Tag: Referees

A Referees Perspective on the Women’s World Cup (so far)

Posted on by RJ Allen

Hi, my name is Ian and this is my first post here. I like to start every post with a disclaimer, so please bear with me. 

Disclaimer:

I am not a PRO or FIFA referee. In fact, I’m not even a “professional” referee. I primarily referee adult recreational and youth leagues and write software as my primary line of work. On average, I am involved in around 150 games a season, most of the U16 and over and as many major tournaments as I can find my way into. It is solely my intention to look at incidents and explain how I feel the IFAB Laws of the Game apply, were applied, or should have been applied.

If you’re interested in becoming a referee, please check this link for information on how to locate your state officiating group.

Now that we’ve taken that out of the way, let’s jump on into it…

The Laws of the Game are Pretty Okay

This post is mostly spurred on in response to Charles’ post about the Laws of the Game needing an Overhaul, but I’m not going to directly argue anything. I think Charles did a great job discussing some of the pitfalls of how application of the Laws of the Game have caused a degree of chaos throughout this years World Cup, but I’m willing to argue that they’re actually pretty dang good…it’s just different look than we’re used to seeing, especially in women’s soccer.

The Laws of the Game have been evolving at a rapid pace over the last couple years as has the IFAB. This year, they even went as far as to have a mobile app created to help give more people access to the Laws of the Game without needing a third party PDF reader nor the Google-fu required to know how to get the current Laws and not previous versions.

This World Cup is the first time we’re seeing the 2019-2020 Laws of the Game applied in an actual competition. I believe most of the teams had friendlies throughout the spring that the new Laws were used, but most of those did not have VAR or any of the other intricacies of the full tournament since they were just friendlies.

Between the changes in the Laws of the Game and the introduction of VAR, I think we’re having a peak into the future of the sport at the highest levels.

Ultimately, I think it’s good, but it will take some getting used to. 

I think to facilitate this conversation a bit, I’m going to try and generalize some of the comments and questions I’ve seen come across my Twitter feed and respond directly to them. 

“Why is the Assistant Referee holding their flag down on offside? They should be calling it immediately!”

Offside is an extremely complicated section of the Laws of the Game. In fact, it’s complicated enough that it actually has its own section. It’s complicated to the point that I’m extremely hesitant to even approach the subject, but I’m going to and I’m going to do it with some broad generalizations.

For a while now, the Laws have been working on ironing out a definition between an “offside position” and an “offside offense“. In between those two definitions, there are a list of situations that reset of offside position. This creates a degree of subjectivity, but tries to make concrete that there is a difference. A player can be in an offside position all day and, as long as they don’t become involved in play, never be called for it. That same player who is hanging out offside forever, can be completely saved by a defender making a bad play on a long ball.

At every level of the game, referees and assistant referees are being told to wait and make sure that an offside offense has occurred before putting the flag up. In all games, you’ll sometimes see an assistant have to make a 50 yard run just to make sure that the attacking player commits that offside offense and then have to make the long slog back to the half line to raise the flag. 

This is how it should be. If there’s a chance that someone other than the player in the offside position plays the ball, then you have to wait and see.

The introduction of VAR takes that one step further. 

Now, instead of relying on a single persons line of sight, the referee crew has 4 extra people with an Orwellian amount of cameras that can back up those calls. It’s possible to give an even longer wait and make absolutely sure that there was, in fact, an offside offense before you call off a goal or a potential goal scoring opportunity.

It’s allowed the ability to go from potentially calling a good goal back because of potential offside offense to allowing play to continue until it can be verified that there was an offside offense that needed to be dealt with.

I don’t have any hard numbers, but I’d be willing to be there are more goals that have been allowed because of that wait than there are goals that have been taken back.

“What are defenders supposed to do now? Play with their hands behind their back? This is ruining the game”

Well, you see, this is a fun one, because the Laws haven’t changed too much regarding handling. This years changes mostly just took away some of the vagueness that previous iterations had exposed. Instead of using words like “deliberate” or “intentional” (I wrote about those here), the Laws now try to better define where the hands should and shouldn’t be.

All that said, the couple hand balls that I’ve seen called have always been handling offenses. The difference is that now we have someone watching from another angle that can confidently make that call. 

Let’s have a little thought experiment:

You’re the assistant referee. There’s a quick counter attack starting at the half line and breaking down the nearside of the field. You have to watch three things:

  1. Offside
  2. In/Out of Bounds
  3. Potential Fouls

At the 18 yard box, a cross is fired in and takes a weird bounce. The attacking player is between you and the defender.

Can you make a judgement on why that ball took a weird bounce?

Probably not.

Okay, same scenario, but now you’re the center official. You’re trying to run on something like a diagonal line across the field to keep the bulk of play trapped between you and your assistant referee. Your run had to start from the other third of the field, so you’re going in top gear trying to get back into position ahead of or in line with the play. You see the cross and the ball go off at a weird angle, but you’re about 5 yards behind the defenders shoulder. 

Can you make a judgement call on that weird bounce?

Also, probably not.

In either situation, would you feel confident giving a penalty kick?

I would think no.

This is where VAR solves the problem. The referee still has ultimate responsibility over the match and can make those decisions if need be. However, they also have a barrage of cameras looking at all of the angles to figure out that weird bounce and a voice in their ear telling them whether or not it’s worth going back and having a second look.

If it’s not, don’t sweat it. If it is, go back and make it right.

I heard a saying this morning that went something along the lines of “if it’s a foul in the middle of the field, it’s a foul in the box” and that’s 100% true. The difference being is that one rarely leads to a goal and the other rarely doesn’t. In the interest of maintaining a match, the referee may have hesitation about giving that foul in the box because of that certain outcome.

VAR addresses that hesitation.

In Closing

There are a lot of intricacies in soccer. There always have been and there always will be. With or with out VAR.

At the World Cup though, it’s absolutely imperative that even with all those potential situations, it’s important that everything is as consistent as possible. While I, as a fan, may not agree with all of the calls being made I can easily see a clear line that is being held by the officiating crews. You can see consistency across games and across days that I can really appreciate.

It will take some getting used to at the large stage, but I think in the long run we’ll be better off for it.

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.

VAR is Here: Be Careful What You Wish For

Posted on by RJ Allen

There was a lot of excitement when it was announced that this World Cup would feature Video Assistant Referee (VAR). This was often framed on equality grounds. The men had it, and it would have been absurd to not make it available for the women as well. But in a classic case of ‘be careful what you wish for,’ many folks have recently discovered that they’re not actually that thrilled with VAR now that it’s here.

To be honest, I find myself in that group. And it’s a little surprising.

