Yep. Trifling, but it was bugging me because I was in London at the time visiting family, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't there in Dec 2001. The award was given in 2001, which may be the source of the confusion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ue/everton/2994775/Di-Canio-catches-mood.html Aside: British commentary on football matches should be compulsory study for US sports journalism students. Articles like this, all the way to fanzine websites put up by tradesmen who left school at 16 are written at a higher standard than the drivel found stateside.
As a player, I would prefer that the CR not make a call here. I would (I think) make that statement if I was on either side. My main reasons: A) I worry that stopping play would encourage others to simulate an injury when they lose a ball from a mis-kick, etc. (I realize that the GK showed the injury in the approach to the kick, but that is not too far removed from going down as or just after, etc.) In other words, my experience with players (teammates and foes) suggests that the expectation that a CR will make a call would result in problems. B) If the CR stops play, the team (at least some of them) that would have scored likely brings that call up every time a 50/50 call goes against them. C) The injury was not life-threatening (e.g., head, blood, loss of consciousness, etc.). Even if the injury was very serious, there really was little time lost between him going down and the play stopping once the goal was scored. If I had been the attacking player, I probably have played the ball out instead of shooting, but I've played with (and against) guys who would have no qualms about scoring in that situation. One other point: The attacking player was in an awkward situation, not knowing how his coach and the home fans would react if he passed up the goal--especially if he is worried about his position on the squad. After he scored, did you see how he keeps shooting glances at the sideline. Perhaps these glances were at his coach, who I assume is the fellow celebrating the goal at the very end of the clip. In short, can you imagine what that coach would have said/done to a player who chose not to score?
To me, this is a clear goal. There is no "serious" injury. The worst that could have happened to the keeper was a torn ACL/MCL. While that is a serious injury from a players perspective (because it affects their career), it is not a serious injury from the perspective of whether to stop the game. "Serious" in terms of stopping the game should be for two reasons only - life threatening - (head injuries, serious cuts, etc.) or injuries that have the possibility of getting much worse (compound fracture). A torn ACL is not life threatening and not going to get worse and tern into something more serious. As far as fair play, that's nuts. It's not like this guy pulled the ball out from under the mangled keepers body. The ball kept rolling and this guy played it. This is no different than if the keeper simply misplayed it. This happened split seconds. Good goal.
I think we need to separate "life threatening" from "serious injury". Life threatening injuries surely fit into the category of serious, but the idea that an injury must be life threatening in order to be considered serious is ridiculous. As referees, if an injury APPEARS to be serious, we should stop play. The appearance of serious surely differentiates from referee to referee, but we also have to remember that we are there for the players. If the players think that the injury is serious, then maybe so should we. To say that an torn ACL is not a serious injury is not fair to the player who just tore his ACL. That being said, there are different levels of serious. A player can have a serious injury that is not serious enough to warrant a stop in play. I think that is more the conversation that we have to have here. Was the injury serious enough to stop play. Going back and forth about what one person think is a serious injury and another does not will not get any of us to a good answer. If it appears that a player simulated the serious of the injury, then caution them for it. As far as this incident is concerned, I don't think that this injury was serious enough to stop play. Freak things happen, and this was one of them. The GK still had the wherewithall to attempt to foul the attacker after his "serious" injury occurred, so I'm not sure that I buy the idea that play should have been stopped for this. Had this happened at midfield, almost all of us would have waited for the ball to be played out before stopping the match for this injury. This goal should be awarded. "Fair Play" needs to be worked out among the players after the kick-off. Sometimes things happen that are going to make our lives as referees nearly impossible. For this referee, this was one of them. He is going to have to manage the aftermath as best as he can.
