Dirty Women’s Soccer Player Drills Opponent in the Face With the Ball Not Once, But Twice (VIDEO)

It’s not often that the Manolith team brings you video from the world of women’s sports, but we’re about to do it for the second time in under a month.

Last time, we found what has to be the greatest play in women’s field hockey history, proving that even a sport that goes completely unnoticed for 365 days a year can occasionally produce jaw-dropping plays.

This time, we’ve found a play that involves significantly less athleticism. Remember Elizabeth Lambert, the dirty New Mexico soccer player who punched, kicked and pulled the hair of her opponents and rose to national infamy?

It looks like Lambert has some competition for the title of Dirtiest Women’s Soccer Player.

Check out this video from some kind of women’s soccer game somewhere in the U.S. (it looks like collegiate soccer, but it’s not clear in the description). In the video, the player in white (number 27) throws the ball directly into her opponent’s face not once, but twice. She tries to pass it off as an accident, but no one is buying it.

That’s diiiiirty.

The ref appears to give the player in white some kind of card, but it doesn’t look like a red card because she doesn’t leave the field. You get the feeling a suspension is in her future, though.

Leave a Reply



52 Responses to Dirty Women’s Soccer Player Drills Opponent in the Face With the Ball Not Once, But Twice (VIDEO)

  1. April 18 2012Many surveys by pollsters such as and Washington Post-ABC News show strong public support for the presidents proposal killed in the Senate this week to impose a tax surcharge on people with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million known as the Buffett Rule But we were struck by the presidents assertion that even a majority of millionaires support such a tax The claim that two-thirds of millionaires back the plan is also promoted on the under the headline: “Millionaires stand in support of the Buffett Rule”How does the president know thisThe FactsThe White House directed us to that appeared in the Wall Street Journal which was headlined “Millionaires Support Warren Buffetts Tax on Rich” The article cited a study by which claimed that “68 percent of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more)support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income”First of all note that the article referred to people with investments (ie net worth) of $1 million or more which is different from people with $1 million in income People with net worth of $1 million includes many people who make less than $1 million a year so at least some if not many of the people who supported higher taxes actually would not be affected by the Buffett Rule So Obama and the Wall Street Journal are mixing up two different types of millionaires The other problem is that the article gave no detail on how the survey was conducted the sample size and so forth We found a on the Spectrem Web site and we spoke to George Walper Spectrems presidentWalper said the questions were asked once last fall as part of a regular sample of high net worth individuals via an online survey He said about 500 people in the survey have a net worth of $100000 to $1 million 333 have a net worth of $1-$5 million and 165 have a net worth of $5-$25 million The statistics cited by the Journal were just from the last two categories and he said the margin of error was plus or minus 4 percent The Washington Post has strict standards about the types of polls that we quote We are especially wary of online polls and a standard practice before quoting a poll in a news story is to make sure it is vetted by The Posts polling unit So we asked the Post pollsters to assess the Spectrem surveyHere is what Polling Analyst Scott Clement reported: George Walper had me talk to Tom Wynn director of affluent research for Spectrem Group He says the survey results are from an opt-in online panel That’s a big weakness as far as polling is concerned We don’t report these surveys per our methodology standards at the Post and the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s cautions researchers to avoid such panels when trying to estimate population values ie what percentage of millionaires support the Buffet rule Wynn also refused to supply the topline results of the survey a standard item of survey disclosure for publicly released polls”Top line results” refers to basic detail about question wording and the responsesDo such details really make a difference Well from a month earlier has been as evidence that millionaires do not support the Buffett Rule That survey found that only 24 percent of millionaires said that higher taxes on higher income was the fairest tax system A White House official countered that The Washington Post from time to time has cited Spectrems research including even The Fact Checker in 1999 for an article on 401k investments Not everyone at The Post gets the message to be careful with polls but the eight articles cited by the White House did not mention the poll in question “We’re not suggesting a blanket dismissal of the group’s work only that this poll doesnt merit publication” said Post polling director Jon Cohen “Some of the [articles noted by the White House] is market info who knows where from Some is survey data but none of it vetted by us”Walper said he was “very confident” that his poll was representative of all millionaires”In his speech the President cited a survey that has been cited by among others the Wall Street Journal and ” said White House spokesman Jay Carney “The survey itself was done by an organization whose work the Washington Post has deemed credible in many of its own articles By the tortured reasoning set forth in this fact-check much of the content that appears in the Post on any given day would merit multiple Pinocchios”The