Optus mate. Paid my $25 for the month today.

44 thousand to see England Haiti tonight. Good turn out.

Don't remember that many during the Asian cup in Brisbane not involving Australia. 

Good crowd in Perth. I didn't see game but German reports say it was dull with a late Denmark winner. Now, might these people go to watch Perth Glory? Better quality than tonight and the name bears your home city. I get the novelty of a tournament yet those who complain when something decent they never supported goes, never deserved it in the first place. 

Netherlands effectively through to the second round with a 1 - 0 victory over Portugal. Some groups sorting themselves out fairly quickly.

Only one draw so far and it was goalless. Results closer than expected in some games.

The New Zealand crowds are just holding up to some of the early games 4 years ago. Could be more, could be less. Auckland has done well so far.

France Jamaica enjoyable and of a higher level. Crowd will go nuts if Jamaica take the lead. 

Nil all. France peppered the goal at the end but couldn't get the chocolates.

40k attendance.

Optus are also showing quite a few matches free (no subscription fee) download the app... hope it helps?

What are everyone's feelings about the micced up refs ... I thought I would hate it a lot more than I do...... 

It's good but could be better.

The other day there was a penalty shout when England played Haiti. The VAR check which flashed up on the screen said 'Checking possible penalty'.

On review there was a foul in the lead up where a girl was ankle tapped. Literally just as she was trying to get over to make the tackle. Just after that the other Haitian girl studded the English lass which was what the penalty call and review was for.

Everyone in the stadium was expecting, is it going to be yes or no for the 'penalty'.

Then what happened was the ref came over and said no penalty for England, gave the free kick to Haiti and then booked the Haitian girl with a yellow.

You can imagine in the stadium nobody could work out what the hell happened.

The ref should have said 'no penalty because there was a foul on Haiti in the build up so a free kick to Haiti  and a yellow card to Haiti because of the subsequent foul'.

So IMO they should give more info, albeit as brief as possible. At the moment they're just verbalising the decision with no real explanation. 

Interesting outcome. On review though, should the Haiti yellow card not be rescinded? If the passage of play review means that a free kick is awarded to Haiti, then rightyl the "follow up" tackle for the "penalty" was not deemed to be part of play and so should the foul????

Sorry didnt see the game but if it wasn't dangerous play or violent conduct then the Haitian girl shouldn't have received a card surely???? 

Nah, someone else asked this on twitter but think about it like this. I tackle and foul you and then one of your players comes over and punches me in the head.

It's still an initial free kick to you but a red for your team mate. Hope that makes sense.

Old mate has to get a red otherwise anything 'could' go after the initial foul.

Yeah totally. Thats why I asked what the nature of the foul was (ill check it out tonight) My reasoning, if you can call it that, is that if it was just a slide tackle or late challenge or something of the nature that would warrant a yellow card but only occured because the play was "live" then, just like the penalty, it should be "wiped" if that passage of play is not deemed live.... I hope I am making sense?

So in your example if my player grabbed the ball instead of punching you in the head, he wouldnt be given a red card for blatant handling of the ball...... see my point?

or would he?

Probably/definitely not because if the ref had a brain he'd blow for the foul first. 

But I can't stand blokes who get a small bump and land on the ball with their hands to force the ref to give the slight bump.

I've blown a foul for handball for that before. Pretty funny.

Ooof. I've read that 3 times and I'm struggling.

The first foul is the one that counts. (That was the initial ankle tap.) Anything that happens after that is possible but the free is still given for the initial foul. 

To be honest the Haitian girl was lucky with a yellow, could have easily been a red. Ran her studs right down her shin. Accidentally which is probably what saved her.

Wait.   

I think I know what you mean, the tackle that got the yellow wouldn't have occurred had the first thing not happened therefore she shouldn't have gotten it. Is that right?

I like how there's practically no diving, dunno if it's good sportsmanship or naivity either but I noticed NZ didn't take the ball to the corner flag to waste time with 2 minutes left

Hahaha as you should, that shits me too ... But Im still curious about my initial query mate....
Once the review deems the free kick was to awarded to Haiti, should any other act occurring as part of normal play after said act NOT be considered?

For example if, immediately after the Haiti girl was ankle tapped:

England scored - that would be nullified by VAR

Instead a tackle occurred which was rightly dismissed as being after a previous foul occurred but why wasn't the yellow card which is disciplinary action based on a "dismissed" foul????  Im very confused....

Yep exactly ... Sorry English is my first language :P

So no the goal wouldn't stand but for the other thing I have to go back to my initial post. (I understand there's an apparent double standard there. Goal disallowed, yellow still given. There'd be a rule covering that I'm sure. One thing I've learnt from refs is you can justify anything.)

