How many straw men can you fit it one question? The expectation is that the referee will hold up play with a whistle when he is reversing the public signal of an AR or his own previous signal. This is not about every throw-in. And it’s always been the expectation. This isn’t something about “now.” Kelly didn’t adhere to long-held standard practice. Arguments over whether the goal would have been scored anyway and who is at “fault” might be fun for partisan purposes. But they are irrelevant from the refereeing perspective. The point is Kelly didn’t adhere to practice. The fact that a goal got scored and it was the difference in the match is what ensures a ton of attention to the process here. But the process was wrong, period. This isn’t about inventing a new process to placate an aggrieved team.
Is this the official stance from the USSF? Not PRO, but the USSF, do they have a memo or a paper clarifying this?
You’ve got me! There’s no USSF memo, so I’m wrong. I was totally just making stuff up. Kelly did everything right. Screw tradition and common sense. Screw the players. Screw the concept of clarity being the purpose of public communication. Let anarchy reign.
On a slightly more serious note (but only slightly), I don’t think there has been a USSF memo in 7 years. But the old ATR did have this. It’s about changing a restart rather than overruling a signal, but that’s almost a distinction without a difference in practice. The last sentence pretty clearly lays out a premise that applies when the nature of a restart is being changed (i.e., teams have a right to adjust and be ready when the referee changes an announced decision). And is says a whistle is required.
Interesting I've seen a ref whistle and tell all players that he's disregarding an AR's signal exactly zero times before. I suppose maybe all PRO officials (and every youth ref I've seen over the years) have been doing it wrong all along?
That is actually quite surprising to me. I see it on average once a week here. When I was a regular attendee of Toronto FC games, I'd see it once every 2-3 matches.
It's almost incredible how often you can shift the argument and create your own set of facts. First, it's not about "disregarding" a signal. The referee is always making a final decision so he's either accepting the signal (either explicitly by confirming it visually or implicitly by doing nothing) or he is overruling the recommendation made by the signal and making an alternative ruling. Either way, he is not disregarding the signal--he always has to acknowledge the signal. It's when he acknowledges the signal but disagrees that we have to have the whistle and the ceremonial restart for clarity's sake. The fact that he disregarded the signal is exactly why this whole thing blew up. Second, you're telling me that throughout your entire experience in the game, you've never seen an AR and CR come up with conflicting signals on throw-ins? You've never seen a referee point for a goal kick while the flag pointed for a corner kick? Or are you saying that, when it happens, you've just never seen a referee whistle to call attention to himself and ensure clarity? It happens much less at the professional level because officials are usually confirming any potentially controversial decision on comms before they signal. But it happens all the time in matches where officials aren't linked by radio. And instruction forever has been to whistle and make it clear who has the restart. It's literally in the document I cite above. The point is that when the officiating team creates confusion over a restart, both teams have a right to "adjust and be ready." This should be common sense. The point of a signal is to clearly communicate to the players whose restart it is and what the restart is. I genuinely cannot believe "it doesn't matter what the referee signals, it's not his fault if teams aren't ready for anything" is a hill some people appear to want to die on. If you haven't seen it in MLS (and I seriously doubt that you haven't--it just wouldn't be memorable because it probably occurred during an inconsequential throw-in, but let's stipulate you haven't), it's because confusion over restarts between CRs and ARs is so rare at the professional level because of the comms. And if you're telling me that you have never seen such confusion in a youth match, I don't know how to respond. Right. I never admit I'm wrong. That's definitely me. The fact is that when I know I am right, I am not going to let contrary assertions go unchallenged. The purpose of this forum isn't to just complain and say how you want things to be when there's an objectively correct answer or reality. I'm also not inclined to respond seriously to someone who has been trolling the forum since the day he registered his username, but if you want to hitch your wagon to that individual and hold him up as a victim, be my guest.
I asked if the USSF had a response to this incident. Whether in instruction, or in a memo. I'm not a PRO referee I'm a USSF referee, and I haven't heard a straight answer from my coaches so I was wondering if it was clarified or covered by the USSF.
I used to teach that after a foul, the only "rights" the defending team has is not be deceived by some action (or inaction) on the part of the officials. I find this situation a fascinating example of this concept applied to a ball exiting the FoP.
Wait, where? I only saw PRO come out and talk about it. Where has the USSF come out and talked about this? EDIT: Oh you meant the old ATR which isn't in use anymore. Ok, I withdraw my question.
This is an excellent point (and excellent teaching). It made me think of two situations where referees are supposed to know--either through simply understanding the game, active instruction or a combination of both--that teams have a right to be "ready" at restarts even if the instruction is not codified in the Laws. The first is at free kicks, as you allude to. If a referee is giving a player a verbal admonishment, rather than actually cautioning or sending off a player, it has been taught for at least two decades that the restart is supposed to be ceremonial with a whistle or, at the very least, needs to be held up until the referee has finished engaging the player. You cannot be engaging a defender verbally and then have his opponent take a quick free kick. Doing so is an unfair distraction of the player. Is that written down anywhere in any authoritative document? I doubt it. But it's still 100% true. The new Law changes touch on this indirectly when they explicitly say that if the referee has done anything to initiate the display of misconduct, a team cannot take advantage of the provision whereby they can take a quick free kick (and the referee thus shows the misconduct at the next stoppage). The second instance is substitutions. Again, nothing in the Laws say that an incoming substitute has a right to be in his or her position on the field. The substitution is complete when he or she enters the field--technically, that's it. But "everyone knows" that referees allow players to take up the appropriate position on the field and be ready for the upcoming restart. If a referee allowed a restart that led to a goal against a team that just substituted when that substitute never got to their tactical position on the field... that would go over about as well as what you saw in New York two weeks ago.
Exactly. I was going to mention that, but I couldn't (and can't) remember the exact instance, so I didn't want to confuse the matter.
I would add a third case to this list, re-entry onto the FoP when out for injury or equipment correction. It should be at a time and place where the opponents don't have any tactical surprises by having a new player instantly appear at the center line.
I'll add a fourth, which I've blown before. You blow the whistle for a foul or throw-in and point the wrong direction. (Usually this happens shortly after second half begins.) The players protest but move to reset and you realize you pointed the wrong way. Don't correct your mistake and allow a quick restart. You have to make it ceremonial so the team that thought they were attacking can recover and start defending.
Exactly. This is what's in the old ATR above. To the extent people are disagreeing about the NY situation in good faith, it's an argument that changing the nature of the restart but keeping it with the same team (throw-in to corner kick) doesn't trigger the same requirement that changing the team in possession of a restart does. As my posts make clear, I think that's wrong.