Chivas @ Rapids - Should that goal have counted? [R]

[Knave]

There was some controversy in the final moments of the Rapids -Chivas match.
After goalie Joe Cannon had thrown the ball out of bounds to allow Rapids defender Nat Borchers to be treated for an injury, Mendoza had appeared to throw the ball back in for Cannon in the traditional gesture of sportsmanship.

However, Cannon seemed to wait -- hesitating maybe as the ball approached the edge of the area -- and Chivas forward Isaac Romo streaked in, kicked the ball away from Cannon, and shot the ball into the net, appearing to have scored the tying goal for Chivas USA. Valenzuela, however, called the ball back and awarded a free kick to Colorado.

Although the courtesy restart is not an official part of the FIFA Laws of the Game, it is a commonly accepted custom in the soccer world and adherence to it is regarded as true sportsmanship. In an extreme example of this in England's Carling Cup in 2004, Yeovil Town FC allowed Plymouth FC to score unopposed after Yeovil inadvertently scored off of a courtesy injury restart.

Although Valenzuela might not have had full justification from the laws to call the goal back, his actions were certainly justified by the unwritten rules of sportsmanship and fair play.

Here's the game video. (mms://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/11504/v0001/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2005/matches/archive05/051405_cdccor_tv_archive_350.wmv) Skip ahead to the 93rd minute.

(An aside: Cannon seemed to be waiting for the ball the enter the penalty area so he can pick it up when Romo steals it and take the shot. To that extent both the PBP guy and the (to a lesser extent) the MLSNet write-up got it wrong. He doesn't appear to be wasting time to me. He appears to be waiting for the ball to enter the box.)

Questions:

Did Valenzuela make the right call?

Should the goal have counted? After all, this is an unwritten rule. By the letter of the law, wasn't this a goal?

Could the referee have given Romo a card for unsporting behavior and nullified the goal that way?

As it was Valenzuela just disallowed it. But (even though I think it was the right thing to do) strictly speaking, I don't know whether he was really going by the book on that call.

So I'm asking about it here.

[Garkbit]

Well, in that situation you're quite able to stay within the LOAF: you either allow the goal, or ping the miscreant *and* caution him. Nothing in-between, and I'd expect his arse to be kicked if he didn't, because then he's just awarded a free-kick for no reason.

[FC5280]

you might not want to be isaac romo the next time Rapids play Chivas. That was about as terrible as you can get. IF you say otherwise you are either A)retarded or B) the most unsportsmanlike person EVER.

[Scott Zawadzki]

First off, let me say that this is a bush league move by the Chivas team. Secondly, to the comment that Joe Cannon delayed in picking up the ball, look at the replay again. The ball never enters the PA. Cannon is waiting for it to cross the line when the Chivas player takes the ball and shoots to goal.

Now to the actions of the referee. There was no foul in the play...no need for a whistle (unless he saw some illegal contact that I could not see on the replay). Award the goal if no foul...the players will INDEED take care of the miscreant!

Scott

[KCbus]

Actually, it IS within the referee's power to stop play at any time for unsporting behavior. So that was never going to be a goal -- Valenzuela was within his rights. Should have been a caution, though.

[ur_land]

Knave, next time you cite an article, be sure to cite the source and (espceially) the author. ;)

To the comments about time wasting, I don't think that that was what Cannon was doing, and that is not what the the author (me) meant to imply either. What he was doing was waiting for the ball to come to him, instead of going to get the ball, which in the case of an injury restart is excusable.

And KCbus is right--if Valanzuela was going to stop the game like that for USB, he should have given the caution. I meant to include the point about it being ok if he had awarded the caution, but it was late and my brain slipped.

[Knave]

99% of the time I don't leave that out. Brain slippage, you know. ;) Sorry.

[Statesman]

Let me reword the scenario:

Player A throws the ball in. His teammate receives the ball and scores a goal. What does the referee do?