Sure, there are a few things that might be "serious" that aren't yet "life-threatening." In order to be serious enough to stop play, an injury must have the potential to worsen. Thus, warranting the stoppage. First, we aren't there for the players, we are there for the game. But that aside. There are players who think a kick in the shin is serious, surely we need not follow what a player thinks. There are players on both sides. On a play like this, one side (the side scored on) will be screaming serious while the other side will be saying it's not - who do you follow? I said it is serious TO THE PLAYER. But an ACL is not serious enough to stop the match. Especially an immediate stoppage before a clear goal like the situation at hand. A player with a torn ACL can lay there for an hour and his injury is not going to worsen. Play should only be stopped if the injury could worsen immediately. Otherwise wait for a natural stoppage or at least to the point that you are not taking advantage from either team (no scoring threat) This is my point - but whether the player thinks it's serious is not really a factor. But we need a standard. That standard should be whether the injury has the possibility of immediate worsening.
Not that they are exactly comparable, but that is the standard used in Hockey. It is relatively easy standard to apply and rarely results in controversy. If someone blocks a shot with their leg and goes down, play continues. If it is with their head, play is stopped (with any player witnessing this occurrence from either team normally signalling to stop play).
Jim Allen has the following to say from http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=1266: However: So, I think the summary from that (which I think that I agree with) is that the standard for stopping play for injuries to goalkeepers is somewhat looser than the one for non-goalkeepers, but it's not an automatic whistle by any means.
Errrrgh! This is why I dislike the Jim Allen comments so much. He is usually very good at explaining the rule, but then he always feels the need to add his own commentary that is not based on the rules at all. Jim made this up from his gut feeling and it's absolute BS. There is no provision anywhere in the LoTG that state we should treat players differently in regards to the seriousness of injury based on position. How is a injury to a keeper more serious than an injury to a left back? It may be more critical to a team, but the rules do not say stop the game if critical players are injured. We are only to stop games if injuries are serious regardless of the position. Jim, keep your aside comment to yourself please.
I can't speak for Jim, and his advice doesn't even apply in Canada. However, at least from the perspective of younger/more inexperienced players, thinking back all the way back to the old C3 course (which I believe is a grade 7 equivalent), I remember the instructor mentioning that injuries to the keeper are often more "serious" just because if the keeper is lying on the ground immobile and the ball is loose and there's half a dozen players in the goal area, the keeper is far more likely to get trampled. Long story short, I agree with you that a lot of things Jim says often have the feel of being made up or "gut feeling" and I'm often glad when being outside the realm of USSF I can completely disregard him. But, I think what he says is not without some merit and I do think that keeper injuries at least have to be looked at slightly more carefully. As I said in my previous post, under no circumstances do I think it's an automatic stoppage just because the keeper is down.
I agree with Elizondo. If that puts me in direct opposition to MAref, so much the better. (Half-serious, half in jest.) Acts of character and kindness in this world are far more important than winning or losing. In the end we are remembered for how we treated other people. Anyone who thinks that this is a good goal is totally missing the point of international football and sports in general. Please recall why it was created and what it is to teach us. While I agree that the point made that this is wonderful opportunity for the players to display unusual class, I happen to believe in the example set by Ricardo Valenzuela. If the players don't do the right thing, then the referee has a responsibility to step in and take action. The fall-out from this incident and some decisions regarding his 2006 WC opportunities soured Valenzuela on the USSF and MLS so much that he retired from refereeing by the end of the year. Sad because our Federation lost a good man. Recap #1 "The game almost ended in controversy in extra time. After an injury stoppage, Chivas USA threw the ball in directly to Cannon. But Chivas USA substitute Isaac Romo darted in front of Cannon, who was bending down to pick up the ball, rounded the Rapids 'keeper and fired the ball into the unguarded goal for the apparent tying goal. Before the ball went into the net however, Valenzuela blew his whistle and awarded a free kick for the Rapids where the ball was stolen. While there could be debate about whether the call was strictly within the laws of the game, it did support the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship, and ended up preserving a second win on the season for the Rapids." Recap #2 "Chivas then apparently equalized in the dying moments in a bizarre sequence. The Rapids had kicked the ball out to allow a Chivas injury to be attended to, and then after Chivas threw the ball back to Cannon, Chivas forward Isaac Romo slipped in to intercept and fired the ball into the empty net. But referee Ricardo Valenzuela disallowed the goal for ungentlemanly conduct."
