Okay, pros, help me understand this play during the Harrisburg-Cleveland tie. Harrisburg was awarded a penalty kick in the second half. After a prolonged scrum at the 18, Harrisburg defender Nate Baker was permitted to take the kick. The shot was parried by Cleveland keeper Hunter Gilstrap (gotta' love that name!), the rebound was slotted home by Harrisburg defender Ryan Heins. Then, following a lot of confusion around the goal, Baker was directed to take the kick again, which he converted.

According to the Harrisburg newspaper this morning, the re-take was because Gilstrap left his line too early. So if there was a defensive penalty, why did the officials take the goal off the board and order the re-take? Did the call have something to do with the goal being scored on a rebound? Or could it have been that there was a whistle between the original try and the rebound score?

Any ideas?

You got me by the butt! I guess maybe because it was scored on a rebound. Or else maybe it was because one of our guys moved too early not the keeper.

Yes, it was nice talking to you sunday. See you at the next one.

I now have my photos and report up. FYI, it was updated mid-way through the day monday.

-Derek

It could be that the ref got it wrong, like he did on many other occasions in the game. If it was the keeper coming off the line, or one of the cleveland players entering the box early then the ref should have allowed the advantage and given Heinzes goal. If it was Harrisburg that entered the box early It would be a goal kick, no goal, no re-take. So either way the ref screwed up!

Actually, here are the words from the LOTG:

"The goalkeeper infringes the Laws of the Game:
• the referee allows the kick to proceed
• if the ball enters the goal, a goal is awarded
• if the ball does not enter the goal, the kick is retaken."

Sounds to me like the ref made the correct call.

P.S. Got to follow Cleveland this year since Gilstrap is a local College of Charleston alumni.

Bribe Taker, good call, thanks for posting that info.

The other question I had...... and not complaining but really asking because I honestly don't know........

At the very end of the second half on sunday, there was a whistle blown for a foul against Cleveland. The whistle blew before time ran out. Then when HCI went to line up for the free kick the half ended and the kick never took place. Shouldn't the kick have been allowed before the half ended?

I could be wrong but myself and a few other s in the stands were wondering. It was the strange sunday last 4 minutes of the first half after the postponed portion on saturday. I don;t think there was even any stoppage time at the end of the half.

Just wondering.

-Derek

Well, since you got me on a roll.......you do finish out a PK if one is awarded even if time has expired but other than that, when time is up....it's up. Us fans get used to play continuing if a team is attacking....the ref generally lets that drive play out. But he doesn't have to.

I've actually changed my tune on this one over the years from reading people's posts. I used to favor letting a team attack at the end of a half even if time had past. But if the other team has defended well, why should they be penalized by having to defend "extra time"? Of course, one's perspective depends on if your team is attacking or defending but if you're talking fairness....it makes sense, when time is up, it's up.

Another nuance you don't see very often but when it does, it also pisses off one set of fans. At the end of a game, when the winning team is trying to waste time making subs, the ref can actually refuse to allow the sub. That's good for a little sideline dust-up......

Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate your info.

-Derek