Soccer’s Laws Need an Overhaul in the World of VAR

Posted on by RJ Allen

When agrarian societies transition to industrial ones, they often find themselves struggling badly to adapt to a world which contains technology far beyond the scale of what their institutions were designed to accommodate. Systems that worked fine on an informal basis are suddenly exposed to a level of scrutiny and detail that they simply can’t manage. Norms that helped everyone sort things out through rough consensus are obliterated as hyper-technical companies (and the lawyers they hire) carve them to bits.

Soccer is going through a similar transition. And it’s been rough.

We’ve seen two new flashpoints in the past two days at the Women’s World Cup. Two games that hinged on critical penalty calls, with critics firing in all directions about the rules and their implementation. In both cases, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was involved. In both cases, the real issue isn’t VAR itself but rather the way VAR interacts with a system of rules designed for a different world.

Soccer is a common law system, and it’s not equipped for the precision of VAR

For 150 years, soccer has been regulated more through feel than through a strict application of the rules. Referees exercise a great deal of discretion, which often produces different calls in different games, based on what seems appropriate in context. That can be frustrating for viewers and players, for obvious reasons, and that frustration has driven us toward standardization and systematic implementation. But the result has been problematic because, to be blunt, soccer’s rules don’t really make any sense. They work as guidelines to instruct the referee, but depend pretty heavily on a solid dose of common sense.

In legal terms, soccer has been a common law system, with referees as judges granted discretion to mete out justice under the broad rules handed down. There are certain things that are hard and immutable. But for the most part, the individual could measure out the rules as seemed appropriate based on their feel of the game.

Suddenly, however, the world has changed. We’re no longer in a common law system with rough justice meted out by a roving judge. Now we’re in a statutory world of strict technicalities and millimeters, with contentious plays assessed in frame-by-frame analyses. In the old world, referees would generally try to apply the vague and confusing rules in a way that broadly made sense, and then would get on with things. In this brave new world, that’s not an option.

That means we now need to go back and reconsider what these rules are actually for, and whether they can possibly achieve their objectives as currently formulated.

VAR is forcing us to reconsider the rules for penalties and offside calls

By examining the two recent examples, we can see how this plays out. The first case came in France’s match against Norway, when France earned a decisive penalty after Ingrid Engen was spotted with her cleat pressed firmly into Marion Torrent’s knee, after she followed through on a kick.

To many, this was an injustice, albeit one that appeared to be correct according to the rules. After all, Engen had ‘gotten the ball’ and merely clipped Torrent after. ‘Are defenders not supposed to follow through?’ was the common refrain.

But by the laws of the game, there is nothing surprising here. Getting the ball has never been a defense against dangerous play, and putting your cleats into someone’s knee is a foul. However, for centuries, we’ve operated in a world where ‘that would be a foul anywhere else on the pitch’ has been an ubiquitous cliché. Technically, many plays in the penalty area were fouls, but referees simply didn’t call them. We all knew it. You could get away with more in the box than you could outside it.

With VAR, however, the rough and tumble flow of the game – and the vague sense of discretion employed by the referee – has been replaced by a strict enforcement of the rules.

Is that good or bad? I would argue that it’s good. Defending should be hard. It’s extremely difficult to score goals, and we don’t need to make it even harder by giving defenders special rights to commit challenges in the box that would be whistled anywhere else. The purpose of the rule about the penalty box is to shape behavior, and giving referees an additional tool to accomplish that objective seems like a clear good.

Will strict enforcement of this rule produce more penalties? In the short run, yes. But in the long run, players will adapt, and the game will be better for it.

But this brings us to the second case, which came in Australia’s comeback win over Brazil. Here, the deciding goal was an own goal, which was authorized by VAR based on a bizarre claim that Sam Kerr was not influencing play by being in an offside position since she did not attempt to play the ball, or interfere physically with the defender who was trying to play the ball. But why was Monica trying to play the ball? Because she knew Kerr was behind her! If the point of the offside rule is to ensure that attacking players can’t gain an advantage by being in an illegal position, the rule completely broke down in this case. I have looked at the rules (such as they are) and it’s possible that this is a literally correct decision. But it’s certainly not clear, because the rules are vague and confusing.

Once again, people asked: what are defenders supposed to do? Faced with a split-second decision, they are expected to assess whether the attacker (who is behind them) was offside when the ball was played, and if so, let the ball go and hope they were right? Or they can play the ball, and thus reward the opposition for having been offside. It’s utter nonsense and a total perversion of what the offside rule is supposed to do.

The rules of soccer are shockingly vague

People who know the laws of the game all seem to agree that this really is the rule (and I believe them). That said, they have a hard time pointing to where exactly in the laws this is specified, because the laws of soccer are rather shockingly ill-defined. Compare the offside rule – the most complex law in the game – to any random section of the Major League Baseball rulebook, and you’ll see what I mean.