I’ve always been a fan of integrating technology into the game to ensure that referees can get calls right. But the devil is in the details, and it increasingly feels like the details are killing us. In this case, a combination of two things I’ve always liked (instant replay and a clarification of the incoherent ‘deliberate handball’ rule) have combined to produce a monster.

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

Now, with almost any ball hitting an arm in the box producing a penalty, and with the ability to catch every millisecond of play with video review, we’re going to get more and more of these penalties from a player is hit point-blank in the arm.

In fact, if I were coaching a team, I would encourage them to deliberately shoot at the arm. It’s clearly a winning strategy (Liverpool just won the men’s Champions League final this way), and it’s viable 25 yards away from the goal where the chance of creating a real goal is minuscule.

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

But for all that, the real problem with VAR has been the interminable delay between an offside play and the whistle actually being blown. This is the policy because they need to let play continue to see what the result would have been.

We saw this to an extreme degree in Australia-Italy where probably a dozen plays were allowed to run out, only to be retroactively nullified by the offside flag.

The explanation for this change is here:

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

The principle does make sense. They feel that a false positive is unrecoverable (you can’t recreate the state of play) but a false negative is harmless (you can just reset play to where offside infraction took place). But in practice, a false negative is anything but harmless. There is a lot of emotion and energy wrapped up in the play, and it all gets wasted for very little benefit.

That’s frustrating for the fans at home, but also for the players themselves. After the Australia-Italy match, Sam Kerr said it was “really frustrating” that plays were called back so often, breaking up the game, and also stealing time (since only five minutes were added despite all the delays) that they would have desperately wanted to try and find a late equalizer. For Italy, Cristiana Girelli said much the same: “Sometimes you score the goal and then you have to wait to check. It’s strange.”

In a pre-VAR world, the assistant referee would have flagged these plays immediately, and we all would have gone on with our business. As Kerr said, “if it’s offside, it’s offside. Just call it.” 

There were mistakes in that world, absolutely. And it’s understandable that people want to fix the mistakes. I want to fix the mistakes too. But it sometimes feels like the technology has overtaken the purpose for which it was designed.

There’s a close analogy here to baseball – my other favorite sport – where the advent of instant replay has turned something that went uncalled for 150 years (the millimeter of space that often emerges between a basestealer and the base when they pop up) into a subject for unending litigation. It’s technically true that umpires were simply missing this call for all those years, but it’s also true that no one was harmed in the process and the game is now more tedious for all that it’s technically right.

Still, the reality is that VAR probably isn’t going anywhere, and is only likely to be expanded into new zones going forward. That is unlikely to include women’s soccer in most venues, at least for a little while. But while there’s clearly an element of inequality in this – the new technology being available for men and not women – we also might want to savor the fresh air while it’s still available. And hope that the powers-that-be come up with some sensible rule changes to manage the downside here, and make the application of the technology fit more seamlessly into the free-flowing, exciting game that we’ve loved for so long.

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

 

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 8

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 8: Matchday 2

Germany 1 – 0 China

This was not a very good game, and most of the blame for that falls on the referee (see below). But obviously the teams themselves played a big role. China came out ready to kick the German players, it not necessarily the ball. And it certainly set the tone for the game. In the opening fifteen minutes, Germany was in relatively firm control, and carved open a few very nice opportunities. But as the game progressed and the kicking grew more intense, the German team started to lose control of things a bit. By the end of the half, China had sprung a couple attacks of their own – most coming from extremely poor giveaways by Sara Doorsoun in the German defense – and it was only dumb luck for the Germans that kept the match scoreless.

The second half settled a bit more into a normal level of physicality, as the referee put a slightly firmer hand on the till. And once Germany found their goal, the match more or less petered out.

Many commentators seem to think that this was a colossal failure from Germany, and are already back to dismissing them as serious contenders. I’m happy to wait and see what happens. They are unlikely to face a team willing to commit to such cynical tactics again or a referee who allows it. And this will also have been a wakeup call for them, which may be sufficient to get them into gear.

For China, they were probably not really expecting anything here, and while they’ll rue having missed their chance to nick a result, even a 1-0 loss won’t hurt them too badly in a tournament where goal difference could be an important tiebreaker. They have Spain next, who seem like precisely the sort of team that might wither under this kind of relentless physicality. It will certainly be interesting to see if they try it again, and if it works.

Spain 3 – 1 South Africa

This was a weird and wild game, that very much belies the final scoreline. Spain came in as favorites, and left with a seemingly comfortable victory, but it certainly didn’t come easy. In the first half, Spain almost played as a caricature of themselves: passing the ball relentlessly through the middle, barely ever working it wide, and finding (to their apparent surprise) that the center was often clogged and impassable. Meanwhile, while South Africa found little time on the ball, they made the most of their rare chances, generally looking to spring Thembi Kgatlana in a wide left position. This was quite effective because Spain’s right-sided players – Torrejon and Sampedro – seemed as uninterested in defending out wide as they were in attacking there. Kgatlana’s goal came after it looked like the attack had fizzled as Spain was able to set, but she followed the play in, received the return ball, and then launched a perfect ball into the top corner.  For the rest of the half, Spain looked flummoxed. They continued to control the game, and weren’t completely toothless, but kept looking to pass rather than shoot, and kept exposing themselves to counters.

After halftime, Spain came out with renewed energy. They actually started using the entire pitch and began to look for more direct attacking moves. This produced a few solid chances, though as the minutes ticked on and they couldn’t find a goal, they started to lose their calm and began flailing a bit. But then came the goals – two in rapid succession – each from a penalty, and each bringing its own controversy.

The first was a handball at the top corner of the box. By the letter of the law, it was clearly the correct call. But it was of the variety that makes neutrals grimace with frustration. Still, the equalizing goal was probably a fair reward for Spain, who had produced enough chances to justify a goal.

The second came from a dangerous challenge, once again in the far corner of the box. Watching live, I saw absolutely nothing to this. Vilkazi won the ball, and play continued. But then VAR reared its head, and play halted while they looked. And what they saw was a studs-up, crotch-level kick. Clearly dangerous play, clearly a booking, and since it was in the box, clearly a penalty. And as a second yellow, it also left South Africa playing with just 10 for the final minutes. That was a hole they were never going to dig out of, and it was no surprise when Spain, finally discovering the space to operate thanks to their player-advantage, produced a beautiful goal to seal the game.

It was a wonderful start for South Africa, and in a slightly different world, could have been a truly famous victory. But it wasn’t to be. And so Spain got their three points, in spite of having a miserable time for a big chunk of the game, against fairly weak opposition. They’ll need to harness some of the energy of the second half if they expect to advance any further.

