Friend of mine pointed me at this incident this morning fro this past weekend's matches, specifically between Wellington Phoenix and Western United. https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...o/news-story/01bb996a9af0dc81202494222cc394ff Video of the incident starts here (1:52:07): To summarize: Head clash at 90:48 (game clock). Both players go off the field of play. Black #12 (Western United) had a bit more trouble with treatment. Yellow player brought onto the field at about 93:14. Black #12 enters at some point around then. 93:42, Black #12 intercepts a cross that then goes up into the air and the GK punches out for what would be a CK. According to the article above, the 4O was informing the Ref around this time that Black #12 had entered without permission. 93:48 Referee shows Black #12 a caution, and sets up an IFK. IFK misses net badly. Wellington Phoenix lose game 1-0. My understanding of the Law is that this should've been a DFK because of the interference, but because that interference was within the penalty area, this should've been a PK. Oops?
The video doesn't work in the US. So I don't know the details. But it seems if the ref was stopping before the interference, it's an IFK. If play was stopped for the interference, it's a PK. However, if the referee missed the interference and play continued and then stopped for a CK and then the ref became aware of the improper entry, I understand why he gave a IFK. I think the wording is vague.
Judging by the lack of control and committment by the CR, the message from the 4O must have been garbled. To set his own mind straight, I am guessing the Referee rewinds play to the point where the 4O is telling him about the Entering WO Permission. As annoying as "Entering" is, a PK for it seems a bit harsh.
One with any common sense would think or agree, yes. Yet, the IFAB in their infinite wisdom deliberately and explicitly made this change. For seemingly no reason and with very little fanfare. I'll admit that I would have got this wrong and not in the "okay, I know what the answer is here but I see a window to bend the Laws to the more just IFK outcome" type of wrong. I would have flat-out given an IFK because I thought this was still an IFK.
I think it became a dfk/pk to address deliberate, unsporting returns to the field to prevent a goal. It seems fair to give a PK for the previously injured defender behind the goal who knows he can't come in, but runs in to stop a goal.
Yes. One or two of those clips went viral around that time and this does seem to be the reaction and result of that. But the law of unintended consequences leads this--a situation where no player on the field even knew there was an infringement--to be a missed PK that likely would have decided the outcome of the match as well as a media storm. Given IFAB's propensity to over-legislate, they have easily constructed language that made interference a DFK/PK only if it was relative to an OGSO. This isn't the first time something like this happened. Right after the relevant changes there was a Portuguese professional match where a substitute behind the goal stepped over the goal line onto the pitch and handled the ball just before it went out of play. If I remember correctly, he was (stupidly) trying to get play restarted quickly with a goal quick. The consequence was a penalty kick against his team. In an effort to make sure a capital crime that used to subjected to a loophole is properly punished, IFAB turned a bunch of stuff into capital crimes. They used a meat cleaver when the solution called for a scalpel.
IFAB seems to be the master of unintended consequences . . . followed by growing complexity in trying to fix the problem they created . . .
With equally bad verbiage and bullet points and a complete lack of the the words "and" "or" in correct places.
If you open the story link, the video works on the story page. The referee holds his hand up to his ear well after the interference, and this was when the offending player was close to where the IFK was taken. (The IFK was not taken where the interference was) He may not have even been aware there was prior interference...well he was aware of the clearance, but he may not of been consciously aware of who was involved. Seems as though he just located the player when he heard his headset and awarded the restart from that point.
I do love how Fox Sports' headline writer stretches the meaning of "howler" to include something that, you know, by definition isn't a howler. If the mistake was "unseen," then how can it be "glaring or obvious." Oh well. Back to the incident itself and off of IFAB, it's worth asking how/why the player returned to the field. The article says that the player's wound was "tough... to contain." So I imagine the fourth cleared one player who wasn't bleeding and then tried to hold the player in question who was still bleeding. The problem as I watch the video is that the fourth does absolutely nothing to preemptively sell this call. When he comes into view and the player in question is only a few yards onto the field, the fourth isn't doing anything other than (we must presume) talking to the referee. To everyone watching, it just looks like two players who were injured are returning at the same time. Nothing appears out of the ordinary. The fourth has to visually sell the idea that the player just ignored his instruction. Move down the pitch a few yards. Point at him and make it clear you are yelling at him to come back. Visually beckon him. Do something. Because when the referee does have to sell the PK on this call, you can guarantee the response from the player is "I thought he told me to go on." It's a he said, he said situation and when the consequences are so high, that's not good. The fourth has a responsibility to make it visually clear to the whole world that a violation occurred at the moment it actually happened.