Pinocchio TestThe explosion of polls has made it essential to be careful about understanding how they are conducted and what they really mean The president has cited “a survey” as reporting this claim about millionaires and we suppose he could have been even more specific by citing a “survey reported by the Wall Street Journal” But this week and on his campaign Web site all caveats were dropped and the assertion was stated as fact Reputable surveys already show the Buffett Rule is broadly popular so there is little reason to hype the claims even more by citing a survey with questionable provenance You cant just accept any poll no matter how much it fits with your convictions The president in particular should have higher standards than that Two PinocchiosUPDATE: This column was focused on the presidents failure to insist on compliance with accepted public opinion research standards but Spectrem Group wanted to reiterate it has no control over how people use its data The firm sent the following additional comment on this column: “We are a market research firm not a political polling firm Spectrems market research methodologies–which include opt-in online surveys targeting a small sub-segment of the US population at large– necessarily differ from the random sampling that the Post requires for polls that it cites”()Check out our candidate Follow The Fact Checker on and friend us on Track each presidential candidate’s before joining The Baltimore Sun in 1996 and the Post in 1998.C. covering the mayor and city council before joining the Foreign Staff in 2004 After a stint as Johannesburg Bureau Chief he became education editor in 2009 and deputy national security editor in 2011 His book on the AIDS epidemic Tinderboxcame out in March 2012 He lives on Capitol Hill with his wife and three children”– “Secretary of State John Kerrys public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence with estimates by U. Whole Foods co-CEO Walter Robb had for how the company known for its organic and expensive fare would follow through with the promise to make the store more affordable, or just togetherBut after that initial bond is formed what about keeping the spark alive years into the relationship or even making sure your significant other wants to marry you some day Here are three new businesses that aim to change the way we look at committed relationships with the Internet standing in for CupidMarryMeAlreadycomTolentino met her husband Josh Black through friends and during their courtship they realized they were on all the same dating sites but had never crossed paths Both had been looking for a serious relationship that might end in marriage but there was no way to screen for that type of person on the sites”Normally in an online dating experience you spend a lot of time sifting through candidates based on how they look how well they match up to you and at the very end you dont know how serious they are about a relationship” Black said “But if youre really in the mood for a certain type of food dont go to a buffet”In December the duo launched a dating site thats only for people who want to get married Theyre so serious about their matrimonial mission that Tolentino has personally screened each of the 1800 profiles (and counting) to weed out pranksters and playboys The site is free for the next year after which it will cost a $10 to $15 monthly fee”A small price to pay for love” Black saidThe gender mix on the site is roughly even but it does skew a few percentage points female Tolentino saidKahnoodle is a site that functions like a pedometer for relationships”We focus on building intimacy with couples” said founder Zuhairah Scott Washington “We allow customers to understand whats most important in the relationship and reward them to do that as often as possible for the significant other”When a couple signs up both people rate whats most important to them in the relationship ranging from spontaneity to gifts to sex For Scott Washington whose husband travels on long business trips it was quality time When he took her on a long walk near the waterfront she used the site to give him digital “kudos” which unlock “badges” over time Although the rewards are all virtual and emotional for now Scott Washington aims to roll out gift certificates or discounts over timeThe site is in private beta and the app will be available with a few months Scott Washington said but those who sign up now will get priority access”People think of technology as a barrier to great relationships” she said “But my vision is allowing technology to be a bridge”BeCouplyFor those who are tired of the same-old dinner and a movie offers the option of monthly all-inclusive surprise datesCouples pay a $199 monthly subscription fee in order to be picked up in a private car and whisked away on an “adventure”-type date Recently the company took couples on a food tour of San Franciscos Mission district complete with behind-the-scenes looks into six restaurants”This is for folks who have been in a relationship for a while and want to add more spice to their relationship” said co-founder Becky Cruze “Busy professionals often dont have a lot of time to come up with ideas and make reservations and this makes date night much more exciting”The service is currently only in San Francisco but it has plans to expand nationally this year The company also plans to release a smart phone app that will allow couples to find other couple-friends and date ideas nearbyThe romantic touch Co-founder Pius Uzamere made the original version of the BeCouply app for Cruze his girlfriend as a surprise gift for just the two of them to use Zamboni was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, The Zamboni family did not build its Iceland Skating Rink to accommodate hockey, called up to us to hang on.”)”Tank” ran in The Posts Style section till this fall.