Fat Bastard
New Member
I heard about the call. And I have not got confirmation but I have heard from a few people that Coquitlam is strongly considering the protest. They have 48 hours to submit the protest, so basically deadline is 1pm Tuesday.
Coquitlam is not so much upset with the call, but the fact that (a) the referee indicated to the Coquitlam players that the call was for obstruction, which should have been an indirect free kick, and (b) that Surrey took the free kick while the referee was pacing off the 10 yards they asked for. (I am sure Surrey will dispute this, but I am taking a Coquitlam account of the story at this point.)
As a former referee, my initial reaction was in the case of (a) Coquitlam clearly has grounds for protest, because awarding a direct free kick for obstruction is clearly a 'misinterpretation of the Laws,' however the referee quickly changed his story and claimed the call was for pulling the shirt. So despite having grounds for the protest, it will be hard to win.
As for (b), this one perplexes me a little on a few levels. (1) The referee should have clearly indicated to both teams that once Surrey asked for the 10 yards, the play would restart on his signal - bad refereeing; (2) While the coach in me appreciates the surprise of a quickly taken free kick, the fact Surrey allegedly asked for ten yards, means this was a rather unsporting tactic - as convention would dictate that once you ask for 10 yards you then wait for the wall to re-set.
I researched this, and there was an article written by Graham Poll (an English referee of some note, but most famous for a match in which he gave one player three yellow, but prior to that considered one of the better officials in Europe). His article was written after Ryan Giggs quickly taken free kick to defeat Lille 1-0 in Champions League play. In this case, says Poll, Giggs was clearly in the right since he did not ask the referee to ensure ten yards. It was his right to take the quick kick, but in doing so he also sacrifices the right to ensure the ten yard space. So if his kick had hit a player two yards away, then it would have been Giggs' fault and play would continue.
While the Laws of the Game do not state that the referee must indicate when play is to restart on a free kick situation, convention dictates that when 10 yards is asked for, the referee will then hold up play until he deems it proper to restart and thus give the appropriate signal (a blow of the whistle).
So, in short, Coquitlam should protest on two counts: (1) the indirect/direct mix up, which they have ample grounds for, but will be hard to prove unless referee admits error, and (2) the legitimacy of a quick free kick in this instance, which is not a misinterpretation of any particular Law, but clearly violates the spirit of the game.
Yet, in the end, I don't think Coquitlam would have this protest upheld. But clearly, in this instance, this referee lost control of the situation, and in an effort to gain control simply allowed it to snowball on him, to the point that the Jimmy Holiday was sent off.
All he needed to do was blow the whistle and order a retake of the free kick. To be quite honest, the fact that the kick should have been indirect means the play should have been re-started with a goal kick for Coquitlam.
Yet another wild and crazy chapter in the Surrey / Coquitlam-Burnaby rivalry. Someone should write a book about this. These two teams have had some really terrific matches over the years. This one takes the cake for drama though.
Coquitlam is not so much upset with the call, but the fact that (a) the referee indicated to the Coquitlam players that the call was for obstruction, which should have been an indirect free kick, and (b) that Surrey took the free kick while the referee was pacing off the 10 yards they asked for. (I am sure Surrey will dispute this, but I am taking a Coquitlam account of the story at this point.)
As a former referee, my initial reaction was in the case of (a) Coquitlam clearly has grounds for protest, because awarding a direct free kick for obstruction is clearly a 'misinterpretation of the Laws,' however the referee quickly changed his story and claimed the call was for pulling the shirt. So despite having grounds for the protest, it will be hard to win.
As for (b), this one perplexes me a little on a few levels. (1) The referee should have clearly indicated to both teams that once Surrey asked for the 10 yards, the play would restart on his signal - bad refereeing; (2) While the coach in me appreciates the surprise of a quickly taken free kick, the fact Surrey allegedly asked for ten yards, means this was a rather unsporting tactic - as convention would dictate that once you ask for 10 yards you then wait for the wall to re-set.
I researched this, and there was an article written by Graham Poll (an English referee of some note, but most famous for a match in which he gave one player three yellow, but prior to that considered one of the better officials in Europe). His article was written after Ryan Giggs quickly taken free kick to defeat Lille 1-0 in Champions League play. In this case, says Poll, Giggs was clearly in the right since he did not ask the referee to ensure ten yards. It was his right to take the quick kick, but in doing so he also sacrifices the right to ensure the ten yard space. So if his kick had hit a player two yards away, then it would have been Giggs' fault and play would continue.
While the Laws of the Game do not state that the referee must indicate when play is to restart on a free kick situation, convention dictates that when 10 yards is asked for, the referee will then hold up play until he deems it proper to restart and thus give the appropriate signal (a blow of the whistle).
So, in short, Coquitlam should protest on two counts: (1) the indirect/direct mix up, which they have ample grounds for, but will be hard to prove unless referee admits error, and (2) the legitimacy of a quick free kick in this instance, which is not a misinterpretation of any particular Law, but clearly violates the spirit of the game.
Yet, in the end, I don't think Coquitlam would have this protest upheld. But clearly, in this instance, this referee lost control of the situation, and in an effort to gain control simply allowed it to snowball on him, to the point that the Jimmy Holiday was sent off.
All he needed to do was blow the whistle and order a retake of the free kick. To be quite honest, the fact that the kick should have been indirect means the play should have been re-started with a goal kick for Coquitlam.
Yet another wild and crazy chapter in the Surrey / Coquitlam-Burnaby rivalry. Someone should write a book about this. These two teams have had some really terrific matches over the years. This one takes the cake for drama though.