Wondering what exactly you would report here. Are you saying you would report that the net was untied at some point in the match? So something more generic speaking to poor ground conditions? Or would you write something like "In the 68th minute of the match a goal was scored and sanctioned by the officiating team. There was evidence that the net wasn't tied properly in the vicinity of where the ball entered it. The defending team protested that it was not a valid goal but the officiating team determined otherwise and awarded the goal. Play was restarted with a kickoff." The thing here is, with the near universality of video, writing something like the latter really tosses a pile of dung in USSF's lap. With a report like that and video evidence, it might be hard for them to not take action. Which maybe is sort of the point. On the other hand, I feel like the gut reaction from the USSF referee department would be that you make a decision on the goal one way or another and that's that. You're not supposed to use a match report as your insurance policy to cover your bases on a controversial decision. And ultimately that's what this would be. This is an unfortunate outcome because we have the evidence, but there are plenty of other decisions in every game where you make big decisions that you might not be 100% certain on. We don't include those in match reports.
The losing team has filed an official protest due to the goal https://bsky.app/profile/battista.bsky.social/post/3m35pdzxey22z
I was referring to reporting that the home team didn't have nets that tie down all the way around the goal so that hopefully the competition authority would make them change it going forward (yeah, right). I wasn't taking it down that other route. Cuz frankly it's bush-league that these teams are playing in games that they want to view as important but can't even set up their field correctly. My overarching point here is that, in practice, in some of these amateur games you just have to accept the field for what it is. A referee can inspect the goal all he wants, but that doesn't mean it's fixable. So you either abandon the match and hope that no one important takes issue with that decision, or you play the game like every other referee at that field and hope this doesn't happen. If I was USSF and it was the home team protesting, I’d tell them to go pound sand and fix their field next time. Since it’s the away team, I feel like it’s justified.
And the mistake in Law justifying a protest is what? This should not be protectable any more than a phantom foul—per the Laws, “The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. ” Per the article, this wasn’t really their home field. Their home field was unplayable and the scrambled for a field in a rush to get the game played before the storm hit. That helps explain why the nets weren’t fixed, too, as it sounds like everyone wanted to get the game started as quickly as possible.
We've all had matches where our gut feeling is we screwed up a corner/goal kick decision (or even a throw-in) based on player reactions and your hunch is you probably got it wrong (usually confirmed when you see yourself on video) but you stick with the call the way you saw it. However, getting a throw-in wrong and signaling goal even though the ball was out can't be compared. I'll be more to the point: Even though he already signaled goal, would anyone have thought any less of the CR to check the net, make a production for everyone to see there is a "hole" by waving the net, wave-off the goal and signal goal kick? Few, if anyone would have argued about it. The video cuts off as the players are about to object, but I see a robotic guy who is out of touch with what the players on the field near him believe happened and was not willing to concede he got it wrong before the restart. At some point, common sense had to kick in that what he thought he saw and what happened were two different things. EDIT: I just read the link provided by @JasonMa and it's more disturbing that 10 minutes went by and the goal was not waved-off despite everyone confirming a gap/hole existed. I am sure fellow referees will still disagree with me and say you can only call what you believe you saw, even if it defies common sense.
We saw a USL protest upheld a year or two ago when an own goal was disallowed because the crew mistakenly believed it was directly from a free kick. The difference with a foul is foul judgments are subjective.
The video cuts off, like you say. We have no idea what happens next (at least, I don't). You are correct to key in on the muted celebration and the clear start of protests from the defense. But I'm very surprised you are asserting you see "a robotic guy who is out of touch with the players..." I just counted. You the referee on-screen for less than 2 seconds out of 20 in that video highlight. By the time the highlight zooms out, he's not there. It stands to reason he's over at the AR having a discussion because the defenders you can see at that point are all looking that general direction. So, from this aborted clip, I think he's doing exactly what you need to do initially, at least. I don't think you can draw the conclusions from the video that you draw. As for your direct question, I think it really all depends on how the situation unfolds and how good the referee could sell such a manuever. Again, ultimately if both the AR and CR thought the ball went through the goal, they really shouldn't go this route (as it's possible to score a valid goal with a whole in the net in the vicinity). But if there's enough of a hunch and context clues that this was not a goal, sure, no one would think less of him for doing this.
