Question Number: 34284

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/2/2021

RE: High School

Stephen of Coogee, NSW Australia asks...

I'd like to know if anyone else thought that the penalty awarded to Canada in the semi-final at the Tokyo Olympic Games looked less than clear-cut. Sitting here downunder, locked down in Sydney, Australia, it looked like the Canadian attacker collided with the US defender. Or have I been in lock down for too long? (PS: don't get me started on the goal by Sam Kerr that was disallowed by the officials in the other semi-final).

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Stephen
It was clear cut to the person that mattered and that was the referee with help from VAR.

In real time the match official thought that there was no offence yet video replay showed the US defender kicking the Canadian attacker which brought her to ground.

When it was reviewed by the referee she saw that a clear foul had been committed hence the award of the penalty kick. For what its worth I think it was careless defending by the US player in that she was slow to clear the ball and allowed the attacker to get between her and the ball. Probably without the kick that brought the attacker to ground it would have put the US defence under pressure. Having said that the defender was unlucky in that circumstances worked against her in that a split second sooner she probably would have kicked the ball rather than her opponent. An accidental foul is still punished in the same way as deliberate.

As to the Kerr disallowed goal I suspect referees have been told to look for blocking actions or screens that involve movement. Modern game tactics at set pieces can involve illegal actions of body holding opponents. One of the benefits of refereeing in tournament play is that in briefings referees can be told to look for certain illegal tactics used in earlier games that might otherwise got missed such as screens that move into the path of opponents to stop / delay them getting to the ball. The referee was certainly adamant that she saw an illegal action.
Personally I think it was soft yet if a referee has been told to look out for certain offences in the briefings then her assessment will be affected accordingly if she failed to do that.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Stephen,
as in any match what we think is irrelevant, not that we think differently, it's just not our decision. The CR in that match when notified by VAR there was contact took a 2nd look and awarded the foul. Obviously, VAR thought it was a foul otherwise they would not have relayed the info. The CR seeing from a better angle ascertained it as a careless foul, there was no hint of caution for a cynical or a reckless stop the attack. Just a bit of a delay in the clearance created a tripping/kicking foul by sweeping the Canadian off her feet because she managed to get in between the defender and the ball. I think the defender was a wee bit slow got caught sideways so raised her arm up into the face of the incoming attacker perhaps a gesture or attempt to ward her off the challenge away rather a proper shielding by placing her body between the ball and the attacker in which the Canadian could indeed have run into her. Do not be shy love to hear your view on the other pk? As a coach, I despise the tactic of placing players in an offside position on free kicks then expecting those offside players not to figure in an offside decision. What other purpose do they serve except to distract block lines of sight or interfere none of which is allowed! A good goal ruled out because of a bad tactic https://twitter.com/Zonal_Marking/status/1422185875853750274/photo/1
Cheers