I'm sure the legal experts (see Steven Bank and Miki Turner) will know better than I would, but I thought about two-thirds of the suit was nonsense. They try to defend the P-word. They have a hagiography of Petke's playing career for some reason, including his "Revenge is Coming" T-shirt in the wake of the Mamadou Diallo incident, which I wouldn't think is flattering. The other third, though, is stuff RSL may have trouble answering. Exhibit A (the only exhibit presented here) is an agreement that seems to say they'd bring Petke back after his suspension and fire him only for any *future* infraction. And the original contract, at least as excerpted in the suit, indicates that he's due a ton of money. So anyway -- should the ref have stopped play when the cat intruded? After deciding not to stop play, should he have just let things continue with the goal kick?
I think we might have went over this at the time. If the cat touched the ball or interferes with play, play should have been stopped. If the referee only realized after that the cat definitely touched the ball, then he’s within his rights to go back to that point and do a dropped ball but context probably makes that an unwise choice. Regardless, this is shockingly dumb. I can’t fathom how an argument about this makes it into a lawsuit.
Appeals are always dumb. They aren't about actually excusing the behavior, they're about finding the tiniest loop hole. I'm reminded of a story I heard of a coach getting his referee assault suspension reduced because the referee had said something like thanks buddy or thanks pal or something of that sorts. He said he was under "emotional duress" and felt disrespected.
But this is legal action. Not an appeal to some competition authority. Maybe there’s some contract violation. Whatever. Not my area of expertise or knowledge. But citing a referee decision related to his termination... What on earth?
I think they're trying to establish why Petke was angry in the first place, but it certainly seems a whole lot less relevant than the contract and the signed document saying Petke could be fired for any *further* violations. The contract, according to the lawyers (unlike the signed document from July, it's not given as an exhibit) says Petke is due to be paid. A lot.
It depends on where the ball was last touched and then where the ball is when play is stopped. If it was last touched in the PA and then play is stopped, drop to the keeper. If last touched outside the PA and play is stopped when the ball is outside the PA, drop to the team that last touched. If last touched outside the area and play is stopped when the ball is inside the PA, drop to the keeper. So assuming you didn't give anyone else a chance to touch the ball after the ball hit the player's face, in your hypothetical it would depend on where the ball is when play is stopped.
OK that's the nub of what I'm wondering about ... is it where the ball is, and who touched it last, when I actually blow or when I decided to blow? Heck, the ball can go twenty yards and possession can change twice by the time I get my whistle to my mouth. There used to be some calls, can't remember at the moment what they were, where we always talked about it being when we decided to blow, not on the actual whistle.
Let's say you're reffing for U11 and below. Team Red kicks ball, and it hits a Team White player on the head accidentally. Drop ball. But to which team?
Anyone can contest the dropped ball. I assume you stopped play to check on the white player? Heading is only a violation at that age group if deliberate.
When play is stopped for injury with no team in possession? Our state SDI sent out with an email not long ago saying to use the pervious version of the LOTG until the end of the year so I haven't reviewed the changes recently. EDIT: Ok, forgetful me. Since I was too lazy to review before Beau asked the question - dropped ball for the white team unless it is a youth match in Minnesota this fall in which case anyone can contest.
Here's a new one from Greece, which is a bit "VAR in review" and a bit "new LOTG," but I opted to go with this thread because you don't get this call without the new Law on GK encroachment. Anyway... German officiating team. AR determines a save is illegally made and flags the GK for encroachment. Automatic yellow card follows. VAR then intervenes, saying the encroachment is non-existent. OFR takes place. Referee concurs and rescinds yellow card. Restart is a corner kick. https://streamable.com/as6br I'm still trying to process this all. On the one hand, I guess it's good that the AR is still making his own decision and not deferring completely to the VAR. I guess. But, well, he's wrong. So that's a problem. But then I'm struggling to figure out the justification for a VAR intervention. Is an affirmative judgment about encroachment on a PK now subject to review? We know the lack of a call is subject to VAR so I guess common sense means the inverse is true, but it does seem like another step down the slippery slope. And then... isn't this objective? At the WCU20s and WWC, there were not OFRs for encroachment--why does the referee need to go look at this? In sum, it seems like 3 minutes of stupidity. I guess VAR advocates will say that VAR meant we got the call right, which is true. But the tinkering with the Laws and the subjection of PK encroachment to VAR in the first place is likely what creates this entire mess. No way an AR even thinks about making this call last season.
Isn't the justification for intervention exactly the same on a call or no call--the PK that results if the call is made? As far as the R looking at the monitor, i think the difference between the WC calls of GK encroachment and this is that everyone knew the ARs weren't even watching for that. Here, with a very visible reversal of the AR, going to the monitor seems likely to be chosen to sell the call. (I'm not necessarily a fan of that, but it is something the protocol accepts.)
I guess. But now that (or if) VARs can reverse the judgment of ARs on encroachment... what's the point of ARs calling encroachment at all on matches with VAR? I think the answer is "there isn't" and I thought that before I saw this video. I suppose this is right, too. But again, it sort of leads to (or back to) the path of ARs just having nothing to do with GK encroachment. All of this is predicated on the idea that the call is black and white, though. UEFA is clearly sticking with its position that there is leeway, despite the law change. If you take that position, you sort of have to have your ARs making the initial judgment (and the need for VARs to intervene becomes minimal). So, yet again, it's all one big mess.
Amen. Really, FIFA set the mess in motion when, despite the fact that VAR is supposed to correct clear error, they told ARs to leave GK encroachment to the VAR. (So, they weren't watching the GK, and the GL is done by GLT--what were they doing? Window dressing.) I'd rather take VAR out of encroachment (and get rid of the caution) and put it back in the hands of the AR with the instruction to flag clear violations. And mean it. (While this video could be an argument against that philosophy, I don't think it really is--ARs are told they are supposed to get the call on the field right, which in the VAR world means a cm off the line at the moment of impact. No way the AR would have flagged this without that expectation on top of the goal of keeping GKs on the line.)
I wonder what the keeper yelled to the AR after the referee waved off the encroachment. Probably not "have a nice day."
I had a high school coach last night objecting that we didn't apply the new IFAB goal kick rule in a girls varsity game. The other team's coaches and I simultaneously told her that high school didn't adopt that rule. I guess she wasn't at the pre-season coaches' meeting where I went over that.
Conversely, I had a (multiple D1 state championship winning) coach last night yell that the restart after an injury stoppage should be "our kick" as opposed to a drop. I patiently explained after the game that the rule had changed. I didn't point out that if he had remained awake during the (online) rules meeting, he would know this.
During a college scrimmage this summer, the player kept insisting the ball didn't have to leave the penalty area on a goal kick. I had to explain that the NCAA soccer didn't follow FIFA/IFAB.
I would have a very very hard time, not absolutely humiliating him in front of his players. I might actually have to be held back.
If VAR is going to go ahead and intervene...why isn't the restart a retake? Both teams encroached (field players).
I guess because the argument is the only question the VAR is looking at is “was the decision to caution the goalkeeper for encroachment clearly wrong?” No decision was made on the encroaching players. So VAR isn’t reviewing that. Of course in a recent MLS game, that did factor in—but that was after goalkeeper encroachment was confirmed. The Law 14 matrix was already confusing. Layer in VAR and give him different mandates and different completions and... yeah, another brilliant idea. Mistakes are going to get made. The only question is whether we will be able to tell what’s a mistake and what’s just a result of an inconsistent application of VAR relative to penalty encroachment.