Maybe it was offside. Relax, I said maybe.

[Elias]

BREATHE ... BREATHE PEOPLE ... JUST BREATHE FOR A SECOND

My blood is boiling like it has never boiled before. And if this ref ever comes to Canada again there better be riots including ... anyways.

It did look like Atiba was in an offside position when the ball was played. So if it had been played directly to him, it would have been offside. The last point in the rule below is the key. It might have been the right call after all. Although it was still fixed.

Some clown on BS posted the following:

LAW 11 – OFFSIDE

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

Decision 1

In the definition of offside position, “nearer to his opponents’ goal

line” means that any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his

opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

The arms are not included in this definition.

Decision 2

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:

• Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or

touched by a team-mate.

• Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from

playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the

opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or

movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts

an opponent.

• Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a

ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been

in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an

opponent having been in an offside position.

The key here is the 3rd element in Decision 2 of the FA Board.

It's downloadable on p. 34 of the Laws of the Game (link at bottom of home page) at http://www.fifa.com

[Kibby]

I understand what you're saying... and the need to release the anger. It would be nicer, and I'd feel better if that was the case. Unfortunately... Hutchinson was in an onside position when the ball was played forward. A fraud of a result did take place.

[meteor]

Hutch was onside when the ball was played. the whole thing was rigged. end of story.

[Vancouver Fan]

Hutchinson was onside no matter how we look at it.

[gkhs]

quote:Originally posted by meteor

Hutch was onside when the ball was played. the whole thing was rigged. end of story.

Absolutely agree.

Deflection or no deflection, he was onside when the ball was put through.

[CoachRich]

It was an excellent through ball but the Officals were thinking about the US vs Mexico final....

[Rodway]

quote:Originally posted by CoachRich

It was an excellent through ball but the Officals were thinking about the US vs Mexico final....

If that was the case, why was there even 4 mins of injury time to begin with. I was thinking 2 mins at the most.

When the 4th offical never held anything up @ 90 mins I thought the game would be blown after about 30 seconds. No one would have though anymore of it, cause there was really no delays in play the whole second half.

I don't think anything was rigged, it's just bad officials, making bad calls.

[JamesW]

I agree Rodway, saying the game was rigged is going a little too far. Why was there a red card against the States if it was? I know there should have been two reds, but still...

And DeRo could have been red carded if the game was rigged, it was not.

[meteor]

nothing would please me more than Guadeloupe somehow beating Mexico, and having 5,000 people at the final. my anger has subsided now...more resignation at this point. it's really incredible that FIFA sits idly by and does nothing while one of their affilited federations is run by a bunch of corrupt weasels and makes a mockery out of one of the biggest international tournaments in the world.

say what you want about NHL refs..team partisanship aside, how many times has an NHL playoff game been out and out decided by an idiot call by a referee? rarely if ever, and when a big blunder is made, the NHL owns up to it like men and usually makes a statement, unlike these cowards. it's too bad cause soccer is a great sport and this was a great game, only to have it turned into a joke.

and these people are so incomprehensively retarded, Archundia will probably be reffing more Canadian games during qualifying...LOL...it must be a prerequisite to have low character and an IQ below 80 to be a CONCACAF official.

[terpfan68]

Not a rigged game. Just a bad call at the wrong time. Perhaps it was the only mistake that AR made the whole game. If circumstances were reversed everyone on this forum would be laughing their heads off. Football is the beautiful game. It also can be cruel. Our boys (men) played a great game and this defeat is only on the scoreboard. They will use it for inspiration at the right time.

Go Canada.

[meteor]

quote:Originally posted by Rodway

I don't think anything was rigged, it's just bad officials, making bad calls.

I respect that opinion, but when something happens once i can believe it's incompetence. i can think of 4 times off the top of my head in key games going back to the decision in the Mexico game in the early 1990's where we have scored late goals that were proven good by replays only to have them called back, and that's without even thinking that hard about it. when this stuff happens over and over again, IMO there's something rotten in Denmark.

Anyways we shouldn't forget Canada played terrifically this tournament, and hopefully can use this as a springboard for the future.

[CoachRich]

Restating as I think folks missed my humor & etc -

It was an excellent through ball by the American but the Officals were thinking about the US vs Mexico final....

[JPB]

After reviewing the tape, it is clear that Hutchinson was in an onside position ...

1) even if it had been a long direct red-to-red pass (which it was not)

2) even if it had been a redirect from Hume (whom the officials might have thought touched it last before Hutchinson picked it up)

3) even if it had been headed toward goal by the USA defender (which was what in fact occured)

DeRosario was very close to being offside in all three scenarios, however, he did not interfere with play. In fact, he waved off Hutchinson to not pass to him.

So what possible and valid reason could the officials give for their decision?

The linesman might not have seen who last touched the ball before Hutchinson, but the referee had a very good view of the route the ball took -- including the last touch. The ref could over-rule the linesman's call -- provided that the last touch was seen. But he trusted the linesman on the offside positioning of Hutchinson.