Norway 3 – 0 Nigeria

I was on a train with no wifi for this entire match, so can’t speak about any of the events. The result, however, leaves us with four games and zero surprises. In all four, the team that was expected to win did so. Obviously, the expected winner should in fact win pretty often (that’s why they’re expected!) but a tournament is no fun without a few good upsets along the way. Tomorrow has some real promise on this front, with three games where the underdog has every chance of finding a result.

The other big story here was Ada Hegerberg’s non-presence. This is a legitimate issue to discuss, but the conversations around it have been very frustrating. I’ll have a full article on that subject available tomorrow, so stay tuned for that.

Assorted thoughts:

Refereeing

We spend a lot of time talking about refereeing decisions, for better and (mostly) for worse. There certainly was a lot of that today, especially with the two penalty calls and the sending-off that so completely defined the Spain-South Africa game. But for all the controversies about those sort of calls, I think the bigger conversation needs to be about how referees set the tone for the game. It’s an important skill, and goes a long way to ensuring enjoyable games.

The referee in Germany-China, the Canadian Marie-Soleil Beaudoin, failed at this job miserably. China came out to kick hard, and maybe play the ball once the kicking was done. It certainly did seem to rattle Germany, and in that sense was obviously a successful strategy. Which means it’s hard to blame Jia Xiuquan, precisely. They sought an advantage, and found one. And you can also frame this as a problem with Germany. They are the better team, and should have done something to address the situation.

But ultimately, this is coming at the wrong way. This is essentially a story of a referee who allowed rough play to go by with little or no punishment, and thereby incentivized that sort of play. We don’t leave it up to everyday people to enforce the law, and it shouldn’t be up to soccer teams to enforce the rules, either. I’m hardly a believer in strict textualism, and understand that referees absolutely need to exercise some discretion. But that should be in the service of making the game better, safer, and more aligned with the spirit of the rules.

Apparently, on the US broadcast, Christina Unkel said that referees are loathe to hand out yellow cards for fear of generating suspensions.

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

This is a terrible approach. The punishments exist for a reason, and while there can of course occasionally be injustices – nobody loves it when two nothing fouls rule a player out of a quarterfinal – the risks are far larger if you permit unrepentant physicality to rule the day. To wit:

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

Fitness

One thing that weighed on my mind in Spain-South Africa: relative fitness levels. South Africa were clearly flagging significantly by the final twenty minutes, which may well have contributed to the mistakes that produced the penalties. It’s no coincidence that Spain started looking better at this point. It’s a story we’re likely to see repeat itself in the tournament, with countries like the US, Germany, France, and England – composed entirely of full-time professionals with the luxury of absurd physical regimens to keep them fit – face off against countries with players who simply can’t go the full 90 at anything close to 100%.

Tomorrow’s action:

  • Australia – Italy. A good first test for Australia. Italy are a solid team with some genuine attacking threats. Australia should have plenty to overwhelm them (my gut says this feels like a 3-1 victory for Australia), but after their rotten run-in to the tournament, they’ll want to actually prove that they are in form.
  • Brazil – Jamaica. At one point, some oddsmakers were refusing to even take bets on this game since it was expected to be such a blowout. That was always a mistake, since Jamaica is much better now than their ranking suggests (it’s amazing what a year of actual training and some new recruits can do for a team), and Brazil much worse (they’ve lost nine games in a row, going back almost a full year). And now it’s been confirmed that Marta will miss this game. I still think Brazil has enough to pull out a win, but a draw is maybe the most likely result and a Jamaica win is absolutely possible.
  • England – Scotland. A rivalry that literally goes back to the dawn of modern soccer in the late 1800s, brought to life in a new form here. England are cleaerly the superior team, but Scotland are a tough team to play, and they will certainly be up for it. This should be a cracker.

I’ll be in Valenciennes for the opener, and will do my best to catch as much of the others as I can before my train back to Paris.

Backline Chat: Playoffs, Referees, MVPs, and More on Sky Blue

Posted on by RJ Allen

Charles Olney (@olneyce): Hi everyone, and welcome to this week’s Backline chat. It’s been an exciting weekend in the NWSL, so let’s start by discussing the playoff race. I think the general consensus has the current top four (NC, Seattle, Portland, and Chicago) as the most likely to make it in the end. Anyone care to disagree with that?

RJ Allen (@TheSoccerCritic): If Houston can win against Seattle, they would be 4th. I would like peak madness to happen even if I don’t know if they can pull it off. On the other hand, half of Seattle is on the injured reserve this match.

Allison Cary (@findingallison):  I think Chicago is questionable. I’m with RJ, peak madness is fun. I think Houston and Utah are fun.

RJ Allen: If Kerr is scoring you two, you should be able to hold for a win.

Charles Olney: I will disagree that Utah is fun, though I do like them hanging out in the race even in spite of their relatively dire style of play.

Allison Cary: I meant fun in the sense of them sticking around, less so how they play on the field.

Becky Schoenecker(@Beckster20): I’m all for the madness and I’m rooting hard for Houston and for New Jersey to finish the year with some wins.

RJ Allen: I know this might sound cynical but Sky Blue finishing with 0 wins might be better for them long term than finishing with 1 or 2. And by better I mean a better chance they are sold or they are disbanded and the players can go to places with showers.

Becky Schoenecker: My heart just needs one though.

Charles Olney: I haven’t been able to get up to Houston much this year, but I’ll be there next weekend for the match against Sky Blue. Depending on what happens between now and then, it could be an incredibly tense game, or not so much.

Becky Schoenecker: Also, that one win can’t happen against Houston, my heart would not be able to take that.

Charles Olney: If results go against them, Houston could effectively be out by the time that game happens. If results go in their favor, they could be playing to occupy a playoff position going into the final week. Given what we all said about them going into the season, that’s truly astounding.

Allison Cary: It’s impressive.

Luis Hernandez (@radioactivclown): I think Orlando can win its last two and back in, but boy do I have my doubts. If the Dash make it in, I’ll be in shock. I don’t believe in the Red Stars.

Allison Cary: I have no faith in Orlando’s season.

Becky Schoenecker: I’m with Allison I think Orlando are out.

RJ Allen: I don’t think Orlando will win both of their last two and they need to.

Charles Olney: I lean toward thinking that Orlando still has a decent shot, ironically because I’ve rated them a bit worse than most people all season. Which means I don’t see this recent run of results as especially damning, and think it’s still quite plausible they come out strong to close things out.

I’m not predicting they make the playoffs, to be clear, but I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if they did.

Luis Hernandez: I’m questioning (Orlando) the players’ mental fortitude and resistance.

