วีดีโอ

I'm glad you saw that! 😀 Anticipation and reading are key. I'm surprised Blue (Melbourne) decides to play back (she's got room)--so was the referee obviously--but her movement up field probably started a moment or two too soon when the ball wasn't likely to be played over; however, she does a great job of recognizing that and then getting back toward the PA/GK so that IF something does go wrong, she isn't making the call from midfield. Positioning is so critical in a game like soccer which is a game of angles. And so much flows from being in the right spot: vision, correct calls, good management, etc.

Day care junior varsity

@@HawksDiesel right. 4 could've just flopped to the ground and rolled like Neymar! 😂

@@wakamoli8248 yep. He knows (and is learning). He got caught looking at the tackle on the feet only and missed the contact to the face. A reminder to keep a look at everything, not just the feet. He had minimum yellow anyway. He does a good job of getting to the spot, but you can't call what you don't see. Good info from AR. But AR should've been signaling red and also stepped in between the players.

You're right... you're confused.

You’re getting football and hockey mixed up, dear kwijibo

That's hockey 🏒

No, that's boxing or wrestling or MMA.

Try Steven Gerrard against Man Utd 2015. He was Liverpools club captain and considered a club legend. Came on as a sub. Was sent off less than 50 seconds later. Dirty scouser.

@anne-marifiala5894 Why? There was no one near her when she kicked that ball, the closest player was like 15-20 feet away!

Because she also kicked #10 from the white team. What confuses me is that #10 didn’t flop around on the turf and pretend she was injured, she must play hockey as well

@@leongreenley1260she got sent off for violent misconduct against the #10. What clip are you watching?

Only male soccer players show that behaviour... 😂​@@leongreenley1260

Crying because her actions had consequences.

Most!!!! you mean all!!!!

@@pauljamison3340imagine any ladies coming up against Gennaro Gatusso or Roy Keane. The only time Roy Keane rolled around the ground was when in 1997 Alfe Inge Haaland stood over him after a challenge and accused him of faking. Keane ruptured a cruciate ligament and was out for 8 months. Keane waited until 2001, when he subject Haaland to what is widely regarded as one of the worst challenges in Premier league history. The resulting injury seriously curtailed Haalands career, only playing 4 games the following season before retiring.

Haha true

It's a pretty disproportionate reaction. Makes me wonder a bit what was going on in the game up until then. I suspect the attacker wasn't wandering so much as running into her. I assume there was nonsense in the first 75 minutes of the game.

As a defender who has lost his cool after repeated late hits, the above sounds right. Of course, every defender also should know that you have to get revenge in the run of the game. If the refs are letting them hit you late, they’re gonna let you truck a guy or two as a “challenge”

@@leegoldsmith2028 likewise! What's good for the goose is good for the gander but you can't do quite this. Unfortunately the attacker's action was missed and the retaliation was pretty obvious (though only on review apparently). This is where some more presence, positioning, and management would help a lot!

Interesting. What is the red for and what are the considerations for red?

Ive got DOGSO Red. For me it meets all the check marks. She has a great touch around the keeper and there is no one in goal to make a save there.

@@josiasroach5601 for the 4 Ds then: (1) Distance to goal; (2) Direction of Play; (3) Control/Ability (formerly "Distance to Ball"); and (4) number of Defenders what's there? (i'm not making a call here, just getting to the technical terms) (It looked like @terryrichmond4428 was calling this Violent Conduct for a red here)

@@Dr.Bigglesworth unfortunately we don't know of white threw a punch but I suspect she did. I think this is another example (and we've all been there) where the referee assumes it's going to be good (and really there is zero way anyone should be challenged there) but once that happens, the ref needed to get right there (not stop the clock and then jog a bit). That's such an intentional slide and so late that it's extremely likely there is retaliation coming. Not sure the retaliation could be prevented, but maybe... the GK was hardly wrong to be upset there. We also don't know what led up to this, but that kind of stupid slide usually comes as the result of something else happening in the game.

