Awful mistake

[socal lurker]

You’re on the appeal board of a professional league that is not the top level, so it doesn’t have VAR

R awarded green a FK in its defensive third. Green takes the kick, which ends up in it’s own goal. R awards a goal kick, ruling the ball was kicked directly into the goal, and a team cannot score on itself directly from a FK.

The video from the game shows the referee clearly permitted the kick, which was sent sideways to a teammate who was actually the one who sent the ball past the GK. Mysteriously, the ref team, in consultation, comes to the conclusion that wasn’t what happened and gives the goal kick.

White appeals saying it is an error of law because it was touched by another player and the video clearly shows the ball was not kicked directly into the goal.

What’s your ruling?

 

[JamesL]

Can't be replaying very game where something is wrong in law.

Appeal dismissed.

 

[Anubis]

Can't be replaying very game where something is wrong in law.

Appeal dismissed.

Without checking, was a FA cup tie not replayed this season as the ref wrongly used sin bin?
England women 19s certainly had that penalty referee error, but they had to go replay just from the penalty onwards, not the full game

if the original post is a real situation, I can see a board replaying the game, ( even tho if its just me being left to make the call, i say no)

 

[Russell Jones]

If the referee team admit to seeing the touch by the second player then it becomes an error in law. If they maintain that none of them saw it then that's just standard human error.

Guessing the team of officials are in pretty hot water whatever they say though!!

 

[JamesL]

Without checking, was a FA cup tie not replayed this season as the ref wrongly used sin bin?
England women 19s certainly had that penalty referee error, but they had to go replay just from the penalty onwards, not the full game

if the original post is a real situation, I can see a board replaying the game, ( even tho if its just me being left to make the call, i say no)

There is precedent for sure. But usually in cup/knockout competitions.

Equally can point to games where law errors didn't result in a retake. Stroud penalty at Newcastle springs to mind.

Another example, grassroots this time. A referee dismissed a player. Having seen the replay back and seeking thought of colleagues contacted CFA who rescinded card but did not order replay of match.

I imagine around the UK and globally law errors will be made more frequently than we would like. We'd probably never finish a grassroots season.

 

[lincs22]

Without checking, was a FA cup tie not replayed this season as the ref wrongly used sin bin?
England women 19s certainly had that penalty referee error, but they had to go replay just from the penalty onwards, not the full game

if the original post is a real situation, I can see a board replaying the game, ( even tho if its just me being left to make the call, i say no)

@Anubis = I recall also there was a game in France, where the referee made an error in law and the match was forced to be replayed.

In junior football in York, there was an incident where the penalty kicks to decide a cup tie where incorrect, so the penalties had to be re-played.

While Law 5 gives scope for the match to be confirmed, given you are in USA (and your lawyers), I won't be surprised that the match is void and needs to be repaid - with the cost coming from the referee's own pocket

 

[Anubis]

There is precedent for sure. But usually in cup/knockout competitions.

Equally can point to games where law errors didn't result in a retake. Stroud penalty at Newcastle springs to mind.

Another example, grassroots this time. A referee dismissed a player. Having seen the replay back and seeking thought of colleagues contacted CFA who rescinded card but did not order replay of match.

I imagine around the UK and globally law errors will be made more frequently than we would like. We'd probably never finish a grassroots season.

certainly would not expect replays over red cards, as much as they coukd be errors in law, would class that as just plain referee error, judgement call, ref has deemed dogso when on replay there are two covering defenders etc


Something technically incorrect like the original post, or for example guy scores direct from a drop ball, I would not be surprised to read a replay

( i have not worded thst very well ! )

 

[Anubis]

@Anubis = I recall also there was a game in France, where the referee made an error in law and the match was forced to be replayed.

In junior football in York, there was an incident where the penalty kicks to decide a cup tie where incorrect, so the penalties had to be re-played.

While Law 5 gives scope for the match to be confirmed, given you are in USA (and your lawyers), I won't be surprised that the match is void and needs to be repaid - with the cost coming from the referee's own pocket

Ah good call, there has been a national u15 final pen shoot out here because at taking of pks, someome who was not on field at the end was proved to have taken the kick

( maybe why last week i posted i would find it hard to keep track of 44 pens!)

