Maybe that was harsh. But I think Kelly was intentionally and dishonestly being vague in his answer to the question. He pulled a politician's move of answering a question different than the question asked because he didn't want to give the answer to the actual question.
That's a really tough question. My problem is that the confusion wasn't recognized and addressed immediately. So my potential solution occurs 1-2 seconds after the throw-in, not 6-7(?) seconds later, after the ball is in the net. An immediate whistle, an acknowledgement of the confusion--maybe even a visual mea culpa from Rockwell to help sell it--would have fixed everything there. It might have even been a light-hearted moment because no one would have known a goal was being "stopped." But once the ball is in the net? From a human perspective, this is probably why Kelly did what he did. He rationalized that even it wasn't too late to lawfully fix things, it was too late to credibly fix them. Taking the ball out of the net and re-doing the throw-in would have simply changed the colors of the jerseys on the players who were surrounding him. I imagine he did a snap evaluation and judgment of which team it was "fairer" (for absolutely lack of a better term) to screw based on all the factors. I don't know which decision I would have made. I can only hope I would have never allowed it to get to that point, per the paragraph above.
aka, he lied Thanks. I may be kidding myself but the Red Bulls may have lost their minds in the same way, but would they have understood the reversal post game, especially since they are acknowledging now that they get it. I also think players/teams are used to seeing goals ruled out since VAR and might have lived with it. Okay - probably kidding myself.
I don't think he could lawfully go back after the goal--he permitted the restart. Once he permitted the restart, it's too late. And I think a protest could have been upheld if he too back the goal. (And what a mess that would have been--a protest based on the R making a decision against the Laws to make up for a poor management mistake.) I agree that a stop after a quick recognition could be justified as the restart taking place before the ref was making a decision to permit, but I think that, too, is bending the laws a bit--to me the question is when bending becomes breaking. And I think after the goal is scored is definitely on the breaking side.
Yes I will 1. Kelly said he communicated verbally, that’s what he did. The question wasn’t “did you let every one of the 22 players on the field know exactly what had happened and what was going to happen.” 2. Howard Webb is the general manager of PRO a company that works completely for the MLS and even lies to them and the press to make them feel better. They’ve done it before with Unkle and other referees to do what the MLS wants them to do. Now he’s throwing a referee under the bus because the MLS wants it. 3. Journalists do whatever they can to push controversy and to blame referees for anything strange that happens on the field. This particular website I’ve never seen a positive referee article in, so referees should treat them the same, as the enemy. 4. New York wanted it to be a throw in, it was a throw in. They shouldn’t be allowed to complain cause they couldn’t defend it. 5. Finally Kelly made a minor mistake which could just be corrected with a talk from the assessor and nothing more. In fact in England this would’ve been laughed off by more grown up fans and commentators. But in the US everyone has to lawyer up and try to destroy the people responsible. Send Kelly back if you want to, you all clearly don’t like him.
This gets into case law that simply just doesn't exist at a mass scale, but... I think you always have an opportunity to go back to the last restart. In this case, did he really "permit" the restart if--let's say--he didn't realize that a throw-in was taken when Rockwell signaled corner? Given his pool answer, we know he at least claims he did realize a throw was taken. But if you rewind to the moment of the match, maybe there's a different answer that opens up the door. On the technical side of things, Law 5 says the referee cannot change a restart decision on realizing it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted. But if he, in his mind, is affirming his throw-in decision but ensuring that it is properly communicated and recognized fully, he's not really changing anything. It is absolutely a slippery slope and is bending Law 5 to the breaking point. And NYRB would have been as apoplectic as NYCFC ended up being. But I don't think it's actually unlawful and I don't think a protest would be upheld. But it supports the idea that whistling immediately to fix things is the only credible way to go here.
This would never happen in England and be laughed off. The referees here clearly agree with Webb. Of them all, your point 4 is probably the most clear you aren't being serious.
I agree there is a lack of case law on this, but what in the Laws would permit a ref stop play and go back for a do-over, let alone pull the ball out of the net and go back for a do-over? I don't think anything does. There hasn't been a violation of law, just poor management and communication by the ref. Play was restarted properly (from a technical perspective). I think it would have been clearly unlawful--I think the only way to deny the protest would be to consider it inequitable and let that trump the error in law. My view remains that Kelly screwed the pooch when he let the TI go forward, but he did the right thing in allowing the goal once he had screwed up.