@@refereeadventures391 We do know with reasonable certainty that white kicked the keeper's leg while the keeper was clearing the ball. Poor challenge in my book. Both players went down, and that IMO is the only way that both could have hit the pitch like that. I'd say that was a foul on white, and probably a yellow. My guess (pure speculation) is that the keeper engaged the attacker after getting taken out, and the attacker retaliated. I'd have to rely on my AR for more information...which it looked like the ref did. I personally would have issued the yellow for the poor challenge as well as the straight reds to both. But that's me.

#ligamx

@@SamuelPearlman thanks! This is one of our young up and comers who has been very receptive to feedback and is constantly improving and striving to improve. No one gets it right the first time. Great job recognizing it was a big deal and getting to the spot. The additional management was secondary. He confirmed the face piece with the AR and acted accordingly. He's going to be great. But to your point the breakdown here is critical. If anyone has an issue understanding an elbow to the face as a red card we have much bigger problems! If you want, however, to get your games to the next level, all the details matter. Positioning to see, movement, confidence, rules knowledge, and management are what matter. It's the difference between handling this right or handling it wrong/missing it altogether and having a bloodbath.

@@fk9305 probably in the 00s and 10s too! A rapid change really in the past 10 years.

@@refereeadventures391 yes

@@fk9305 maybe we can go back to the days of, "hey, he still has both legs attached, no foul!" 😂

@@refereeadventures391 hahah I like your style. This is when stadiums were packed. Now it's a chess game.

@@Tara.pookie I think everyone came away fine from this one. Hopefully some lessons learned. Worth watching the whole game.

@@7alexob the ball stayed in motion. I agree!

@@Mrchipsv2 the standard under Law 10.3 and Law 14 is that the PK is over when the ball has stopped or exited the field. So going away from the goal isn't sufficient. To wit from @hanma88-g3v th-cam.com/video/lMQ-lwTi7WU/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared

Both views in the show she is clearly onside, even at speed. I should check, but I think the decision on the field was technically a goal--or rather, no decision was actually issued. I think the AR kept his flag down the whole time. Regardless, both views show the attacker is clearly onside. I suspect the referee just assumed the attacker was off and reviewed only the deliberate play question. I do wonder if the referee actually had access to the view from the side where it's especially clear.

@@refereeadventures391 I'm inclined to agree with you, and think it more likely he got the two players who were in position to receive the ball mixed up, believing the one who was offside to be the one who got the ball. I was at the game, I was directly behind the goal, you can *just* see me next to a tan bookbag on the little benches there. I watched the official interactions before they called it offside. It definitely felt like they were distracted by whether or not the defensive touch was deliberate. Not seen on the replay is the official making the motion for an over and back offside call. I personally believe that both PSU goals were onside, but the first one *looked* more offside than the second one that was actually called offside. It is as you say probably a matter of access to a camera angle, because even if they realized they had the wrong person, we've seen enough offside reviews where a slight angle leads to an optical illusion. I think with what they had, they just couldn't tell for sure even though it looks like the back kick of a UNC defender likely kept her on. I chalk this up to an adjustment period for NCAA refs. This is actual the first year they could review offside calls on goals that were scored quickly in the process. I think a lot of officials who are college only are still adjusting, and are not giving the benefit of the doubt to the attackers with their calls on the field as they should be now. That will get better over time. By the book, this review is technically correct, because you can't over turn that without clear evidence. The mistake was in the procedure of getting it to the review.

@@nbranski43 I think your explanation is reasonable, but I disagree that the review was technically correct. Even disregarding my view that the UNC defender's touch constituted a deliberate play, there is clear evidence that a mistake was made in determining whether the PSU striker was in an offside position (as @refereeadventures391 pointed out). I get that you're saying angles and parallax can be deceiving, but in the frame when the ball leaves the PSU defender's foot, it's really not that close.

@@ShaunFleming except it is. They looked at it a long time and decided they couldn't say for sure it was onside. I question how much soccer you have watched to declare so confidently that the play is onside. Anybody who has watched enough soccer in the modern digital offside technology age knows just how deceiving camera angles can be. It should have been onside, the AR should always be giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. It would have been checked and stood as a goal. You want an example of how that should have worked, just look at Penn State's first goal, the one that stood. It looks more offside than this one did, but that would never get overturned on review.

