed the US 'keepers line of vision is dubious, but an arguable case. That she challenged an opponent for the ball and clearly attempted to play a ball which was close and this action impacted on an opponent are not. It fulfilled the requirements for a flag to go up, for sure.

Kerr/Monica differs as Kerr definitely didn't get in Monica's vision, she was behind her. She didn't challenge Monica for the ball as she didn't challenge Monica at all (she challenged another Brazilian defender but not for the ball as the ball never arrived there). And Kerr didn't clearly attempt to play the ball. In fact the exact opposite, she clearly didn't attempt to play the ball as it never got to her.

What constitutes 'interference' according to FIFA is pretty narrow in it's scope.

[Jah Womble]

I think that's my main problem with it, yes.

[Wouter D]

Weak Swedish defense on a corner gives the USA an early lead.

[Amor de Cosmos]

I'm conflicted. I don't want USA to win, but I don't want Canada to play them in the next round either.

[Wouter D]

Chile do not seem underway to the next round.

[Jah Womble]

Thailand were playing some much better stuff toward the end of that half.

Might, however, hop to the other game now that I've finally found BBC4 on Freeview Scotland (Ch 82, if anyone else was/is similarly confused).

[Kevin S]

Chile lead after a shot coming back off the post goes in off an unfortunate Thai defender.

[Wouter D]

Chile score, so now every single country at this world cup have at least one goal.

[Kevin S]

They may 'have' a goal, but they didn't 'score' it....

[Amor de Cosmos]

2-0 USA after another VAR delay

[Kevin S]

Chile of course still need two more to overhaul Nigeria, and they're leaving gaps for Thailand to exploit on the break.

[San Bernardhinault]

How the hell is that not offside? episode 10112

[San Bernardhinault]

Sweden have actually created a handful of decent chances. The US might well be beatable if they come up against a good team. They do, though, look like they're half a second faster to react to loose balls or changes in direction, which makes Sweden look like they have to work really hard for anything at all.

[Janik]

How the hell is that not offside? episode 10112

It was a closer call than the Australia-Brazil incident. Lloyd arguably challenged the Swedish centre-back who played the ball and was also arguably 'close'. I was expecting it to be ruled out, but would not have put my house on that outcome. Which was lucky, considering. I wonder if the ref had a touch of the imps and went FFS and chose to give the benefit of the doubt to the forward?

[Patrick Thistle]

The USA USA USA USA chant is probably the most obnoxious football chant ever

[Wouter D]

They may 'have' a goal, but they didn't 'score' it....

Eh, potato, potato.

[Kevin S]

Now Nigeria can worry. Chile bag another. And one of their players scored it too!

[Kevin S]

Have to say, if I was a Nigerian player, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with our fate being in Boonsing's hands.

Thailand clear one off the line after she is beaten.

[Nocturnal Submission]

The USA USA USA USA chant is probably the most obnoxious football chant ever

Trust me, there's a lot worse than that!

It's dreadfully tedious though.

[Kevin S]

Penalty Chile after VAR

[Kevin S]

When she was beaten for the shot that was cleared off the line she took out the forward.

[Wouter D]

Have to say, if I was a Nigerian player, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with our fate being in Boonsing's hands.

Thailand clear one off the line after she is beaten.

...and after the landed into the Chilean attacker, which after review leads to a Chilean penalty.

edit: too slow. Oh well.