Kelly has had a rough couple weeks with VAR Reviews and now this happens. Some of his decisions have been difficult, but some of the controversies have been self-inflicted. The throw-in situation seems like an uncharacteristic mistake. I wonder if it's just been too many matches? You get into rhythms just like teams do during a season, sometimes the games all just land for you and other times you can go on streaks of weird stuff. I know he, Penso, Chapman, and maybe one or two others have been working a lot of games the past month or two. I can't imagine he will be too upset when some of the other top tier guys get back into the fold.
It's ok to admit to players you made a mistake on something like a blown advantage. You hit the whistle, then realize you should have played on, its ok (once in a while) to tell the players, "My bad. I missed that." There is no fixing it, but admitting it quick can cut off dissent. That's the only time in a moderately competitive soccer match that admitting you made a mistake is helpful. Every other example (which I can think of) would require you to change the restart, which would only multiply dissent the other way. On this particular play, Kelly could have gone back to the throw in, and said "I hadn't signaled for the restart." That's what he should have done. But, as others have said, once the ball was in the net then really there is no way out of this situation that won't make one team feel like the game was stolen. I also think that Rockwell could have bailed him out. Once the ball was thrown, flag up waving and making a scene (as Rockwell is pretty good at doing when he calls an off the ball foul, or sells a close foul in front of him) would have compelled Kelly to stop play, or at least give him a pretty big wave down.
Thank you!!! I would add the few I alluded to above, along the lines of "I'm sorry if I got it wrong, but I saw XXXXX..." Even those, though, you can't do in massively controversial situations. They can be little management tools to buy credibility with players on more non-controversial plays that nonetheless create player frustration, like soft fouls in midfield that don't lead to anything. The idea that fully owning up to a major mistake without being willing or capable of fixing that major mistake would improve a situation in a professional match is incredibly naive. I've thought about this, but hindsight is 20/20 here. Kelly apparently said "throw-in" into the comms. I believe him on this point precisely because Rockwell didn't make a scene. With hindsight, we know that Rockwell making that scene would have saved the day. But if the ball never goes in the net, all he's done is very publicly usurp the authority of the referee over a decision that Rockwell might have got objectively wrong anyway. That's not a good look. Also, Rockwell had to turn very briefly and couldn't be certain that Kelly didn't also visually signal. In effect, Rockwell was operating from a deficit of knowledge... all he knew was that Kelly said it was a throw-in and the ball got thrown-in. It's unfortunate, but I don't know what justification he would have for intervening publicly.
I actually don’t believe him. It happened so fast and Rockwell looked confused. If he had said it - wouldn’t it suggest he was overruling Rockwell which means he saw the clear corner kick signal.
Then don’t respond if you don’t like my answers. And of the referees here none of them are more experienced than Kelly and the one who is happens to be the AR in question, so maybe you should ask him.
As an aside why does everyone think a referee lying is a big deal when players and coaches lie constantly? What do you think should be done about Kelly if it’s proved that he did lie?
I’m going to be blunt - this is a moderated forum, intended for adult conversation. It’s not for holier/smarter than thou schtick/sarcasm. You either need to learn to post like an adult or stop posting. I don’t moderate this forum but I will encourage the mods to quickly pull the plug on this low grade trolling.
I would prefer it if the rules were less vague. Perhaps a whistle to make clear what the proper restart should be?
Well that was interesting. It sounded like in their coms they got to the point where they both agreed throw in. But they never sounded aware of the confusion the wrong signal sowed. BTW, those angles make it clear the throw-in was correct, and Kelly said "clear" a few times. So perhaps in his mind it was so clear as to not warrant a delayed restart by the flag? It also sounds like Rockwell may have verbally told the players around him "throw in." That explains why they took the quick throw. Still, Kelly should have gotten involved visually, but maybe he just felt like Rockwell made the strange call, let him deal with it in his corner. Maybe Rockwell should have signaled for throw in himself? But the throw was so quick. Tough to fix, which is I suppose why Kelly should have delayed.
It made clear I was wrong about the verbal communication but it seemed sorta as it happened/after the fact. “Ok we’ll play it” as it’s in play.
Apparently Corey was placed in the witness protection program with a changed name for the Portland-Orlando match.
So is the expectation now that at every throw in the CR stops play and makes sure that all 22 know it's throw and who it's for? NYCFC is upset at the wrong guy. Kelly didn't make the defender turn his back on a restart that could be taken quickly (either by throw or corner kick) His assumption that the opposition was going to wait for the restart was incorrect and he lost because of it. Had they take an quick corner and scored they'd be complaining that it should have been a throw.