 

[Peter Grove]

You’re on the appeal board of a professional league that is not the top level, so it doesn’t have VAR

R awarded green a FK in its defensive third. Green takes the kick, which ends up in it’s own goal. R awards a goal kick, ruling the ball was kicked directly into the goal, and a team cannot score on itself directly from a FK.

The video from the game shows the referee clearly permitted the kick, which was sent sideways to a teammate who was actually the one who sent the ball past the GK. Mysteriously, the ref team, in consultation, comes to the conclusion that wasn’t what happened and gives the goal kick.

White appeals saying it is an error of law because it was touched by another player and the video clearly shows the ball was not kicked directly into the goal.

What’s your ruling?

Even if the ball had gone directly into the goal from the free kick, a goal kick is still the wrong decision. In such a case, it should be a corner.

 

[Dan56]

It seems a number of people here are confusing errors in fact with errors in Law.

Referee sends off wrong player; books someone three times; says the ball went into the net when it didn't; gives a penalty when a player clearly dived - all errors in fact.

Referee writes on report that he dismissed a player (straight red card) for Dissent; ref says both teams encroached at penalty but gives indirect free kick; ref makes goalkeeper leave pitch after treatment; ref blows whistle before ball crosses goal line but still gives goal - all errors in Law

An error in Law is grounds to ask for a replay. An error in fact may later be addressed and altered (as in any case of mistaken identity), but the game still stands.

In the OP it depends on what the ref says happened. It looks pretty bad for him because even if he claims to have not seen first touch then (as Peter Grove points out) he should have given a corner.

Now of course this is rarely a major thing at grassroots. Top level refs have cameras recording their every move. At my level it all comes down to what I said in my report. Now, an interesting question: who here has subtly altered their report to cover their @ss? Have you ever thought about something after game and realised you made an error in Law? Or even came on a helpful site such as this and got told you had? And have you then "slanted" the way you described it in your report? I am not talking only about absolute lying (though I am sure that happens), just about giving a better "spin" to the way you tell it.

Now it is probably asking to much to expect refs to come clean on this. It would need a brave official to own up on a public forum such as this. But I will tell a story of my own. Some years ago I refereed a game in which I (rightly) booked a player for Dissent. As they turned away from me after being shown the yellow card, they muttered "bullsh@t". It was said in a voice of biting contempt and disdain. I immediately showed them a red card. After the game, I realised that this was really a second case of Dissent and I should have shown a second yellow, then the red. The tone of voice used had made me react as to OFFINABUS, but on paper it would sound like a massive over-reaction. So in my report I wrote that I heard them say "You talk bullsh@t". I wish I had not done this now. How many of us have similar stories?

 

[Redster]

Now it is probably asking to much to expect refs to come clean on this. It would need a brave official to own up on a public forum such as this. But I will tell a story of my own. Some years ago I refereed a game in which I (rightly) booked a player for Dissent. As they turned away from me after being shown the yellow card, they muttered "bullsh@t". It was said in a voice of biting contempt and disdain. I immediately showed them a red card. After the game, I realised that this was really a second case of Dissent and I should have shown a second yellow, then the red. The tone of voice used had made me react as to OFFINABUS, but on paper it would sound like a massive over-reaction. So in my report I wrote that I heard them say "You talk bullsh@t". I wish I had not done this now. How many of us have similar stories?

I think I'd have just said I'd sent him for two cautionable offences but didn't show the second yellow.
Not showing a card is not an error of law.


I agree with you on the common confusion between errors of law and fact

 

[JamesL]

It seems a number of people here are confusing errors in fact with errors in Law.

Referee sends off wrong player; books someone three times; says the ball went into the net when it didn't; gives a penalty when a player clearly dived - all errors in fact.

Referee writes on report that he dismissed a player (straight red card) for Dissent; ref says both teams encroached at penalty but gives indirect free kick; ref makes goalkeeper leave pitch after treatment; ref blows whistle before ball crosses goal line but still gives goal - all errors in Law

An error in Law is grounds to ask for a replay. An error in fact may later be addressed and altered (as in any case of mistaken identity), but the game still stands.

In the OP it depends on what the ref says happened. It looks pretty bad for him because even if he claims to have not seen first touch then (as Peter Grove points out) he should have given a corner.

