Results and ruling will be challenged, especially if there is recourse for unfair treatment. This is why the laws (and rules) exist. This thread was directly as a spin-off of the fun question: is it goal? in a separate thread (given below). The underlying basis for any protest is mainly the mis-application of law (or rules for that game/league). While the justification of awarding a goal seems very reasonable in this case, there is a recent result in a game played in New Zealand, where the referee awarded a penalty kick in the final seconds of the game, then reversed the decision after protests from the foul-ers, signalled full-time, and then reversed the full-time and had the PK taken, apparently with none of the defending team on the field. Have a read here: http://bit.ly/kUASBh. Have you had any of your games (matches) that were officially protested? {'Your' here means those games (matches) in which you officiated in any of the positions, referee, assistant(s) or fourth official. 'Official protest' is when there is a challenge made in writing to the league/tournament authority.} If so, which law was not applied correctly? If unsuccessfully protested, why was the appeal rejected by the powers that were? From my experience, most protests will be appeals for rescinding the booking(s) or send-off(s). These are generally as a result of not reporting properly, and the outcome is not terribly inconvenient for the league as they may lose the revenue that may have been received due to fines and penalties, or the team looses points in the league table. The more biting protests for the league or competition are when the game (match) must be replayed, and are due to the final result being appealed, as this sinks the teeth into their fatty coffers. This may be from completed, abandoned, suspended, or forfeited games.
I had a send off protested in a High School Junior Varsity game. Kid scored a goal, pulled his jersey over his head and ran up the field with his arms out as if he were an airplane (or whatever they think they look like). Easy caution with LOTG, but as I'm sure most of you know, in HS that's a "soft red". Coach lost it, insisted they would protest, blah blah blah. I was at a summer tournament a couple months later and during a game as AR some one behind me says something to the effect of the red card got upheld/the protest got shot down. I turn around and see that it's the other coach from that game. Glad to see I did the right thing. Still pissed that it happened in the first place. There were two minutes remaining and that goal made it 9-0. Hardly worth the celebration.
Immediate thread hijack warning: Don't you read the HS book as saying that can be either Soft red or Yellow? Depending on its excessiveness, or taunting qualities? Sorry 2whels.
Only game I know of was a HS game I was a parent in. My son's junior year in HS. State Championship round, went to shoot out where they did the 30 yard out breakaway 6 seconds to score thing. It was new to the refs and players, on one shot, the keeper, outside the PA jumped up and caught the ball. Refs had players re-take the shot, didn't send off the keeper etc. That decision took about 5 minutes to arrive at as the refs flipped through pages of rules. They did it wrong, my sons school protested, but it was rejected due to having to announce the protest to the refs before they leave the field, or something like that.
Only match I am aware of that was successfully protested was a state cup match from last fall in Colorado. As I understand, (I was not involved as an official or present at the match for that matter) during the run of play a ball came in from another field and actually came into contact with the match ball on the protested game. The CR allowed play to proceed and a goal was scored on the continuation. This score proved decisive since I believe it was the game winner. The protest was upheld and the game was replayed. A major faux pas on the CR's part and correctly administered due to a misapplication of the laws of the game.
No, I don't read it that way. NFHS is pretty clear on their rules and there is little room for interpretation. I don't like the rule any more than the next person but I am reffing under their rules I will enforce them. Either give the 'soft' red or don't give the card at all.
There are "protests," which ask that the results of the game be overturned and then there are "appeals" which ask that a fine and/or suspension for a future game not be enforced. In FIFA Law, games can be protested for a misapplication of the Laws. Judgment decisions can not be protested. Well, you can file a protest but it won't be granted. Makes some unhappy parents feel better about themselves if they file a protest about some supposed miscarriage of justice but it doesn't have any effect. Misapplication, however, is a different story. U-12 girls State Cup game. Adult referee, with a couple of years experience, if I remember correctly. Teams from several hundred miles apart. Visiting team commits a foul in its own penalty area. No argument. Referee gives home team a direct free kick from 13 yards out, not a penalty kick. Players try to tell the referee that he's making a mistake, but he won't listen to a bunch of 11 year old girls. Visiting team forms a wall and everything. Home team scores directly from the free kick. This is the only goal of the game. Visiting team protests the game because the restart should have been a penalty kick. Protest has to be granted. Teams have to replay the game in its entirety. Home team wins the second time. We had a famous case here involving a referee who did not report a red card that he gave in a State Cup semi-final. Huge mess. State association staff partially responsible. Everyone knew this player had been sent off in the semi-final that his team won, but the referee's game report didn't report it (or any other card he gave.) Player gets to play in the final. He scores the only goal of the game. His team's parents buy tickets to Regionals. Losing team protests. BIG stink. Newspaper articles, including one that named the referee. Multiple hearings eventually result in a replay of the final, losing team wins the second time, so now they're going to Regionals. Parents from now losing team demand that state association reimburse them for their tickets and hotel deposit for Regionals. Senior state association exec fired shortly afterwards, for unstated reasons. Said exec files lawsuit for unjust discharge. Settlement made for over half a million dollars. All because the referee didn't report all the cards given in the game. Now in high school, it depends on your state association's rules. Our state says "No protests, period." Doesn't matter how wrong the referee was, no protests. We did have a high school game where the referee was blatantly cheating for one team. (His son had just graduated from that school.) Even the favored team came in to report what had happened and that they didn't deserve the tie that the referee manipulated for them. But no protests, right, even if its the team that benefited! We told the league to do what they needed to do to make it right and don't tell us what they did. "I see nuthing! I hear nuthing!"
