Well that actually raises an interesting question. If the on-field decision was no goal like it was here in a VAR game, would a VAR have the technical power to intervene? The seemingly relevant portion of the VAR protocols is all about offences committed in the APP. There’s no role for checking restarts. And there’s no offence here. I agree with you this gets fixed in a VAR game because of, hopefully, common sense. But the irony is the VAR and referee would be violating the Law by doing so.
Also genuinely interested in hearing how you personally distinguish between “determinations related to facts connected with play,” including goals and the outcome and “misapplied the laws?” The more I think about it the more I don’t think there is a bright line. Or even a clear justification for upholding protests related to misapplied laws. But maybe I’m not being creative enough.
I don't understand the idea that this is the wedge or this opens a can of worms or whatever metaphor you want to use. Why is it this decision and not the decision by FIFA in 2006 to replay a WCQ in Asia, or the decision by the English FA a few years ago to replay a non-league game, or the other handful of times this has happened?
I see your point, but how is this anything other than a misapplication of the law? It would be a lot different if the league didn't like the foul the referee called, if they were unhappy about his determination whether this foul was careless or reckless, or from where the restart was taken--if they ordered a replay under those circumstances, that would be beyond questionable since these are facts connected to play, not a misapplication. But the crew here misapplied Laws 10 and 13. They made the determination that there was a violation when there was none--that's misapplying, not primarily a decision on the facts. They punished a team for following the law and this misapplication is more critical/fundamental than their judgment, which comes second. Your factual judgment and decision making has to operate within the LOTG--it doesn't matter what your judgment is if it doesn't. I think the issue here is that this a misapplication of the laws that we normally don't see; normally it's referees misinterpreting or using an older interpretation, not using the law to punish non-existent violations.
My feeble brain thinks that a misapplication of the laws would likely directly cause an issue with the facts connected to play so the two should be intertwined. It's not necessarily once in a lifetime, probably once every decade plus. But even so, I don't see how this decision would open any sort of can of worms for suddenly large numbers of protests to be happening.
I’ve read this and watched the clip. I think for me this is a stretch to say this was a misapplication of the Laws. If the ball had been kicked directly from a free kick into their own goal and that was allowed to stand that would be a misapplication. They didn’t do that. The crew applied the Law correctly based on what they perceived had occurred. Did they royally screw up? Yep. But it was because they weren’t paying attention not because they didn’t know the Law. Call it what it was. A massive screw up. Officials in sports screw up and make bad calls. Sometimes they result in one team getting stiffed and it affects the outcome of the match. On a tangent can anyone remember the last time a protest was upheld? The biggest I remember was Brett’s pine tar incident. I vaguely remember an NBA game having to replay the very end over but I can’t think of any others.
What was the mistake here? The mistake was thinking that the ball was kicked directly into the goal. That's a fact. They knew the Law, they just thought something factual happened that didn't. (At least that's what I understand was reported: that the referee team, bizarrely, thought the ball was kicked directly into the goal from the FK.) A mistake of Law would be thinking that the Law said something other than what it says. If, on the other hand, they though that "directly" meant "unless first touched by an opponent," that would mean they got the Law wrong--a mistake of Law. If that's what it was, I would 100% support the appeal as being an absolute no-brainer mistake of Law that must be fixed. The same distinction could exist on almost any call. Say on a PK given for a high kick by a defender near the face of an attacker. Giving a PK because the R called PIADM and gave a PK instead of an IFK would be a mistake of law that would support an appeal. But if the R gave the PK for a kicking foul because he thought there was contact, that would be a mistake of fact that would not support an appeal. Or same thing with giving a PK for handling when the ball wasn't actually touched by the defender: if the the R erroneously believed the ball touched the hand, that is a mistake of fact; if the R erroneously believed that attempting to handle the ball was a DFK offense, that would be a mistake of Law that would support an appeal. Or consider a ball that is pinned by the GK on the line and the R awards the goal: if the R says the ball crossed the line, that would be a mistake of fact; but if he said it was a goal because the ball broke the plane of the GL, that would be a mistake of law and subject to appeal. And that's why I am concerned about the replay here as possibly being the thin edge of the wedge--while the mistake here is a stunningly egregious mistake of fact, it is not conceptually different from the three examples above--just much, much more egregious. (As an aside, there is very long and detailed,though probably not exactly parallel to the LOTG issue, legal development of the concepts of mistake of fact and mistake of law when used as a defense to certain crimes. Law school criminal law classes chase the concepts down many rabbit holes, including those where courts have twisted the concepts to get to what they think is a more just result. Which is, IMO, what happened here--the factual error was so hopelessly egregious that people are willing to pretend it is an error in application of laws instead of a mistake of fact to justify the result.)