Here’s an example of how baseball’s rules are written:

  • 5.09 Making an Out
  • (a) Retiring the Batter
  • A batter is out when:
  • (1) His fair or foul fly ball (other than a foul tip) is legally caught by a fielder;
  • Rule 5.09(a)(1) Comment: A fielder may reach into, but not step into, a dugout to make a catch, and if he holds the ball, the catch shall be allowed. A fielder, in order to make a catch on a foul ball nearing a dugout or other out-of-play area (such as the stands), must have one or both feet on or over the playing surface (including the lip of the dugout) and neither foot on the ground inside the dugout or in any other out-of-play area. Ball is in play, unless the fielder, after making a legal catch, steps or falls into a dugout or other out-of-play area, in which case the ball is dead. Status of runners shall be as described in Rule 5.06(b)(3)(C) Comment.
  • A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught.

That’s one section of one subpoint of Rule 5.09. There are 14 more points under 5.09(a). There’s also a 5.09(b), 5.09(c), 5.09(d), and 5.09(e). And it goes on and on like this for hundreds of pages.

Soccer’s rulebook is nothing like this. What are the rules for added time? The referee adds some time. You know, however much they think is appropriate. What are the rules for throw-ins? They should take place roughly where the ball went out, more or less. Except when they don’t and it’s not worth arguing. And on and on.

If VAR is here to stay, the rules are going to need a significant overhaul

The laws of soccer are full vaguely defined principles that are designed to give the referee the ability to guide the game. They very much do not provide universal criteria for guaranteeing that the principles can be achieved. As a result, they are exceptionally ill-designed to handle the level of precision and objectivity that VAR is meant to bring.

This isn’t a problem with the rules per se, nor a problem with VAR as such. It’s a problem with the combination. And it’s something that’s going to have to be fixed, with more than a few minor clarifications.

Ultimately, the purpose of a law is to produce a desired result. If VAR is the new way of life, we’re going to need a significant overhaul of the rules, to bring them in line with a world of minute attention to detail and objective judgments. The key question: what is a rule actually meant to accomplish, and can it do so if enforced in these new terms?

The law on fouls in the box seems fine. Defenders will adjust and the game will go on. By contrast, the offside law and the law on handballs seem like ticking time bombs. It’s up to the International Football Association Board to get to work on defusing them. Sooner rather than later, hopefully.

Alex Morgan, Ada Hegerberg, and the Conundrum of Awards Voting

Posted on by RJ Allen

Ada Hegerberg doesn’t play for Norway. But this isn’t a piece about if she should or shouldn’t play for them.

Alex Morgan plays for the Orlando Pride and US women’s national team. But this is no more a piece on Morgan’s club choice than it is about Hegerberg’s choice to not play for her country.

This is a piece about how we see players and how we vote for awards.

The awards voting is larger than Hegerberg vs Morgan. But they do stand on different sides of a large gulf. On one you have Hegerberg who is in maybe the best club form in the world. On the other you have Morgan who has been excellent for country while having lingering questions about her club form. So for now we stand in the middle and look right and then left.

Awards are complicated when they span time and leagues and bring in factors that can be as complicated as league strength and the roles players play on different teams.

It is made all the more complex because of the way the calendar in soccer works. It is the four year cycle that reigns here and not a calendar that any non-soccer person would understand. It doesn’t matter if you count it as World Cup, Olympics then two off years or if you count it two off years, the World Cup and finally the Olympics. Either way you count you have two on years and two off. And in those years where there is a major international event that crosses from CONCACAF to UEFA to Oceania to the rest of the world we are often heavy handed with support for who scores the most goals in a month or few weeks long event. Because the World Cup and the Olympics are big deals. And they should be big deals.

When I look at Hegerberg’s body of work and the only thing that I am given is her work for Lyon it presents a mental hurdle for me. And that isn’t on her. Club is all she has elected to play and she is under no obligation to change that to make voters more comfortable. While one may quibble if she should or should not play for Norway, frankly that has nothing to do with her performance for Lyon. In the context of voting when judging someone, you can only judge them on what they have given you. On a report card for Hegerberg it would simply be listed as N/A under country.

For Morgan it becomes a little more complicated. She has elected to play club. Partly because the US women’s national team players all play in the NWSL. And in the choice to both play club and country, Morgan has opened herself up to having a larger body of work to judge and all that comes with the league she plays for. The NWSL is, at least in my estimation, more competitive than just about any league in the world. And that changes how we see some players and it changes what those players are able to accomplish on the field. Morgan for club and Morgan for country are often about as related as first cousins. They share a passing resemblance, sometimes strikingly so, but often you can tell they are two different people.