It would be interesting to see why the protest was upheld. I believe it could also have been upheld on the ground that once the referee determines the game is over, he no longer has the ability to change a decision.
I recall this video circulating on Facebook. To me there is some justification for the protest but it's very weak. The referee is clearly having an extended conversation with an attacker and defender just after the foul. He looks to even still be in this conversation when the kick occurs. Remember we aren't supposed to insert ourselves at all here as it gives the impression that the quick kick is forfeited, especially when an attacker is part of the conversation. I don't think this gets them an upheld protest but surely a point for refs to stay the hell out of the way and don't become the distraction in these situations.
The only protest I was involved with occurred about 6-7 years ago. I was AR 1 on a u17 G's match. I was a very late add to the crew as a replacement. I got to the site about 10 minutes to KO. The referee decided at some point before my arrival to shorten the game to 35 minute halves. I can't remember exactly why, but it was HIS idea. At that time, in that particular league, u17 was 45 minute halves. Anyway, it's a non-descript match until very late when the referee awards a penalty in the last minute to the home team. It wasn't a really good decision at 0-0 in the last minute. In fact, it wasn't a very good decision at 0-0 in the first minute. The visiting coach goes berserk. He did not calm down and was thrown out. Fast forward to Tuesday. I'm in my office at work and the SRA calls. I have never heard from the SRA in my life. He wants to know about shortening the game. And since I was late to the match, I can't tell him much. But he tells me the referee admitted making the decision. The real reason he called was the coach who was thrown out was scheduled to coach another team in a State Cup semifinal later that day. The referee had kept his pass, and he was not allowed to coach the semifinal. The club protested the State Cup match AND the league match and both protests were allowed and both matches were replayed because the first match was shortened basically because the referee Decided to do it. Since then, I have never shortened a match unless it is explicitly spelled out in the ROC and then I have both coaches sign a note stating the reason for the shortened game.
there is no justification for a protest unless the referee asked for the Galaxy medical staff in order to attend to the injury. Whether the referee inserted himself into any conversation does not matter. Defenders must know that they automatically need to give the distance, the attackers have the right to take the quick restart. Now we can argue all day on whether this was "sporting" behavior or not, but by the letter of the law there is little to argue about.
Yes I get that under strict wording from the law there is no basis. I agreed it wouldn't be upheld. My point is that it is unfair for a referee to engage and distract defenders with conversation in this scenario. If they come at the ref and he ignores them that is one thing, but to continue the conversation or engage is wrong. Especially in this case where there was even a third party involved. When a ref begins to debate the players it gives the implication that some further action must take place before the lock.
I took part in the very first official NCAA protest a couple of years ago when the protest procedure was written. First game of the season, hot and humid August night. I am AR 2, match ends in a draw. The CR tells us to go rehydrate, he will take care of the coin toss, talking to captains, etc. as all of us were starting to cramp. We line up for the first OT, and I notice the clock operator put 15 minutes up. Before CR blows his whistle, I raise my flag, get CR attention and tell him something is not right, I believe it is 10 minutes for OT. The CR says nah, its 15, I have this. I politely remind him that I think its 10, and we probably should clarify to make sure. He says its good, runs back to the center of the pitch and blows his whistle. 3 minutes left in the 2nd OT, the home team finally scores. Game over. The CR runs off the pitch, doesn't say anything to the coaches or us. The other AR says what is going on, I tell him I think he just realized he screwed up. AR 1 and myself run to our changing room, I can hear him yelling at himself, throwing things from outside the room. We go in, he has the rule book out, and he realizes he screwed up. Right then, only we know, the coaches and players from both teams have no idea. First thing he does, he calls our assignor. Our assignor is not too happy, and tells him to get the teams. We get both coaches, CR explains everything, and asks the away team if he wants to file a protest, of course the away team does. I end up staying there an extra hour as we try to figure out this system, download the paperwork, or whatever the hell it is. The conference decide to take away the win for the home team, and award the draw. The CR explains to the conference and someone from the NCAA, exactly what happened. That AR 2 tried to stop the match to inform him that it should be 10 minutes, and that he refused. The CR is a good guy, and took full responsibility. No one from the NCAA or conference ever talked to me, we got punished by receiving a ban for all matches in that specific conference for the season. I was still able to do games in other conferences, but it still pisses me off since I was the only person who was right. The funny, ironic thing was, the very next year all of us were rescheduled on the very first game of the season at the same exact school for a match. So any college officials ever wonder why on all the recert tests they keep asking about the length of OT, that is why.
Since you were the only one who spoke up, what was their justification to ban you for their conference matches? You did your job. Obviously, marching off the field in protest would not have been an alternative, so I don't see what else could be done (although it would have been nice if AR1 would have also piped in, as I'm assuming he probably was unsure since he's not mentioned at that moment). You mention he talked to the captains before the overtime coin toss. In events I've done that require overtime, I go over the Rules of Competition with everyone, so if in the event I am mistaken, I can be corrected by one of the captains or preferably one of the AR's to avoid this. If I understand correctly, it doesn't sound like you guys were there for the coin toss, so if he covered this topic, you had a chance to nip it in the bud. Once a referee is on the field, he/she are not as likely to admit they're wrong.