lukelea

As I posted elsewhere, I thought Baylor played better yesterday than in many a year -- maybe going all the way back to their glory days a decade ago when they won four titles in a row. It was textbook soccer til up near the end, especially on the defense: relentleslys pressing, pressing, pressing. Tenny Butler completely shut down St. Agnes's start forward by not giving her an inch of space to turn in. But then the same could be said of all the rest of her teammates. It was quite a show, impressive, a sheer pleasure to watch.

Well, as we know now, Baylor won convincingly 2-0. I thought they played better than in many a year -- maybe going all the way back to their glory days a decade ago when they won four titles in a row. It was textbook soccer, especially on the defense: relentless pressing, pressing, pressing. Tenny Butler completely shut down St. Agnes's start forward by not giving her an inch of space. But then the same could be said of all the rest of her teammates. It was quite a show, impressive, and a sheer pleasure to watch.

What was the game like? Anybody see it?

Final: BGA 2, Baylor 1 Very poor officiating, unfortunately, including a flagrant penalty in the box that wasn't called, and another that was called but probably shouldn't have been. You hate to see it end this way.

To address the problem, I would like to suggest that the TSSAA consider the following rule change in the off-season: A foul against the goalie inside the box (or maybe inside the inner box) shall result in an automatic penalty kick against the offending team at the opposite end of the field. This rule change would protect the keeper because it would make offensive players extra careful in this dangerous situation, much as the roughing-the-kicker penalty does in football. It would also lend symmetry to the situation, in the sense that as the rules now stand the offending side has much more to gain than to lose by wreckless play inside the box. Just a thought.

Let me see if I have this right: It is not necessarily a red card offense to do a flying header as long as the attacking player is seriously going for the ball, irrespective of the position of the keeper and irrespective of whether the attacking player fails to make contact with the ball but accidently heads the keeper square in the chest or shoulder area instead. For purposes of discussion let us assume that the hit is neither late nor early, but rather is simultaneous with the keeper catching or attempting to catch the ball. If there are any qualified refs reading this forum, I would certainly like them to address this question. It could make a difference in how one instructs ones attacking players to play crosses and corners.

But did the girl indeed just "go up" for the ball, or was she charging in at full stride? Collar bones don't break that easily, and this goalie had no history of broken bones. If the ref did in fact have a clear unobstructed view of what happened -- how would you know? -- then I wish he would tell us exactly what he saw. Is he out there? My guess is that he had an obstructed view and thus was unable to judge the severity of the collision when it initially occured. But once its severity became apparent in the aftermath, should he not have at that point adjusted his penalty accordingly? Here is a simple thought experiment: try to imagine a collision between a rapidly moving offensive player and a relatively stationary goalie that is NOT a penalty. And if it is a head-on collision instead of glancing one, what difference does that make?

I think reckless endangerment is the phrase I am looking for, not dirty play. My question is how, under the circumstances, could a head dilivered directly to the goalie's collarbone NOT have been reckless? And once the seriousness of the injury became apparent -- the goalie would not allow anyone to touch her -- why wasn't the seriousness of the foul upgraded accordingly? Do refs have discretion in such situations up until the time that play resumes? Do they, by the customs of soccer, have an obligation? I hope my readers will understand that my concern is solely with the general principle of the situation and the physical safety of goalies. I am not questioning, let alone complaining about, the outcome of the game -- which, as coach Weekly informed the press, may turn out to be a good thing for Baylor. We have a well-balanced team both offensively and defensively and so far, at least, very few shots have been delivered to goal. (Of course that may change. ) Looking forward, then, let me rephrase my concern as a parent with admittedly limited soccer experience: Do the league refs get together from time to time to discuss the proper way to handle this kind of contingency when and if it arises again? Or is it understood and accepted among them to be a matter of individual judgment? Are there special rules that apply, or should apply, only to goalies, (as with punters in football for example) which take into account of the vulnerable situations to which goalies routinely expose themselves when their hands are outstretched and their attention is focused on the ball (not talking about diving saves for instance)? That's all I am asking. As a matter of information, what are the rules of the game in this particular situation? Are there any?

Yes, a foul was called, but no card issued. The blow delivered was, if not a flying header, one delivered at a great rate of speed, and from a player who has a reputation (among club players) for reckless play. I guess my question is, where do you draw the line in a situation like this, when the offensive player is moving at a high rate of speed directly towards the goalie, who was not moving in a lateral direction and actually caught the ball a couple of yards in front of the goal? Given that it was a foul, why wasn't it a serious foul? Goalies are nothing if not vulnerable in this situation.

My daughter is on the Baylor team and tells me the diagnosis is a clean break of the collar bone -- out for six weeks. What happened basically is that the goalie, Taylor Davidson, caught the ball but a late header went straight into her collarbone. What are the rules on this?

Dropping Father Ryan out of the rankings altogether, both for Division II and for the state as a whole, is just unconcionable.. They were certainly one of the two or three best teams in their division, with an unblemished record except for three quick losses at the very end to JPII and Baylor. Til then they were 15th in the nation! Then to elevate GPS to 4th place, a team with 8 losses and 4 ties, just beggars the imagination. There's a lot of luck in soccer, thankfully so, which means even the best teams can and do loose. So who in the heck are these guys who makeup the rankings? Do they have personal grudges to settle or what? Call in the cops!

Baylor also has a hyper-kinetic young freshman goal keeper who is headed for greatness -- to say nothing of Page Lanter, whose skills, consistency, and work ethic -- on both offense AND defense -- make her the outstanding player on Baylor's squad. If both teams play at the top of their game, this should be a treat for the spectators.