The one more PK than France proves enough
I was supposed to get some work done between these two matches. Oh well! Just enough time to grab a coffee, then see if England can see off Colombia.
Watching this and thinking of all the folks I used to work with in Colombia and how absolutely psyched they must be. ¡Vamos Colombia 
!
If I didn’t know better I’d think this match was being played in Bogotá!
That was some goal.
I first thought it was a fluke, but on review I got the impression that it was totally intentional.
I did my usual trick and missed it by popping to the loo for 60 seconds.
But just seen the equaliser, what a howler from the keeper.
Well that was a real test but a definite improvement in performance from England, if reports on the Nigeria match are accurate. They will have to step up further if they’re to get past an Australia side with home advantage though. Hemp was very good today and Bright continues to impress after a spell out prior to the tournament. I just feel the injuries to key players, such as Beth Mead, the player of the Euros last year, will cost England ultimately.
Women’s PK shootouts have, like, 3x as many misses and saves as men’s. Far more entertaining.
And by this point, I’m convinced the goalposts have ball-magnets in them.
Yeah that one counted almost as an own goal for Colombia, horrible ball control on that one. I am sorry to see them lose since they had such a difficult task to even get to the world cup and one of the players just recovering from ovarian cancer. Ah well.
//i\\
Colombia played well and it was a physical, exciting game. Their first goal was masterful, and it is unfortunate they made a couple defensive mistakes. England barely beat them.
Colombians rallied behind their team despite much official paternalism. They are going to be a force in the future. It will be interesting to see the Lionesses play the Matildas. Neither team seems to have the passing fluency of Spain, but you need to score to win. I hope the remaining games are as good.
We don’t generally call it Panenka here in Argentina, we say that the shooter “la picó” (hard to translate, “he ‘pinched’ it?”, “Chipped it”?)
Agreed. The goalie will long remember her mistake that gave England its first goal. Although Columbia didn’t really have any good opportunities in the second half. All of their shots seemingly came from outside the penalty area.
I would take the info provided in the linked article with a large grain of salt. Some of it seems off to me. For example:
[from the link] The opposing team is then given either a free kick where the violation took place, or if it took place inside of the team’s friendly goal box, then the opposing team is given a penalty.
(Bolding mine)
Whether the goal box is friendly or not doesn’t matter because it’s handling the ball inside the opponent’s penalty box* not the goal box that results in a penalty kick.
I’m not sure I totally get the gist of your comment but they say “it’s coming home” because organized soccer started in the UK (pretty sure it was England). That’s also why England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each compete as separate countries in FIFA competition. I suspect they’d all be under one UK umbrella like in the Olympics if the game had originated anywhere else.
*Technically the penalty area, not box.
Hopefully she won’t suffer the same fate as Andres Escobar after he made an own-goal against the USA in the 1994 World Cup.
I was unable to quickly Google the full version, official rule book I was looking for. I’m not excited about a summary of the rules, I wanted the actual ones. However, despite some variations from league to league, several sites suggested the issue did not seem to be merely intent but whether the hand was in a natural position. But without intent, when screened and the ball flies in at high speed, how could it be otherwise? The hand was not greatly outstretched or above the shoulder. No one walks around standing at attention. No real advantage occurred. The rules may demand a kick but I like the older rule better. Booting the ball at someone’s hand (regardless of level of deliberation) seems unsporting. Intent or advantage make more sense to me, not that my opinion counts for anything.
Colombia is not the place now that it was then. And this womens team, valiant against Brazil in the Copa America, is particularly beloved by many people for its tenacity and heart. England was said to be the best team, with the lowest betting odds, but barely won against the team with the highest betting odds against them.
Colombia (spelled thusly) may be paternal and macho, but it is also very patriotic and more egalitarian than many believe. There are plenty of prominent women politicians and personalities. This soccer team has a bright future, and their country is deeply proud of their efforts. What you suggest is almost unthinkable now.
Spain beats Sweden 2-1, with all three goals within about 7 minutes of game time late in the second half. Definitely could have gone either way. But I’ll be cheering against Spain in the finals whoever the face between England and Australia.
Aren’t these the complete laws of football?
Has advantage ever been a part of the handball rule? It wasn’t part of the previous iteration. And there was advantage in this situation anyway.
Intent was always a bad rule, IMO. You can’t really know intent, and the vast majority of called handballs were not actually intentional. That’s why they needed a bunch of interpretations so the refs could impose the idea of intention onto situations that lacked it, but where reasonable people would agree a handball should be called.