RJ Allen: I’m questioning the tactics and the player selection.

Allison Cary: I’m questioning all of it.

Becky Schoenecker: If they do make the playoffs – which I don’t think they will – they’d be out first round in my opinion

Charles Olney: What could they do to turn things around? Or is it just a lost cause at this point?

Luis Hernandez: As far as player selection, what exactly do people want to see? I never understood that point. Okay bring on Poliana??

RJ Allen: I have a warm take. I won’t call it hot, but warm.

Orlando is spending too much on Marta. They are paying her max which means she is draining the cap.

Becky Schoenecker: I don’t think Marta’s the problem.

RJ Allen: Marta ISN’T the problem. Marta’s pay is.

Becky Schoenecker: But they’ve still been able to field well above average players. Where would you spend her money if you could?

RJ Allen: They need four starting level defenders and help in the midfield. They need that more than they need Sydney, Morgan and Marta.

Luis Hernandez: I think you have a valid point but a bigger issue is talent identification and scouting.

RJ Allen: Sure, but her pay means that is handcuffed.

Charles Olney: I don’t know if I agree with RJ on the whole take, but I do agree that their defense is a lot more suspect than it might seem by looking at the names. I’d love for them to have a bit more flexibility there. I’d also point out that their midfield has never been one of the stronger, and while they’ve managed to shore up (and play around) that weakness to some degree, it’s still a weakness.

RJ Allen: I really think the NWSL needs to change the pay structure. Marta’s salary means they can’t upgrade some players as easily as other teams can. I’m not saying it’s the only reason or the main one. But I do think it is a big factor.

Becky Schoenecker: I would blame it on tactics then.

Luis Hernandez: I can point out Kennedy’s regression and inconsistent play more than Marta’s salary. Or EvE’s face on a milk carton all season long

RJ Allen: That’s on the HC then for keeping them on the roster.

Charles Olney: I guess my ultimate feeling about Orlando is: I don’t think they’re wildly underperforming. I had them 5th (but very close to 4th) going into the season, and that’s right about where they are. I think the issue is that they’re more hot/cold than some of the other teams. When they play well, they blow the doors off. When they play poorly, they’re quite depressing. With a different coach, different structure, they might well play more consistent, but I’m not certain they’d be better.

Luis Hernandez: I have to defend Sermanni’s tactics because when the players follow the plan they play well. They just haven’t put in a full 90 which fine you can blame Tom for that.

RJ Allen: I think Orlando plays some of the worse looking soccer in the league and that’s a mix of players and coaching. They don’t have a really strong flow about them.

Luis Hernandez: I believe the Pride roster is going to get blown up after the season anyway

RJ Allen: Head coaching change and a new roster would do the team wonders.

Luis Hernandez: I hope the coach doesn’t change but I also think after the season anything can happen.

Becky Schoenecker: Tom to Washington? haha

RJ Allen: I do not think Sermanni is a great coach. He is fine, but he isn’t great.

Charles Olney: I’d love to see Sermanni at Washington, FWIW.

Becky Schoenecker: I think he can get teams started.

RJ Allen: He would be good in a Washington or even a Sky Blue.

Luis Hernandez: Tom in Washington would be very interesting

RJ Allen: I think GM/HC needs to be more strongly defined in this league. And that is something that would help a lot.

 

Charles Olney: Alright, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about the playoff teams, but very little about North Carolina, probably because there’s nothing really new to say there. Their season has been astonishing, and there’s no doubt they’re the best team in the league. But we all know that the playoffs can be a crapshoot and (famously) the Shield winner has never actually taken home the title. So: if I gave you even odds would you bet North Carolina or the field?

Luis Hernandez: The Courage for me. I love the killer instinct

Becky Schoenecker: I’d bet North Carolina.

Allison Cary: I bet on the Courage.

RJ Allen: I think the match up is important.

Portland: 60/40

Seattle 70/30

Chicago: 80/20

Orlando: 90/10

All in North Carolina’s favor.

Becky Schoenecker: RJ what about Houston?

RJ Allen: lol

Charles Olney: #TeamOfDestiny #DashTFOn

Becky Schoenecker: #DashTFOn

Charles Olney: I have to say, much as I love this Carolina team, I think I’ll still bet the field. We’ve seen Chicago play them very close in two games recently. And even Orlando was giving them real trouble this weekend until the wheels came off. And we all remember what happened when the rubber hit the road in the final last year.

RJ Allen: I think this NC team remembers the pain of last year.

Becky Schoenecker: I still think when it matters they’re going to win in commanding fashion.

Charles Olney: Even if they’re 2 to 1 favorites in both matches, that’s still under 50% chance of actually winning.

Luis Hernandez: There’s a blueprint to beat N.C. Doing it is a separate story

RJ Allen: I think you could make a super team out of the other 8 teams in the league and NC still wins.

Allison Cary: I would tentatively agree with that.

RJ Allen: It’s going to be a shame when expansion comes and strips half their players.

 

Charles Olney: Dialing into the games a little bit, it was a pretty exciting weekend with plenty of talking points across the league, with referees featuring a number of times. Any in particular that people want to discuss?

Luis Hernandez: Sky Blue! I really thought they could win this week.

RJ Allen: I’m sorry Sky Blue fans, from what I saw the ref did nothing wrong giving 3:50ish in stoppage and not stopping at 3 minutes on the dot.

Charles Olney: The level of anger about that one really surprised me. I understand why people were frustrated – for the sake of Sky Blue who really deserved a win there – but there is just no there there in this controversy. Three minutes just means a minimum of three. If the ref felt like there should be 3.5 minutes, he’d signal 3 and stop it whenever (in his judgment) full time was up. This is bog standard stuff.

Now, as I tweeted on Saturday night, I find the stoppage time process overall to be dumb and far too reliant on ill-defined norms. But it is the process. So I’d happily join a general complaint against the whole approach, but there was nothing wrong in this instance.

RJ Allen: I have no real issue with stoppage time.

Charles Olney: It’s very low on my list of changes. So I’ll spend my capital elsewhere, for sure.

Luis Hernandez: Agreed

Charles Olney: Okay, any thoughts on the calls (or non-calls) in Portland? Do we think Chicago’s anger about either goal scored against them is justified?

Becky Schoenecker: I have a semi cool story related to that. Yesterday, after our women’s college match I was talking to the refs about the NWSL and the calls. The second I mentioned the league he goes oh that call against Chicago that wasn’t called? He watched the broadcast on ESPN news and from the sound of it a lot of higher up referees are. Just a fun little tidbit.

RJ Allen: I think Portland manages to get a lot of non calls that go their way.

Luis Hernandez: Especially at home.