Hmm. Now that I think of it, the R really isn't disallowing the goal for an offense, so I think that is technically true. But I do think the spirit of checking goals and no-goals does apply. OK, call me a hypocrite: I would definitely support the VAR using the spirit of the Laws on VAR to fix this in a game, even though I still have some qualms about the appeal and replay. I guess it just bothers me less in the moment than the drastic, rare remedy of ordering a replay.
Recently in England Brixham and Bridgewater United were ordered to replay a match due to referee error. And of course we all remember Bahrain-Uzbekistan in 2005. https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/19508924.bridgwater-united-forced-fa-cup-replay-brixham/
The bridgewater case is an unambiguous misapplication of Law--the R used the sin bin when sin bin was not authorized for the competition. That is a classic proper appeal. (Though it was a bit unclear from the article what the impact on the game actually was of the error--I guess the player must have rejoined in added time? Without added time, there isn't any different impact on game from a send off or a 10 minute sin bin in the 81st minute.)
Completely off-topic, but isn't this game like the Dodgeball Helsinki incident of 1919? (On a different tangent, I have no idea how Jason Bateman and Gary Cole kept a straight face through all of those announcing one-liners. Long live The Ocho!)
I appreciate your long post of examples. I think what it may boil down to when it comes to protests is that they are trying to separate what can be viewed as a "subjective" incorrect decision (i.e. an incorrect foul decision) vs. an "objective" incorrect decision (i.e. completely misapplying a law, like it was in this case). IFAB/governing bodies are not going to use this as a reason to now accept a ton of appeals on subjective referee decisions in my opinion. To me, this case was not really subjectively getting a call wrong, it was getting the facts on the field wrong (which can happen in subjective calls, i.e. calling a penalty when no contact was made, and they accept as part of the game) but then it led them to objectively applying a law completely incorrectly which is what's leading to the protest. I don't know if it makes me a hypocrite but I'm also a guy who just wants to see calls/justice be done correctly on the field. All this stuff about VAR clear and obvious errors, "reaching the threshold of intervention", etc., I just want calls to be fixed. And in a case like this, a protest is fixing what was an objectively wrong decision so i am happy with it.
But they did not “misapply the law.” They were factually wrong in saying the ball was kicked straight into the goal from the FK and properly applied the law to the mistaken facts. If they had misapplied the Law, it would be a no-brainer to uphold the appeal. There is a saying in law that hard cases make bad law. This is a hard case because the objective standard applied means there can’t be an appeal. But it is such a mind numbingly egregious error that the no-appeal answer was unpalatable. So long as this is sui generis it’s not a big deal. But on a bad but not as bad factual error (say a goal awarded that hadn’t actually crossed the line or vice versa), I would certainly expect clubs to point to this game and say that egregious errors of fact need to be cured on appeal. There isn’t a conceptual difference between that case and this one, only a matter of degree of the factual error I. How obvious it was.
Right. It could only be fixed by an "unofficial" intervention by VAR. So, where the crew got into their discussion of trying to figure out what actually happened the VAR might be say out loud what they see, which could be coincidentally and accidentally be overheard by the crew... A goal results. Everyone accepts what is obvious to all. If this was caught later by the VAR manager... maybe nobody says anything, or maybe the powers that be might mildly correct everyone that this isn't how VAR is supposed to be used but also tacitly imply gratitude for avoiding a major refereeing error.
