OT: US Women (World Cup)

[Fk_Pitt]

the Olympic board here has picked up for soccer talk, and perhaps the mods move this discussion...but I thought I’d post this here as it will potentially get more participation.

What the heck happened with Megan Klingenberg? I heard her on Mark Madden’s show last week and she said that she will continue to train hard and play professionally, in the event that the US National Team ever has a Coach not named Jill Ellis.

I’m wondering if it’s just a coaching thing, or if there was a particular issue between the two?

Klingenberg made the all World Cup tourney team 4 years ago as a left back, and now we have a left back (Crystal Dunn), who isn’t really a left back, who is going to really get tested and potentially torched vs France on Friday. There’s not another left back on the roster. Klingenberg should be on this roster.

Klingenberg did have some issues with coaches in her youth. But that was 15 years ago. She was a kid. She’s an adult now and seems to be a very likable one at that. And this US team can use her talent.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

the Olympic board here has picked up for soccer talk, and perhaps the mods move this discussion...but I thought I’d post this here as it will potentially get more participation.

What the heck happened with Megan Klingenberg? I heard her on Mark Madden’s show last week and she said that she will continue to train hard and play professionally, in the event that the US National Team ever has a Coach not named Jill Ellis.

I’m wondering if it’s just a coaching thing, or if there was a particular issue between the two?

Klingenberg made the all World Cup tourney team 4 years ago as a left back, and now we have a left back (Crystal Dunn), who isn’t really a left back, who is going to really get tested and potentially torched vs France on Friday. There’s not another left back on the roster. Klingenberg should be on this roster.

Klingenberg did have some issues with coaches in her youth. But that was 15 years ago. She was a kid. She’s an adult now and seems to be a very likable one at that. And this US team can use her talent.

I am glad you asked because I have been wondering the same thing. She is only like 30, which is not too old. She was definitely not a weakness in the last international events, not sure why she isn't on the team.

 

[pittdan77]

the Olympic board here has picked up for soccer talk, and perhaps the mods move this discussion...but I thought I’d post this here as it will potentially get more participation.

What the heck happened with Megan Klingenberg? I heard her on Mark Madden’s show last week and she said that she will continue to train hard and play professionally, in the event that the US National Team ever has a Coach not named Jill Ellis.

I’m wondering if it’s just a coaching thing, or if there was a particular issue between the two?

Klingenberg made the all World Cup tourney team 4 years ago as a left back, and now we have a left back (Crystal Dunn), who isn’t really a left back, who is going to really get tested and potentially torched vs France on Friday. There’s not another left back on the roster. Klingenberg should be on this roster.

Klingenberg did have some issues with coaches in her youth. But that was 15 years ago. She was a kid. She’s an adult now and seems to be a very likable one at that. And this US team can use her talent.

I I'm not mistaken, she hasn't started all of the games and that bothered her.

 

[JD1976]

I am glad you asked because I have been wondering the same thing. She is only like 30, which is not too old. She was definitely not a weakness in the last international events, not sure why she isn't on the team.

She wore out her welcome and is known to not be the best team player from what I have heard. But yes, Jill Ellis just had enough of her, plus they wanted more athleticism out of their outside backs than Klingenberg offers. Hence Crystal Dunn, a goal-scoring forward by trade, is playing in the outside back spot because of her athletic ability.

 

[anon_d97v9o3a8b6xr]

I I'm not mistaken, she hasn't started all of the games and that bothered her.

If the us team plays like they today, France will stomp them. We should have been more dominating. No idea what’s up with Lloyd, but she usually adds a lot of leadership and control in the mid field. She played sparingly today, so something is up with her.
Our defense needs veterans, and Klingenberg could help. Really don’t know why the drop off, Spain is ok, but if France is playing well, we will have a tough game.

 

[pittdan77]

If the us team plays like they today, France will stomp them. We should have been more dominating. No idea what’s up with Lloyd, but she usually adds a lot of leadership and control in the mid field. She played sparingly today, so something is up with her.
Our defense needs veterans, and Klingenberg could help. Really don’t know why the drop off, Spain is ok, but if France is playing well, we will have a tough game.

I know so little about soccer. I just started watching more so I don't have any opinion other than I love how hard these women play and it's been good for my daughter to see women officiating and coaching, as well.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I am glad the USA won, but what I hate about soccer is the ticky tack fouls that occur in the box yet probably no way was going to lead to a scoring chance, yet then results in a PK which is like a 90% chance of scoring.

 

[JD1976]

The US definitely needs to clean things up, but the match Friday against France on their home turf should be one of the greatest showcases of women’s soccer we’ve ever seen. Too bad it’s a quarterfinal instead of a final.