Charles Olney: I wouldn’t be confident saying that they get better treatment than the average team, but anecdotally lots of people feel that way. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if they were on balance benefactors of refereeing calls.

Luis Hernandez: The ref bias out of Portland is head-shaking. It just stands out so much. How do you explain it? The way the Thorns play, you should be whistled more than that.

Charles Olney: In this game, I don’t really think Chicago were correct about either complaint, in the sense that the goals should CLEARLY have been disallowed. But you see stuff like that called plenty, so it wouldn’t have been out of line if things had gone that way. And I can understand frustration at losing a bunch of 60/40 calls.

In terms of physicality, I think y’all know my feelings there. I wouldn’t call that favoritism, but more that the Thorns are exploiting a general problem. Utah is the same way. Both play extremely aggressive (far beyond the bounds of what I’d call acceptable), but mostly get away with it.

Allison Cary: Yeah, agree with that 100%.

Luis Hernandez: Someone should explain persistent infringement to the referees.

Charles Olney: Ironically, for all that North Carolina are possibly the most physically intense team in the league, I don’t really see them as villains on this front. At least not this year.

Luis Hernandez: I think the Courage have been less just bull in a china shop physical

RJ Allen: I am as much a fan of brutal soccer as anyone. But I am starting to really move toward the league is going to end up really hurting someone. Like not an ACL but a spine.

Luis Hernandez: NWSL Fight Club.

 

Charles Olney: Alright, another topic I wanted to bring up is the MVP race. Obviously, this depends to some extent on what happens over the final week. But I have to say that I’m thrilled with just how wide open things are.

I think you could make a serious case for at least these players: Kerr, Rapinoe, Dunn, Zerboni, Horan, Sinclair, and maybe Sauerbrunn or Erceg. I’m not saying *I’d* vote for all them, but I can see a reasonable case.

RJ Allen: Corsie over Sauerbrunn, I’m sorry but it’s true. Corsie hasn’t missed the time Sauerbrunn has and IMO has been as solid on the field when they are together.

Luis Hernandez: If the MVP comes from a non-playoff team I’d be shocked. No playoffs no MVP award.

RJ Allen: Zerboni has been my MVP since about week 9 and I haven’t changed on that.

Charles Olney: I’ve been similarly locked into Dunn, but while she’s remained quite good (as has Zerboni) I think a bunch of the folks who were below them most of the season have really kicked into gear.

RJ Allen: North Carolina isn’t 100 points ahead of everyone else if not for Zerboni.

Luis Hernandez: Just check the golden boot standings and you’ll get your MVP winner

Charles Olney: On that point, one name I didn’t bring up among the favorites is Lynn Williams. But per Luis’s point, she might well win the Golden Boot. If she does, do people think she’ll continue the trend of the MVP and Golden Boot being identical awards? Or could this be the year they’re finally severed?

RJ Allen: I think if Williams wins Golden Boot she’ll be the MVP. Same with Kerr.

Luis Hernandez: If Kerr were to win the golden boot, you’d have to believe the Red Stars are in the playoffs

RJ Allen: I think Kerr can win the Golden Boot and they still are 5th. But it would be hard.

Charles Olney: I’d like to believe that people could see their way to breaking the connection with Williams. But I generally agree if Kerr does win the Boot, it’ll be because she scored enough that Chicago made the playoffs. And she’d also have done enough to deserve the MVP regardless. In fact, that might be where I’d bet at this point.

RJ Allen: I think 2017 might still be on people’s minds. She has been very good this year but not 2017 Kerr.

Charles Olney: Sam Kerr is very good.

RJ Allen: Sam Kerr is very good.

Luis Hernandez: I’m going to say the unpopular thought but I think Horan should be MVP

 

Charles Olney: Alright, one final topic: the situation at Sky Blue. We’ve talked about their problems a few times here, but Cloud 9 just put out a statement confirming that the promised changes haven’t materialized, and that there doesn’t seem to be any indications of progress. Thoughts about where this stands at the moment? Does anyone have any faith that Sky Blue can survive in its current form?

RJ Allen: I know a few of the Cloud 9 people and they care about their club, the league and women’s soccer as much as anyone I know. They are good people and reading the statement I can only imagine how difficult it might be. But I think they said what needs to be said in a way that is very honest and in the end I think they are right. The league needs more than part time GM’s and part time staff. Sky Blue promised to change and they have not.

Luis Hernandez: I’m going to hope Sky Blue uses the off-season to right the ship with better improvements. It’s hard to find a better practice field right at the end of the season

RJ Allen: I think the only way it gets “righted” is a sale and move a la Western New York or the Boston route. The ground needs to be salted.

Charles Olney: I would really like that to not be true, but I’m increasingly finding it hard to see any other alternative.

Luis Hernandez: I think things went passed the point of no return but I’m still hoping Sky Blue can fix thing by the start of next season. Don’t mean to talk out of both sides of my mouth here.

Charles Olney: Sky Blue were barely able to meet standards at the beginning of the league when expectations were much lower. What they provide has never been acceptable but at least you could squint and say that it was necessary. It no longer feels necessary. If they can’t make big improvements (and I don’t think they can) that may be the end of the road.

RJ Allen: I think it’s alright to be sad about this. Mourning the history and the jobs and team lost. But I do think if the league wants to make it, it has to grow and that includes higher standards. The NWSL should have higher standards than nearly everything Sky Blue has done.

Luis Hernandez: I’m curious how much better off things are in Seattle. Is it safe to say that the Reign are next after Sky Blue?

RJ Allen: No.

Luis Hernandez: Then who is the team above Sky Blue in this department?

RJ Allen: I think they are apples and oranges. I don’t think it’s that kind of scale. It’s not nearly that easy.

Luis Hernandez: It is a scale; meet the standards as they rise.

Charles Olney: Seattle have some serious issues, but in their case it’s a matter of finding ways to thread the needle. It absolutely can be done, and they’re working on it. Maybe they’re the team that’s ‘next after Sky Blue’ but only because someone has to be next. I don’t think it’s even in the same ballpark.

RJ Allen: I agree with Charles.

Charles Olney: The stadium issue obviously has to get fixed, and if they can’t figure out an answer, they’ll have to leave. But I have much much more faith in their ability to get a satisfactory answer than I have faith in Sky Blue resolving they’re many problems.

Allison Cary: I have very little knowledge of what’s going on in Seattle, but I would agree with Charles. It seems like Sky Blue and Seattle aren’t even close in terms of problems.

RJ Allen: Seattle’s big issues are 1) Finding a better home field and 2) Keeping some staff in like the media departments for more than a year at a time. That is like one-tenth of the Sky Blue list.