Both the linesman and the referee were in good positions. No complaints there. Unless either one of them had only an obstructed view of 1) the last touch AND 2) the last USA man back, there does not seem to be a good excuse. Only very poor on-the-spot interpretation of the offside rules. But I'm wary of judging that to be the case, so I look for other plausible explanations.

Rather than depend on slow-mo and views the officials could not have had during the game, I have looked at the play in normal speed from two angles. One that shows the long pass in which I can see the referee with his eye on the ball. And one from the mirror view of what the linesman could see.

It is possible the linesman had a partially obstructed view of the last USA man back since Hutchinson was closer to his side of the pitch. So I could concede that much. He may also have had a partially obstructed view of the last touch. So I could concede that too.

But the referee had an unobstructed view of the ball as it travelled from the long pass to the last touch as it ping-ponged to Hutchinson's feet. He had a great position on the play.

So maybe it comes down to his bad judgement in favoring the linesman's call. Here is how I got there.

All the ref needed to ask was, did you see the last touch and was it off a USA player? If the linesman said, yes it was a USA defender, the referee had to go with onside. Nothing the linesman coud have possibly have seen would make that an offside call, if the referee saw that last touch by the USA defender. So even if the linesman said that he couldn't see for sure, the referee's view had to be onside. Even if the linesman said it looked like a Canadian touch, and contradicted the view of the referee, the referee had to go with onside.

So, I guess, thinking it through, the referee might have thought that either Hume got the touch.

Or the referee was not sure one way or the other and so he chose to go with the linesman's call, who, I'm guessing again, thought the touch came off Hume and, since he did not have a direct view of the USA defenders (who had put Hutchinson onside), he erred against the attacking side.

Which, I know, is not the guideline but is what happens almost all the time -- the officials tend not to err in favor of the attackers as they are supposed to.

So perhaps the referee thought he saw a Canadian last touch. Or he couldn't tell. I find either possibllity very doubtful given the referee's positioning. But if this is how he saw it, then, he might depend on the linesman. And if the linesman was mistaken -- not about positioning of Hutchinson but about the last touch, then, the call would be wrong, too.

Sorry for the rambling.

It just shocks me to see this but as someone who has reviewed officiating in committee, the basics need to be covered and the benefit of the doubt granted to the officials who do not have the advantage of video and the slow-mo replays -- or even the special and multiple views that audiences see on televion. So you go back to the positioning of the officials, their clear and their partially obstructed views, and the reasoning that would have led them to their decision(s).

For the record, I thought the red card was unjust. A Yellow card was called for but not a direct red. So it would have been a bad call with bigger implications adverse to the USA team, had the game gone into extratime. I don't think this was rigged. Just badly called, on this one very critical point in the game. Not a small call by any stretch.

But it was the end of the regular second half. The officials surely could have reviwed the available video and then called the teams back onto the pitch to resume play in extratime. I suppose the regulations are not that flexible.

In my day, too long ago, if I had been the defender I would have conceded that I made the final touch before Hutchinson. But even that may not have changed an official's call if there were other factors in the play. But, at least, it would have been expected, in terms of good sportsmanship, to own the touch. Given the video -- and the inevitablity of it being established without doubt -- I wonder if the USA defender conceded his last touch?

[sstackho]

quote:Originally posted by JPB

After reviewing the tape, it is clear that Hutchinson was in an onside position ...

1) even if it had been a long direct red-to-red pass (which it was not)

2) even if it had been a redirect from Hume (whom the officials might have thought touched it last before Hutchinson picked it up)

Interesting. My review of the tape put Hutchinson just offside had Hume got a touch, but it really doesn't look like he did.

[terpfan68]

And the referee has all of 3 seconds to do his analysis and make his call. It was just a bad judgment call that unfortunatelly affected the outcome of the game. In the second game I saw several mistakes with offsides due to the AR not keeping up with the play. These mistakes probably did not affect the outcome, but we will never know. What would we be arguing about if Hutchinson had blown the shot?

[trueviking]

^thats crap...it is his only job...he is there because he is supposed to be able to make the right call quickly...you cant excuse a ref for a horrible call because thing happen at full speed..this was no more difficult than any other call.

[Gian-Luca]

It's official, you are blind. Or a troll. You can see Atiba clearly leaning forward in that screen shot showing that he was indeed not coming back from an offside position. End it!

[Rujulus]

Just watched the replay about 10x. Terrible, scandalous call. Convenient for Archundia to be able to slough off responsability on his linesman. Who was that BTW? Does he have any track record of this sort of thing? It's easier for linesmen to escape scrutiny for bad calls.

To those who say the red card and other calls in favour of Canada show that the fix is not in, I would say that if you want to fix a game, it is important to preserve the illusion of fairness.