So the judging of Alex Morgan for awards becomes harder because the math is more complex.

It is not Alex Morgan > or < Ada Hegerberg > or < Sam Kerr > or < whoever else you want.

It becomes the much more complex and much less elegant (Alex Morgan for country + Alex Morgan for club / what you think should matter more or if one should matter at all) > or < (Ada Hegerberg for club) > or < (Sam Kerr for country + Sam Kerr for club / what you think should matter more or if one should matter at all) > or < so on and so on.

What I keep coming back to is how are we supposed to judge when all the factors become this complex? And is it fair to judge them based on what they’ve chosen to give us versus what we think they should have given us?

At the end of the day I believe that it is fair to judge more heavily if a player plays for their country in a year when country does take center stage. And in those years where there is no major international tournament that spans the globe I do believe giving more preference to club play is fair.

But I will add this, if you don’t value the fight or the choice Hegerberg has made then it really doesn’t matter if it’s a World Cup year or not, you wouldn’t vote for her. And if you think Morgan should be better at club before winning awards based on her performance for her country then a Golden Ball and/or Boot won’t change your mind.

Voting for awards ultimately comes down to what you value in a player and what you don’t. It is a reflecting glass aimed back at those who cast a ballot. 

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 13

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 13: Matchday 7

Australia 3 – 2 Brazil

This game was completely bonkers, and a lot of fun to watch. But hardly an impressive display from either team. The big questions going in were: ‘can Australia improve on their mediocre start’ and ‘is Brazil actually better than we all thought?’ The answers to both were unfortunately ‘no’ and ‘no.’

But before dwelling on the negatives, let’s talk about the positives. This was a wild, open game, especially in the first half, with both teams going full blazes. Australia found very little in front of goal, sending in a bunch of weak crosses, but at least they were moving the ball with some purpose, especially down the right flank. The decision to play Steph Catley (one of the top left backs in the game) at centerback was mostly successful. She injected some pace, and they were finding enough joy from Carpenter at right back that the loss of Catley’s attacking force down the left wasn’t a huge problem. But then we saw the limitations of play Catley in the center, as Debinha sent in a cross and Catley was simply outmuscled by Cristiane who powered it home. That, along with Marta’s penalty, put Brazil up 2-0.

But then came the comeback. A superb ball in from Logarzo found Foord. Then Logarzo got on the scoresheet herself on a bizarre ball that seemed aimed for Kerr in the box. But the two defenders and goalkeeper were so focused on blocking out Kerr that they didn’t actually stop the ball, and it bounced right in. Then came the coup de grace: an own goal under truly bizarre circumstances. I’m not going to get into analyzing it here, since I’ll have a more developed piece out tomorrow. But it counted, which is the important thing, and Australia had their lead.

In the end, it was enough. There was a late penalty shout from Brazil for what looked like a rugby tackle by Kennedy in the box, but it wasn’t called, and Australia had their victory.

It was a famous comeback for Australia, and Kerr took at shot at their doubters after the match. Which, count me as one. Because while Australia won this game, they looked pretty awful in the process. The defense is in shambles, and the midfield was completely overrun by Brazil – not a particularly strong team in the midfield, to be honest. For a team that looked like genuine contenders pretty recently, Australia has kind of fallen apart. Polkinghorne has been a disaster, and Kennedy only a little better. Catley as a makeshift centerback worked okay, but wasn’t great. Kellond-Knight was bad at fullback, and Carpenter is still a very limited player. And there’s almost literally no one behind these players in the depth chart either.

Meanwhile, the midfield can barely play the ball, since the only two credible ballwinners they have (Kennedy and Kellond-Knight) are stuck in the backline.

Any team with Sam Kerr is going to be a terrifying opponent in a knockout game. But unless Australia figures the rest of their business out, and soon, they are going to get steamrolled the first time they play a legitimately good team.

South Africa 0 – 1 China

A thoroughly professional showing from China, who dominated the game from start to finish, and effectively shut down South Africa across the board. They possessed the ball very nicely, and while the finishing left something to be desired in general, it only takes one. And what a one it was. Li Ying had an impressive game, and her goal is one of the prettiest of the tournament.

I wasn’t thrilled with the way China played against Germany, but there’s no denying it was effective. They probably won’t get away with it to the same extent again, but even if they’re significantly more reined-in, that kind of disruptive performance could be enough to really threaten any team in the tournament. But it was nice to see them go wholly in the other direction this game, with lots of quick passing and movement. They were still physical – and made it extremely difficult for South Africa to ever settle – but they came to play, and it was a lot of fun to watch.

One player who particularly impressed me was Lin Yuping, the 5’11 central defender who was absolutely dominant in the air, shutting down basically every single ball that South Africa tried to play over the top, and thereby neutralizing one of their only attacking weapons. Lin is 27 and only has 15 or so caps to her name, so has clearly been a late-bloomer. But I really know nothing more than what I saw here. Would love to know more about her story.

