Here We Go Again: Disputed MLS Goal Call (DC/Chivas)

[KCbus]

So, Eric Wynalda's going off on how the free kick should have been a goal. I for one, couldn't tell, even with the replays. It's possible the ball still could have been on the line.

Another cry for goal-line technology, perhaps?

[SoccerPro843]

Or maybe a call for getting better refs in MLS.

[helmzgk]

Or maybe a call for getting better refs in MLS.

That call was a 50-50 no matter how you look at it. For every ref its a coin flip. I think MLS needs better refs, but today's non-goal is not something that points that out.

[onefineesq]

That call was a 50-50 no matter how you look at it. For every ref its a coin flip. I think MLS needs better refs, but today's non-goal is not something that points that out. Exactamundo. Any call that can't get a general consensus from people who are all watching it on slow-motion replay, is NOT a call that you can complain about the refs about.

[blech]

i started a thread on this one to discuss positioning (not whether the call was right or wrong):

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337008

[Ref Flunkie]

Or maybe a call for getting better refs in MLS.

:rolleyes: Wonderful insight. Perhaps we should get better players who could put the ball completely into the goal as well.

For once, Stoner actually was the word of reason in the broadcast, saying it was a bang/bang play and there is no way to be 100% sure if the ball crossed the line completely, even after all the replays. The only way to make that call is to see the shot directly along the end line....which they did not have a camera for. Therefore, Eric going "I'm 100% sure it was in" was nuts.

[blech]

:rolleyes: Wonderful insight. Perhaps we should get better players who could put the ball completely into the goal as well.

For once, Stoner actually was the word of reason in the broadcast, saying it was a bang/bang play and there is no way to be 100% sure if the ball crossed the line completely, even after all the replays. The only way to make that call is to see the shot directly along the end line....which they did not have a camera for. Therefore, Eric going "I'm 100% sure it was in" was nuts.

Well, I said it out loud, and then Eric said it himself on the broadcast: his certainty was clouded by the fact that he was a forward :)

[MidwestRef]

As usual, Wynalda made a total fool of himself regarding a close call.

I honestly can't fault the offciating crew on this one. When you look at the video, both Yonan and the AR were where they were supposed to be according to FIFA directives that I've seen several times over the past year. The AR was hustling, but no human could get to the goal line on that play.

We didn't have a good angle at all. The only possible way we would have had a shot to see the play is if there was a camera on the goal line. Even then, it would have been tough to tell.

The only three ways this would have been solved is 1) Yonan (who missed a couple of flags in the game) positions himself on the goal line (or the AR does that), 2) the chip technology is in place to let the CR know the ball is totally over the line, or 3) you have an official who's sole responsibility is to determine whether the ball was over the goal line within the goal.

There are certainly reasons to criticize some MLS refs. This situation was not one of them. It's part of the sport and a hazard of the current system of officiating.

[tab5g]

that play was so tight, it makes me wonder if even a chip or some other technology could have made the correct call of goal or no goal.

[superdave]

One thing I've always wondered.

Let's say that the ball hits the ground. No part of the ball that hits the ground hits the line. However, the ball is only, say, one inch behind the line, so that the part of the ball that is in the air, that never hits the ground, is over the line.

Goal, or no goal?

Because to my eyes, that's what happened. ALL of the ball that hit the line was only a fraction behind the line, which means the front edge of the ball that didn't hit the ground didn't, in NFL-speak, break the plane.

I agree that the call was so close that calling out the refs is stupid. But since we all got to see several slo-mo replays, I'm interested in whether (assuming my view of the play is correct) the goal should have counted.

[MidwestRef]

One thing I've always wondered.

Let's say that the ball hits the ground. No part of the ball that hits the ground hits the line. However, the ball is only, say, one inch behind the line, so that the part of the ball that is in the air, that never hits the ground, is over the line.

Goal, or no goal?

Because to my eyes, that's what happened. ALL of the ball that hit the line was only a fraction behind the line, which means the front edge of the ball that didn't hit the ground didn't, in NFL-speak, break the plane.

I agree that the call was so close that calling out the refs is stupid. But since we all got to see several slo-mo replays, I'm interested in whether (assuming my view of the play is correct) the goal should have counted.

superdave, your situation is "no goal". The ENTIRE ball must cross the line, including that portion that's in the air but above the line. I usually get some verbal harrassment a couple of times per season because I use this on my AR assignments. If the part of the ball in the air is still on the line, then the ball is on the line. The lines extend as far into the sky as you can go.

[metros11]

None of the replays were good enough to prove the ball FULLY crossed the line. Its at the discretion of the referee, and therefore not a goal.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

Just saw the highlight now...

Looks clearly on the line to me. Good call.

