<p>I enjoyed the fact that they weren’t beating each other up like in some other games. I did not enjoy the fact that the red card essentially did no harm to Japan.</p>
<p>Fun tournament to watch, and our ladies did very well overall.</p>
<p>terrible… how depressing.</p>
<p>We had a million chances in the first half, and didn’t finish any. Blew the 1-0 lead. Then blew a 2-1 lead. And not just on good plays by Japan. On the first goal, our defender just passed Japan the ball that started the play. Just pound the ball down the field if you are going to pass it to the other team! On the second goal, our defenders played like the 3 stooges in the box. Come on. You have to be better than that!</p>
<p>ugh</p>
<p>big props to that ref though… I don’t know if you heard before the game, but they said she referees in the 2nd division men’s league in Germany, and was under consideration to referee in the top league as well. She was a million times better than the Australian referee for the US/Brazil game.</p>
<p>And she was pleasant to the players!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So very true. I forgot to mention that she was spot on the entire game, and very close to the action. It is not a matter of men versus women as much as it is a matter of having experience with faster games. But then she also looked a lot fitter and more athletic than most refs who officiated in the other games.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Hey, I don’t hate soccer. There is much to admire about the sport. The fabulous athleticism of the players for example. Their skill is incredible. And they all have to be in great shape too. It’s not a game that fat middle-aged men can play at a high level such as golf or bowling. I just think it could be so much better with a few rule changes. As it is structured now the game is heavily lopsided in favor of the defense, reducing scoring to something that falls somehwere between a vague theoretical possibility and a forlorn hope.</p>
<p>Am I the only person here who can see that the fact that major world championships have to get decided by this phony-baloney shoot-out business is a clear sign that something is wrong with the game? Seems obvious.</p>
<p>
I agree but I do have one big question … I thought if there was a red card given for committing a foul to stop a clear scoring chance that the penalty was a red card and automatically a PK no matter where the penalty occured on the field … or does the ref have discretion on a PK or direct kick?</p>
<p>
I agree it is the worst way to finish a playoff game. FIFA (the international governing body) is not exactly change leaders and they can’t seem to come up with a better solution to the issue that having players play indefinately while only allowing 3 subs all game does not work work well either. (I mean how hard is it to come up with alternatives like allowing one additional sub for each 15 minute overtime period … however FIFA is willing to try something like this).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Free kicks are always given from the spot of the foul. In this case, the Japanese committed the foul outside the penalty area. </p>
<p>A penalty kick is awarded when a foul occurs within the … penalty area. This area is the rectangular box that is centered on the goal. Sometimes called the penalty box it is 44 yards wide by 18 yards deep. It includes an arc 10 yards from the “penalty mark”.</p>
<p>The red card can however be given for the type of foul you describe, even when the foul was made outside the box. The red card is the result of fouling a player who had a clear path to a scoring opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the same debate that has plagued tennis with its tie-breakers. Remember the marathon game between Isner and the Frenchman Mahut?</p>
<p>[Wimbledon’s</a> longest match: John Isner victorious as marathon match finally ends - Telegraph](<a href=“Wimbledon's longest match: John Isner victorious as marathon match finally ends”>Wimbledon's longest match: John Isner victorious as marathon match finally ends)</p>
<p>Some games that cannot be decided after 90 or 120/135 minutes are sometimes replayed to avoid penalty kicks. I think the FA Cup in England has such rules. I am not sure if any international games have similar rules. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the rules do change. Had today’s game been played a few years ago, the US would have won on the golden goal rule. Of course, they would also have lost their game against Brazil with the same rule.</p>
<p>As long as we’re talking about games that don’t have much offense, how about women’s softball?</p>
<p>Soccer only allows one point for a goal scored…there are no point-after kicks, field goals, two points for a long distance goal, or a two-point conversion opportunity. My preference would be to continue playing until a goal is scored. To reduce exhaustion or injuries in extra time, I would remove one player per side every ten minutes and allow free substitutions. A team could sub two strikers, for example, for a corner kick and then replace them without a stoppage in play if the ball went down into their end.</p>
<p>Hockey, for example, reduces player’s times on the ice during sudden death and the action becomes furious and non-stop. Soccer purists in other countries would never allow it however.</p>
<p>I sometimes wonder if the PK thing is partially a sellout to TV … with this set-up TV pretty much knows the longest time window they need … whatever the reason it’s a horrible way to decide a game.</p>
<p>Maybe FIFA could have the golden goal come into play after the additional 30 minutes.
Games decided by PKs? - Not real soccer.
Anyone remember the mens NCAA championship that went to six OTs as UCLA beat American U? - Real soccer.</p>
<p>I like the idea of a golden goal after the initial extra time. It also would have given the Japanese player who fouled Morgan at the end more pause, knowing her team would be playing a man down for longer than a minute or two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a NHL rule. In international hockey you still have two overtime periods followed by penalty shoot-outs just as in soccer.</p>
<p>I heard a suggestion by a caller on ESPN Radio this AM regarding replacing PK’s, in deciding a winner, with corner kicks. Each team would get 5 corner kicks. I like this idea because it allows the entire teams to still be involved in the action. I’m not sure what happens after each team remains scoreless after the 5 kicks…</p>
<p>If teams remain tied after 5 PKs, I believe they go to a second round of 5 PKs. I’ve seen it happen at the HS level, though FIFA might have different rules at the international level.</p>
<p>Most GKs, field players & soccer coaches I know would agree that PKs are not a satisfying way to end a highly contested game. I agree with YDS that a Golden Goal after double OT would be more decisive.</p>
<p>I hate, hate, hate that this team sport is so often decided by one-to-one competitions. Golden goal is the way to go.</p>
<p>It was a very disappointing loss. However, it is funny that people complain about PK now. Without PK we wouldn’t have gotten here. If it was golden goal, we would have lost to Brazil. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don’t. You can’t complain about a rule only when it hurts your team. BTW I don’t like PK rule either. goalie has too much disadvantage (he/she cannot move before the ball is kicked). Maybe Pele’s proposal makes more sense, let the striker start from 35 yr line and dribble to goal. Goalie can defend the way he normally does during the game in one-on-one situation.</p>
<p>^^^^ That’s how ds’s HS team did it in the playoffs. I’d never seen it before. I kind of liked it!</p>