Doug Diem Long Beach, N.Y. I don’t mean to put a damper on the celebration, but how come with all the press the WWC final has received, there is no mention that [U.S. keeper Briana] Scurry clearly left the goal line well before the kick she saved was taken? She must have been 3 yards off her line for each of the first 3 China PKs! Dean Caparaz: Actually, Doug, many media outlets — including Soccer America — have mentioned that Briana Scurry moved forward off her line (which is an infraction) during the penalty kicks in the Women’s World Cup final. Again, technically what Scurry did was against the rules, but it is up to the referee — in this case, Swiss ref Nicole Mouidi-Petignat — to enforce the rules. She did not catch Bri moving forward, so the U.S. keeper was able to get away with it. (Remember that FIFA changed the rule, allowing goalies to move on the line but not off the line.) Interestingly, Mouidi-Petignat officiated the U.S.-Nigeria first-round game and was criticized by U.S. coach Tony DiCicco for not taking control of the match. The Super Falcons fouled Mia Hamm & Co. incessantly without picking up any red cards, and DiCicco took Hamm out in the second half to save her from injury. FIFA should have had a better ref work the final. Unfortunately, Canada’s Sonia Denoncourt, who did the Women’s World Cup opener between the U.S. and Denmark, was ruled out of the final because she comes from the same confederation — CONCACAF — as the United States. Scurry acknowledged what she did in interviews after the final. When asked if what she did was against the rules, she said: “A little bit, if they call it. Just like tripping people in the penalty box — it’s not against the rules unless they call it…. We coach the PKs in a way, ‘Come on and see what they give you.’ And if they don’t call it back, then use it. But if they do, you have to adjust. But let them make the call first.” Edmund Kiss Rockaway, N.J. The WWC has been a great success becouse Americans love big competitions and a winner, as is the U.S. team. It would be wrong to base this success on developing a women’s league independent of MLS and its venues. The only way for a women’s league to work is to schedule doubleheaders with MLS games. What do you think? Paul Kennedy: Edmund, you’re right that the success of USA ’99 may not translate into a viable pro women’s league. Only time will tell. As far as a “WMLS” goes, there are several problems: 1. Doubleheaders drag out. Adding a cushion for overtime/shootout/whatever and taking into account any maintenance that needs to take place (will there be different signboards?), we’re talking an afternoon or evening that drags on for five hours. One of the great selling points of soccer as an entertainment option is that it doesn’t last forever, unlike the traditional American sports. Probably the classic example of this was the USA-China game after the MetroStars game this April. By the end of the day, there was hardly anyone around for the women’s game. The afternoon was just too long. For busy soccer families, this remains a huge issue. There’s also the economic issue: Yes, you’ve paid the rent for the day, so there are no additional costs there, but event staff costs add up as the clock ticks. 2. You’re basically talking about the WNBA model here. Unfortunately, MLS is not the NBA. It doesn’t have the money, the staffing or the leverage to add great value to a women’s effort. All you need to see are Doug Logan’s quotes re: a women’s MLS league. He simply wishes them luck. 3. Finally, there is the issue of identity. For teams to thrive, they must have their own identity — it’s hard for an organization to promote and sell separate products that inevitably come into conflict. Suppose one team is doing well and the other is lousy. Do you spend all your resources on maximizing the return on the successful team and blow off the poor one? Or the reverse? These are some of the problems the NASL faced when it tried to sell indoors and outdoors. It never worked. Laura Kirby Pasadena, Calif. I really enjoyed watching the Women’s World Cup on television, but I have one question. Throughout the broadcasts, announcers kept referring to the term “caps” and there were even graphics about “caps.” Can you explain to me what they are? Pete Bailey: Sure, Laura. Caps refers to the number of international appearances that a player has made for their country. For example, Brandi Chastain earned her 100th cap in the USA’s semifinal win over Brazil — that means she’d played 100 times for the U.S. women’s national team. The term dates back to the turn of the century, when players in Britain received a specially-made cap to commemorate each game they played in for the national team. While this custon no longer exists, the term “caps” has remained a part of the