For South Africa, advancing from this group was always a long shot, and it’s now probably impossible. They put in strong efforts against two excellent teams, and now get the reward of playing Germany. Ouch. But even so, they should be proud of what they’ve accomplished.

Notes

– The atmosphere in the Parc des Princes for South Africa v. China was fantastic. It was only about half full, which is less than ideal. But the 20,000 who were there made up for it with enthusiasm. At many times, there were three or four different songs or chants all competing to be loudest. And the corner of the stadium that was taken over by the traveling Chinese contingent was L.O.U.D. Really wonderful to be there.

– Kerr didn’t score today, but her mere presence led directly to two of Australia’s three goals. On Logarzo’s, they were so distracted trying to prevent Kerr from scoring, they failed to actually stop the ball. And the own goal was clearly a product of fear about Kerr lurking behind. It hasn’t been a great tournament so far for Kerr, but even without a gaudy goals-total, she’s still making a difference.

– I’ve been thankfully protected from the Fox coverage of this tournament for the most part. But I have heard what’s going on. And I have to say: the lazy, racially coded stuff about black teams being physical and athletic is pure trash and thoroughly embarrassing. Please be better.

Tomorrow’s action

  • Japan – Scotland. This should be a fascinating tie. Japan were frustrated against Argentina, but may have gotten over their nerves a bit. Scotland played well against England, but not well enough to earn a result. They’ll both still feel confident in their ability to advance. But what lessons will have Scotland learned from Argentina? Will they follow the same strategy: play tight and hope to spring them on the break? If so, having weapons like Cuthbert and Little could be enough. But Japan will also be ready to adapt. So Scotland may prefer to come out more aggressively and apply pressure high.
  • Jamaica – Italy. Italy got a surprise win against Australia, which puts them in great position here. They will certainly be favored against Jamaica, and a win would guarantee them a spot in the Round of 16. Prepare for a game with a lot of running. Neither side are particularly strong in possession, and would prefer to attack with pace more than precision.
  • England – Argentina. Can Argentina work another miracle? I certainly wouldn’t bet on it, not against an England team that should be far more prepared to simply overwhelm their defensive structure. But I wouldn’t have thought they could hold out against Japan either. Look for England to get their clever midfielders a lot of time on the ball, spraying passes and forcing open channels for the forwards to run into, and for their fullbacks to get very engaged in the attack to put pressure across the whole spectrum and limit Argentina’s ability to provide covering support.

I’ll be traveling to Reims to see Jamaica v. Italy, which I’m really excited about. I’ve really enjoyed following Jamaica ever since CONCACAF qualifying back in Texas last October, and Italy’s performance last week was one of my highlights of the tournament. Can’t wait to see this one.

Three Results Reviewed: This World Cup Has Been A Blast So Far

Posted on by RJ Allen

Sometimes I forget how much I love soccer. It sounds strange but after recording and editing podcasts and writing pieces and editing those and editing the works of others, it can sometimes feel like a tad bit of a slog.

And then I started watching this World Cup. And all of that slog was washed away like a summer rain washing the pollen out of the air.

The World Cup has been, by and large, pretty damn amazing. We’ve gotten to see historic goals, historic points, players doing fun things, teams seeing their nation’s colors in the stands. And there are still 40 plus games to go.

There have been some great results so far. Let’s take a look at the three that have some big impacts.

Argentina 0 – 0 Japan

Argentina has about as much support from their federation as Pope Clement VII had from King Henry VIII. That’s to say support in the negative direction.

But they did it. Argentina held for 90 minutes against a young Japanese team. And they didn’t just hold, didn’t just bunker for 90 minutes and try to hold on by the skin of their teeth. They played soccer. They fought. They showed a country which hadn’t really ever been allowed to see this team due to federation neglect that they were ready for the world’s stage.

They shouldn’t have to prove themselves to their federation. They should be supported as each men’s national team and women’s national team should be. It frankly sucks that they have to show they can compete before they will get the support they need to go out and win games.

But in this game they did show they aren’t going to just roll over after making it to the biggest stage in the world. They have fight. And that was pretty neat to see.

Italy 2 – 1 Australia

It’s not really a secret that I am a fan of the Australian team. I find them fun to watch, outside of a backline that leaves me questioning why bad things happen to good people.

But watching Italy and Barbara Bonansea leading the charge out there was magnificent.

Italy played like they knew the world was watching, and they wanted to put on a show for each and every eyeball on them. Bonansea scored the latest non extra time goal at 90+5 to take 1 point to 3 for the Italians and really put Australia against the ropes for the rest of the group stage. Now matches Australia may not have had to think about all that hard are life and death. And Italy in their green, red and white, have a shot at not only leaving the group but doing so on top.