Re-reading the article, if it's accurate, the referee did eventually go to the goal. If you've already signaled goal a SECOND time, what are you gaining by going there if you have no intention of changing your mind? By doing so, the coach apparently runs onto the field subsequently and makes a point of actually WALKING through the side of goal as if it's a shower curtain and you have almost a 10 minute delay in the restart.
I had only looked at the video and not read the article. Agree that if you're confirming the goal in the conference, you don't then go over. At least not in an effort to support or validate the decision. Though, if the defending team is showing you the hole in the net, there is a pretty good argument that you have to address that now even if you sanction the goal, so you're kind of stuck. I think that's why you need to go over. It's not about changing your mind, it's about fixing the net. Sure, the defense is showing you the net to say the goal shouldn't count, but they are also showing you a reason you can't restart play. So I'm sure the 10 minute delay was all wrapped up in the protest and the net fixing. We don't have video, but I can't imagine any of that is going to be clean. The defending team is going to drag their feet in helping you fix the net during this process as that won't be their priority. Look, I think you're making a point that in practice most of us agree with. Hopefully you see it cleanly. If not, hopefully you read the context clues immediately well to make the correct decision. No disagreement with either point. All that I (and others) are saying here is that if you and your AR both see it as a goal and confirm it as a goal, that's what you have to give. We have the benefit of video here. They didn't. And the further point is that while you're correct in saying objections from the "goal-scoring" team would be muted if a decision was made relatively quickly to disallow the goal, I think you're incorrect if you think that team would readily accept a reversal after any significant elapse in time. The more time that unfolds, the harder it becomes to reverse the decision.
if a protest was upheld because the referee was wrong in thinking the ball had not been touched, the protest should not have been upheld under the LOTG. It’s black and white that the decision of the referee regarding facts is final. It would be interesting to see the actual protest and the cut al referee report on the incident. For example, if the touch was by the GK trying to save the own goal, if the R report said he didn’t think the GK touch counted as a touch to make it possible to score a goal, that would be a mistake of Law that could support a protest. But an error in determining a fact, regardless of whether it can be proven, is not supportable for a protest under the Laws of the game. A decision to uphold the process would require breaking the rules to do so.
Goal not given on the field. Restart corner kick. Protest upheld. So here’s the goal that wasn’t, offered without commentary.#UNLEASH #MIAvPIT pic.twitter.com/3BTJbpJ3tv— x - Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC (@RiverhoundsSC) October 17, 2021 https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...game-officials-bizarre-decision-disallow-goal
I feel like there was a protest about field conditions just a couple years ago which was rejected with the reasoning that by agreeing to play they were accepting the condition of the pitch. I would think the same would apply here, but this now crosses over to a referee's decision as mentioned above. As a young player many moons ago (probably U16 or U19), I was a defender who tried to convince a referee the ball went through a loose net about 5 feet high from a sharp angle. The CR and AR discussed and still awarded the goal. Someone came over and fixed the net after play was restarted. I was 100% lying. The ball cleaning snuck between me and the near post but I saw the hole there and tried to play it off as many teenagers would do. Always take player reactions with caution. They trusted their eyes and got it right.
there is a saying in Law that “hard cases make bad law.” Technically what they wrote is nonsensical: "In this instance, the match officials applied a law that unequivocally did not match the events on the field, and the ruling on the field exceeded the reasonable degree of human error that is inherently part of the game,” that’s gobbledygook to try to ram a blatant and embarrassing loss of focus that resulted in an error of fact into a “Law” bucket by saying the facts don’t support the ruling. It’s wrong, but done to get over a hopelessly unbelievable decision. Upholding the protect here would equally be wrong. But the powers that be may well twist themselves like a pretzel here for the same reason.