 

[ratking17]

I thought Spain really was lucky to be in it. Aside from maybe 2 or 3 times they didn't have scoring opportunities that were dangerous. They deserve credit for capitalizing on the poor US turnover, but I didnt feel like the US was in any danger at all

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

She played sparingly today, so something is up with her.

What's up is that she's 36, almost 37 years old and she simply is not nearly as good as she was even four years ago.

 

[mike412]

I am glad the USA won, but what I hate about soccer is the ticky tack fouls that occur in the box yet probably no way was going to lead to a scoring chance, yet then results in a PK which is like a 90% chance of scoring.

The penalties awarded in this tournament have been a travesty. The first one awarded today was “soft.” The second was a phantom call. The US player lost control of the ball and took a dive.

The penalty awarded to Canada was just as bad. The Canadian kicked the ball right at the Swedish player’s arm. She couldn’t get out of the way. If that is a penalty, it’s going to start a trend: No other good options available? Kick the ball at your opponent’s arm and hope for a penalty.

Penalties in the box shouldn’t be called in non-scoring situations. None of these was a scoring situation.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

The penalties awarded in this tournament have been a travesty. The first one awarded today was “soft.” The second was a phantom call. The US player lost control of the ball and took a dive.

The penalty awarded to Canada was just as bad. The Canadian kicked the ball right at the Swedish player’s arm. She couldn’t get out of the way. If that is a penalty, it’s going to start a trend: No other good options available? Kick the ball at your opponent’s arm and hope for a penalty.

Penalties in the box shouldn’t be called in non-scoring situations. None of these was a scoring situation.

Exactly Mike. I mean, if you are calling them in the box, which results in a penalty, you better be damn sure they were leading to a scoring opportunity. In this case, the NHL and hockey has it correct, you don't call these types of penalties on 50/50 or worse calls that lead to a probable penalty conversion.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The penalty awarded to Canada was just as bad. The Canadian kicked the ball right at the Swedish player’s arm. She couldn’t get out of the way. If that is a penalty, it’s going to start a trend: No other good options available? Kick the ball at your opponent’s arm and hope for a penalty.

Under the current interpretation of the rules that was a stone cold penalty. Defenders are not allowed to defend with their arms outside the frame of their body. That player's arm was way outside the frame of her body. In the 2019 version of the game that is going to get called a penalty 100% of the time if the ref sees it or if the tournament is using video replay.

If you've watched much of the pre and post game stuff on FS1 the commentators on there have actually noted how quickly most defenders have adjusted to the way that the rules are being interpreted. Defenders, for the most part, no longer are defending with their arms way out away from their bodies. Which is the way FIFA wants it.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Penalties in the box shouldn’t be called in non-scoring situations. None of these was a scoring situation.

The problem with that is it's not what the rules say. The rules say that any foul in the box is a penalty. And that there is no distinction between what's a foul inside the box versus outside the box.

The reason they give penalties for fouls in the box even if it isn't a scoring opportunity is that it would make the penalty area a free for all for defenders. Someone gets the ball in the box but isn't in a scoring position yet, hack them down to try to get the ball away. After all, it's not a scoring situation, yet, so anything goes.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Exactly Mike. I mean, if you are calling them in the box, which results in a penalty, you better be damn sure they were leading to a scoring opportunity. In this case, the NHL and hockey has it correct, you don't call these types of penalties on 50/50 or worse calls that lead to a probable penalty conversion.

Good discussion, Owt. They are actually talking about it this AM in Sirius XM.

Here’s the deal. They are all penalties. But maybe the rules need to be rewritten. I don’t want defenders emboldened inside that 18 yard box. So if rules are to be changed, don’t change them in a way that helps the defense. Rampinoe was also pulled down in the corner of the box and that should have been a penalty too but it wasn’t called. I know this is gimmicky like some of the overtime football rules that people propose. But maybe they award a different penalty kick for infractions that aren’t clear and obvious goal scoring opportunities? The NHL, for all of its faults, does it right when they don’t award a penalty shot unless it’s a clear breakaway. In soccer, the spot is so close that when a penalty is taken it’s almost always a goal. So that should be reserved for the obvious goal scoring opportunity. The ones from yesterday, maybe a 2nd spot is placed on the field for such infractions. Maybe from the 18 yard line or a bit closer.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

The problem with that is it's not what the rules say. The rules say that any foul in the box is a penalty. And that there is no distinction between what's a foul inside the box versus outside the box.

The reason they give penalties for fouls in the box even if it isn't a scoring opportunity is that it would make the penalty area a free for all for defenders. Someone gets the ball in the box but isn't in a scoring position yet, hack them down to try to get the ball away. After all, it's not a scoring situation, yet, so anything goes.

Joe, first off, you don't have to be a savant know it all on everything. It gets boring. Secondly, there are a lot of "letter of the law" types of rules in sports that are well, stupid. Or maybe not stupid, but its results are too punitive to the foul. For instance, consider the amount of contact in both fouls that resulted in the penalties vs the normal amount of contact on a corner kick?