soccer lexicon. Caps cover games played for one national team against another national team — not, for instance, a club team. Michael Dros Saint Petersburg, Fla. I recently read on a Canadian soccer website that Chicago Fire backup goalkeeper, Greg Sutton, did not attend a recent Canadian soccer training camp in Germany due to a chance of jepordazing his “citizenship” eligibility with MLS, despite the fact that he is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. Also, some time ago, Tampa Bay’s Musa Shannon, (also a U.S. citizen), expressed his dream of playing with Liberia and George Weah. If Sutton and Shannon were to commit for Canada and Liberia, respectively, would this cause them to count as “foreigners” in MLS and risk losing their American slot on their rosters? In the case of Project-40 players Maurizio Rocha and Dema Kovalenko, they do not count as roster players nor as “foreigners”. Does being a P-40 player mean that the player must commit to obtaining American citizenship (and be eligible for the U.S. national team)? If Rocha and Kovalenko were to play for Bolivia and Ukraine, respecitively, would they risk their P-40 roster exemption? I can understand that MLS is a developing league for Americans, but I heard of cases of a few Brazilians players obtaining citizenship in a certain European country (Italy) where they play so that they would count as “nationals” and enable their clubs to acquire “non-national” foreigners. Sutton and Shannon are full-fledged Americans, so I cannot see them as foreigners if they (or any other American player) chose to play for some country other Team USA. Paul Kennedy: MLS’s rules on foreigners, or international players as they are called, are as follows: Each club can have this season four international players on their roster: International players are foreign nationals or green-card holders who are not eligible to play for the United States (i.e. have played for another country in a world championship competition). All U.S. citizens or green-card holders who are eligible to play for the United States don’t count as international players. The bottom line is, you can’t prevent American citizens from working in the United States, regardless of whether or not they’ve played for another country: i.e. Ezra Hendrickson of Los Angeles, who plays for St. Vincent & Grenadines. The same should apply for green-card holders, though MLS tightened the rule after Year 1 (when green-card holders ineligible to play for the U.S. counted as non-internationals: T&T’s Evans Wise was one). Sutton’s MLS status should not be affected by his playing for Canada in World Cup qualifying. He is a dual citizen. Same for Shannon. Kovalenko and Rocha pose trickier situations. Neither holds a green card as far as I know, so they would have had to count as international players unless MLS created some special category — i.e. foreign P-40 — for them. Their acceptance into P-40 was with the understanding that neither would play for their native countries. I don’t see either doing that in the near future. Dave Smith North Andover, Mass. This is just a follow-up on your comment about Tommy Smyth spending too much air time disagreeing with specific calls made by referees [May 14, 1999 Q&A session]. Obvious mistakes should, of course, be noted. However, few calls are obvious. What is important, and this is where Smyth fails his audience, is that the players and viewers should know how the referee is calling a specific game. Players get a sense for it early and the smarter players adjust their game. If Smyth were to be useful, he would help the audience understand what the referee is calling or not calling, without labelling calls right or wrong. They’re usually neither, and it shows Smyth’s limited understanding of how the game is played (and called) when he drones on about his view of a judgment call. Ridge Mahoney: Dave, I think anything more than a passing reference or two about how a referee is calling a game would be over-analysis and clutter up a telecast too much. It’s not as simple as assessing what a home-plate umpire has set out as his strike zone in a baseball game, for example. Unless a referee is being wildly inconsistent, or utterly incompetent, the fewer references the better. A competent analyst can disagree with a call, but he must be prepared to back up his opinion with solid officiating points, not conjecture or outright bias. Part of the problem for many announcers, particularly those working regional telecasts for MLS teams, is they do drone on and on about calls that go against their team, and ignore the action. For me, I’d rather the analyst analyze the players and tactics, not the referee. And many of the tricky calls are off-side judgments by the referees’ assistants, to which a matter of degree is irrelevant.