I can't clip it currently, but if you want a test of dealing with a mass confrontation that came from almost nothing, El Paso vs Tulsa starting at 83:40.
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2025/10/replay-ordered-second-qualifying-round-match-us-open-cup Protest for the ref once playing for the team he was refereeing upheld, replay ordered.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/46687807/the-chaos-us-open-cup-why-sharktopus-gets-rematch I don't get the justification of the replay at all. You can't just order a replay based purely on optics. Either the referee was bent and biased and made significant errors that affected the outcome of the match or he wasn't. "The Panel wants to be clear for the record that its decision does not reflect any evidence or belief that any party attempted to influence the competition, nor should the decision be viewed as a referendum of the on-field performance of the match officials during the match in question." So then why is there a replay? Should all the LAFC matches that Tim Ford officiated in be replayed?
Replaying for this appearance of a conflict of interest while not replaying for a goal that video clearly shows is not a goal is a perfect example of bureaucratic brain rot. Or at least lack of imagination.
As a former full-time coach who only does training part time now, I agree 100% with the decision. Years ago, when it was brought to my attention via cell phone who the referee was in one of my matches (without getting into long specifics), I pulled the team off the field in the 10th minute. We were not penalized for doing so and a replay was ordered. We got the win since the opposing team didn't want a replay. I agree there's nothing in "black and white" here about at what point is it considered no conflict of interest. However, this is not a guy who brought his family to a game a few years ago since he lives in the area and now has the whistle for LAFC. This is not high school referee who is doing a game 30 years later for his old school where most of his teachers and coaches are now deceased and there's no conflict of interest. This is not a guy who posted photos on social media wearing a Benefica jersey as a teenager and he's now officiating their match vs Sporting 10 years later. This is a guy who played for the reserve team as recently as FOUR MONTHS AGO, so this does not pass the common sense test for me, especially if you have a coaching background. I expect few or no one to agree with this and will base it on the fact that there was no specific play pointed to that seemed shady other than generalities. To me, it's irrelevant. Here's why: 1) Referee had an obligation to turn down the match because he most recently played for the reserve team. He failed. 2) I don't pretend I'm aware of the assigning process for US Open Cup matches, but this is a failure on them and on the assignor(s). To Rivera's credit, he admits this guy had no business officiating this match...and he's the opposing coach who won. He went on to say "it's cleared with everybody" (who is everybody?), then it clearly means the assignors were aware, so it's a failure on them as well and anyone else who was aware and didn't voice the problem with this assignment.
To be crystal clear, my problem is not that this match is being replayed. It's that this match is being played while the same governing body said the other one would not be replayed. And I'll use the term again, "bureacratic brain rot." The match with the phantom goal wrongly awarded cannot be replayed because of a rigid adherence to Law 5 and the fact that this stage of USOC doesn't have video review, so the governing body apparently can't accept video evidence of a factual decision that potentially altered the outcome of the match. The match with the controversy over an inappropriately assigned referee can be replayed even though there's no suggestion the result was affected at all. Because... ethnical guidelines about referee assigning that may or may not be explicitly binding? If you step back for a second, the combination of decisions makes no sense. The match in Washington was played and if the decisions of a referee are final per Law 5, the justification for replaying the match extends to some subjective super-authority that the competition authority has to overrule all those decisions and pretend they never should have happend. Okay. That actually works for me. You need to have some body that can make such judgments. But if that body has such an authority how does it, simultaneously, not choose to exercise it when video shows a goal was wrongly awarded and everyone sees it? This isn't like a wrong foul was given or a corner kick instead of a goal kick... it's the thing matches are decided on and it was wrong and the whole world knows. USSF is intervening in the "theoretically unfair" situation with extraordinary remedies but refusing to intervene in the "objectively wrong" situation. They can hang their hat on Law 5, and be on solid ground in the bureacratic world. But ask any fan of the game which team got screwed over more and the answer is easy.