It is basically every foray into the penalty area you are holding your breath if some slight incidental contact results in a penalty. Sometimes the refs are judicious and recognize the incidental contact and results were either embellished or at least not a factor in the play, but many times they don't.
My point or contention is that the foul does not justify the severe outcome of a penalty which is essentially awarding a goal.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Joe, first off, you don't have to be a savant know it all on everything. It gets boring. Secondly, there are a lot of "letter of the law" types of rules in sports that are well, stupid. Or maybe not stupid, but its results are too punitive to the foul. For instance, consider the amount of contact in both fouls that resulted in the penalties vs the normal amount of contact on a corner kick?

It is basically every foray into the penalty area you are holding your breath if some slight incidental contact results in a penalty. Sometimes the refs are judicious and recognize the incidental contact and results were either embellished or at least not a factor in the play, but many times they don't.
My point or contention is that the foul does not justify the severe outcome of a penalty which is essentially awarding a goal.

But fouls are fouls. And the rule doesn’t change when a player is in the box. Those are all fouls anywhere on the field. The fact that it was in the box should not be interpreted differently. If these PKs aren’t good for the sport, then the need to change rules.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

But fouls are fouls. And the rule doesn’t change when a player is in the box. Those are all fouls anywhere on the field. The fact that it was in the box should not be interpreted differently. If these PKs aren’t good for the sport, then the need to change rules.

Yes they are. And true it results in a free kick, but the chance of a free kick from 40 yards out, with line of defenders between the goal and the player makes it much more of play similar to a corner than a penalty kick.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Joe, first off, you don't have to be a savant know it all on everything. It gets boring.

Sorry. Next time maybe I'll pretend to be as dumb as you are to make you feel better.

Nah, probably not.

Secondly, there are a lot of "letter of the law" types of rules in sports that are well, stupid. Or maybe not stupid, but its results are too punitive to the foul. For instance, consider the amount of contact in both fouls that resulted in the penalties vs the normal amount of contact on a corner kick?

It is basically every foray into the penalty area you are holding your breath if some slight incidental contact results in a penalty. Sometimes the refs are judicious and recognize the incidental contact and results were either embellished or at least not a factor in the play, but many times they don't.
My point or contention is that the foul does not justify the severe outcome of a penalty which is essentially awarding a goal.

The absolutely hilarious thing about the rest of this post is that this is EXACTLY the kind of Neanderthal attitude that you rip on the Canadian idiots that run the NHL for. When refs in the NHL ignore obvious penalties because they "don't want to affect the outcome of the game" you rip on them. When they allow all sorts of clutching and grabbing to muddle up game play without calling the appropriate penalties you rip on them. What's the difference? The refs should enforce the rules as they are written in the rule book, to the best of their ability. Always.

If people don't like the rules, and for the record I would be perfectly happy with different rules in place, then the solution isn't for the refs to ignore the rules, as they do in the NHL all too often, and quite frankly as the do in soccer probably just as often in the penalty area, the solution is to change the rules. I would be perfectly happy if they changed the rule to say that a ball that hits a player's arm that is shot within a couple feet of the player, so they don't have enough time to get out of the way, is not a penalty. But that isn't the rule. I would be perfectly happy if they came up with a different penalty for fouls in the box that don't involve direct scoring chances. But again, that's not the rule.

If you want to change the rules, change the rules. Don't change the rules by ignoring the ones you don't like or not calling the game by the rule book.

 

[HOF Coach]

the Olympic board here has picked up for soccer talk, and perhaps the mods move this discussion...but I thought I’d post this here as it will potentially get more participation.

What the heck happened with Megan Klingenberg? I heard her on Mark Madden’s show last week and she said that she will continue to train hard and play professionally, in the event that the US National Team ever has a Coach not named Jill Ellis.

I’m wondering if it’s just a coaching thing, or if there was a particular issue between the two?

Klingenberg made the all World Cup tourney team 4 years ago as a left back, and now we have a left back (Crystal Dunn), who isn’t really a left back, who is going to really get tested and potentially torched vs France on Friday. There’s not another left back on the roster. Klingenberg should be on this roster.

Klingenberg did have some issues with coaches in her youth. But that was 15 years ago. She was a kid. She’s an adult now and seems to be a very likable one at that. And this US team can use her talent.

Meghan Klingenberg - LINK

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

She wore out her welcome and is known to not be the best team player from what I have heard.