Margherita pizza all around.

France 4 – 0 South Korea

One of these matches is not like the others, I get it.

But France, sweet France did the damn thing to set off the World Cup on the right foot.

France looked like they knew this was their event to win. And really, it is. And while some teams (Canada) have gone in to events and let that weight crush them, it looks like France is going in to the event and letting it lift them up. They have a chance to create a new narrative for themselves as a team that can win the damn thing and not just a super talented team that chokes. The idea of them as the lovable team that can’t get it done might finally be put to rest.

And knowing they are on a crash course for a meeting with the US in the quarterfinals only makes watching them more exciting.

What are your favorite moments?

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 12

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 12: Matchday 6

Nigeria 2 – 0 South Korea

So far, the World Cup has mostly been games with clear favorites trying to overcome plucky underdogs, with only one or two real exceptions. This game was something different: two solid teams, with different styles of play, and no obvious advantage. Before the tournament, I think I said that South Korea might just beat out Nigeria, but certainly not by much. Nigeria have good attacking options, but their direct approach didn’t seem particularly well-suited to handle the collective defensive work that South Korea could bring.

I therefore anticipated a cagey match, with South Korea controlling possession, and probing carefully, always with an eye toward protecting themselves from the counter. And that’s more or less what we actually got. The problem was that South Korea made a huge mess of one attack, with a missed clearance finding its way into their net for an own goal, and with a wonderful bit of strength and skill from Asisat Oshoala – who had up until that point actually been pretty terrible in the tournament.

For South Korea, this is just about the end of the road. Despite having a team with a fair bit of potential, they just weren’t able to find their rhythm. And now, given other results, they’ll either have to beat Norway by four goals (very unlikely), or beat Norway and make up 5 goals on Nigeria – who are playing France so it’s possible.

Germany 1 – 0 Spain

This was an enjoyable game in many respects, but also a very frustrating one. It was enjoyable because we got to watch two very talented teams start to build toward their true potential.

Spain possessed the ball well, unsurprisingly, but also managed to produce more incisive passes and direct movement than in their first match. It didn’t produce any goals, and they couldn’t really sustain it, but through the opening half hour, they looked like the version of Spain that we all tipped as a genuine dark horse.

Germany showed that they can play well without Dzsenifer Maroszán – albeit in a less exciting style. They were mostly content to cede possession, and to attack directly when they could force a transition. It was a fairly measured defensive performance – not much in the way of true pressing – but it was enough to keep Spain relatively at bay and generate enough chances. They were able to convert one of their two or three clear chances this produced – about par for the course – and it was enough to take home the three points.

It was a frustrating game, however, because we only saw glimpses. Spain produced some good work in the opening 30, but really struggled otherwise. The two Garcias looked lively in the buildup, but failed in either their touch or shot once they got into the box. Hermoso did some good creative work pushed back in the #10, but it’s not clear she did enough to justify taking her away from goal. Especially since the shift pushed Alexia Putellas out wide left where she was a relative non-factor. The underlying problems are all still there for Spain. They can possess the ball nicely, and there are flashes of brilliance. But it never quite comes together.

For Germany it was frustrating because this team has so much more potential. A squad with this kind of midfield talent shouldn’t struggle so much to keep the ball. I’m a big fan of Sara Däbritz (a Däbritz Believer, as I named myself today), but she was extremely restrained in this game. In fact, I tweeted this exact point:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And then approximately twenty seconds later, she scored:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Still, the goal had little to do with her creative work, and more to do with cleaning up a loose ball at the end of a nice attack down the right. Which is where the vast majority of Germany’s attacks went. They had clearly targeted Corredera as a weak link in the Spanish defense, and found a lot of success down that wing, with great work from Gwinn at right wing and Hendrich at right back.

The biggest concern for Germany going forward has to be their center backs. That’s nothing new. They were a problem against South Africa, and a clear weak link going into the tournament. But this game potentially showed how that weakness can be managed. The biggest problem is their movement in space and skill on the ball. With a high defensive line, those are both very exploitable. But they are both reasonably strong defenders with their backs to the wall. If allowed to set up deeper, they’ll be solid. That does, of course, mean conceding quite a bit more space. But this game showed that the German midfield is probably good enough to generally cover that ground. It will mean playing a lower-possession game, but that’s not necessarily a problem.

France 2 – 1 Norway

A wonderful game, possibly the most entertaining of the tournament so far. That’s partly because each of the goals was a delight in its own specific way. And partly because the level of play was exceptional throughout. France were clearly the better team over 90 minutes and certainly deserved their victory. But Norway were no pushovers. They did excellent work to police the midfield and keep from getting overrun, while their wide players struggled but (mostly) held out against the waves of attack.

