Відео

This is the correct decision. No attempt whatsoever to play the ball.

Denying of an obvious advantage opportunity ;)

Very good one

17 by 20 .Category 1 fifa women

Ref was too quick on the whistle when there was clearly an advantage being played.

It looks like the link is invalid

Questo arbitro non conosce la Reg. 12 e deve studiare bene prima di arbitrare un'altra gara. Questo caso era un DOGSO, chiara occasione da rete e peraltro avrebbe dovuto concedere il "vantaggio"; quindi ha commesso due errori gravi con un errato intervento. Fischiando il fallo avrebbe dovuto sanzionarlo con il cartellino ROSSO.

Advantage and yellow would have been correct

Spa giusto

Yeah, obvious ref mistake. It's not like the ref doesn't know it herself. But you CAN'T reverse a blown whistle under ANY circumstances, so yeah...

Wheres the yellow card for holding or just a warning

Absolutely shocking referee decision, as a seasoned ref myself, to not allow the advantage ... Horrendous and ghastly

Es spa x. Que no se. Cumple los dw los defensores

Looks like the ARs view was blocked by the body of the attacker.

Clearly made himself bigger

If it is a yellow card you should always allow advantage if possible, if it is a red card you should deal with it directly no matter what

Play on -> DOGSO-> YC

Love these

Leave advantage. If the new attack has a promising attack let that unfold. After that situation address the defender situation and book the defender according to the nature of foul (except for SPA). If it is careless\ reckless foul - YC, if there is violent conduct - RC for defender. For me it looks let advantage, as new attack is in great position and give a yellow for careless to defender. If the new attack is not a promising attack, like the keeper would get there first or the attacker is not able to get advantage of the ball, come back and RC the defender for clear DOGSO. The ball had direction to the ball it would been perpendicular with the left post and a good position to shoot with the right foot or pass to the other attacker if needed, no defenders in time, control of the ball - the attacker had speed and would have regained the position of the ball just around the 18 line which would gave her time to control the ball and the distance almost ideal for a 1 to 1 with the keeper, which I would expect any PRO striker to be able to score 9 \ 10 there.

Spa

All four consideration for dogso is here. Dfc/rc

I'm sorry. Did I mishear. U cannot persistently foul one player. This I am willing to call the BS on. A persistent infringement is stated as follows in the IFAB laws of the game, . Pattern being the key word we are gonna highlight here. A persistent infringement is when a player commits several fouls in a row. If the persistent infringement were for a single player getting fouled over and over that would constitute a pattern. The referee here was outlining how the 2 fouls in the last 30 seconds were the same offence and it is not on. This you could most certainly call an act against the spirit of the game and the referee is letting the players know it is as such. I cant be the only referee that sees this. I do not live in America so idk what your By-Laws are but I am certain that FIFA would never label the same player getting fouled over and over as persistent. Purely due to the fact they may be a dirty player or very clumsy. I am not entirely blaming the referee as it may be the commentators and their lack of knowledge of LOTG as I have picked up in a lot of MLS games. If you gonna sit in that box at least know what your talking about and stop blabbering on with soo much BS. Learn from the PL commentators...

No comments here yet. I think it’s a dive.

I would have given advantage first and see how it played out--can always call it back

Poor decision, too quick on the whistle. The foul did not result in a DOGSO as the other attacker was then clear on goal. Let the play go, see the outcome. Goal or no goal, the advantage was clear to the attacking team so shouldn't even need bringing back and then a yellow card for defender next opportunity. Refs can issue retrospectively of there is an advantage. No one would have complained as the advantage decision is an easy sell.

dogso on the referee

Good video. Silly decision by player. Well handled referee!

Great call

Yep.

Video needs to be relabeled for “No advantage??”…. Ref should’ve clearly given advantage and dealt with the card later

Ammonizia il giocatore andava esternamente non in linea retta verso la porta

Clear dogso Red card but refree allow advantage

Spa yc

SPA YC

This probably should have been a red

SPA YC, IMO, there are two considerations missing, which is direction and likelihood to keep control. She played to the left of the goal and more importantly the touch was very heavy. If the ball didn't go that far, then there is an argument that she would keep control and could move towards the goal, then all considerations would be met.

thank you so much for that video

Era dogso

SPA?