Luis Hernandez: For sure.

 

RJ Allen: How many NWSL teams do we have opening day of 2019?

Luis Hernandez: An even number.

Becky Schoenecker: It’d be nice to have 10

Allison Cary: 10 would be nice.

Luis Hernandez: 12 would be crazy

Allison Cary:I don’t see things staying the same no matter what.

Becky Schoenecker: I would LOVE 12.

Luis Hernandez: Expansion draft for 2019 for sure. In a Wold Cup year.

Charles Olney: Reading the tea leaves, I don’t see any of the usual suspects that seems like they’ll be ready to enter in 2019. And if we think Sky Blue might not be long for this world, it’s really hard to see them finding two franchises. I’m not saying that it won’t happen, but I’m a lot less certain that it’ll be 10 than I was a few months ago.

Luis Hernandez: 8?

RJ Allen: That is my guess.

Becky Schoenecker: I really hope it isn’t 8 that would be concerning and I don’t feel like the NWSL is in a place of concern, but growth (or change).

Luis Hernandez: That would just be a down ending

RJ Allen: I think 8 would be fine for a year to get the house in order. Growth without stability is an issue.

Charles Olney: I don’t think eight would be a real problem. But I agree the optics wouldn’t be great. Still, I’d rather have eight solid franchises than struggle to make 10.

Allison Cary: I agree. Hopefully not long-term obviously, but stability should be key.

Route Two Soccer: 3 Winners and 2 Losers from the NWSL Final

Posted on by RJ Allen

Winner: Portland, for getting the job done

The Thorns showed up with a chip on their shoulder, ready to complete the ‘unfinished business’ of last season. It’s strange to say for a team that has now won either the league title or the shield in three out of the league’s five seasons, but Portland has felt like an underachiever. With the talent at their disposal, not to mention the infrastructure and institutional support, anything less than a title this year would have felt like a disappointment. Beyond that, it’s important to remember that Portland started this season poorly, and still looked to be struggling well into the summer. There was talk about ‘too many stars, not enough teamwork’ and questions about whether they would ever actually put it all together.

Well, they put it together. Following a loss on July 1, Portland went on a run in which they won 11 of 13 games, including the semifinal and final. They integrated their stars as they returned from the Euros and injury, settled into a flexible tactical system, and started to look as good as they always expected to be.

In a league without all that much tactical innovation, coach Mark Parsons’ back three was a breath of fresh air, and helped to revitalize their attack without doing anything to weaken their stout defense. Dropping Christine Sinclair back behind the forwards was another critical innovation, allowing her to orchestrate the attack from a deeper position, and then crash in behind to pick up second balls and knockdowns.

Portland didn’t have anything close to their best game of the year in the final, but it was enough to get the job done. They played a composed, compact, and stultifying game—conceding plenty of marginal chances but stifling the big ones. It wasn’t pretty, but no one in Portland will care much about that.

Loser: The beautiful game

All three of the games between these two teams this season were tight affairs, but this one took things to a different level. That’s not surprising, necessarily, since cup finals often end up being some of the least exciting games of an entire campaign. When the stakes are this high, teams play conservatively, looking to avoid mistakes, and the quality of play often suffers. This game was no exception.

In their postgame press conferences, both coaches specifically used the word “battle” to describe the game, and neither seemed to be using the term metaphorically. It was a tense and brutal affair, a grim and physical game, without much to recommend it in the way of skill or tactical quality.

Portland deserves special credit (or blame, depending on your perspective), making it clear from the first minute that they would match North Carolina’s aggressive style directly. This preemptive physicality ensured a choppy and violent game, with tight marking and aggressive tackling making it very difficult for either side to develop any rhythm.

To the extent that there was any real ‘beauty’ in the game, it came on the defensive side of things. In particular, North Carolina deserves credit here, for the way that their players moved as a unit. The interactions between the central defense and central midfield, in particular, were lovely. As Dahlkemper tracked a runner, Mewis would drop in behind to take her spot. As Erceg drifted out wide to fill in the gap left by an attacking fullback, Dahlkemper stepped left and Zerboni drifted in to close down the angles exposed by those moves. It was lovely stuff.

But this was the exception more than the rule. On the whole, these teams came to shut each other down, and they mostly succeeded. That did plenty to raise the tension but didn’t do much for the lover of the beautiful game.

Loser: Danielle Chesky, for calling a truly terrible game

As noted, this was a physical and violent game, and ultimately that comes from the teams who chose to play that way. But the final guilt has to rest with the referee, who allowed it all to unfold. While she got some hold back on the game in the second half, the first 45 minutes were a nightmare of escalating violence. I have written before about the problems with loose officiating in this league. And it would be hard to find a more representative example than this game.

There’s an unwritten code for referees: lighter punishments for star players, no cards early in the game, don’t make yourself the focus. Those all came together in this game, in the opening three minutes, when Tobin Heath barged into Taylor Smith from behind, dislocating her shoulder. It was about as clear a yellow card as you’ll ever see, but received only a warning. And things only escalated from there. In the opening half hour, there were at least half a dozen awful challenges, and dozens more examples of rough play. And Chesky still hadn’t seen a single foul that she judged worthy of a booking.

By the 39th minute, North Carolina was forced to make their second injury-based substitution, and the game had gone completely off the rails.

She eventually discovered the cards in her pocket and showed a couple to Portland players before the end of the half. And by the second half, with control at least marginally re-asserted, things started to look more like a soccer match and less like a game of rugby. But even with those improvements, the damage was mostly done.

The players deserve a referee who will punish dangerous play. The fans deserve a referee who will call fouls accurately. “Letting the players decide the game” is a canard, and you only need to watch this match to see why. By letting violent play go unpunished, Chesky didn’t stay out of the limelight; she made herself the story, to the detriment of the game that everyone was hoping to see.

Winner: The NWSL, for turning the corner

The NWSL suffers under the weight of history. Previous women’s soccer leagues have generated far greater fanfare, bigger audiences, more excitement, only to fold after three years. This league has survived, but sometimes has seemed to achieve this success at the expense of intensity or excitement. It can feel like the unloved stepchild of the US Women’s National Team, a training ground to keep them fresh but not something to generate much passion.

But, increasingly, that narrative is falling apart. Sure, some of the old guard clearly didn’t value the league, and maybe some of the current stars don’t treat it entirely seriously. But you only have to look at the passion and commitment and intensity of the players in this match to see how much it matters.

