I'd suggest at the youth level, doing the exact same thing and ordering the retake is fine. The prohibition against a double-touch is about getting an unfair advantage. If a kid starts dribbling down the field, IFK to the other team. Takes three touches and plays a perfect through-ball to a streaking teammate? IFK to the other team. Has a brain fart and touches it twice? Do-over. It works from U6 to MLS. The Laws are not there to be rigidly followed at all costs at every level. Do you yellow card every youth player in an unlimited substitution situation who enters the field before his teammate leaves?
Well no but an IFK is much less consequential than a yellow. I know this is a trivial issue and it looked fine with Kelly smiling and no one really caring. But then again I just recently saw this happen in USL in almost the exact same way (opening kick and everything). Players were equally perplexed. Only difference is in this case the referee didn’t hesitate to give the IFK. It worked here too. @ 11:01 below. Again, trivial, and no one cared, but I don’t see the reasoning in not giving the IFK here. If Orlando scores immediately after the retake is it still a non-issue? Just devil’s advocate.
I waffle on this one. It's the eternal debate about Law 18 and when bending becomes breaking or when common sense becomes MSU. I'd probably just call it and let it be a learning experience--but make sure that there isn't a quick kick that becomes a scoring opportunity while the now defending team is confused. But I certainly wouldn't fault someone taking the other perspective. I'm less comfortable with that much bending at the professional level. What happens in the incredibly unlikely event that the team scores from the KO possession? That would be a goal from a decision that was wrong in Law. While there may not have been protests on the field, what happens on the protest asserting that the goal arose directly from a decision that was clearly incorrect in Law? Does the professional protest committee really say "Yes, it was completely wrong in Law, but protest denied because it seems like common sense to not hold a professional player accountable for his brain freeze?" (In some ways this isn't that different from the whistle before the ball enters the goal scenario.)
I'd put that in the category of "dude starts dribbling" and am totally fine with the result there. It's the expected decision. I haven't seen the Nani incident. But it was initially described as a question. As in, "did a double-touch even happen." For me, if there's confusion about whether it happened, it sounds like it falls in the "do over" zone. But obviously there's flexibility here. I would just say, in general, we can't say we have to rigidly follow the Laws on some quirky things that rarely happen when we quite obviously bend them elsewhere. If the substitution situation isn't the best example, perhaps the throw-in location one is. "You were too far up, do that again from 5 yards back" happens far more often than a whistle followed by the throw being awarded to the other team. So unless what Nani did looks very similar to what you posted above, I side with @ManiacalClown on the mountain/molehill argument.
Fair points, but there is a lot of wiggle room to simply say "I screwed up my signal" or "another attacker was in the half early" or any other kickoff-related offence that results in a re-take, rather than an IFK to the other team. Look, if I engage too much more on this I'm contributing to the mountain that I'm fighting against. I get it. If it's a clear double touch that in any way seems deliberate and not just a "woops" moment, IFK to the other team. There's a reason that is the only kickoff infringement that results in the other team having the ball. All I'm saying is that if it's a "woops" moment, no one is going to care about the retake.
Yeah...dude starts dribbling..that's an IFK. But if the Ref blows whistle with Red Hat still on the field, and 21 players are looking at red hat, and the only one looking at the ref is the one who touched the ball, then sees red hat...well, a retake is fine. But then again it is Nani. That adds a level of complexity to the situation that I'm still not sure the typical PRO ref is equipped to deal with. Kelly might be an exception, so I'd factor that dynamic into understanding his restart.
Apples and oranges. You’re not giving a PK or taking away a beautiful goal for a bicycle kick that could be considered dangerous play here. You’re giving an IFK at midfield where arguably no one has had time to set up to take advantage of a quick kick. This is potentially the least impactful IFK that can possibly be awarded in the game. Call it and move on.
They even cut the incident out of the highlights on MLS.com. Though the video starts just after it happened and you can hear the announcer reference it.