The key match-up in the game was on the French right wing, where Diani showed off her pace and skill, regularly beating the defense. However, she never quite managed to make anything of the crosses she was able to send in. So despite the apparent danger, the eventual goal actually came from the other wing. And what a wonderful goal it was. It started with the French counterpress which recovered possession quickly. A quick pass to Henry found her with a mile of space in front of her to run at the Norwegian defense. As they closed ranks, Henry slid a quiet ball wide left to Majri who now had plenty of time to pick out her pass into the box. As the ball bounded in, Thiney held off her defender and shielded the ball, allowing it to reach Gauvin, who then buried her shot.

All together the whole move took maybe 13 or 14 seconds, and involved six or seven French players. It was a wonderful team goal.

Then came the bonkers Wendie Renard Own Goal, or ‘But Contre Son Camp’ (CSC) as I have learned they call it in France. It was a colossal mistake, of course, but also a demonstration of what happens when you force defenders to make point blank decisions while facing their own goal. Renard simply couldn’t know what was behind her and had to try to put the ball out. She missed, and the game was even.

But France eventually found their winner through a penalty. On that point, I won’t bother to rewrite what I already said on twitter, I’ll just link to it here, and reiterate the crucial point: defending in the box is supposed to be hard because we want to incentivize good attacking soccer. In the case of the handball rule, we’re probably going to need to change the rule or interpretation. In the case of these ‘would be fouls anywhere else’ calls, the change is going to come from defenders changing their behavior. And that will make soccer better.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

For a brief moment, it seemed possible that France might not win this group. But they’re now virtually locked in. Which means they’ve held up their half of the bargain, and that fatal showdown between the US and France in Paris on June 28 remains very much in the cards. I know I’m excited!

Notes

– I’m going to try not to say much more about the US game against Thailand. It’s mostly there in the piece I wrote last night. But the key thing I want to come back to is: I’m not looking to cast blame. And I don’t think there’s any definitive right answer to these questions. But I just wish people (myself included) were more willing to take a look at what they take for granted, and consider whether it’s really something they want to endorse. I know most of the conversation on this subject has been standard talking head stuff, but I feel like a little bit has seeped through at the edges which really has me (and hopefully others) reflecting a bit on what responsibilities we all have to be good humans as well as sports fans.

– This piece from Kim McCauley convinced me that I probably understated the genuine strategic value of the US going all-out.

– If you’re not following Katja (@applessquabble), you’re really missing out on learning about the Scandinavian teams (and plenty of others as well).

– As my twitter followers know, I’ve become a huge Miranda Nild fan – she’s a Bay Area girl (go Bears!) who just played her first World Cup match against her home country. Check out my quick thread on her comments after the game last night. For a very emotional moment, she comes across really well.

Tomorrow’s action

I’m previewing these games over at Stars and Stripes FC tomorrow, so take a look over there at some point fairly early in the AM eastern time to see my thoughts.

But the tl;dr is that Australia-Brazil is a HUGE game, much more significant than we were anticipating, while South Africa – China is another between two teams with zero points who need a win. It’s in Paris, so that’s the one I’ll be at.

The Tragedy of 13-0

Posted on by RJ Allen

The USWNT scored 13 times against Thailand.

Morgan 12′, 53′, 74′, 81′, 87′
Lavelle 20′, 56′
Horan 32′
Mewis 50′, 54′
Rapinoe 79′
Pugh 85′
Lloyd 90+2′

And after each goal the US celebrated. Sometimes with the bench and sometimes just the players on the field. For Lavelle, Horan, Mewis, and Pugh it was their first World Cup game. Scoring then is an incredible accomplishment. For Morgan, she now shares a record with Michelle Akers for most goals scored in a Women’s World Cup game. For Rapinoe and Lloyd, it was a good day at the office.

And it felt bad. I felt bad. Watching it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth and a slightly uneasy feeling as I heard the chants of USA from the stands.
It took me a while to get my feelings in order. I went from “The US players should be pumped” to “maybe they should have taken their foot off the gas” to “score all the goals always” and around and around.

I finally settled on my feelings and how I see this game. And in those thoughts a few things are true. None of them are the fault of the players.


1) The US players have every right to celebrate after scoring goals.

2) Thailand earned their trip to the World Cup but are overall a pretty poor squad

3) The bulk of the feeling of grossness steams from FIFA.

I don’t blame Sam Mewis for being ecstatic over scoring a brace in her first game playing in a World Cup. I don’t think Morgan was over the line even counting the goals she scored after her fourth. And honestly, I will always be down for Rapinoe twirling and then sliding after she scores.

But at some point the joy of seeing all that turned bitter. Not really because of the US players but because of the context.