The coach side of me has to ask: where is the difference in the LOTG about when the play is dead during a PK in the game and a PK during a shoot out?

It's a goal ,,,like saying if he saved turned and kicked in net=GOAL

It is in the discretion of the referee in these situations. If this happens during the regular game time penalty, then it is 100% a goal. But in case of a penalty shootout, if the referee thinks the GK clearly made a save, then whatever happens in the aftermath does not matter.

It's still a goal even during a shoot out. th-cam.com/video/lMQ-lwTi7WU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=I_QzizITJgfDsZN5 I watched something like this at least twice

@@arglc there's nothing in the LOTG to distinguish a PK during regular time versus the shoot out. Per Law 10.3, "Penalties (penalty shoot-out) are taken after the match has ended and unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game apply." So, Law 14's procedures for a PK. The referee can decide WHEN/IF the ball stopped, but if the ball did not actually *stop* then the referee can't arbitrarily device it did. Looking at this video is there a point where the ball actually *stops*? Simply because the GK got a play on the ball and prevents it initially is not "stopping;" stopping occurs when the ball's movement has completely ceased. This way, the rules are applicable everywhere. If the referees are using "discretion" the results will be disparate. At no point here do we see the ball actually stop. If the GK deflected the ball to his side and it hit the post, we wouldn't even say anything. We could say that the player stopped the ball there too. In this case the GK gets the ball but doesn't stop it or bring it under his control. He tries to draw it in and then somehow kicks it in the net. It feels really harsh, but that's what the law says. When I'm teaching I caution against "discretion" or "in the opinion of the referee." It's not an excuse to not follow the law. And US soccer is certainly pointing that out to us. "Well, I didn't think it was dangerous" isn't a reason not to give misconduct when the player goes studs into his opponent. There's not discretion when the considerations for Reckless, SFP, or VC are met. Or if a foul was committed (was that a push?) But where the law is clear, e.g. was the ball stopped? Did the keeper touch thr ball a second time after the restart? Was the ball over the touchline, there's not really much discretion or opinion to exercise. There might be some judgment there, but that's the law. Not trying to sound like a know it all but having made lots of mistakes, been through lots of trainings, done lots of games, and gotten some things right, I want to pass that on. Knowing the rules and the being able to articulate them when the players ask. And, crucially, where this is a potentially game determinative design that affects the outcome of the match. We almost never actually see this situation because ties are normally allowed. In play off games where winners are needed we have to get these kinds of things right.

@@briankenome ball kept on moving!

@@josiasroach5601 yes. The ball never stopped!

There is some question if there was an initial foul, but I don't there's enough to get there. The primary important part in the video is the DOGSO and secondary is the teamwork--the AR helped get the right player.

Yep. Easy to look at this one and think: deliberate play or deflection, but the first question is: was anyone actually offside? th-cam.com/video/_aoZxVsLbPo/w-d-xo.html

@@kingknights5107 take a look again. At the moment the ball is kicked, is the player who receives the ball in an offside position? Is the other player in an offside position doing anything to gain an advantage?

Is Penn State #25 in an offside position when her teammate plays the ball? Please see this clip with freeze-frames of the moments for decision. th-cam.com/video/_aoZxVsLbPo/w-d-xo.html ペンシルベニア州立大学の 25 番選手は、チームメイトがボールをプレーしたときにオフサイド ポジションにいたのでしょうか? 判断の瞬間を静止画像で示したこのクリップをご覧ください。

For video review, we should just stop at #25 was onside! :-) And maybe whether the offside penn state player is gaining any advantage. but we should not be analyzing the deliberate play question--of course we do anyway, and I tend to agree with you on this. I'd like to see what the official ruling would be as I've gotten divided opinions from higher level referees.

100... that was definitely a play on the ball... the officiating crew gave exactly what the rule was intended to avoid: rewarding the defender for a poor clearing attempt

@@garydurso8475 deliberate play is an interesting question but first question: was there anyone in an offside position?