Was the decision to play the ball off the throw after injury very unsportsmanlike? Absolutely. Is it unsporting behavior? No. Further, this certainly is not the sole time the scenario has happened. It is always complained about afterward and leads to much controversy, but it is acceptable within the laws of the game from the standpoint of the referee.

It is disgusting when it happens, but it is also legal. We've discussed this scenario occuring many times in the past here and the conclusion is always the same. In this case I hate the fact that Chivas were unsporting, but I hate further that the goal was disallowed when no foul occured.

[Ombak]

Let me reword the scenario:

Player A throws the ball in. His teammate receives the ball and scores a goal. What does the referee do?

Was the decision to play the ball off the throw after injury very unsportsmanlike? Absolutely. Is it unsporting behavior? No. Further, this certainly is not the sole time the scenario has happened. It is always complained about afterward and leads to much controversy, but it is acceptable within the laws of the game from the standpoint of the referee.

It is disgusting when it happens, but it is also legal. We've discussed this scenario occuring many times in the past here and the conclusion is always the same. In this case I hate the fact that Chivas were unsporting, but I hate further that the goal was disallowed when no foul occured.But the referee can whistle for unsporting behavior. And no-one in the world would question this particular instance. It was, in everyone's eyes, unsporting behavior. You're re-wording of the scenario is woefully misleading. It is unsporting behavior, contrary to your statement above.

Not calling this would mean the referee was the only one in the world who didn't see unsporting behavior since he is allowed to whistle for unsporting behavior.

[billf]

There's a simple way out of this without showing a card, call a foul throw...

[Chubbywubby]

How many foul throws do you see in MLS? Besides, Romo's play was 4-5 seconds after the throw. If you need to invent a call, make it PIADM. At least you can make a strong case that what Romo did endangered his own safety.

[billf]

How many foul throws do you see in MLS? Besides, Romo's play was 4-5 seconds after the throw. If you need to invent a call, make it PIADM. At least you can make a strong case that what Romo did endangered his own safety.

You don't see many at all but that isn't the point. The point is finding a possible solution that meets the needs of the game.

[Chubbywubby]

Which is what I was suggesting. In this case, a PIADM call stays within all the laws, restores the game to where it should be, and protects the Chivas player from having both his legs broken.

[Quaker]

Inventing a call is exactly what Valenzuela appears to do. I don't know what the call was, but it was an infraction of some sort that awarded the Rapids a free kick. Not sure how an invented foul throw would be a cleaner way to handle this.

I agree that there's absolutely no room to blame Cannon for time wasting on this. He threw the ball out of bounds and was waiting on the throw-in to enter the penalty area where he could pick it up again. From the video it seems Romo intercepts the ball before it even crosses into the penalty area. If it took too long to get there, blame the Chivas player who threw it in, not Cannon.

I generally respect the opinion of Statesman, so I'd like a bit more explanation on the difference between "unsportsmanlike" behavior and "unsporting" behavior. Not sure what distinction's being drawn there.

[ur_land]

One more important detail is that he awarded a direct free kick, which rules out PIADM.

[Chubbywubby]

Or he awarded an indirect and just failed to indicate it.

[billf]

..and protects the Chivas player from having both his legs broken.

Which is really the most important thing here. :)

[Red Star]

Sounds like a good goal.

The tradition of playing the ball out for an injury and returning it is increasingly falling out of favor. I attribute this to a response to simulation.

The goalscorer is definitley not a sporting fellow but it isn't a foul. Hopefully he will get some chunks kicked out of him anyway.

[Statesman]

I generally respect the opinion of Statesman, so I'd like a bit more explanation on the difference between "unsportsmanlike" behavior and "unsporting" behavior. Not sure what distinction's being drawn there.

Well, I made this distinction to indicate that although the act is indeed "unsportsmanlike," it does not traditionally fall within the understanding of "unsporting behavior" as denoted by the cautionable offenses in the LOTG. Many similar instances have occurred and the accepted ruling is that although the act may be disgusting, in of itself there is no infringement of the law.

[NHRef]

Any feedback from anywhere to describe what the CR actually called there?