I'm genuinely astounded that you labeled my comparison "apples to oranges" and then just casually expanded it from substitution procedures to giving PKs and annulling goals. I truly don't even know how to respond to that. I was more than willing to engage in give and take here and I think my position is quite reasonable when you read the totality of my posts. But it seems you have a position that you won't stray from at all costs. That is, of course, your right. I'm just not sure how a discussion or debate about this is helpful then. To your last point about this being the least impactful IFK possible, I won't get into how we can possibly measure that (because most IFKs, aside from those rare attacking ones in or around the penalty area, are pretty harmless). But my sort of underlining and unwritten premise in all this is that everyone knows each team gets one kickoff. If a player cheats or deliberately tries to circumvent the kickoff procedures, then yes, punish them and move on (see USL video above). But if it's just a mistake that everyone recognizes at the opening of the match, I think you gain far more credibility with both teams by ordering the retake and preserving the "each team kicks off once" principle. The argument that "it's the simplest and least consequential IFK" cuts both ways... one can say that's a reason to call it, another can say that's a reason it does not have to be called. But again, it seems clear you only see validity in one side of that argument.
Im not sure how you expected me to respond when you started off with essentially accusing me of wanting to “rigidly” enforce every law. But went to comparing this to what is in essence the second or third most severe punishment in the game (cautions). Hence my pointing out enforcing the two things are not on the same level. I digress. See if this link works:
I have no idea what's wrong with that adverb in this context. You want to rigidly enforce Law 8 in this situation and apply the only sanction possible relative to kickoffs. That doesn't seem like an accusation, just a statement of fact. We are clearly nowhere near to being on the same page. But the point I was making was in comparing infringements around a benign method of restarting play (kickoff) with another activity that occurs at a stoppage (substitutions). If the caution trips you or others up, then let's just ask if you make every youth and amateur player stay on the sidelines until his teammate has fully left--make it about enforcement, rather than sanction. And if that's still apples to oranges, I raised the point about throw-ins being taken from the wrong location almost immediately thereafter. That would seem to be apples to apples, since we are talking about restarts where the infringement technically results in possession being given to the other team, but referees often/almost always allow a re-take. It does. More convinced than ever that Alan Kelly did the right thing. The Philly players start retreating for the re-take before Kelly even re-orders it. It's a light-hearted moment that builds credibility for the referee and can be a small chit to use later. This is a gimme. No one on the field indicates they expect an IFK to be awarded. Absolutely a re-take.
But if you had started off comparing holding subs (and only holding subs, rather than bringing in cautions to the equation) to this we would have been more on the same page. You didn’t, thus the “apples to oranges”. I’d have been much more amiable to a discussion if we hadn’t started from such drastically different ends of the scale. (Keep in mind I’m not the only one, or even the first person me to notice the disparity) From the very beginning you seemed to be coming off as somewhat judgmental and haughty. Kelly’s action absolutely work here. I never denied that. The question is why they are needed, when it would have been just as easy to blow the whistle signal for the two touch and laugh it off the same as we do this. I admittedly always lean toward enforcement of the law especially when the stakes are as low as the ones here. But I’m not robotic about it. I would never have dreamed of inserting myself into this decision had I been on the match. It’s a trivial matter whether it’s called or not. The point is that calling it doesn’t really lose you anything anymore than not calling it gains you anything. The issue that I and others have noted is that these are professional players and this is a ridiculously simple and basic thing to screw up as a player. And adding to it being televised and the laws not being properly applied doesn’t really do us any good as a whole with regard to referees in general. You say it’s a good moment to build rapport with the players for game management by not calling it. Fair enough. I say it’s a good moment to call it and get a laugh out of everyone and lighten the mood on a game that’s already been delayed due to weather. I think either approach works.
nani wouldn’t be laughing. You would have annoyed one of the biggest stars on the field, a guy known for making referees lives difficult. All over a rigid administration of the laws. Technically correct but practically wrong. I’ll also say that @MassachusettsRef example of yellow carding players is not apples and oranges. You either follow all the laws rigidly or you agree there are moments and situations that allow for flexibility. Disagreeing that this is one of those moments is fine but I can just as easily make the argument that with yellow card accumulation, your ignoring of that caution has a much greater impact on the game and all future games in the entire league.
