RefSix

Wild MLS playoff game

LothianRef

Member
Level 7 Referee
Being English, I was watching the game and in real time, I thought Marshall had his foot off the line and I thought the ref was gonna give a retake (as did Marshall from his reaction.) Upon replay though, yes he had his back foot on the line so it was fine
Below is a link to the story explaining it. Marshall said the ref had told him - presumably because it would be the final kick - if he saved it they would do a quick VAR check, so don’t celebrate too early. This explained the delayed reaction from him, much to my relief. 😀
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
I've thought about this before - you can easily imagine a scenario where a goalkeeper saves a winning penalty, his team mates run up to him in jubilation, the losing team are on the floor, perhaps supporters invade the pitch (in say a play-off game.) It would be a brave (foolish?) VAR to intervene then!

I guess a saved winning penalty in a shootout is the best example of that you're going to get (now that Golden Goal has long gone) because even with a 95th minute winner you generally still get the kick-off after so the referee has a bit more control over it.

There were multiple blasts of the whistle from the referee but I think it might have been to indicate a retake rather than full-time. I think it's always best if the AR makes a decision rather than VAR as it can be done more instantly although seemed a bit delayed here. It seemed the VAR really helped dig the referee out of a hole when they'd obviously lost things a bit.

Has there been anything from PRO subsequently? They're normally quite open and transparent about referee mistakes - did they say anything more about the 'illegal' substitute a month or two back?
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I have heard elsewhere that the ref team is done for the playoffs, but nothing beyond that. The VAR intervention will be addressed in the regular video review, but that is probably at least a week from now.
 

ScotRef

RefChat Addict
Not much of what the commentators say I agree with but 100% "what a mess".

You'd hope they has more conclusive evidence than the rear camera to disallow a save and send a keeper off. If they did no point blaming the referees there. All by the book.

But you'd also hope before a knock out game they'd read the couple of pages of law 10 and know what to do to bring the new keeper in without delaying the game over 5 minutes. No doubt the premature full time whistle would not have happened had he not got his himself tied in a knot over the substitution.

Would this game have been replayed if he didn't have VAR and allowed the substitustion?
It’s absolutely not “all by the book”. The referee shows the goalkeeper a second yellow card (I’d imagine for coming off his line or dissent) which is a catastrophic error. Cautions that occur in 90 minutes plus extra time are not carried onto kicks from the penalty mark.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
It’s absolutely not “all by the book”. The referee shows the goalkeeper a second yellow card (I’d imagine for coming off his line or dissent) which is a catastrophic error. Cautions that occur in 90 minutes plus extra time are not carried onto kicks from the penalty mark.
Says who?

You are aware they played this game under the 19-20 LOTG right? Mentioned a couple of times in this thread :)
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
The call was made by the AR on the field, though apparently just through the mics, not by flag. So VAR was looking for an error, not making an initial decision. It looked like the right call (technically) to me. Though I remain a non-fan of theses calls from a trifling perspective, but that’s the way the game is being shaped by VAR.

The subbing GK chaos is an unforgivable fiasco. (I’m curious if Orlando knew they couldn’t and was just trying to ice the kicker by causing a delay?)
The long delay, motions and process doesn't suggest AR making that call. If AR knew the laws, a sub would not have been made in the first place as there seemed to be some discussion on the process before the sub was made.
More like someone in VAR room confirming sub can be done after reading the injured keeper section. Then after the sub happens they notice the sent of players section and tell him the first confirmation was wrong. But of course I speculate.

My guess answer to your curious question would be no. Unlikely players or the team would know an edge case if the referees at that level don't. :)
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
It’s absolutely not “all by the book”. The referee shows the goalkeeper a second yellow card (I’d imagine for coming off his line or dissent) which is a catastrophic error. Cautions that occur in 90 minutes plus extra time are not carried onto kicks from the penalty mark.
They were using 19/20 laws and had also chosen not to apply the IFAB dispensation regarding goalkeepers at penalties to help avoid such a scenario (first introduced at the women's world cup in 2019 when we were seeing keepers cautioned multiple times for coming off the line at a penalty and the prospect of someone getting two yellow cards for it over a penalty shootout seemed highly likely.)
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
The long delay, motions and process doesn't suggest AR making that call. If AR knew the laws, a sub would not have been made in the first place as there seemed to be some discussion on the process before the sub was made.
More like someone in VAR room confirming sub can be done after reading the injured keeper section. Then after the sub happens they notice the sent of players section and tell him the first confirmation was wrong. But of course I speculate.