FWIW, during the post game show today after the Netherlands - Japan game there was a Visa sponsored ad for a clothing company that Klingenberg, Rapinoe, Press and Heath have started together. So she clearly has not worn out her welcome with at least a few of her former teammates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-players-to-launch-business-11558872001

 

[JD1976]

FWIW, during the post game show today after the Netherlands - Japan game there was a Visa sponsored ad for a clothing company that Klingenberg, Rapinoe, Press and Heath have started together. So she clearly has not worn out her welcome with at least a few of her former teammates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-players-to-launch-business-11558872001

To be specific, she wore out her welcome with Jill Ellis.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Sorry. Next time maybe I'll pretend to be as dumb as you are to make you feel better.

Nah, probably not.




The absolutely hilarious thing about the rest of this post is that this is EXACTLY the kind of Neanderthal attitude that you rip on the Canadian idiots that run the NHL for. When refs in the NHL ignore obvious penalties because they "don't want to affect the outcome of the game" you rip on them. When they allow all sorts of clutching and grabbing to muddle up game play without calling the appropriate penalties you rip on them. What's the difference? The refs should enforce the rules as they are written in the rule book, to the best of their ability. Always.

If people don't like the rules, and for the record I would be perfectly happy with different rules in place, then the solution isn't for the refs to ignore the rules, as they do in the NHL all too often, and quite frankly as the do in soccer probably just as often in the penalty area, the solution is to change the rules. I would be perfectly happy if they changed the rule to say that a ball that hits a player's arm that is shot within a couple feet of the player, so they don't have enough time to get out of the way, is not a penalty. But that isn't the rule. I would be perfectly happy if they came up with a different penalty for fouls in the box that don't involve direct scoring chances. But again, that's not the rule.

If you want to change the rules, change the rules. Don't change the rules by ignoring the ones you don't like or not calling the game by the rule book.

So you think the penalty fits the crime. Again, it is no big deal, it is my opinion, but one shared by many others. But hey, I love those who defend it with "hey, it's football" with the same tone used to say "hey, it's just Uncle Leo" to describe the odd actions of a crazy relative.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

So you think the penalty fits the crime. Again, it is no big deal, it is my opinion, but one shared by many others. But hey, I love those who defend it with "hey, it's football" with the same tone used to say "hey, it's just Uncle Leo" to describe the odd actions of a crazy relative.

If it’s a rule it should be enforced
If the rule is flawed it should be changed
Pretty simple concept
And the only point being made.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

If it’s a rule it should be enforced
If the rule is flawed it should be changed
Pretty simple concept
And the only point being made.

That’s my point overall point. Rules are rules. If they aren’t working, change them. But they are calling the games as the rulebook states. That’s not what we are seeing in other sports and it’s a problem.

But @recruitsreadtheseboards brought up the question that everyone is asking right now. Once again on SiriusXM FC this AM, the pundants were discussing it. And one equated it to a pass interference penalty in American football on an uncatchable ball. In that case, the official keeps the flag in his pocket, and maybe it should be written into the rules of soccer to do the same inside the box. A foul in the corner of the box when a player is moving away from the goal is obviously not a goal scoring opportunity. So why award a penalty kick? In my opinion the rules should be looked at. I just don’t want defenders to be emboldened. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, defenders could maul players in the box and they knew a pk would not get awarded. Soccer is physical enough. We need offensively gifted players to be able to display their abilities without an unskilled defensive curtain jerker being aided by rules changes. We already see enough of that in the NHL.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

If it’s a rule it should be enforced
If the rule is flawed it should be changed
Pretty simple concept
And the only point being made.

This absolutely adds nothing to the discussion. A 5 year old could have wrote this.

 

[pittiswhereiamfrom2]

This absolutely adds nothing to the discussion. A 5 year old could have wrote this.

“Could have written.” At least you got to 6 year old level.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

So you think the penalty fits the crime.

That isn't what I said at all. Maybe I really do need to dumb things down for you.

If you don't like the rules the solution isn't to ignore the rules, it's to change the rules. When the refs in the NHL ignore the rules you have a fit. And yet you want the refs in soccer to do exactly the same thing.

The solution to ticky-tack fouls in the penalty area always being a penalty (and the reality is that not only are they not normally a penalty, but normally a whole heck of a lot that's an obvious foul elsewhere on the field is ignored in the box) even if it's not during a scoring chance is to change the rule. Because if the solution is to simply not call fouls in those situations then defenders are going to take the leeway that you want to give them and they are going to use that to wipe out anyone with the ball in the box who is not yet in a scoring position. Those sorts of plays won't be the rare occurrences that cause everyone consternation, those sorts of plays will happen all game long, every game. Because you will be telling defenders that there is no punishment for non-scoring chance fouls in the box. And defenders will take advantage of that, just like teams like the Devils took advantage of the NHL telling them that they were not going to call "obstruction" penalties. If you think soccer games are low scoring now, imagine how bad it's going to get when almost every time a guy with the ball enters the penalty area defenders have a few seconds of free reign to chop them down.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

This absolutely adds nothing to the discussion. A 5 year old could have wrote this.

Yet you missed that basic point.