I completely disagree with this. Law 5: Powers and Duties. It is neither within our power nor within our duties as referees to enforce "acts of character and kindness". We're not there to make sure everyone is a nice guy or that everyone has fun or to enforce gentlemanly conduct. Officials need to stay out of this area. If a player is injured and the other team isn't "nice" or "fair" or "respectful" or "gentlemanly" - it isn't our job to enforce the "spirit of fair play and sportsmanship." Legitimate legal goal - cowardly, disrespectful of the sport and the opponent - but definitely legal - the goal should have stood. Now, INTOOR the next tackle on Romo probably won't be violent conduct but the goal should stand.
I am not sure where I come down on this, but quoting points of Law is irrelevant when the argument is that the ref must rise above the Laws. You are saying that the Laws tell us one thing; the other argument is that higher laws--notions of fairness, sportsmanship, and morality tell us another. In the actual play, Ther ref was, presumably, standing near the center circle waiting for the long kick up field. From that position, it may have been impossible for him to 1) detect what was taking place, 2) blow the whistle and 3) move close enough to sell the call. Hence, what the referee should have done may be moot. The onus of moral behavior fell to the players. Even after the goal was scored, if a consensus emerged that no goal was deserved, then the players had the opportunity to compensate the injured keeper's team.
I think that this is the most honest and "good for the game" answer so far. There are other good ones. What this is all about is a referee that can see something, make a quick determination and react quickly. The attacker did not run to the ball very quickly nor did he shoot very quickly, looking around for what he should do before knocking the ball in goal. That alone showed that the player knew that the keeper was in fact injured and the referee should have stopped play anticipating what the outcome would be if play was allowed to continue. I do not believe any player on that field would have argued the stoppage. We all need to be reminded about the memorandum from FIFA last year about stopping play for injuries and that it is not left up to players to stop play if a player is injured it is the referees responsibility to do so. I think the attacker expected and when it didn't happen he scored. Be smart and anticipate, this was not a faked injury (too much risk) and the referee needed to read the game better and stop play immediately. Enough of this "in the laws it doesn't say a player needs to" stuff. This is about refereeing and refereeing is not only about the book and the Laws within. JA takes that into consideration when he writes his answers because this is how referees are to think. Get out of the book and onto the field!
The language of Law12 states that a DFK should be awarded for a player who kicks or attempts to kick another player. In this scenario the keeper trips over himself and loses the ball. The striker has every right to go for it as there was no foul on the play and the injury was not serious (head/blood/break). The keeper does take a kick swipe at the player but since he's clear on goal, advantage should be played and no card should be awarded. Let the keeper know that you werent amused by his gamesmanship. In the same incident, the keeper takes a swipe at the striker who has to jump over him to avoid his leg. In that time, the striker stumbles or a defender catches up and is able to challenge for the ball fairly. Well, thats DOGSO-F in my book.
For me, it looks as if the keeper is making a play on the ball, not a swipe at the man. As a ref, showing red would be a tough call to make, like you said. Unfortunately, I don't see how you could award a PK and not give the red (according to the laws of the game).
A) Goal. No question in my mind. Watching it first time at full speed (just like the actual referee) it looks like the keeper just flubbed it and stepped on the ball. He was uninjured enough to try and make a followup 'save'. B) DOGSO-F if his attempt to recover had ended with a foul. According to the initially referenced web page, the keeper was substituted out due to injury. Same web page, the goal scorer said after the match "I saw that he tried to kick the ball, so I pushed and he lost it. I play only until the whistle goes. The referee didn't blow, so I just followed the rules and scored"
Context is everything in soccer refereeing. I would have quite agreed that the keeper stumbling over the ball was unfortunate but not unfair, until it was mentioned he had been shaken up in a previous play. You can take advantage of mistakes, you aren't supposed to take advantage of injury. The USSF at least is quite clear that you should not intervene in a case like this. I also think it's probably better to let the players sort it out. Shame the attackers did not concede a make up goal. If the keeper had tripped the attacker, I'd have a hard time seeing it as misconduct as opposed to carelessness in a desparate situation...