Even though the ball is NOT in play the Laws still apply. Going back to my punching someone in the head example. The ref has to deal with that even if it happened after. I get what you're saying and I'm sure you could come up with all sorts of tricky hypotheticals but this played out pretty well in real time and I don't think caused to much controversy. (Except for those in the stadium that had no clue what was going on. You can imagine it, penalty being checked, next thing Haiti get a free and their girl gets a yellow. Hahaha.) 

If you want to see the whole passage of play and the VAR reviews they're at the roughly 16 minute mark.  

https://sport.optus.com.au/womens-world-cup-2023/videos/os54724/os54724-england-v-haiti

Ok one more example and let's see if this works. 

You trip me but I stumble forward with the ball at my feet but before I can kick it again I get absolutely hacked down by another bloke.

So free kick for the first one, yellow (or red) for the hack.

That would be fair and make sense. You can't get away with SFP just because the whistle was about to be blown. 

Yeah fair enough mate, it makes sense. Wasn't trying to "trick anyone up" just a genuine query as I hadn't seen the foul.... and absolutely no visibility on the severity of it. 

In your scenario though, what happens if, as you are stumbling forward you swing at the ball to kick it, miss and kick one of my players in the box..... The ref blows for a penalty for my team, VAR reviews and decides my tackle on you, prior to the penalty shout, is the foul..... Do you get a yellow for kicking my player in the box?

My question is more about review after VAR than application of the laws of the game.... 

Well your example is pretty much what happened in the England Haiti game except it was a different player so yes you could get a yellow for that and the free.

Wouldn't that be something to see? Hahaha. 

One thing that has stood out for me so far this tournament is how few good goal scoring chances seem to be made, and when they are created how poor the finishing is.

In terms of creating chances, many of the teams look quite good in their buildup, but then look poor in and around the penalty area.

About the only team that has looked reasonably efficient in scoring so far is Japan, but looking at the stats they still had 26 shots in scoring five.. Spain had 46 shots in scoring three against Costa Rica. USA had 26 shots when scoring three against Vietnam. I haven't looked in detail at the stats, but from the matches and highlights I have seen the proportion of shots from inside the area that are not on target seems very high.

The number of games finishing 1-0 or 0-0 (7 out of 12 at the time I write this) maybe backs up my impression of poor chance creation and finishing.

Is this a thing with women's football, where even at the top level there is still a fundamental deficiency in creating chances and finishing, or is it just happening in this world cup?

Hahahahahahah Thats one of the things I like about the women's game. Like someone said before there is no artifice in their play or cynical fouls... some of them throw their bodies on the line in the most spectacular ways and the fouls.... holy Jesus... hahahahahahahahahah

Not sure about whether it's endemic across the leagues or just the world cup but yes the finishing so far has been poor.

I dare say it's because women's professional football is in it's infancy. I'd expect that as European clubs throw more money at women the talent pool will increase and plodders and squaddies will fall by the wayside and be replaced with hardened professionals that have been full time for 10 years or more. 

That and it's early stages of the tournament. I don't think a lot of teams have hit their straps yet. Watching the women's euros last year I though the standard was higher but then again I only watched from the quarters on.

Goalkeeping, which hasn't progressed at the same pace in standards as the outfield players, seem to be getting much better.

Yep, I certainly agree on the goalkeeping. It has improved a lot in the last 3 years or so, from a pretty low base. A lot of the keepers I seen in this world cup are much more athletic (diving, changing direction, etc) and have better reflexes than I seen before with female international keepers. One area that in general they are still lacking is dealing with crosses, although some of this may be related to how well their defenders position themselves to give some protection to the keeper. Again a factor of women's pro football being in its infancy.

On the other hand looking at professionalism in the female game, another impression I have is that there seems to be an increasing level of strength, and even foul play and cynicism, in tackles that I haven't seen before. How long before the play-acting creeps in?

Chondro would know better than me but I reckon Mackenzie Arnold got the nod over Williams because she's far stronger at coming off her line which she did a lot against Ireland the other night.

Agree with the play acting. It's inevitable. Thought a few French sheilas were carrying on a bit last night. Particularly the girl that got the Jamaican sent off. 

Have noticed a few tactical fouls for SPAs as well that have resulted in yellows.

Italy Argentina about to start.

Love tournament football. Club football is good but if you lose there's always next week. Much more cut throat in tournaments.

Italy and Argies being played at high tempo. Good crowd in auckland surprisingly