Now of course this is rarely a major thing at grassroots. Top level refs have cameras recording their every move. At my level it all comes down to what I said in my report. Now, an interesting question: who here has subtly altered their report to cover their @ss? Have you ever thought about something after game and realised you made an error in Law? Or even came on a helpful site such as this and got told you had? And have you then "slanted" the way you described it in your report? I am not talking only about absolute lying (though I am sure that happens), just about giving a better "spin" to the way you tell it.

Now it is probably asking to much to expect refs to come clean on this. It would need a brave official to own up on a public forum such as this. But I will tell a story of my own. Some years ago I refereed a game in which I (rightly) booked a player for Dissent. As they turned away from me after being shown the yellow card, they muttered "bullsh@t". It was said in a voice of biting contempt and disdain. I immediately showed them a red card. After the game, I realised that this was really a second case of Dissent and I should have shown a second yellow, then the red. The tone of voice used had made me react as to OFFINABUS, but on paper it would sound like a massive over-reaction. So in my report I wrote that I heard them say "You talk bullsh@t". I wish I had not done this now. How many of us have similar stories?

Awarding a goal when the whole of the ball did not cross the goal line in between the posts and below the bar is an error in law. Yes, it's factually wrong, but a goal can only be awarded, in law, having met the above criteria.

Not sending off after a second bookable offence, again is an error in law.

I think the only ones that aren't errors in law, are the ones where they are subjective and opinion of ref. Anything that's objective most likely a law issue.

Games won't always get replayed due to law errorx that's a fact, proven or unproven and we have seen it at the highest levels with the Keith Stroud penalty... I am sure there are plenty more examples where games haven't been replayed.

They usually get replayed as a result of competition rule breaches, eg sin bin when not in operation, player eligibility (a team got removed from the Vase this season falling foul of comp rules and losing team reinstated).

There has been instance of law errors being replayed but also the same situation not being so Newcastle Pen Vs England women U19 pen so I don't think there is hard and fast

 

[Redster]

Awarding a goal when the whole of the ball did not cross the goal line in between the posts and below the bar is an error in law. Yes, it's factually wrong, but a goal can only be awarded, in law, having met the above criteria.

The above is an error in law only if the referee has seen the ball has not wholly crossed the goal line. If they have mistakenly seen the ball cross the goalline it is a mistake of fact.

You might say that it is a error in law if the referee awards the goal in circumstances where they are not sufficiently certain, but the referees response will almost always be 'I was very, very certain, albeit wrong.'

 

[JamesL]

The above is an error in law only if the referee has seen the ball has not wholly crossed the goal line. If they have mistakenly seen the ball cross the goalline it is a mistake of fact.

You might say that it is a error in law if the referee awards the goal in circumstances where they are not sufficiently certain, but the referees response will almost always be 'I was very, very certain, albeit wrong.'

It's an error of fact that leads to an error in law.
If you award a goal and on replay the ball was seen to not have wholly crossed the line the observer is going to hit you in application of law.
You're making a very black and white distinction between the two when in actual fact they overlap in many cases. A factual error will almost certainly lead to something that contravenes law, which makes it an error in law.

 

[Redster]

It's a distinction which is borrowed from the legal system. It is very well known. It is not particularly grey - EDIT:the error becomes the error at the moment the relevant decision is made with the knowledge at the time.

Not that it matters to referees - we just make decisions based on what we see. What administrators do is a matter for them.

 

[Dan56]

The above is an error in law only if the referee has seen the ball has not wholly crossed the goal line. If they have mistakenly seen the ball cross the goalline it is a mistake of fact.

You might say that it is a error in law if the referee awards the goal in circumstances where they are not sufficiently certain, but the referees response will almost always be 'I was very, very certain, albeit wrong.'

It's an error of fact that leads to an error in law.
If you award a goal and on replay the ball was seen to not have wholly crossed the line the observer is going to hit you in application of law.
You're making a very black and white distinction between the two when in actual fact they overlap in many cases. A factual error will almost certainly lead to something that contravenes law, which makes it an error in law.

Rester is quite correct, and JamesL I believe there IS a black and white distinction between fact and Law. If you give a goal and a replay shows the ball did not cross the line, you may get into serious problems for missing it, but NO error in Law has been committed. This kind of error is not one that "contravenes Law" at all. It only contravenes Law if the referee KNOWINGLY decides to do something thinking the Law will back him up and is wrong.

