France

FT

1 : 2

vs

HT 0 : 1

USA

the officials have been rigging the US games against Spain and now France...hope England does the women's world cup justice

LOL...what penalty? The defender's arms were hanging naturally near her body, which means it's a normal silhouette, so it's not a penalty. France will win a Women's World cup maybe when its fans learn the game.

”naturally near her body” 🤣🤣🤣

Go to sleep

"Normal silhouette" in football is when your arm is right between the ball and your torso. If the ball was not going to hit any other part of your body if it weren't for your arm, it's a handball. France was done clear injustice. Take your brain out of the hat.

You guys don't know anything about this game. Normal silhouette means exactly what it suggests, the normal silhouette of a human being standing, meaning the arms are along the side of your body. Almost any player with skill can kick the ball against your arms if he's two to five feet away from you, and if it's a hard kick, nobody can move his arms out of the way, which is why you're not expect to in soccer. (Ooh, I said "soccer". Morons). It's not a penalty and has never been a penalty. It's only a penalty when your arms are extended away from your body significantly. If you two new-to-soccer geniuses can't understand that, then you have no hope of ever understanding this game. Good luck.

Its normal to stand with your hands on your waists. Its normal to scratch the forehead or a** when its itching etc. Its normal to have your arm stick out preventing the ball from continuing on its trajectory.

What matters here though is that it was a handball. I’ve never seen abnormal bodies or silhouettes.

braininahat, Cizbiz is right, this is why referees always advise defenders to keep their arms stuck to the body, and this is why players often defend with their hands to their back. This very week, the Netherlands were granted a penalty for the exact same situation. Maybe from where the ref was standing it looked like the arm was stuck to the body, but she should at least have watched the VAR footing with a different angle.

BALL TO HAND has never been a handball. It has to be intentional or your arms have to be in an unnatural position for the type of action you're performing. The US defender didn't have her arms outstretched in any significant way, and only a moron would say she reached out to touch that ball. That shot was too fast and too close for that. That's a classic case of no handball. In fact, the rule was written specifically to cover those cases. The fact that people still can't recognize a classic case of no handball is not surprising, of course, but you're embarrassing yourselves with your arguments.

Interesting edit, _Pelle_. The discussion on this handball is also interesting. I have watched it over and over -- so hard to call. I am American and will of course support my women's national team. But I am no homer. This handball is the exact type of play that, as a player, I would be upset if it were not called if I were the French player. If I were the defender, I would be upset if it were called. This part of the game is what frustrates a lot of non-soccer fans in the USA -- inconsistent and subjective fouls/penalties (though that is true of just about any sport, not just soccer). The call really could have gone either way. Should VAR have been used? Probably. Would that have changed anything? Maybe...maybe not. As you all have said yourself, VAR has been inconsistent (or a disaster)

I will also add that, yes, two games in a row USA has been the beneficiary of the official's calls (or no call against France). The first penalty against Spain was a clear foul. Second penalty was highly questionable. However, there was contact on both penalties, without question. The no call on the handball against France is also questionable. But by the letter of the law, the call is correct -- ball to hand, unintentional, arms were at her side in a natural position (IMO...unfortunate that the letter of the law is interpreted differently from game to game...not the USWNT fault.) So "should have had a penalty" is an overstatement. "Could have had a penalty" is correct.

You’re free to continue to argue with your original account.

Not sure what you mean, Pelle. And you have a strange definition of argue.

Wow, braininahat, you have clearly enlightened me with your expertise. So natural silhouette is when your silhouette is natural, duh. Never thought of that. And a ball hitting a hand is not a handball since "Almost any player with skill can kick the ball against your arms if he's two to five feet away from you, and if it's a hard kick, nobody can move his arms out of the way" seems like the most profound and definitive commentary I heard from any pundit on this quite controversial topic. I guess all football players should register to the Ministry of Silly Walks to have their swinging arms patented as natural silhouette. After all, your American team surely has some genius patents for swinging arms which, after a ball hit it, would otherwise, under any circumstance, be CLEARLY A PENALTY!

And "BALL TO HAND has never been a handball."? Oh, god, I'm still laughing at this. Brilliant rhetoric. Next time I play football I'm gonna jump over a forward player's shot with arms all out like an eagle screaming: "This, is, my, natural, silhoueeeeetttteee!" It won't count since there'll just be a few feet between us. Clever, right? Thanks for the tip.