For the young stars of US soccer—players like Sam Mewis, Abby Dahlkemper, Lindsey Horan, and Lynn Williams—the NWSL has always been a part of the landscape. To them, this is the pinnacle of their professional achievement, and there is absolutely nothing second rate about it. They care. They care a whole lot.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I talked to Sam Mewis in the mix zone after the game, and she had the demeanor of someone who had just lost the World Cup final. The intensity, the passion, the commitment that she feels about the national team…it is all there in precisely the same degree for this league.

And that is a great thing.

Winner: Orlando, for doing a great job hosting

There has been a lot of discussion in the past week about future NWSL finals. Should the league return to a system of allowing the top seed to host, or persist with the predetermined venue? There are fair arguments on both sides (and decent arguments for going an entirely different third direction), but one huge advantage of a preset location is the opportunity for the league and media to plan ahead of time, and to showcase the nicest venues on offer.

This is not a knock on North Carolina, who I’m sure would also have done a great job hosting. But Orlando gave us a fantastic experience, and deserve some recognition for the work they put in. It’s my favorite stadium experience of any in the league, with a beautiful pitch and a wonderful design. The accommodations for the media day on Friday were stupendous, the press facilities were excellent, and the staff went above and beyond the call of duty to give us a great experience.

While the overall attendance numbers were less than ideal, the pre-set location gave a lot the league’s superfans a chance to attend. And in many ways, that’s more important than the simple topline number. Making it easier for those who care the most to make the pilgrimage should be a big priority. The NWSL final should be an Event—and Orlando did it’s best to help that process along.

Shoutouts are also deserved for Jen Cooper, who put on a great WoSoCo, and for the supporters groups of teams all around the league who made the journey and showed up strong. And an extra special mention goes to the Riveters, who flew 3000 miles to support their team, and helped bring the intensity and excitement that this game and this league deserves.

It’s Time to Start Letting Women Be Athletes

Posted on by RJ Allen

Is the job of the referee to pass moral judgment or to call the game by the book?

This might seem an obvious question, but it turns out to be a lot more difficult than it seems. And that has some big implications on how we assess officiating. In particular, how we think about officiating of the women’s game.

The issue here is the intersection of two different moral economies. In the first, punishment is a measure of virtue. The laws exist to sustain good behavior and discourage bad behavior. Cards are therefore reserved for those with bad intentions. Good players give 100%, pushing themselves right to the limit. And if every once in awhile they overstep the lines, it’s all part of an honest day’s work. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.

In the second, punishment is a measure of lawfulness. The rules are clear, and they are inexorable. Infractions require responses, just as naturally as applying force on an object will generate an equal and opposite reaction. Intentions make no difference; there is only the act itself.

As with most things, reality is more complicated than either of these idealized models.

Certainly, referees do their best to enforce the rules as they are actually written. A foul in the box is a penalty, regardless of whether it prevents a clear goal-scoring opportunity or whether it’s a pointless lunge on someone at the edge of the 18 going in the wrong direction. The rules simply are what they are. And if that occasionally produces irrational results, well, that’s simply part of the game.

But referees are not automatons. In fact, they exercise enormous discretion throughout the game, with every small decision. It’s up to them whether to call the game loose or tight, just as they must decide whether to enforce the letter of the rule or the spirit. Watch for just a few minutes and you’ll see a play that would be a foul if committed in the center circle which is allowed to go uncalled if committed in the box. You’ll see offenses whistled only for a foul in the 5th minute, which might be a yellow card in the 60th minute, or a red card in a game that has been overly aggressive. Watch any corner kick and you’ll see countless fouls—shirt grabbing, high elbows, hip checks, bear hugs. A strict reading of the rules would produce twenty or thirty penalties a game.

And in a certain sense, there’s no getting around this. Every line that is drawn produces edge cases—those difficult places where people step right up to the limit of the allowable. Policing this space will always involve subjectivity, no matter where you set the limits.

Ultimately this means that the question about the role of the referee isn’t a binary one. Referees do need to exercise some judgment about what is appropriate, above and beyond a literal reading of the rules as such. As we know quite well from centuries of debates in law and philosophy, pure textualism is a recipe for terminal incoherence.

So, rather than thinking about this as ‘one or the other,’ we need to instead dig into the specific frames through which decisions are made. And we need to ask what is at stake when certain presumptions become dominant.

Violent play, not violent players

Which brings us to the heart of the argument. Because at the moment there is a strong, perhaps overwhelming presumption in women’s soccer. The presumption that bookings should be reserved for the truly egregious offenses. You can see clear evidence of this in the numbers.

Just take a look at the number of yellow cards per game, across a few different leagues:

  • La Liga (Spain): 5.0
  • Serie A (Italy): 4.4
  • Bundesliga (Germany): 3.7
  • Premier League (England): 3.6
  • MLS (USA): 3.6
  • NWSL: 2.1

There is obviously variation across leagues in the men’s game, with Spain and Italy consistently calling a tighter game than some of the other big leagues. But the gap between the NWSL and all the major men’s leagues is enormous.

And it’s not just about the raw numbers. Watch any game and you’ll see plenty of offenses that could easily produce bookings. But listen to the commentary, or follow along on social media, and you’ll hear the same refrain, repeated endlessly: “she didn’t mean anything by it,” “just good, tough play,” “that wasn’t intentional.” The general sense of all these comments is clear: bookings should be regulated primarily through the moral economy of punishment. Cards are reserved for truly dangerous play, for offenses that go beyond the pale. They should be saved for ‘bad’ players, or for good players who egregiously overstep the line. It would be cruel, maybe even unfair, to issue a card when a player didn’t really ‘mean it.’

This attitude is widespread in women’s soccer—both among referees and within the community at large. And there are some good reasons for it.

Think about it terms of the games we all play with one another. Imagine a game of poker where your opponent says ‘call’ when they meant to raise. Technically, by the rules, they are bound to that statement. And if it’s the World Series of Poker, you’ll insist that the rules be followed. But if it’s a home game with your friends, played with low stakes or no stakes at all, you’ll most likely let them make the correction, on the principle of ‘no harm, no foul.’ If a rule can be enforced without unduly hurting someone who made an honest mistake, that’s preferable.

There’s a generosity here that is laudable. It avoids turning the game into a purely transactional process: results-focused, denuded of honor or respect. For many fans of WoSo, this is one of the primary selling points of the game. How many times have we heard the claim that women’s soccer is purer, more honest, closer to the true spirit of the game? “If you want to watch flopping, watch the men. If you want to watch soccer, watch the women.” 

But there are also real consequences to this sort of expectations-setting. For one thing, it provides an easy excuse structure for all sorts of violent play. If the overarching assumption is that women’s soccer is purer, closer to the spirit of honest amateurism, the presumption will almost always be against tight enforcement of the rules.

