2020 MLS Week 8 Referee Discussion

I don't want to do anything but punish Toronto for screwing that up, but technically both teams were encroaching at the moment the penalty kick was taken so should it not have been a retake? Should the VAR have had this reviewed? It has to be reviewed if the goal had been allowed...

 

Late red card for SFP reviewed and changed to yellow.

 

according to the Law if there's an infringement by both teams, then yes it should be a re-take. Not sure if that's something the VAR can review. I suppose you can argue that it's a PK decision which would be reviewable? Seems like a misapplication of the laws would be a big problem.

 

The thing is that the protocols say it must be reviewed IF the offending player becomes involved in the outcome of the penalty kick. The Montreal players may have technically offended, but they had nothing to do with the play. So even though it's technically wrong, I'm not convinced that the VAR protocols allow a review to have it retaken instead.

It's a fascinating scenario.

 

VAR can review, and will review to see if an encroaching player interferes with play (ie, clears a ball after a save, or scores)... and at the top levels, they seem to be ignoring all other players, encroachment or not.

 

The other thing to note is that from a common sense, spirit of the Law point of view, there's little to be gained by giving Toronto another attempt. Reap what you sow.

But in the era of video review, common sense isn't necessarily common anymore.

 

This is always a tough one, because the fact is, you will see some encroachment by both teams on probably 95% of penalty kicks. Usually, of course, it's somewhat mild and doesn't affect play, so it's ignored.

In this case, there is blatant encroachment that affects play by the attacking team, and mild encroachment by the defending team. The encroachment by the defending team on this play would never have been called in a vacuum--i.e., if it had just been a regular kick that sailed over the bar. If a referee ordered a re-kick in that instance, there'd be a riot. So it doesn't really seem fair to award a re-kick in this instance.

It's the inevitable curse of having a black-and-white rule that in practice is enforced in a very gray way.

 

Once the Toronto player passed the ball rather than shooting, the goal was not scored directly. The laws treat that pass as a kick that was not scored directly, so when the encroaching player receives the pass and scores, he will be the one punished. If they had scored directly, there would have been a rekick. Because it was not directly scored, any punishment has to be an IFK coming out.

 

What Law 14 says is:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. ‘illegal’ feinting) ​

I guess an argument can be made that the encroachment that impacted more was a more serious offence and therefore the only one punished, which isn't totally crazy. But I think the parenthetical cuts against that interpretation, as it is referencing an offense that is different and cautionable. I think, as written, it means if players from both teams encroach (as opposed to certain offenses by the kicker and GK that warrant cautions, the kick is--by the letter of the law--retaken.

The problem, I think, as someone alluded to above is we have a black and white standard (though shalt not encroach) that is never strictly enforced. And this has been an issue for a very long time. (Evans and Ballion include an example in their excellent book of one of them following an NASL directive to strictly enforce, resulting in something like 5 retakes--that directive quickly slid away.)

I think the IFK here is clearly within the SOTG, and is probably what almost anyone would call without VAR--essentially finding the other infractions trifling. But, like many parts of the Laws, it's not a clear result--and the efforts to spell out everything make those SOTG issues harder (especially in the VAR world),

 

But if both the attacking and defending team encroach, the kick is always retaken, regardless of the result of the initial kick. In this case, both teams did indeed encroach (though the attacking team did so more brazenly). By the letter of the law, it should have been retaken--but common sense dictates, I'd argue, that the IFK was the right call.

 

It's because of how the protocols have been written. The IFAB doesn't want every single instance of encroachment reviewed because in most cases, when there's no effect on the play, missing it isn't really a major, game changing decision of the sort that the football world wants to see corrected.

Thus, the protocols say that the VAR must recommend a review if a player encroaches AND becomes involved in the outcome of the penalty kick by, for example, touching the ball first or challenging or interfering with an opponent.

The call on the field was encroachment by the attacking team. While the video does show encroachment by the defending team as well, those players never became involved in the play so from the VAR's standpoint, it's untouchable even though technically the decision is wrong (just like it's technically wrong to allow a goal directly from a penalty if an attacker has their big toe inside the penalty arc, and they don't review that either because it's overly officious).

 

Here is the actual protocol I'm referring to.

 

Another wrinkle:

Pretend for a moment that the referee didn't catch the offense and the call on the field was a goal. VAR would have to recommend a review because the encroachment was an offense by the attacking team in the build-up to the goal. Upon review, with clear video evidence that both teams had actually encroached, there's only one correct answer IMO: retake.

So essentially you have different (acceptable) outcomes depending on what is called in the field, which is sort of wild.

Unless the instruction is now that encroachment with interference is now considered a "more serious offense," which would be news to me.

 

This is another example of how VAR makes things harder--it's easier to use common sense without micro-analysis by video

 

is this Malik’s debut?

 

Yes, overall debuts for Thompson and Simon (4ths).

Referee debut for Badawi. AR debut for Swartzel.

 

If you watch it carefully, you will see that Fischer initially awarded the goal by pointing toward the halfway line. Then something happened (likely communication from VAR), a whistle is heard and the goal is disallowed without OFR.

 

Malik Badawi is only 25 years old, by the way. Simon had a 4th in Week 7, Miam-Atlanta.

 

I thought he blows his whistle, points upfield, and then raises his arm. I wouldn't expect the whistle if he's signalling for a goal.

Even if he's getting info, it's not ever going to come from the VAR in that matter as that would be very much against protocol.

Considering the AR (Boudreau) looked like she was expecting a goal, I think Fischer made this call by himself.

 

While I think you've interpreted this wrong, and that he's signaling for the free kick, not a goal, it's a good message for referees at home that any time the ball is in the back of the net, it's a good idea to clearly communicate that no goal is being given before signalling for a free kick out.