I guess I'll be one of the first to disagree and say that the corner kick trick play was legal. Here is why: Yes, the ball is touched many times before the actual "kick" is taken and the ball moves and is in play. However, there really is no enforced definition as to when a ball is 'set' and cannot be touched again without being called for a double touch. I would assume it would be ITOOTR or in this case AR? I've seen many many corner kicks in MLS and European leagues taken where the ball is placed in the arc by hand and then the player does not like the positioning so then slightly rolls the ball over with his hand or foot and then proceeds to take the kick. Should this not then be considered handling or a double touch and a free kick awarded for the opposing team? My main point or question is - when is the ball set for play? To me it seems clear, in this instance, that in the opinion of the AR, the ball was moved multiple times but was finally set in legal manner and then kicked into play legally. Just because it turned out to be a trick play - how can PRO from a distance dispute this without consulting the referee team? Look forward to your opinions and reference to LOTG.
It's probably too rare for them to ever do anything about it, but I think it would really benefit the game for FIFA to make some objective distinction between a "set" and a play. Something as simple as "the ball is not in play until it leaves the corner kick arc" could make this difference. I just freaking hate these trick plays though. Any time you have a player set the ball with his foot for his teammate to take the kick you get a "shroedingers ball" situation where the ball is simultaneously in play and out of play. There's just no way to win.
Handling isn't a possibility in that case - the ball isn't in play until it's kicked and moved. Double touch would be a possibility. In this case, Sam touches the ball three times before leaving. So touch 1 is resetting, touch 2 is resetting, touch 3 is putting it back in play? And I'd probably guess that if the Chicago defender ran over to clear the ball, the Red Bulls would complain that Sam had just left it for Kljestan, he didn't actually put it back in play, and since it's unclear, the referee would call it back and give them another chance at the corner kick. Chicago probably would have been screwed either way. How on earth is that fair?
It seems like both teams should be able to know with certainty when the ball is in play and when it's not. If only one team is privy to that information you get an unfair advantage.
Can't say I disagree. Certainly an old school philosophy along the lines of it is a gentleman's game. I've heard some say similar things from others and that all of these 'trick' plays should be sanctioned as unsporting behavior, without necessarily issuing a card.
The key is next week if someone touches the ball with their foot when it's placed in the arc correctly and then reaches down to adjust it again the referee must call it now. That is what the MLS said in their statement, this is supposed to be called an IFK, so I expect IFKs to be called constantly, on every dead ball. Or we can return to sanity and have the referees judge when the ball is in play or not, which happened on this play the player even asked the referee. You couldn't get a more clear ruling than that.
"Gotcha refereeing" Should be interpreted as when a referee calls something they're basically shouting "Gotcha" at the same time. So it's specifically their unnecessary insertion into the game that isn't needed rather than sitting back and letting the players decide the game.
The existence of this play is 100% an unintended side effect of eliminating the "roll its circumference" requirement for FKs and CKs. As Law stands today, we expect the referee to make the metaphysical determination of whether the ball has been put into play by a team that is deliberately trying to hide the fact that the ball has been put into play. (And in some cases, like Shrodinger's cat, want it to be both in play [if a teammate dribbles it] and not in play [if a defender rushes in].) We can't let them have it both ways. (As a coach, I would tell my near defender to rush in any time one player is on the ball and another comes in, which would force a decision before someone was dribbling toward the goal.) While it seems silly to have to amend Law 17 to get rid of this nonsense, the amount of anger, hurt feelings, and wasted energy this stupid play generates makes me think Law 17 does need to be amended -- either to return to the circumference rule or to make it have to leave the arc.
or you could do something like requiring an attacking player to set the ball with their hand so that it's obvious the next touch with the foot puts the ball in play
There is so much wrong with this post. I'm deleting a whole paragraph about "gotcha refereeing" because I don't know where we're going with it. It's also surprising that you ignore the rest of my dissertation to focus on that. You say the refs would have unnecessarily inserted themselves into a game if they made this call and either had LY NY retake it or declare it a two-touch. That's your opinion. Chicago's argument would be that the referee unnecessarily inserted themselves into the game by not calling the obvious (to them) infringement. A non-decision in refereeing is a decision, right? Also, if PRO said/says that this is not to be allowed, then your "letting the players decide the game" is akin to anarchy. That's a fun term to throw around if it's an appropriate subjective-decision situation. Feels like a weak defense for a LOTG-oriented situation.
It's ok we can disagree, let's see what happens this weekend. Chicago is complaining because a goal was scored on them, and it wasn't like it was the entire team either, only a couple of players barely pursued the referee at all. Their strongest argument is a technicality and not defense as they should've done. If MLS wants it's referees to be consistent I expect a lot of IFKs this weekend. If that happens let's say I owe you a coke.
And they are the same team that tried to protest a game because the referee put his arm up to indicate a ceremonial free kick and that the restart was on his whistle, and tried say their team thought it was an IFK, even though at no time the referee had their arm up other than to indicate it was on his whistle. Which is why we now put the whistle in front of our face with arms parallel to the ground, lest their be any confusion.
Really? Man they're starting to sound like Juventus. Pretty soon they'll be selecting which referees can ref them based on which referees accept "gifts."
He may have, although I didn't hear that part, but he specifically claimed on two occasions immediately following the play that "the ball needs to travel a full circumference" and also said it "needs to leave the arc", neither of which are accurate.
And he made no such claim at real time. Said it was a legal play. He had it right during the game. Didnt watch the post game as I was disgusted with the play and turned off the tv.
I didn't see it live, only saw the replay later in the game and am commenting on what he said at the time they read the statement which was said to be issued by the "MLS."
It happens every day all over the world. Player adjusts a free kick or a corner with their foot and then takes the corner. Yes I'm sure I'm a referee, thank you for letting me know I shouldn't reply to you anymore.
Yes, the same player. The game is not about deception unless your 10 years old, which might be....I'll let it go. You haven't been on the board for that long, and in a month's time....I'll let that go too.
This is the best explanation I have read so far. So Chicago is supposed to know which touch is a reposition and which touch puts the ball in play? I think not. My standard is if the ball is stationary and then kicked and moved, its in play. By my count, theres three touches here by Sam. If theres any possibility of trickery here I'm going with the interpretation which gives both teams equal opportunity to discern whats going on.
Not sure "PRO put out a statement," but the TV crews on some games have the ability to call either someone from PRO or someone from MLS' refereeing office (which I seriously think Agoos oversees right now), and get an explanation about a call. In theory, the person the TV crew talks to is also watching the game and is able to comment intelligently on it, but that is probably not always going to be true. Also, who knows who answers that phone. Maybe Walton is at the game, or maybe Agoos' intern does. Anyway, this is something that has been set up for several years. I don't know how often its used, and this is the first time I've ever heard a reference to it, presumably because Shep is too partisan to simply repeat what they said without arguing with it. But I bet that is what is going on.