Generally those off-the-crossbar situations are never goals. And if they are, they don't bounce off the crossbar a second time, but hit the roof of the goal after the bounce.

[nonya]

This maybe really dumb...but for high level games such as MLS. Why cant they just hire a goal judge to sit or stand on the end line on the opposite side of the AR to determine not only goals but anything else that goes into touch. I know there would be plenty of people willing to sit there, get paid and just look at the end line.

[blech]

Just saw the highlight now...

Looks clearly on the line to me. Good call.

Generally those off-the-crossbar situations are never goals. And if they are, they don't bounce off the crossbar a second time, but hit the roof of the goal after the bounce.

i agree that this likely was a good call - it looked to me like there might have been a touch of green but not enough to conclude that the entire ball was over the line, and that was with the benefit of multiple slow motion views from various angles (albeit never an angle right on the goal line).

BUT, i'd suggest you rethink the idea that the ball will usually end up in the goal. if a ball hits the underside of the bar with force, it's usually going to come down with a lot of backspin, and it is not uncommon at all for a ball to land even a full yard or more behind the line but then come out of the goal on the bounce.

(of course, this particular play was even weirder, because the ball hit both bars right in the corner, not just the cross bar, so it was spinning across the goal as well).

[Chas (Psyatika)]

I wasn't paying close enough atteniton to the style of goal, but if the posts were square, then that rule of thumb generally works. It would take a TON of backspin for the ball to hit the bottom of the crossbar and then hit it again, having gone completely over the line in between. To get that much backspin, the ball would more likely hit the point of the crossbar where the vertical section meets the horizontal. Just on probability alone, it's a safe assumption that, if you're not entirely sure it went over, it probably didn't. If the goal had a circular crossbar, then you can't use probability so much.

For what it's worth, i start teaching High School Physics in September ;)

[Craig P]

Generally those off-the-crossbar situations are never goals. And if they are, they don't bounce off the crossbar a second time, but hit the roof of the goal after the bounce.
CF Wolde Harris's bicycle kick for NER against Colorado (IIRC) a few years back where it was at least a foot behind the line but had so much spin on it that it bounced out of the goal. It would have been the goal of the year, had it only been ruled a goal... and I think that the "action" on the ball was typical of that sort of shot.

[billf]

I'm not sure that this was a 100% correct call because even the TV replays are unclear but given the situation that unfolded, no goal was the only reasonable decision. Its not ideal but everyone was positioned correctly, no human being could possibly outrun that ball to the endline, and there's no way the AR or referee could have been 100% sure the ball was over the line. Giving a goal would have been just as controversial.

[blech]

Chas, We're digressing, although I suppose it is related. I enjoy your posts so please take this in the right way, but if you or anyone else is operating on the assumption that you can safely judge whether the ball has gone over the line by whether it bounces into the goal or out of it, it is a mistake. It is precisely because the ball can bounce go over the line but then still bounce out that it is all the more important to get into a good position to make the judgment call.

Before getting to the technicalities, I've seen it several times, another poster has recalled a specific occasion, and I'm sure others can post several more. So, it does happen.

As for the physics of it, I'm not sure if it requires a TON of backspin, but whatever amount of backspin is required can easily be generated under these circumstances. You're the scientist, not me, but don't forget to take into account that the ball is not a hard object. If I were to take a stab at explaining it, when the ball hits the post, the top part of the ball stops moving forward as it's against the post, while the bottom of the ball continues forward as it is below the post. This creates backspin if none existed before. If the ball already had backspin when it was coming toward the goal, I suppose it would only increase, but if the ball had topspin when it was coming in, I think the hitting of the post would actually generate even more backspin.

Of course, how much backspin will depend on the ball and how much it is inflated and any other number of things. Certainly, the more expensive balls used in the professional game would seem more likely to give and spin and move like that, and again I think another significant factor is the force with which the ball hits the post, again more likely to make this possibility more realistic in the professional game than in our run of the mill youth game.

But, bottom line for me is that you need to get down there to make the call as where the ball ends up on the second bounce may or may not tell you anything about precisely where the first took place.

[Daniel le Rouge]

For what it's worth, the posts at RFK are round, not square. That complicates the "physics" issue, as the question of where the plane of incidence actually occurs becomes a spectrum of possibilities rather than a definite, measurable spot.

It could have been a goal. But since both the CR and the AR were in the proper position, there was no way humanly possible for them to get to the goal line to make a decision. If any Chivas player had been crashing the goal to look for rebounds, the whole issue could have been rendered moot. You just do the best you can.

This isn't like last week; there's no clear answer. Last week's call was a screw-up, but it was at least understandable, given the total lack of clarity of explanation given. But that problem's been solved. This one ... well, if the referees do their best (and I think they did), that's really all you can ask for.