Re-cut, shortened video with still frames at the decision points: th-cam.com/video/_aoZxVsLbPo/w-d-xo.html

To add: One player clearly offside and one close call at :23 to :25 on the video. It is a long pass, but a pass nonetheless, and it originates in the attacking half of the field. What happens later in the box does not matter.

@@RSQ-z4m check out the "short" version where the determinative moments are freeze framed (end of video). #25 is pretty clearly onside (two opponent nearer the goal line) when the ball is actually played by her teammate (AR is caught out of position and has to turn suddenly which is why he probably doesn't catch this). #23 is in an offside position (not itself an offense) and not interfering or gaining an advantage. After #25 receives the ball she dribbles forward--ahead of 23--and passes the ball to #23 who is now in an onside position (ball nearer the goal line) and the she scores. th-cam.com/users/shortsyfoV5yX2g6w?feature=shared

@@refereeadventures391 OK, But at :04 (freeze it), just over the half line, the the ball is struck and a PSU player is clearly offside and another PSU player is very close to offside. Offside is called when the ball is struck. The ball could hit every UNC and PSU player after that and the offside would still be in effect. For the office rule to be in effect the ball has to be in the attacking half when a pass is made. It was.

@@RSQ-z4m "For the office rule to be in effect the ball has to be in the attacking half when a pass is made." As a side note, I have no idea where you got this notion from. This most definitely is not true, as evidenced by looking at the example offside diagrams in the NCAA rules or by simply watching literally any game. The receiving player must be in the attacking half when the ball is played, in order for them to possibly be offside. But the ball can be played from anywhere on the pitch, provided it's not a goal kick, corner kick, or throw in.

@@ShaunFleming Quite correct. I was sloppy with my language. The ball has to be played to a teammate or teammates in the attacking half. Still, the PSU player was offside.

I think that hits the nail on the head. Gotta remember question 1 is: was there a player in an offside position?

@@refereeadventures391 Exactly. And there *was* when the first pass occurred at :23. Check the rule book. That pass was long, but made in the attacking half. #14 was offside when that pass was made.

@@RSQ-z4m you keep saying this, but the other player's offside position is inconsequential if she does not play the ball or interfere with play. Go read the Laws or NCAA's rules. They both very clearly delineate the difference between merely being in an offside position and committing an offside offense.

@@ShaunFleming No. The player just has to be involved in the play. She could, for example, be a potential receiver of the pass, thus occupying a defender. Occupying a defender is also interference. 14 and 25 were practically next to each other when the ball is struck. I was a back in college and at the club level, and if I was pulled away from the play by an attacker, that attacker could be called offside even if he was not the recipient of the pass. Playing that attacker offside was/is a common tactic.

​@@RSQ-z4m I don't know when you played, but the offside law has changed significantly over the years. Merely being "a potential receiver of the pass" does not constitute an offside offense. In your example, the defender chooses to follow the run of the offside attacker. The only offside criteria that could possibly apply is "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball." But because the defender can freely choose to not chase the attacker, their *ability* to play the ball is not actually being impacted by the attacker's action/position. I would seriously advise you to take a look at the current Laws of the Game, the FAQs of Law 11, and the diagrams at the end of the Laws. It gives more detail about what constitutes offside and interference.

Here's a cut with still images at the critical moments: th-cam.com/video/_aoZxVsLbPo/w-d-xo.html

Announcers' knowledge of the laws...varies! The real key here is that the player was onside.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but NCAA soccer is not governed by IFAB's LotG - it's the Rulebook here!

The deliberate (mis)play question is interesting, but it's secondary--the attacker was onside.

@@refereeadventures391 No. An attacker is offside at :23 of the video, when the first pass is made.

@@RSQ-z4m except it's not the attacker who received the ball. The attacker who ends up on the end of the pass is definitely onside.

Not a protestable situation in NCAA. Arguably, the referee has some discretion here, but tough to see a studs kick to the midsection as anything but red.

Clearly Offsides..