This is why I’m really not a fan of the sort of refereeing that says “well if I don’t know, I’ll just judge by the players’ reactions.” Do we really think players are dumb enough not to know how to game the system by now? I’ve heard coaches (especially coaches who are also refs) say that they explicitly coach their players to act like it’s their throw-in, or their corner kick, or in your case, their goal, to try to sway the referee’s decision. And we play right into their cheating hands by using their reactions as a consideration! It’s an interesting philosophical question: by using player’s reactions as a factor when all else fails, you’re probably getting more calls right than if you were just guessing, but isn’t fairer? I argue it’s not, because it slants the percentages in favor of teams who decide to cheat (even if the overall percentage rises).
I just watched ref cam video from MLS where a player was dumbfounded he got a SPA yellow card for pulling back an attacking third attacker because it was the “first foul” and “not worthy of a yellow card”. The ref asked him why then did he pull him back, he said “because he was getting away”, yet still did not believe it was a SPA YC worthy call. That about sums up how much stock you should take in player reactions to calls
Two years ago, I arrived to my game while another county high school playoff game was running late. As I'm walking in, I hear a commotion. It's about a ball going into the side of the goal, in the same spot as this match. It was very good CR who anyone here would love to work with, who had two average AR's. To him, something looked strange about the play as the ball went in. He spoke to his AR and did everything possible to calm down the defending team (by that point I'm there to watch all this) to tell them that they didn't see the ball go through the side of the net, even though they are showing the hole they alleged it went through. The rest of the game was marred by retaliatory fouls, 7 cautions and 1 red card in 20 minutes and scuffles as a result of one missed play. He saw two different angles of the play afterwards (one on Veo and another from a fan who was on that side) and it was seen that the ball did indeed go through the net. He is STILL livid to this day that he believed his AR who said "I'm 100% sure". Had he been frank and said "I believe the ball went in, but I admit something didn't look right, he says he would have sold it by showing the hole, disallowed it and restarted with a goal kick (yes, I get it, most of you would have gone with a goal). I had a similar situation in my rookie season in a club league match. I had developed bad habits before becoming a certified USSF referee by officiating alone and received feedback that I have to trust my AR's more. We had a similar play that I believed went through the side of the goal. I originally signaled goal kick. The AR was adamant that the ball went in and was aware of the hole afterwards but still insisted the ball went in through the goal. Predictably, the coach and team went nuts when I changed my call before the restart and ruled a goal (kickoff). Fortunately, it was late in the game and did not affect the result. On the way to my car, a fan I have a long standing coaching relationship with mentioned that it did go though the net and felt bad for me. It was a learning experience. Never saw this AR again. As one of our previous state instructors used to say in our in-person recerts, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck".
One savvy teenager is one thing. An entire backline running to the referee to allege a ball went through a net is completely different.
I really think you're debating a point that no one else is debating. In your example, you straight ouf the gate say "something looked strange about the play to him." That implies that he didn't see it as a goal himself or at least had doubts. I'm pretty sure everyone has essentially said "if you (CR) and the AR both saw it go in and that's what you both think happened," then you have to give the goal. You can't be infuenced by context clues alone if you both have goal. But if there's doubt, then sure. You've drawn this conclusion where you believe everyone else here would award a goal in any situation similar to this. And I think it's probably the exact opposite, frankly. It's just that in that very narrowly defined situation where the two relevant crew members see a goal, then that's what they have to go with.
Another point on the "watch for the player's reaction" thought: here's an example where everyone on the field (except the goal scorer, initially) reacts as if it was a good goal -- and they were all wrong. I'm not saying player reactions aren't a clue that something is amiss, but they certainly shouldn't be trusted as a definitive answer on what happened.
US Soccer published the Nov 1/2 games and looks like they rejected Doxa SC's phantom goal protest. And, uh, they are not letting this go.
New protest, this time the losing team is protesting the ref after finding out he had appeared over 20 times for the other team https://bsky.app/profile/sounderatheart.com/post/3m3g523qd3k2m
Yikes. That’s on the assignor. They should have known this and the Referee should have disclosed that up front if the assignor didn’t know. You just can’t assign someone who was a recent former player for the club. It doesn’t matter how impartial you are, it’s how impartial you appear. This isn’t warm body assigning at this level. Find someone else.