I don't know what I'd call on the keeper, but isn't "carelessness in a desparate situation" pretty much always misconduct?
I think I've reached my conclusion on how I'd handle this, but I am glad I've started this this thread because this is one of those rare situations where there are good arguments on both sides. I do, however, want to respond to a few points. I take a little bit of an issue with this being a supporting example because, back when it happened, I totally agreed that Valenzuela did the right thing. I think what happened in Norway and what happened with Valenzuela are apples and oranges. You know my thoughts on this play. My initial post on the Valenzuela play is here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4971501#post4971501 And the referee forum thread is here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198453 I see the difference as being very clear. In the MLS match, the Chivas player was throwing the ball back to Colorado. At least one player on the team, and seemingly a majority of players agreed with him, decided to be sporting and return the ball. Regardless, everyone in the stadium knew that Chivas was returning the ball to Colorado--that was the plan, and one which has history in the game. One rogue player--Romo--jumped in to take advantage. In this play, nobody on the field but Romo wanted that goal scored. Valenzuela recognized the incident, dealt with it more swiftly than 99.99% of referees possibly could, and--in my eyes--saved the day. He rightly deserved praise for what he did. In this Norwegian situation, you have a dubious injury during dynamic play. There's no way of knowing what the players think about the injury or if it's real--nevermind "serious." If the referee jumps in to stop play, it's not analogous at all to what Valenzuela did. The referee is then imposing his own sense of fair play in a controversial situation, rather than imposing the standards of fair play that the players had clearly agreed to (the Valenzuela situation). In short, in the Valenzuela situation, the players already were displaying class and one guy out of 22 tried to ruin it, so Valenzuela stepped in to make sure that player didn't ruin it. There's no comparing that to what happened in Norway. This is why I disagree with those that are saying that allowing the goal is the "book referee" standard and disallowing it is the "non-book" perspective. I think it is 100% the exact opposite of that. The book referees would cite Law V and realize they have the power to interfere and make an affirmative decision here. Non-book referees would realize that this is a situation where no infringement has occurred and that a decision needs to be made by the players on the field. If they opt to play it out? Fine. If they score, realize the keeper was hurt, and intentionally concede? Also perfectly acceptable. But if one team views this as just a mistake by the goalkeeper and believes they are entitled to a goal, well, I don't think referees should be in the position of imposing their own standards; we have to be prepared to accept that such an outcome is okay, too. I see this as a situation where you let the players from both sides hash out what the "right" thing is. Maybe you know more than what was publicly stated, but I thought Valenzuela left the panel to pursue an advanced degree? And as for WC2006, Valenzuela really thought he had a chance? Or that he was supposed to have a chance?! The debate back then was whether we nominated Hall, who had already gone to a World Cup, or Stott, who had been to multiple FIFA youth tournaments. Valenzuela wasn't even on the radar for 2006, so it would surprise me if he took umbrage at that. If he felt he should have been ranked ahead of Stott and Hall earlier in his career, that's one thing. But by 2001 or so, the pecking order was clearly established. It would be akin to a current national referee like Jason Anno complaining in 2014 about Marrufo and Vaughn being ranked ahead of him.
MAref, Nice work, you have just made an excellent argument as to why the MLS play and this play from the Norwegian League are not similar and could be handled in opposite manners by a referee. I'm going to do some thinking about what you wrote and see what conclusion I reach. However, I can state now that your thoughts were very astute and well-articulated. As for the personal reasons of RV, it is true that he pursued an advanced degree shortly after leaving refereeing. What must be considered is WHY he chose that path at that time. I won't say any more as it does not seem proper on a public forum. In fact, I've probably said to much already.