A&H

MLS Disallowed Goal from the PK

J

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Afternoon all, a very interesting one for your consideration here - or rather for you to look at and agree with the referee!
This PK 'goal' was disallowed in the MLS last night which caused a lot of questions on Twitter and a good few hours of me answering such questions for people. If you want to, we can discuss the 'foul' but there we are! My opinion (and the LOTG's!) is that the referee was correct* to disallow it and award an IFK here and also that the manager would be correct to sack the two players in question!

* as with every penalty, there is encroachment from both sides. In terms of judging whether the referee was correct its probably best to ignore that failure to apply the laws - everyone else does, all around the world!

 
The Referee Store
Not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Are you saying we should consider the red player encroachment but ignore the while player encroachment? That is the only way it would be IFK. Considering both encroachments it would be a retake.
 
one said:
Not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Are you saying we should consider the red player encroachment but ignore the while player encroachment? That is the only way it would be IFK. Considering both encroachments it would be a retake.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should but im saying that that is what is done. Encroachment is never called out unless the offending player becomes involved/active. Yes, by the LOTG players from both sides should be called out but they won't be. I merely meant that I'm interested in discussing the red actions here.
 
very similar to benzema incident for real at the end of last season. penalty passed to an attacker who encroached (with defenders also in the box when the kick is taken), except that one was retaken
 
es1 said:
very similar to benzema incident for real at the end of last season. penalty passed to an attacker who encroached (with defenders also in the box when the kick is taken), except that one was retaken
Click to expand...

Did the referee spot the encroachement or VAR?

If VAR gives it, then I presume it would be a retake if both players encroached - as happened with the Brighton V Leicester James Maddison rebound goal in PL last season.
 
onthebrink said:
Did the referee spot the encroachement or VAR?

If VAR gives it, then I presume it would be a retake if both players encroached - as happened with the Brighton V Leicester James Maddison rebound goal in PL last season.
Click to expand...

Yeah was VAR

In that case, why doesn't this get VARd?
 
Given how we generally look at encroachment without VAR, does anyone really feel the IFK is the wrong result? I would not be surprised if there was discussion about what VAR should look at and what encroachment should be called and what should be ignored.

Thinking aloud: In the VAR world, I wonder if the way to stop encroachment is to only punish the first encroacher, which would give players an incentive not to step in until an opponent does.
 
es1 said:
Yeah was VAR

In that case, why doesn't this get VARd?
Click to expand...

A quirk of VAR I guess. VAR will only look at the encroachment of a player who directly interferes (or not even that in Orsato/Irrati's case!)

If a player encroaches from a penalty and scores and the referee allows the goal but VAR sees that attacker was encroaching as well as a defender then the penalty will be retaken as the attacking player has had a direct impact but both attackers and defenders encroached.

However, if the situation above happens but the referee disallows the goal and gives an IFK, then VAR won't intervene as the defenders haven't had a direct impact.

So with basically the exact same scenario VAR intervenes in the first but not the second?!
 
es1 said:
Yet more evidence into the flaws of VAR!
Click to expand...
Not sure if it is a flaw.
socal lurker said:
I would not be surprised if there was discussion about what VAR should look at and what encroachment should be called and what should be ignored.
Click to expand...
This is actually covered, the image below. Which highlights inconsistencies given the discussion we had on the other thread about law 14. Law 14 can ignore goalkeeper encroachment but not the field player. However VAR can ignore both (conditional in all cases).

Also what is not clear is that if you do review for other reasons, then can a no-impact encroachment be punished?


Screenshot_20200903-172429.jpg
 
one said:
Not sure if it is a flaw.

This is actually covered, the image below. Which highlights inconsistencies given the discussion we had on the other thread about law 14. Law 14 can ignore goalkeeper encroachment but not the field player. However VAR can ignore both (conditional in all cases).

Also what is not clear is that if you do review for other reasons, then can a no-impact encroachment be punished?


View attachment 4519
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think this highlights a general shift in the way the laws want to end up going on encroachment - it should only be punished if it has a measurable effect, simply "distracting" an opponent is not enough. Unfortunately, we're only part way through the process. Hence why you get inconsistencies that place GK encroachment on a lower level than other encroachment, and inconsistencies on when VAR is allowed to get involved.

Seems to me like trying to introduce this new outlook gradually is what's caused a lot of the problems. We'd be much better off skipping to the end of the process and simply saying that encroachment is only punishable if it results in a save, a rebound clearance or a rebound goal.
 
GraemeS said:
Yeah, I think this highlights a general shift in the way the laws want to end up going on encroachment - it should only be punished if it has a measurable effect, simply "distracting" an opponent is not enough. Unfortunately, we're only part way through the process. Hence why you get inconsistencies that place GK encroachment on a lower level than other encroachment, and inconsistencies on when VAR is allowed to get involved.

