A&H

World Cup Japan Penalty Semi Final

Callum Aris

Callum Aris

...
Level 7 Referee
Can somebody else who watched the women's World Cup please clear this up for me, was the offence committed outside the box because in real time and slowed it is clear it occurred outside the box yet a penalty was given and wierdly the commentators said nothing I might be horribly wrong but if anyone knows why it was penalty just let me know so I can understand.
Thanks
Callum
 
The Referee Store
I said straight away it wasn't a penalty. It was from outside the box. She may have landed in the box but wasn't fouled in it.

As for ours.............. Very poor decision.
 

Attachments

  • pen.jpg
    pen.jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 18
Yeah as soon as I saw the foul on Japan it was clear that contact was outside and yes as for ours I cannot believe it two poor decisions like you said .
 
Exactly i don't understand how it the same kind of incident don't they learn from each others mistakes but I suppose everyone makes mistakes but to have two similar things happen in a semi final shouldn't be occurring
 
After bbc just reviewed our penalty we won I think I might just actually of been a penalty it a bit of a soft but possibly still be a peno
 
I'm still not convinced.
I would probably understand if the girl went down instantly but she went down a second or so AFTER her foot was 'released' and actually went down on the slap on the waist, which I imagine she interpreted as a potential tug and effectively dived.
 
Yeah fair enough good point I see what you mean now just rewatched it and yeah didn't go down on first contact good point
 
First Pen: There was a push outside the area. The hand was still on the back inside the area however it was no longer a push. No pen. DFK and caution for BUPA

Second Pen: Minimal contact was made which was not careless at all. Attacker goes down clearly not as a result of any contact (dive). The referee's view was at least partially if not completely blocked and I feel that the referee reacted on the 'evidence' rather than if she actually saw a foul. No pen. IFK and caution for simulation.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
How has the exact same thing gotten majorly wrong in 2 different games??
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the incident that happened just outside the box in the USA vs Germany game?

I believe the second penalty was definitely not worthy. As been said before, there was a delay after the minimal contact before the player went down, which implies the player was playing for the foul (in other words diving). I don't think the referee had a clear line of sight.

In regards to the first penalty I have mixed feelings. Although it happened just outside the box, it was clearly deliberate with two hands and the attacking player was in front. It's not quite DOGSO but still a blatant attempt by the defender to stop the attackers quite high chance of creating scoring a goal. For this I believe a caution and a DFK outside the box is what the defender would have wanted. That being said I believe a penalty is more deserved for the greater good of the game and punishing this unsporting behaviour. A lot of this also applies to the USA vs Germany game.
 
bester said:
I suggest a few people have someone stand on their Achilles heel and then decide if it's minimal contact.
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not alone. The England one is 100% a foul and was an incredible spot by the referee, credit where it's due.
The Japan pen looked in the box at real time to me, the fact the hand as still on the back when they crossed the line shows how hard a decision it was.

What I've noticed in both matches is the referee has cautioned after awarding a pen that were never reckless in a million years and weren't "tactical".
I have NEVER cautioned for a foul in the area. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the fact it's in the area means it's not tactical and only a madman puts in a reckless challenge in the area.
There is no such thing as a "nearly DOGSO" caution
 
@deusex most fouls in the area would fit the 'breaking up a promising attack' caution. In particular the ones that are "nearly DOGSO" :D
If its its done intentionally then for me its tactical.
 
Last edited:
one said:
@deusex most fouls in the area would fit the 'breaking up a promising attack' caution. In particular the ones that are "nearly DOGSO" :D
If its its done intentionally then for me its tactical.
Click to expand...

That's my point, who would tactically foul someone in the area.
With the exception of handballs on the line (Suarez, Phil Neville etc), an infringement in the box is never tactical.
 
HullRef said:
Anyone agree with me that neither of them were fouls and should've been play on both times?
Click to expand...
No! :)

If a player pushes another outside of the box but the push continues into the box...... its a penalty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MalB said:
No! :)

If a player pushes another outside of the box but the push continues into the box...... its a penalty.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the directive or point in the LOTG where it states that?

I've seen it in writing when regarding holding - but never for another foul.

I'll therefore stick with what I've known since 1995 - and it never being a PK
 
Lol... did she have a hand in her back (holding/pushing/whatever) in the PENALTY area?...... yes.... penalty ;)
 
I don't think it was a foul, it was the striker who instigated the contact by cutting across the defender who was running at full speed, she put her hands up to protect herself from the impending collision and never appeared to push the attacker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top