I generally agree with USSF’s approach in both these incidents, because as you said, one is “theoretically unfair” while the other is just “objectively wrong.” We don’t replay matches for wrong referee decisions, even if it is very objectively wrong. However, since the game in Washington was possibly affected by a conflict of interest that potentially meant the referee could have been calling the game with some degree of bias, that’s a lot different. A biased decision (or even, the potential for the existence of one) is much worse than an incorrect decision. The former should not and cannot be accepted in sports. But wrong decisions are a part of the game.
But we can. Like I said, it's a failure of imagination. "The potential for the existence of bias" is "much worse than" a ghost goal in a 2-1 KO match? I'm sorry, but this is the type of bureacratic tunnel vision that I was talking about. This is simply not true for the vast majority of people. USSF is saying extraordinary circumstances existed to replay a match. The fact is there were extraordinary circumstances in the other match, too. And that circumstance was much more tangible and happened to be caught on video. Sometimes reality is supposed to slap you in the face. Ignoring it with legalese isn't virtuous.
Maybe it's a failure of imagination -- but I'm finding that my imagination is also failing me. Because how do you make these decisions? What's the difference between this ghost goal vs, say, an obvious missed attacker handball leading to a goal? Or an offensive foul before a goal? Would we replay games if we had video evidence of that? Is the answer different if the ghost goal is given in the first minute vs late in the game? Is the answer different if instead of a ball through the net, it's a goal given when the ball was really on the line? Does it matter if it's really, really close, but we still have clear video evidence that it wasn't in? Or should there be no guidance, and it's just up to some governing body based on "hey this one feels extra unfair". By that standard, should England/Germany in the 2010 world cup been replayed? It's easy to poke fun at "beaurocratic brainrot", but I'm not sure that there's a better alternative.
@MassachusettsRef, about your perspective on the phantom goal. I absolutely agree how bad it “looks” to replay a game for this perceived bias, but not when you had clear video evidence of a phantom goal. But we need to look at the bigger picture. It’s true up and down the pyramid for not only soccer but ALL sports (I referee multiple and it’s the same in all of them) that you cannot use what basically amounts to fan video (not literally fan video, but it’s a non-VAR unofficial video even if it was broadcast) if your competition is not using VAR. As you guys like to point out with VAR, VS, and coaches challenges, the “can of worms” that this would open up by using unofficial videos to replay matches would be unprecedented in sports I’m not sure if you believe that the league should also be replaying the phantom goal match because this footage has come out, or if you’re just pointing out the weird hypocrisy of the two situations. But regardless, we absolutely CANNOT use unofficial video footage as evidence to replay games
How about: if you have clear video evidence that Law 10 was incorrectly applied or not applied, you can replay the match? And I'm sorry, but all the things you're saying hold true for the assigning question. What if it was the twin brother of the player who was assigned as referee? What if the referee played for the club 3 years ago? Five years ago? What if it was an assistant referee who was assigned and not a referee? A subjective decision needs to be made about what could constitute potential bias. And if the answer is "well it was recent and he was the whistle--this is obvious" then I would suggest the exact same holds (and it's more obvious) for a ghost goal on video. I don't think this is hard. There are no "what ifs" here. A goal that was not a goal was awarded. Goals are how we determine who wins in our sport. Everything leading up to the goal is "what if." We don't need to get into what ifs.
I agree with both of these points below: 1) The Pandora’s Box we’d be opening here is massive. If an objectively wrong goal/no-goal decision through the side of the net is replayable, then what about an objectively wrong decision where the ball didn’t cross the middle of the goal line? What about a missed attacker handball? What about a penalty kick given for handball where the ball never struck the arm? What about a goal that was ruled off for an objectively incorrect offside? These objectively incorrect, game-changing decisions happen more or less all the time. They come in varieties (they’re not always a question of which side of the post the ball crosses), but things that are fundamentally the same are not uncommon. All participants must accept the existence of these objective, game-changing, but good-faith errors, or else we’d be replaying a ton of matches. 2) I agree that there are big equity issues that arise if it becomes normal for fan-submitted / unofficial video to be used for protest. Teams that have the financial and logistic capability to have video will be able to protest games that another team in their position wouldn’t. Maybe they find other ways to only record or share videos about plays that work to their disadvantage. I also think, we’re not quite there yet with widespread availability, but AI video editing is already here and will only get more believable and more widespread. In 2-5 years’ time, what’s stopping a team from passing a real video into Sora to get out a version that looks like a goal that actually was scored went in the wrong side of the post? At some point in the not so distant future, it will be very important (even more so outside of sports) for there to be a way to ensure the unedited validity of video evidence. And accepting submissions from non-neutral parties is going to make that very hard.