Seems to me like trying to introduce this new outlook gradually is what's caused a lot of the problems. We'd be much better off skipping to the end of the process and simply saying that encroachment is only punishable if it results in a save, a rebound clearance or a rebound goal.
Click to expand...
And then we get back to the onfield referee's opinion......exactly why we have all this tinkering with handball!
 
GraemeS said:
trying to introduce this new outlook gradually
Click to expand...
I think you are giving too much credit to IFAB for having a plan to introduce this concept gradually. It is just the way it turned out IMO and I am not even sure if they are aware or willing to admit there is inconsistencies.
 
one said:
I think you are giving too much credit to IFAB for having a plan to introduce this concept gradually. It is just the way it turned out IMO and I am not even sure if they are aware or willing to admit there is inconsistencies.
Click to expand...
I'm not necessarily saying they've deliberately thought through the concept of doing it gradually. I do think they have consciously decided that the way to get encroachment called more consistently is to limit it to the situations where it makes a measurable difference - and they've decided that the most obvious measurable difference is when a save is made.

I do think it is part of a process whereby in 10 years time, the laws will explicitly state the above. How deliberate that is in the heads of today's lawmakers is not clear, but it doesn't change where I think this clearly leads.
 
socal lurker said:
Given how we generally look at encroachment without VAR, does anyone really feel the IFK is the wrong result? I would not be surprised if there was discussion about what VAR should look at and what encroachment should be called and what should be ignored.
Click to expand...

That was my point.
 
GraemeS said:
Yeah, I think this highlights a general shift in the way the laws want to end up going on encroachment - it should only be punished if it has a measurable effect, simply "distracting" an opponent is not enough. Unfortunately, we're only part way through the process. Hence why you get inconsistencies that place GK encroachment on a lower level than other encroachment, and inconsistencies on when VAR is allowed to get involved.

Seems to me like trying to introduce this new outlook gradually is what's caused a lot of the problems. We'd be much better off skipping to the end of the process and simply saying that encroachment is only punishable if it results in a save, a rebound clearance or a rebound goal.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is really IFAB trying to move the standards so much as IFAB trying to make the Law better match how it was actually being called. For a long time refs have ignored GK encroachment on missed shots (well, they oft ignored it on saves, too, but that's a separate issue) and ignored field player encroachment unless the player became involved with a play after the shot. With VAR, it becomes more important to codify so that the decisions that "soccer expects" match the Laws. IMHO, they just didn't do it as well as they needed to.
 
socal lurker said:
I don't think this is really IFAB trying to move the standards so much as IFAB trying to make the Law better match how it was actually being called. For a long time refs have ignored GK encroachment on missed shots (well, they oft ignored it on saves, too, but that's a separate issue) and ignored field player encroachment unless the player became involved with a play after the shot. With VAR, it becomes more important to codify so that the decisions that "soccer expects" match the Laws. IMHO, they just didn't do it as well as they needed to.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think the introduction of VAR probably plays a part. I'm not sure there's a demand there for penalties to be regularly retaken because of an encroaching player who had no impact and in any non-VAR game would not have been penalised.
 
one said:
Not sure if it is a flaw.

This is actually covered, the image below. Which highlights inconsistencies given the discussion we had on the other thread about law 14. Law 14 can ignore goalkeeper encroachment but not the field player. However VAR can ignore both (conditional in all cases).

Also what is not clear is that if you do review for other reasons, then can a no-impact encroachment be punished?


View attachment 4519
Click to expand...

Which document on the IFAB website is the above from out of interest?

I was trying to find something about a defender encroachment after the Wolves V Sevilla Europa League game. There was a widespread suggestion that the penalty should have been retaken as a Sevilla defender was in the area but under the above perhaps it shouldn't have because I don't think the defending player really prevented an attacker from getting to the ball.
 
onthebrink said:
Which document on the IFAB website is the above from out of interest?

I was trying to find something about a defender encroachment after the Wolves V Sevilla Europa League game. There was a widespread suggestion that the penalty should have been retaken as a Sevilla defender was in the area but under the above perhaps it shouldn't have because I don't think the defending player really prevented an attacker from getting to the ball.
Click to expand...

What @one quoted was VAR instructions, not LOTG. So it doesn't actually say anything about what a ref should call in the first instance. Nonetheless, I think, despite what Law 14 literally says, it is accepted that encroachment that affects nothing is trifling and should not result in a retake. (Just try to find a PK in a professional game that would not be retaken if Law 14 was literally applied to all encroachment on a PK.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top