That’s exactly why it’s apples and oranges. You’re making an argument to compare an offence that results in a caution to an offence that results in an IFK at midfield. Calling one rigidly doesn’t have nearly the far reaching impact on that particular game as the other.
But you are saying that all laws must be followed rigidly except for the ones that you think are too strict. Either they all need to be followed or they all have wiggle room. Pick a lane man. Is it “all laws must be rigidly followed unless sanctioned with yellow cards” or “all laws from 1-11” or some other contrived system. The reality is you’re choosing to ignore black and white law text on your game but then saying Alan can’t do that in his.
No I’m not saying that. And if you’d read my other post you would know that. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Thank you both. Just making suggestions because what is happening now is not working and is hurting the game. Players and fans are being robbed of the joy of goal scoring. But the truth is, referees are making decisions at real speed. Just because some computer using an arbitrary starting point shows a player is millimeters off does NOT mean the AR committed a clear and obvious error. It was never the intent of the law in the first place. We need a system that prevents the Tevez non-call. But goals shouldn’t be canceled out for CM off - it was never the intent. Yes, I realize a line is a line no matter where it is drawn and so there are going to be issues, but the current system is a failure.
the starting point is not arbitrary. In fact it’s defined very clearly in the laws of the game. The MLS is also not using a computer to determine offside or not. Making claims like that makes you at best appear uneducated about a system in place for five years now or at worst trolling which seems to be your MO. And for every fan feeling “robbed” there is a fan feeling thankful that there is a system in place catching the very few mistakes officials are making each week
Nonsense. A human picks the moment they believe the ball was last touched. Because it is human, it is subjective and subject to error. The computer line drawing is made off of that fallible point. All the lines are drawn based upon that point. The problem is that the last touch is usually a process not an instant. The ball is in contact for multiple milliseconds. If you are making calls based upon millimeters, picking the actual last millisecond matters. There is no means of assuring that. The system has flaws inherent to it.
Well there are no lines in the MLS as has been pointed out many times before. I suppose you’re right though. The cameras don’t shoot at 20000 frames per second so perhaps they’re off by a few milliseconds. Maybe we should scrap the whole thing because of a millisecond or maybe the only guy that seems to have a problem with it should grow up. Also millisecond does not equal millimeter. to everyone else out there. Only a single incorrect review this year in the MLS regarding an offside decision
With you on almost everything else, but isn’t the number here two? The Cincy-Chicago situation and then that PK De Oliviera didn’t give that was prevented from being called by an offside that wasn’t considered clear and obvious by PRO.
The issue is all about expectations. No one objectively looking at this is saying the system is flawed. It really isn't. The issue is that the EXPECTATION of identifying all offside decisions accurately simply isn't realistic. If IFAB and others simply would say that offside is not an objective, black and white decision, I think a lot of the issues we are seeing would reduce (but not be completely gone).
I see on social media a collision involving Ted Unkel, but I don't see any video of it. Anyone see what happened?
You maybe correct, but part of the problem is that VAR brings up “clear and obvious error”. But offside is not determined by COE but instead, is determined matter of fact. In the leagues that use lines, there are huge perception issues. First, the lines we see on tv are not the actual lines. The actual lines are only one pixel. They are then enhanced and enlarged so the can be seen on tv. Second, I don’t know how a pixel translates to distance on the pitch. But according to the document ion I’ve seen, the margin of error is 3.6mm. But when your dealing with lines, you have two of them so you have a margin of error of 7.2mm. Add to that the limitations of frame rate and the are less accurate than the holdout. (It is even if worse for tennis.) Given this, there should be certain distance that if the lines are that close, the ruling should be “undeterminable, call stands”. Their not doing that.