I'm mostly leaning in on the juxtaposition (I wouldn't call it hypocrisy). But I also think at a certain "professional" level in a knockout competition, organizing committees absolutely need to consider replaying matches for something like this. Unless you think the footage is AI or doctored, I'm not sure why an organization can't use "unofficial" footage either.
We'll go round in circles here so I'll try to stop by just saying I think you and others are way too keyed in on "what ifs." This wasn't AI footage. And no one is asking to overturn any of the decisions that you or @sjquakes08 bring up. The team in question did not score a goal but was credited with a goal. The video is real. No one--absolutely no one--is disputing the facts. Sometimes you just got to accept reality and make extraordinary decisions in the interest of fairness. Not everything needs to be a precedent or a slippery slope.
But these aren't some crazy string of unlikely "what-ifs". By your logic, England vs. Germany in 2010 absolutely should have been re-played. It's a major knockout tournament, for a goal/no-goal decision, where we had indisputable video evidence. This isn't a crazy hypothetical, it happened! Should it have been replayed? No matter where you draw the line, there are going to be injustices. But "on field judgements of fact" is a very, clear, bright line that's less arbitrary than any other line you can come up with.
I think once you go beyond "was a goal validly or invalidly awarded" it is a crazy string. I have to be careful here because I don't remember what I said in 2010, but my answer right now is a qualified yes. In theory, yes, that match should have been replayed. Now, the problem in tournament football versus a cup competition is that there is really no time or opportunity to replay a match without upsetting the entire competition (and when we're talking FIFA tournament football, upsetting global broadcasts and tens to hundreds of millions of dollars). So I can accept a "sorry, no recourse, period, in tournament football." But here in a cup competition, when you are replaying a match in the very same round, that doesn't apply. So both the opportunity to have the match replayed and the fact that a different match is being replayed for a more theoretical/amorphous reason lead me to my conclusion here. As I implied above, if the other match wasn't being replayed I wouldn't be banging this drum as hard.
All else aside, we've (I've) heard nothing about the referee's decision in the Washington game being questioned. Maybe there were specifics brought up in the protest, but the decision to replay was entirely about perception of potential wrong-doing. And for all I know, the referee could have been bias against his prior club for never making the first team. If he had made a questionable call against his prior club, could that club have successfully protested saying he had ill feelings for them?
I know you won’t and shouldn’t care much about my opinion at all, but I have to say, even though I respect almost every opinion you have about the things that happen on here, I am really surprised and honestly shocked that you of all people are in the “replay a game because unofficial footage shows a grave error” camp. If there’s anything I thought everyone could agree on, it’s that no matter the level of competition, no matter the sport, you can’t be using any type of unofficial video to make game decisions, whether filmed by a random fan in the stands on a phone, or the official television/streaming broadcast, and that any ref who did should be severely reprimanded. I get how bad of a look it is to miss something so plainly obvious, but it just flat out can’t happen. I’m especially surprised by your POV considering how adamant you are about not wanting VAR expanded, not wanting the coaches challenge system that was trialed in U20s, not wanting yellow cards to be able to be challenged to give/rescind, and I believe even think the current VAR system is too relaxed on what referees can be brought to the monitor for. You don’t want the can of worms that all these VAR changes would open up, but don’t worry about the can of worms using unofficial video to change game results would bring. But your opinions on this matter along with seeming to not think the referee bias is a big enough deal to replay the match, maybe your perspective is to really substantially protect refs and their decision making (so don’t let their decisions be questioned too much with VAR, don’t imply corruption from personal relationships with teams, etc.) sort of like a union leader, so I guess I could understand that.