Thailand is a team without a great deal of institutionalized support behind them. And while their players have been on both ends of 13-0 wins, (Thailand beat Indonesia 13-0 in a friendly in 2018) I can’t help but wish more money, more training, and more resources were going to this team as they headed toward these games.

But really, at the end of the day, this lays at FIFA’s doorstep.
FIFA has roughly more money than Gringotts Wizarding Bank has Goblins. By not giving support to the federations for the women’s teams and not demanding that federations use that money, or for the larger federations their own, they are enabling results like this.

FIFA could have prevented this but they are too worried about running studies and having their partners run ads for the next generation of players.

The worst part of this game was many of us, myself included, had the first reaction of blaming players for being happy that they did an incredibly hard thing well and scored a goal or goals in a World Cup game. That is the biggest loss in this match. That FIFA has to pit these, one against the other, while we often spare them our wrath.

FIFA has about $2,700,000,000 in their reserves. They could give every country on earth, all 195 of them, $10,000,000 and send a team to make sure the money went to the women’s teams and not into pockets of the perpetrators of the current oppression and they would still have a half billion dollars left in their reserves.

FIFA could change 13-0 games. They could. They chose not to. Remember that.

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 11

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 11: Matchday 5

New Zealand 0 – 1 Netherlands

I was only able to watch about 20 minutes of this game (see below in the Notes), but I followed along electronically the best I could. From what I can tell, this was not one of those games which requires us to ask whether New Zealand deserves credit for shutting down the Dutch, or the Dutch deserve blame for failing to create anything. Rather, it’s one of those games where the Dutch created a million chances and eventually one of them went in.

Compare, for example, these two performances:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

xG isn’t the end-all and be-all, but it certainly tells part of the story. And the story here was: the Netherlands were unlucky in their finishing. And considering the lethal strikers they have at their disposal, there’s no particular reason to think that will continue. Again, not having watched most of the game, I’d caution against assuming that the Dutch are in trouble.

For New Zealand, this was an agonizing result. To hold out for 90 minutes only to concede at the death will be frustrating beyond belief. But they didn’t really need anything from this game. They kept their goal difference down against the high-scoring Dutch, which likely ensures that a single victory will be enough to make them one of the advancing 3rd-place teams. Anything beyond that is gravy.

Chile 0 – 2 Sweden

Unlike the day’s first game, this was an example of a heavy favorite being unable to break the deadlock because they genuinely just couldn’t create enough chances. But unlike yesterday’s masterful team defensive performance from Argentina, Chile was merely solid. They set up their defensive block, and waited for Sweden to come at them. And it mostly worked.

The opening fifteen minutes were nervy, and Sweden looked like they were inching closer and closer to the goal. But instead of heightening, the pressure began to ease. By the 60th minute, it increasingly felt like we were in for another 0-0.

But then came the weather delay. After a lengthy wait for the lightning to depart, the teams came back out, and Sweden finally seemed to have developed a bit of urgency, and an understanding that going wide and sending in crosses is not a complete strategy. And so the goal finally did come, and then another to seal the deal.

It wasn’t a great performance from Sweden, but they got the job done. Meanwhile, Chile did more than enough to do themselves proud, without quite ending up with anything to show for it.

USA 13 – 0 Thailand

I talked about my thoughts here.

I have literally nothing to say about the specific content of the game. We learned no lessons, and there is nothing important here to analyze. The US got the three points they were always going to get. Time to move on.

Notes

– This afternoon, I took the train from Paris to Reims to catch the US game. It was extremely fast. I love the trains of Europe so very much.

– My plan was to get to Gare de l’Est an hour early and catch the first half of New Zealand-Netherlands in a bar or café. But I couldn’t find a single place showing it! To be somewhat fair, that was partly because TVs are less ubiquitous in Parisian establishments than in US ones. And I managed in my broken French to ask in several places with TVs if they would put it on (French friends: does “est possible de regarder la Coupe de Monde Feminin?” mean what I think it means?), but they didn’t have the channel.

– One underrated storyline: the US just played its first game of the World Cup. One day later, France will play its second. If that quarterfinal does end up happening, that means the US will have played five games in 18 days, while France will have played the same number of games spread out over 22 days. That extra little bit of rest could make a real difference.

– My official position on the Hope Solo/Jill Ellis ‘controversy’ is that I don’t care about it at all and you shouldn’t either.

– For those keeping track, these are the Official Players of the Backline Soccer Women’s World Cup daily column: Barbara Bonansea (Italy), Sydney Schneider (Jamaica), Lorena Benítez (Argentina), Miranda Nild (Thailand).

