I saw two players on the outside edge of the box (certainly no goal scoring threat)go up for a 50/50 header and both players lost balance. You could not tell who fouled who, and there should have been no call, especially at that stage of the game and even more especially in light of the contact that the ref had let go earlier. If a call was warranted, then to be consistent UGA should have been a beneficiary or one or two PKs themselves.
I agree that the shots off the bar were great shots, but they were from distance so its not like UNC missed sure things from in front of the goal. UGA may have been lucky the shots did not go in, but UNC would have been just as fortunate if they did go in.
While UGA did not have shots on goal, a couple of their shots went just wide and had the keeper scrambling--also UGA's best chance, a point blank header off a set piece that went over the cross bar for some reason wasn't even counted as a shot. So I guess if you say UNC could have won by a bigger margin, you could also say that if the ball bounced right for UGA (i.e. if the first goal did not go in for UNC and there were no PK, and UGA shots were recalibrated by a foot or 2), UGA could have won 2-1.
Did not say that refs cost UGA the game. Read above. UNC deserved to win. The better team won. UGA did not deserve to win. My point (and I do not know how this somehow got converted into Baker's point) is that (i) UGA is in good company of good teams who have lost to UNC by the same or worse margins and (ii) the 4-0 score may be somewhat misleading because UGA was in the game until the PK was awarded with about 11 minutes to go in the match. So the game should not serve as a basis for strong criticism of UGA.