My guess answer to your curious question would be no. Unlikely players or the team would know an edge case if the referees at that level don't. :)
I think the AR probably did make the call about the GK being off the line. As mentioned, there'd have bene an OFR in MLS if VAR had intervened and it didn't seem there was.

I suspect process was:

1. AR notifies referee of GK encroachment
2. VAR checks to see if decision correct or not.
3. Referee shows second yellow after it's confirmed and VAR then has to help out regarding substitution not being allowed and perhaps also game not having ended at 5-5.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I think the AR probably did make the call about the GK being off the line. As mentioned, there'd have bene an OFR in MLS if VAR had intervened and it didn't seem there was.

I suspect process was:

1. AR notifies referee of GK encroachment
2. VAR checks to see if decision correct or not.
3. Referee shows second yellow after it's confirmed and VAR then has to help out regarding substitution not being allowed and perhaps also game not having ended at 5-5.
I was referring to the call to reverse the substitution made for the keeper after the send off.
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
I was referring to the call to reverse the substitution made for the keeper after the send off.
Ah! I think socal lurker (and subsequently myself) was referring to the second paragraph of your original post about evidence from the cameras rather than the last paragraph. I agree they got input from elsewhere about the substitution. I guess it would have been an error in law so quite possibly game would have had to be replayed - and also if a team won '5-5' on penalties!

s

 

ChasTutorObserver

Regular Contributor
Interesting that this thread has developed along the lines of an injured goalkeeper possibly being replaced . . . the law actually reads "A goalkeeper who is unable to continue before or during the kicks may be replaced . . . " which opens a new can of worms for IFAB to sort out in relation to a goalkeeper sent off!
 

Degnann

SFA Ref
Level 6 Referee
Interesting that this thread has developed along the lines of an injured goalkeeper possibly being replaced . . . the law actually reads "A goalkeeper who is unable to continue before or during the kicks may be replaced . . . " which opens a new can of worms for IFAB to sort out in relation to a goalkeeper sent off!
This is what was confusing me.

2522BD8A-2630-45B0-BD81-AA1820B6E681.jpeg
this however would cover that

which in turn is covered by

FF9E84BF-241F-44F3-B0FA-098860437E08.jpeg
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
This is what was confusing me.

View attachment 4682
this however would cover that

which in turn is covered by

View attachment 4683
Your first quote trumps the quote by @ChasTutorObserver. And eligible players are better defined than what you have quoted. It is
"players who are on the field of play or are temporarily off the field of play (injury, adjusting equipment etc.) at the end of the match are eligible to take kicks"

If a team has to reduce their number of kickers because the other team has less eligible players, the player whom does not takes a kick remains an eligible player and can replace the goalkeeper.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
If you ever have a cup game that has the chance of pens then you need to really understand law 10 and 14.

I think the confusion here is that a keeper can be subbed before kicks from the penalty mark..

• With the exception of a substitute for a goalkeeper who is unable to continue,
only players who are on the field of play or are temporarily off the field of
play (injury, adjusting equipment etc.) at the end of the match are eligible to
take kicks

Once the KFTPM starts then no further substitutes can take place and only eligible players as above can take the place of the keeper.
Someone somewhere has dug this referee out from a very deep hole and should be expecting drinks all night to be on the ref. 😁
 

jofusref

RefChat Addict
It went unnoticed, but this calamity was narrowly missed in the Scotland play-off during the week. The Scottish GK was probably off his line when making the winning save. He paused dramatically( the GK), looking at the ref for the final whistle and thankfully for Scotland, that's what he got.
The forensics applied by VAR on PKs (and in particular, KFTPMs), is just another example of a horrible conflict between VAR and the dynamics of the game
perfectly good save, smiley face
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I was referring to the call to reverse the substitution made for the keeper after the send off.
The AR called the GK infraction (but didn't raise the flag).

VAR saved the R from the incorrect sub. (And it still boggles my mind that one of the 4 on the field didn't catch that instantly . . . )
 

deusex

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Why on earth did he caution him anyway?
I'll caution the next foul throw I see shall I?
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Why on earth did he caution him anyway?
I'll caution the next foul throw I see shall I?

I don't mean this in a bad way, but do you actually referee? Under the 2019/20 laws, and it has been said time and time again that the MLS are still using those, it is a mandatory caution. Under those laws penalising keeper encroachment and not cautioning would be totally incorrect in law.
 
Top