Tomorrow’s action

  • Nigeria – South Korea. The two teams from Group A that lost their first game. South Korea were blitzed by France, while Nigeria played Norway a bit more evenly. But it all resets here. In this format, though, even three points is usually enough to make the next round, so neither are anything close to out.
  • Germany – Spain. The two winners from Group B, neither of which really performed up to expectations. Both faced teams that mostly sought to frustrate rather than create, so this will be a very different test. Germany will be missing Maroszán, after the referee in the previous game allowed China to kick her to pieces, which is a big loss. But if there’s any country in the world that can survive her absence, it’s probably Germany.
  • France – Norway. This should be a much sterner test for France than their opening match. If they can brush Norway aside as easily as they did South Korea, they will truly lock down their status as World Cup favorites. For Norway, with three points in the bag, they can treat this as a bit of a freebie, which might give them the freedom to find a result.

The US beat Thailand 13-0. I was there. It felt gross.

Posted on by RJ Allen

I just attended my first World Cup game featuring the United States, my home country. A game which they won by an absurd margin. Am I happy? No. I feel gross. I wish I hadn’t been there. I wish I had gone to Rennes, or just stayed back in Paris. I wish I hadn’t been in a stadium full of Americans, cheering on – with chants of “USA! USA!” and “We Want More!” ringing out around me, while their team racked up double digit goals.

I’m not trying to lob accusations at anyone. I understand that it’s complicated. People paid a lot of money, took a huge amount of time and energy to come here. This is one of the only chances they may ever get to see their national team play in the World Cup. They want to celebrate, and they have every right to take some joy in the process. I get all that.

And still, I have a sour taste in my mouth, and my stomach is churning.

The fans made a deliberate choice to put their own joy over recognizing the pain of others

Because, in the bigger picture, this wasn’t an event to celebrate. The US obliterated the opposition, and they were able to do so because they have fifty years of institutional support behind them. Thailand was overrun, not because there is no one in Thailand with the ability to play soccer. They were overrun because there is no network of support to nurture and develop the people with the potential. There is no coaching system to train them. No resources to pay them.

That inequality is a part of the game, and there’s no way to run a tournament like the World Cup and not have it play a role. So the solution can’t simply be to throw up our hands and give up. We still want a tournament, and that means the teams with more resources are very likely to beat the teams without them.

But we don’t have to celebrate it. And the fans in the crowd stepped over that line. I am sure that none of the meant it maliciously. I don’t think they’re bad people. But as a group, they exhibited behavior that we should lament, not valorize.

The coaches made a deliberate choice to run up the score

I don’t blame the players. They kept going because that’s what they do. Maybe they could have cooled it with the big celebrations after the 8th or 9th goal, but in the moment, I completely get it. So while I wish that they had decided to dial things back a bit, I don’t blame them.

But I do blame the coaches. The US made three substitutions. Three forwards. They finished the game with five strikers on the pitch – six, really, if you count Crystal Dunn. There was no need for that.

I understand why they did it. Strikers work on confidence, and you want all your attacking options to feel like they’re in the zone. You want to give them a chance to get their feet wet in a low pressure situation. I get it.

But you could equally argue that the US would have benefited from ratcheting everything down five notches – save legs, save energy, coast to an easy 6-0 win and call it a day. The US does this all the time, and suffers no psychological problems. I’m thinking of the semifinals from the CONCACAF qualifying against Jamaica, for example.

If Ellis had subbed in three more defensive players, she would have communicated to the team: now is the time to practice seeing out a victory. That would have been a perfectly valid tactical goal, would have caused no problems with psychological management, and would have kept this in the realm of a normal thumping. Instead, she subbed on the strikers, and told her team to keep going full pelt. She told them: we want to be the bully.

And yes, sometimes being the bully works. But that doesn’t make it right. And it certainly doesn’t make it something that I personally want to associate myself with. And please don’t bring up goal difference. The US is going to blow Sweden out of the water in goal difference, and that was true by the time they scored their fifth goal.

Sometimes, feeling bad is the only good thing to do

This should have been a happy occasion. I’m at the World Cup. I just got to watch the team I’m covering win a famous victory. It should have been fun.

It wasn’t fun. It was just a sad reminder of how unequal the playing field is, and little is being done to remedy that inequality. None of it is any one person’s fault, and I don’t want to imply that US fans or US coaches caused any of this. They’re merely small parts in a huge story. Poor players who strut and fret their hour upon the stage.

But tonight a lot of people had a choice: do I do the hard thing, and swallow my sense of self just a little bit? Do I put myself in the shoes of the others out there who don’t have what I have? Do I do those things, even acknowledging that it’s going to dull the joy a bit?

I understand why everyone did what they did. No one was being unreasonable. No one was being intentionally cruel. So I hope this doesn’t read like an attack on anyone. I’m certain that I have made many similar choices in my own life. But here, tonight, it felt wrong. And it felt important for me to try and explain why. Even though it was hard.