All this is fair. I'd respond with two points. One, I think this is an extraordinary situation and the world has evolved from the one where Law 5 was written and even where it was rigidly adhered to. Now, maybe the world will evolve to a new place with AI, which was alluded to above. But right now, in our digital media environment, I think it's just pretty close to untenable for a major national competition to allow this to stand. Cell phone video in your local U14 league? Yeah, different story for me. But if you are the premier national cup competition, which will have VAR in later rounds... you've got to stop and ask yourself if this is the right look. I think a lot of people come at this from "can we overturn this and be consistent with the Laws" and I am taking the approach of "can we allow this to stand and be the serious competition we claim to be?" And, to reiterate, I think it's particularly untenable when you order a replay for something else that's much less tangible in the same round. If more people were paying attention to this, it would be purely laughable. And as to your slippery slope argument or my allusion to being adamant about the expansion of VAR, I feel very comfortable here. This is an integrity of the game situation and I've said I'd limit any such extraordinary decision to the very narrow question of whether or not a goal was validly scored per Law 10--nothing else. To make some brains explode further, I'd even be fine (hell, I'd expect it!) if a competition authority took into account the scoreline of the match when making such extraordinary decisions. If this would have made it 5-1 with 5 minutes left? Tough luck. Sure someone could come up with a borderline case easily, but part of my argument here is that there is no way you can say the outcome would have stayed the same if not for the wrongly awarded goal. I don't want to expand VAR and I wish it was different. But I don't see that having anything to do with this. It's just about clear evidence that a goal was wrongly awarded and having nothing to do with any of the subjective Laws outside 10. I also am I bit hung up on your hang up on "unofficial" video. What's official? Sure with an exclusive national broadcast partner like Apple, that's easier with MLS. It's not easy when you're talking about local tv broadcasts or a ton of other professional competitions that are televised or broadcast. And a lot of competitions have handheld field-level cameras now; admittedly more professional than this footage, but similar concept. It's a small point. Maybe an irrelevant one. But the idea of official versus unofficial video doesn't bug me and I'm not sure it's a thing. So long as you can verify the footage is real, that seems to me to be what matters.
@MassachusettsRef Has summed it better than everyone else. There is a reason why replays for protests have historically been non-existent at the professional level and international level. I think at the international level (i.e. World Cup qualifying) the only two that I know of are this. https://web.archive.org/web/2011113...up/archive/germany2006/news/newsid=27212.html https://apnews.com/world-cup-qualif...ixing-by-ref-362e08ee6f0a4833b45369df82202a06 In theory they only should be done for pure misapplication of the LOTG. Otherwise you start getting into a very slippery slope as mentioned by MassRef. How can the same organization order a replay purely based on "feel" "optics" and "potential unfairness" while ignoring an error of the most fundamental aspect of the game (the awarding and not awarding of a goal). I'm a big believer in Law 5, but I'm also pragmatic/realistic that with VAR that Law 5 cannot be as iron clad as it used to be. To me both protests should have been thrown out as they have no basis in Law. But if you're going to go down that slippery slope then both protests have to be upheld and matches replayed. You can't pick and choose and hide behind technicalities/bureaucracy on one and not the other. At least with the ghost goal, the justification would be similar to the USL match that had a replay ordered a couple of years ago. The referee crew made a decision that was so far out of touch with reality on what actually transpired on the field that a replay is justified. Basically, they said 2+2=5. What is the justification in Law or procedure for the conflict of interest? It just looks bad? From all accounts there wasn't a decision or series of decisions that the referee made that actually affected the outcome of the match (correctly or incorrectly). All that seems to have taken place is "well the referee was a little too friendly with the other team."
Right. Guidelines. I believe it’s also a guideline to have national referees at this stage. Doesn’t mean you replay the match if a regional gets the whistle out of necessity. And I know that I’m exaggerating the point here. I get it. But at the same time, as I said above, there’s a subjective element to conflict of interest. I’m not fighting its application here. I’m just stressing the juxtaposition of accepting the violation of guidelines (which are written down somewhere?) as a grave error while not acknowledging that awarding a ghost goal in a one goal match is at least in the same category.
Exactly. What if the player was a year or two removed from playing for the club? Instead of like 4 months or how ever short the timeliness was?