Question Number: 20907

Law 5 - The Referee 2/27/2009

RE: HS

Todd Young of Paris, Tx USA asks...

I was recently at a High School game the ball was shot on goal and the keeper stopped it on the line attacking team was yelling at the ref and he yelled play on. Keeper punted the ball out and about 3 minutes later the ref had to issue a yellow to a player for a foul. He then heard the coach of the attacking yell out that the ball crossed the goal line the ref then turned and pointed to the middle and said it was a goal. My question is can the ref after 3 minutes and ball was in play change his original call?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

I assume no AR was present and this was a single official as you make no mention of the ARs! Or was this a high school match with two referees? One considered a head referee the other as the 2nd referee??

To call out PLAY ON! is confusing in my opinion as it tends to indicate a possible foul! If you believe there is a goal celebration that is premature NO GOAL LETS GO!, works.

In close calls a whistle should sound IF the goal is going to be awarded otherwise play continues. A NON decision here is in fact a correct decision if no goal was thought to be scored

It is ALWAYS possible for a referee to be uncertain or miss the fact the ball had COMPLETELY crossed the goal line, under the cross bar and between the posts given the angle of view is NOT straight across as in the AR view.

A ball that does not CLEARLY bulge the netting but still is a goal requires a properly positioned AR to get it right or a referee who is in a good position to see it.

That said the WHOLE of the ball must cross and if only partially crossed and thus in contact with the goal line it cannot be a goal!

The coaches view is likely even worse and farther away but the difference in what coaches think they see means as much to the referee as the fan or parent thinking they see something.
It is back ground noise nothing more unless it goes into unreasonable behaviour mode which is warnings and expulsion territory.

If the referee knew it was close but was uncertain the ball had crossed he should do nothing but strive to get a clearer view and then make himself positioned for the punt out!

You indicate 3 full minutes later, after the keeper had discharged the ball there was a foul (unrelated to the 3 minute event earlier) and misconduct associated with that foul worthy of a caution show a yellow card. NOW the referee points to center for kick off and awards a goal that was scored 3 minutes earlier based on what a coach says?????????????

While a referee can change his mind on a fact of play if play has NOT restarted as in receiving NEW information from a neutral source as in an AR it seems ludicrous to think he could award a goal under these circumstances.

In law a referee can change a decision provided he has not restarted play yet as a coach if this was a match outcome defining moment not in my favor I could consider a protest. I feel far too much time has passed to realistically think new information was made available by a neutral source which could change the initial decision. I might not win the protest but I would make it anyways

In my opinion this decision is a smelly one, it has no credibility and I would have no respect for such a decision even if it could fit the definition of a fact of play by the referee!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Sounds like a farcical situation to me.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

There has to be something left out of your question as the referee's actions make little if any sense. No referee is going to award a goal 3 minutes after the shot (or at anytime for that matter) simply because a coach yells at him that the ball crossed the line. That said, in answer to your question, the referee may change any decision if play has not stopped and restarted. Since play never stopped in this case, the referee is free to change his mind.