Not sending off after a second bookable offence, again is an error in law.

Absolutely not. If the ref made a mistake in writing down names or numbers, or just overlooked the earlier caution, this is an error of fact. Only if the ref (wrongly) believed that in that game THREE cautions were needed before dismissal does it become an error in Law.

Games won't always get replayed due to law errorx that's a fact, proven or unproven and we have seen it at the highest levels with the Keith Stroud penalty... I am sure there are plenty more examples where games haven't been replayed.

Again, not correct. True, there was an error in Law here. But if an error in Law has not affected the result it will not need a replay. In the Stroud incident, Newcastle won anyway, so the error in Law (and that's exactly what it was) did not call fora replay. Had Burton scored to win the game, this would have been replayed. Yet had Keith Stroud given a goal where replays showed the ball had not crossed the goal line, there would be nothing more to be done.

 

[Redster]

Absolutely not. If the ref made a mistake in writing down names or numbers, or just overlooked the earlier caution, this is an error of fact. Only if the ref (wrongly) believed that in that game THREE cautions were needed before dismissal does it become an error in Law.

Not with you on this one. In my view, if R fails to keep an accurate match record and that leads to an error, it is an error of law because the law expects R to keep an accurate match record

 

[socal lurker]

The OP recently happened in the US in the USL--except that I mistakenly put in goal kick instead of corner kick--they got that part right. I don't know if this link will work outside the US, but this is the play: https://streamable.com/64myee

The explanation given was in fact that the referee ruled it went in directly from the FK, which was a mind numbing ruling as in the video you can see the R watching the ball kicked sideways from the right spot. How 4 referees that reached that level failed to realize it was not from the FK is one of those great mysteries of the mind and group think. (Though an error by the whole team in thinking it could be a "no goal" if touched by a second player on the team would have been no less mind numbing.)

The game was ordered replayed from that moment on the grounds that there was a clear misapplication of law. (I disagree with that characterization--the referees properly applied the law to a clear and egregious mistake about what happened. That said, I'm not truly offended by the replay of such a blatant, obvious, inexplicable error of fact, but I do worry that it could be the thin edge of wedge. But the powers that be framed the order to pretend that it was same-old, same-old in correcting an error of Law.)

Here's a newspaper story. https://triblive.com/sports/riverhounds-game-to-be-partially-replayed-due-to-officiating-error/

 

[one]

There are two types of error in law.

1. ref gets the facts wrong which result in error in law (eg award a goal when ball didn't go in)
2. ref gets the facts right but still makes factual error in law (eg award goal when knowing it had directly gone in from own free kick)

Note both above deal with facts. Getting subjective decisions wrong, even if clear and obvious, is not an error in law.

Does an error in law require a replay? It all depends on league rules. Referees make errors in law all the time. Allow a throw in to the team that last touched the ball because they didn't see it (type 1). Referee does dropped ball after the ball touches the ref but goes directly out of play, because they don't know the law dictates a throw in restart (type 2). If games should be replayed for these errors in law then almost every game would have to be replayed.

One thing common in judgement for game replay (or part replay) is it only happen if error in law 'directly' impacts the result of the game. Both 'goal' examples in points above warrant replay. The example with throw in however have no direct impact so no replay.

OP is a messy one and a little confusing. The ref got the facts wrong resulting in error in law (type 1). He also got the follow up restart wrong. The latter is inconsequential. But the former impacted the result of the game 'directly'. For me that is either a full or part replay. Which one depends on league rules. If part replay, it should restart with kick off, with the goal awarded.

 

[socal lurker]

1. ref gets the facts wrong which result in error in law (eg award a goal when ball didn't go in)
2. ref gets the facts right but still makes factual error in law (eg award goal when knowing it had directly gone in from own free kick)

I completely disagree that (1) is an error of law. The R properly applied the law when he incorrectly concluded the whole ball crossed the whole line. And the LOTG make the R the absolute arbiter of fact, so the fact of the game was that the whole ball crossed the whole line.

The referee made an objectively incorrect determination of fact, but that is not the same thing as a mistake of Law.

That distinction has long been applied and is why games are never replayed when post-game video evidence shows that the a ball did or did not cross the goal line and the R team got it wrong on the field.