Having got over the shock of how this situation could happen at this level, I must admit I expected a decision such as this (to restart the game from the point of the error) to be the likely outcome, and I am somewhat surprised at the thought that this is a "dangerous precedence" or "opens a can of worms". A mis-application of the LotG has always been treated differently from an error of judgement/observation by a Referee, and has always been a reason to consider taking extreme measures like ordering a replay/restart of a game. The difference between the Atwell and Bundesliga incidents - with balls going in/out of the goal through holes in the net, goals being given that never entered the goal, and all the other errors that I can think of that could be cited here is that in those cases, the Law was applied correctly by the Referee based on what he saw. Atwell thought the ball had "crossed the goal-line between the goalposts etc" and so awarded the goal. In the Bundesliga, Brych awarded a goal because he thought the ball had gone into the net "between the goalposts etc". In both cases, the Referee was wrong, but based on what they (thought they) saw, the LotG were applied correctly. In this instance, the officials all saw what actually happened and yet, despite that, they failed to apply the Law and allow the scoring of a legitimate goal. So, it's a quite different situation from Atwell, Brych etc - Atwell and Brych correctly applied the LotG based on what they saw; this crew failed to apply the Law based on what they saw. One last point - why would there be any doubt about whether VAR could intervene? Of course they can - the (apparent) scoring of a goal is always subject to review, so why would it not apply here? If an attacker scores a "normal" goal, which is then disallowed by the Referee for a handling offence, VAR checks it. If he sees no offence, he will get the Referee to take a look, and ultimately the goal would be awarded. If this goal is chopped off, and the VAR can see no offence to justify it, the same protocol applies. Absolutely no doubt that VAR would interfere here. Well, maybe not with this crew.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that what was reported was that the referee ruled that the ball was kicked directly into the goal from the FK rather than having been passed. And they applied the laws precisely accurately to that (grossly incorrect) factual conclusion. So you are either just twisting things to have a convenient justification for the appeal to pretend this is consistent with precedent and the LOTG, or you are calling all four members of referee team liars. What happened here is simple--the mind blowing error was so egregiously bad that the powers that be weren't willing to let it stand.
No, I am simply ignoring what was reported as I do not believe that to have been accurate reporting. It is certainly not the official view of things.
I’ve said something similar on the other thread but we have to recognize that professional athletics need the support and confidence of fans and owner/investors. No, this isn’t the premiership but there are people who depend on these leagues for a livelihood. Pittsburgh media was reporting that the home playoff game for which the Riverhounds are fighting is worth at least $50,000 to the team. For a USL side that is not trivial. Ignoring that is naive at best. Also, isn’t consulting IFAB very reassuring here?. Although they haven’t put out any statement about it, I trust that PRO and Webb wouldn’t say what they did if they did not have the go-ahead from the highest levels. For those concerned about the slippery slope, doesn’t the IFAB get to say what the Laws mean? I mean, the bar is set pretty high here…
The official pronouncements that I have seen are very careful to not get into any details and just give conclusory statements about a misapplication to gloss it over and not look like a departure from normal protocol. As I've said repeatedly, if the R team did think that it was a CK because no opponent touched the ball before it went in the goal then this is the easiest appeal ever for a horrendous mistake of Law that not even a new grassroots referee should ever make--and I think the official pronouncements would have been clear what the mistake was. (It would also suggest the whole team initially lied and either eventually fessed up or the powers that be decided they were lying--in which case I would expect their careers in professional refereeing would be over. (I'm too lazy to chase back through the chain for the initial report, which I believe came directly from the team answering questions after the game or from PRO.)) I will withdraw as I have probably already beat the dead horse too much here.
Miami FC manager Paul Dalglish makes a pretty good argument (IMO) against not the decision to replay the match, but the decision to replay it from the point of the officiating error and not a full replay, Open letter regarding last nights game. If the last 2 years have taught us anything it is to stand up for what you think is right.I love this game with all my heart and will fight to protect it until the day I die. pic.twitter.com/UCvrbvZ5va— Paul Dalglish (@DalglishPaul) October 28, 2021
Maybe the most interesting thing in his open letter is the statement that the crew admitted that they understood the free kick had been taken and that they did misapply the LOTG. Thats a damming statement and if true that crew will likely never see that level or higher again.
Well, hard to say whether the error of fact or error of judgment would be a worse error for the whole team to have made—but I don’t think either, on its own, should result in capital punishment. But either should create a pretty steep road to getting back there. (Especially, if as it seemed from the original reporting, they initially claimed as a group to not have seen it—that changes from an egregious mistake to an integrity error—the integrity issue could, IMO, be enough to be career ending.)
This would explain the USL's decision. However, what I'd like to know is what was their reason with going for a corner kick if they admitted they saw the initial pass (assuming this is even true), which he doesn't say. PRO never said this in their statement. Did they think the ball has to touch an opponent first (obviously not)? I don't believe these guys didn't know the LOTG.