Question Number: 15277

Mechanics 4/25/2007

RE: competitive High School

Steve Wolfe of Kansas City, MO asks...

This question is a follow up to question 15249

Oh dear, now I'm lost.

First, thanks for the site. I rely on it as a form of continuing education/testing and as an informal support group.

With regard to this question: Not only does there appear to be rare disagreement in the answers, but my confidence is shaken -- not because I answered in a manner similar to Mr. Fleischer before reading the answers, but because that appears to be the minority answer.

Clearly, if the AR had reported a foul by the scoring team, and that advice was accepted by the referee, a callback of the goal would have been warranted. Of course, the restart should have been a kick (probably a direct free kick) and not a drop ball.

However, if (1) the defender was injured seriously enough to justify stopping the play and (2) the injury was not caused by a foul, but (3) play was not stopped by the referee for the injury, I fail to see why the ensuing goal should be disallowed. The stoppage of play for a serious injury is not designed to compensate the defending team for the loss of a player; it is to attend to a medical injury and insure the safety of the players. Sadly, that opportunity was delayed because the referee did not see the seriously injured defender, and we obviously can't go back in time and render the immediate aid he required.

Once the goal is scored, the game is stopped; the referee cannot go back in time and stop the game as contemplated by the laws governing serious injuries.

I tend to think under these circumstances, the spirit of the game (if not the laws of the game) would call for allowing the goal and restarting with a kickoff once the injured player is tended to.

Please help . . . I just know if this is not resolved soon it will happen in my next match -- just the way the universe works.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

You have done very well my son, very well indeed... Notice I answered like the other panelists then offered rambling thoughts. Problem is the software in the whatchamacallit thingy at wherever the server is put my answer first instead of last, as intended. My whole idea was to agree first then think a bit, something not unheard of in the referee community, something rare on the field where we tend to just pull something out of our arse and hope it works.

What we try doing is think before the sierra hits the fan so we appear confident and educated, helps the sale of what we eventually do. That's what you're doing by second guessing your true feelings and letting your confidence be shaken. Don't; you have the answer, it's right, don't worry, be happy, ladeda...

Steve, you'll note I made no mention of the impending death of the referee team, had I been their assessor. They just didn't have it together on that one and it showed us all in a bad light. If protested, their decision would have stood scrutiny because the referee exercised judgement regarding a fact connected with play, sucker could have done way better -- but what he did was, essentially, correct as far as it went. I went further, showed in Law my path and drew a different conclusion. Would I have done that on a match, I sincerely hope so!

Would you? You Bet You Would!! Not only would you have done the same thing, your linesman would have been generously thanked for offering his opinion then given a ride to hospital so you could get your flag out of his arse, where it should have been in the first place...

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

You will note that Ref Contarino and I described how this could be justified per the Laws. He specifically noted that maybe how it happened wasn't the wisest choice, and I noted that, "Sometimes things just happen that way." You are right, it should have been handled better, but there was nothing specifically in what we were told in the question that was contrary to the Laws.