But a loose game is a more aggressive game. If violent play doesn’t produce cards, players will play violently. If dangerous challenges aren’t punished, players will make dangerous challenges.

And beyond the problem of actual physical danger, there is a broader question about the style of play. You’ll often hear that referees should ‘let the players play’ and ‘not insert themselves into the game.’ But this reflects a misunderstanding of what refereeing is. Players will exploit the space given to them—that’s just as true when it comes to referees as it is with the other team. Calling a loose game isn’t ‘letting the players play.’ It is a choice to allow certain kinds of play—hard-nosed, physical—to dominate.

That may be what people prefer, but it is an active choice that the referee has to make, not a natural condition of the game. And whether or not the players themselves are violent in some intrinsic sense, the game that results will be more violent if referees adopt this approach.

Gender integration and the problem of respect

But there’s a deeper issue here, one that has less to do with the style of play and more to do with the way we think about women in sports. And more broadly, the way that we as a society handle the integration of women into traditionally masculine fields.

If you look back to the turn of the 19th century, you’ll find a period of growing economic and political integration on gender lines. Women had always worked, but more and more they were entering fields that had previously been almost exclusively male. This was a product of industrialization and urbanization—shifts that rendered traditional agrarian divisions obsolete for huge swathes of the population. And as economic necessity shifted, it brought a great deal of consternation about how this would affect women.

You can probably imagine how these arguments went: if women are to work in factories, what will happen to their uniquely feminine virtues? Can we afford to expose their delicate natures to the grim, economized reality of life in the factory? Won’t something ineffable be lost in the process? And if the tide can’t be stopped entirely, shouldn’t we at least impose some restrictions, to protect them from the worst extremities of life in this workforce?

In short: women were brought into a masculine space, but they were never regarded as full participants. Since they were purer and better, they would be eaten alive by the horrors of a purely marketized life. It would be wrong to expose them to its depredations.

On the positive side of the ledger, the desire to protect inspired legislation to restrict maximum hours and impose some bare standards of safety for women. In a landmark decision (Muller v. Oregon), the Supreme Court upheld these protections, even as they were striking down similar progressive laws for the broader workforce. Women—pressed on one side by ideologies of laissez-faire capitalism, on the other by ideologies of gender exclusionism—were granted a limited set protections that men would not obtain until the New Deal.

But this came with devastating negative consequences as well. Women were introduced into industrial life, but as partial members. Their pay was lower, they were denied the social standing that accompanied the work, and integration did nothing to erase the old gender expectations. They could never be regarded as full participants in the masculine economy—where money rules and moral life is sidelined.

The same process happened in the realm of politics. For many at the time, the argument against suffrage was all for the sake of women. Politics is a grim and dirty business, one in which moral considerations are all-too-easily steamrolled in pursuit of power. It would be wrong to expose women to this world. Their natural virtues would be polluted, and something important would be lost. Again, the argument is framed in positive terms. Precisely because women are better and purer, they should be protected. There is a moral character to their existence, and it would be wrong to regard them as nothing but economized, rational agents in pursuit of their own narrow interests.

In each of these cases, the desire to treat women primarily as women—and to presume a certain virtue associated with that status—was framed as a matter of respect. But there are real dangers in the desire to ‘safeguard’ the moral virtues of femininity.

It often comes at the cost of denying women agency.

Rethinking respect and acknowledging the agency of choices

While the consequences are not nearly so extreme, you can see the same tropes at work in our contemporary soccer landscape. 

In the men’s game, everyone is far more comfortable thinking about cards as transaction costs, to be calculated within the logic of cost-benefit analysis. A professional foul is ‘professional’ precisely because the player makes the judgment that the advantage (stopping a dangerous attack) is worth paying the cost (a yellow card). In the same way, a corporation might regard fines for misbehavior as simply part of the cost of doing business. The defining question is not ‘is this illegal?’ but ‘what are the consequences?’

We have centuries of examples of societies that are deeply uncomfortable with allowing women to exist within this sort of moral economy. And it’s not difficult to draw the connection between that general discomfort and the specific practices of law enforcement that exist within the game of soccer.

I don’t think that referees are consciously considering the virtues of femininity when they make decisions. Nor do I think that most fans would put it in those terms either. But this can produce significant effects, even if it is merely a form of implicit bias. The landscapes of our lives are organized around structuring assumptions which filter down in unpredictable but powerful ways.  

And this particular set of structuring assumptions–about the superior virtue of our women athletes–risks denying them the respect that is unthinkingly paid to their male counterparts. The willingness to regard their choices as active and intentional: to see their decisions as their decisions, their mistakes as their mistakes, their successes as their successes.

Put simply: we owe it to these athletes to acknowledge the agency of their choices. They are full participants in their own play. And that play can (and should) be judged within the rules of the game, without implying some moral failure on the part of the player.

By no means is this an argument for some kind of total gender-blindness. Given the widespread and persistent biases grounded in gender, acting as if it didn’t exist is only a recipe for a different set of exclusions. And even if it were possible, the ‘freedom’ to integrate into an amoral and neoliberal political economy is not much of a freedom.

So we have every reason to remain skeptical of a system that accepts ‘what can I get away with?’ as its defining moral question. We saw this effect at work in debates over the contours of second wave feminism, which prioritized inclusion and deemphasized the scope of broader critique. We have (rightly) come to recognize the limits of this approach.

So there are no simple answers here. But we do need to start asking better questions.

What does it mean to take women’s sports seriously?

Our sports landscape is overwhelming male. Look at TV exposure, media coverage, money, advertising, and so forth. These all go overwhelmingly to the historically dominant sports, and to the male athletes who play them.

Still, women’s sports are growing, and that is tremendously important. But just like the integration of our economy and our politics in the late 19th century, there are dangers as well as opportunities in this change.

On one side, women’s sports can provide an important counterweight to our mainstream sports culture, which often trends toward the unthinkingly masculine, with some real (often extremely serious) consequences. Beyond that, there’s the issue of representation. Girls growing up in this country today can see themselves in the players that they watch. That matters, and it is part of why we tend to want to emphasize the virtues of the players.

But at the same, women’s sports matter because they are sports. And all the good elements I just mentioned depend on this. If we treat our female athletes as essentially women, and only as athletes in some secondary sense, we do them a disservice. And we do ourselves a disservice, too.

So let’s grant our athletes the freedom to be athletes, and stop burdening them with the expectation that they have to be heroes. They are selfish and imperfect. They make dangerous challenges and throw elbows. They engage in cynical play. They lie and swear and break the rules. And that’s all okay. Because part of what it means to grow up is to recognize that none of us are perfect. It’s what we do within the constraints that makes us who we are.