I have a lot of thoughts and curious for others' opinion about Chapman. 1. I think, in the end, by the book, they got things right. Wasn't pretty, but nothing protestable for the result. Credit to the entire team who managed to accomplish that. 2. People make mistakes, lord knows I do, and I know I find the KFTM rules complex especially when you use them only a couple times a year and they are changing quickly. However, Chapman and team are paid professionals. What's the right result for them nearly screwing up immensely (but getting it right ultimately)? I don't think he should be fired or demoted, and curious what we see with his future assignments. 3. The fact that the rules keep changing, and go into effect for different leagues/competitions at different times continues to be an issue for me and for the game. Would be nice for this to get addressed. Now, which ref on the team helped them avoid embarrassment? Buy him a drink or three.
No, because MLS's season started before the new changes took effect they won't be used in MLS until next season.
Since the CR whistled the game complete even though the KFTM were not done, I assume that nobody on OCSC can be disciplined for entering the field to celebrate? Because otherwise I see a whole lot of missed yellow cards.
I think we’d all agree that at this level, calling a good game is about more than just getting the calls right. “Wasn’t pretty” isn’t the right phrase to describe this game...it was well beyond that.
well, MLS knows what it's getting with Chapman though. He's always done things the same way. I don't like it. But PRO must not have a problem with him.
I still don't understand one thing... Each team had 10 eligible kickers at the start of KFTM. With the Orlando keeper being sent off, and no other player coming onto the field, they now only have nine eligible kickers. God forbid that thing had kept going... what happens if Orlando gets through their nine kickers, NYC has one guy left, and the match hasn't been decided?
The change to the verbal warning and not carrying forward to KFTM help somewhat, but why, oh why, does it make any sense to caution the GK—especially when you’re using VAR to measure millimeters? There is no incentive whatsoever for a GK to “cheat” when it’s not possible to get away with it. The in terrorem design (which I never thought was a good idea anyway) was pre VAR to scare keepers into staying on their line. To the extent it certainly made sense, it doesn’t now. But IFAB can’t quite admit that, leading to the silly stupid rule we have now.
Then Orlando starts over. Pretty sure they are not required to kick in the same order as the first time
Well, the Law says you reduce to equate before the kicks begin, and that no one takes a second kick until all eligible teammates have taken a kick. The only thing that can happen here is that during the round where NYC's 10th player kicks, one of ORL's 9 eligible players takes a second kick.
That seems grossly unfair to me. That would mean the team that had a player sent off would get to send their best shooter up while the other team could be sending their goalkeeper.
I recall having that discussion in a recert clinic...what if a team has their worst kickers get themselves sent off on purpose?
Worst part for me was watching the Spanish language broadcast and therefore just really guessing what was going on with no audio. . So question, was the backup GK not allowed to sub because Orlando ran out of subs or is there a no sub during KFTM rule? Cheers, Mi3ke
I've been reading a lot of different threads today, so I'm not sure where I read this, but my understanding is that you get an extra sub at the start of extra time, but that sub must be used IN extra time. But even then... we see all over the world that only the players on the field at the end of extra time (or regular time, depending on the competition) are eligible to take penalties. That's why you see a rash of late subs on many occasions.
The additional substitution in extra time is in Law 3 left to the discretion of the competition, and it sounds like MLS has set the rule such that it may only be used during the two 15-minute extra time periods. In that case, they were definitely out of sub opportunities, even if this had been a unique case where it was allowed during kicks from the mark. Had there been a sub available, it still doesn't happen because it's not a case of a goalkeeper being unable to continue. Ignore Gallese who has already been sent off. At that point your goalkeeper is whichever remaining eligible player you designate, and if that player is fine to continue, there's no legal substitution opportunity. Some are even saying the replacement goalkeeper wouldn't be eligible to sub simply because he didn't start the kicks as the goalkeeper. I don't know about that.
I could be mistaken given the changes in the last few years, but I think it's actually even simpler than this. Law 10 is crystal clear that "with the exception of a substitute for a goalkeeper who is unable to continue, only players..." Law 10 limits Law 3, in case Law 3 isn't clear enough. So it's not like MLS set the rule to limt the additional substitue to extra time. IFAB mandates that the additional substitute is limited to extra time, aside from the substitute for a goalkeeper who is unable to go on. And as you noted, a sent off goalkeeper doesn't count because the moment he's sent off he is no longer a player eligible to be substituted (whether or not he's still the goalkeeper at that point is a question that heads down the path toward asking how many angels can dance on a pinhead).
Since a lot of posts happened before I had a chance to reply, just want to +1 this content in response to what @allan_park laid out. I understand the Laws have now changed again for 2020-21 and that's helpful given the situation we were in (and are in, for MLS). But I agree with @socal lurker here. The need for a yellow card at all for this offence baffles me. Also, as I noted at the time... to get to this point and insulate against goalkeeper's being sent off for encroachment in KFTM, IFAB had to abandon the principle completely that misconduct from the match carries over into that phase. So in order to protect against a single unseemly eventuality, a player on a caution can now pick up a caution during KFTM with no repercussions. I can't wait for someone on a card from during the match to vociferously dissent during KFTM, get a card, and... stay on the field. Everyone will be baffled.
Agreed. Granted, that's an unorthodox decision to have to make, but that's incredibly dangerous and seemingly deliberate. I suppose VAR thinks it's not clearly wrong once it's decided on the field as reckless because it's so unusual, but it's the type of play that's really hard to understand how bad it is without the second look. So there's a bit of a Catch 22 situation going on for the VAR. Are my eyes deceiving me or is that Nani putting his hands on Chapman again (0:20 of highlight) trying to get him to not give a card? Not as bad as a month ago, but same sort of behavior.
D`oh. I now realize that of course the GK can't be subbed after a RC. I guess a rephrasing of my question should be, could Orlando have subbed in the backup GK for another field player. But of course the answer there is no as well. Cheers, Mi3ke
I can't quote all of them - but there are several incorrect statements above regarding reduce to equate. It used to be limited to prior to the start of kicks, but it is not any longer: If at the end of the match and before or during the kicks one team has a greater number of players than its opponents, it must reduce its numbers to the same number as its opponents and the referee must be informed of the name and number of each player excluded. Any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks (except as outlined below)
Oh you're very right. I thought that was coming next year, and I don't even think that's the first time I've made that particular mistake.