It is one thing to make a harsh call against the US in the dying minutes of the game when they are up 2 - 1. This call has a small chance of influencing the result. The red card may have been considered harsh, but no worse than that. That tackle was definitely a yellow and maybe a red.

It is quite another to blatantly pull the rug out from under us in the 95th minute when we have scored a fantastic equaliser. This call has a 100% chance of bringing about the desired result. The ref did not even consult with the linesman to assess his level of confidence in the call.

They just said, "no goal", weathered the storm, and sauntered off the pitch after a few seconds, a job well done. Once again. That wasn't hard, was it? Good for them, another USA - MEX final. But is it really what the teams, and fans, deserve?

Again, you can easily make the argument in isolation that this is a bad call and no more, and that we should not be paranoid, and just be good sports and enjoy the game, but when you see this sort of brutally wrong call occurring all too often over time, you start to wonder. It is disheartening.

Is there nothing we can do about this? I'm thinking about the statistical methods that were used in the recent lottery scandal in Ontario, where it was shown that lottery kiosk owners and their families were far more likely to win Scratch n' Win lotteries than others.

Perhaps a similar statement could be made about refs' calls in CONCACAF matches, but I'm afraid it seems difficult to design a good and fair test to assess whether a match result is likely to have been unfairly influenced by the official(s), and also difficult to collect all the data (matches) to conduct an exhaustive test. Such an approach may be beyond our means.

Very disappointing. Finally I'l just say that you don't see this sort of thing in tennis, because technology has improved officiating. At the highest levels, cameras and technology make all the right calls, so the next John MacEnroe doesn't have to throw his racquet. RFID tags in boots, the ball and RFID readers in the pitch could answer the offside problem, similarly providing a technological solution to human weakness, both physical and moral.

[VPjr]

quote:Originally posted by JPB

In my day, too long ago, if I had been the defender I would have conceded that I made the final touch before Hutchinson. But even that may not have changed an official's call if there were other factors in the play. But, at least, it would have been expected, in terms of good sportsmanship, to own the touch. Given the video -- and the inevitablity of it being established without doubt -- I wonder if the USA defender conceded his last touch?

Onyewu did concede (to newspaper reporters after the match) that he put a head to the ball. However, he still believes Hutch was offside. Clearly, he doesn't know the offside rule. Travesty!

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by BigBird

Gianluca I want it to be offisde just as much as you I am using a tool to measure this stupid thing I can only punch in the numbers this is what it gives me back, I had to satisfy myself too you know I was just as pissed as you are and some others on this forum but a prefection I try to be, Yes can I be wrong, Yes of course but un likley. Im sorry I am only trying to help people to feel more comfortable in the anayalas of what I found to be 90% accuracy for other work related situation such as re-const of auto collision, deaths etc.

Sorry if I have offended anyone I can remove my posts if any one should want me too just give the word.....anyone wants me to remove no problem, reply, say so to this post and its done.....

Do you really think you have accurate enough inputs to be able to determine a couple of feet from a photo? What software are you using, and what inputs are you using?

[The Beaver]

I just looked at a couple of replays--check out youtube--and if anybody is offside WHEN the ball is advanced by the Canadian player, it is Hume--by a hair--but he deliberately comes back into an onside position--and in no way impacts the play or affects the outcome--while the bigassed Yank defender flicks the ball to Hutch who notches a well-taken goal. [Props to Hutch for a class finish]. When the ball is advanced by a Canadian, Hutch is onside. In fact, as the ball is advanced, Hutch begins to run from his onside position into space, where by chance the bigassed Yank defender flicks on the ball.

The offside call makes not sense, and I get the impression bigO is trolling.

[Guest speedmonk42]

At least this one was closer to being offside than the Olympic Brazil vs Canada quarterfinals goal, in which there was not even anything to debate about.

I will see if I can that one on YouTube. Have to wait until I can get back to Vancouver, I am pretty sure TW has it on tape.

I think it still gives the poor guy nightmares.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Elias

BREATHE ... BREATHE PEOPLE ... JUST BREATHE FOR A SECOND

My blood is boiling like it has never boiled before. And if this ref ever comes to Canada again there better be riots including ... anyways.

It did look like Atiba was in an offside position when the ball was played. So if it had been played directly to him, it would have been offside. The last point in the rule below is the key. It might have been the right call after all. Although it was still fixed.

Some clown on BS posted the following:

LAW 11 – OFFSIDE

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

Decision 1

In the definition of offside position, “nearer to his opponents’ goal

line” means that any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his

opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

The arms are not included in this definition.

Decision 2

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:

• Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or

touched by a team-mate.

• Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from

playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the

opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or

movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts

an opponent.

• Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a

ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been

in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an

opponent having been in an offside position.

The key here is the 3rd element in Decision 2 of the FA Board.

It's downloadable on p. 34 of the Laws of the Game (link at bottom of home page) at http://www.fifa.com

I was trying to stay away from giving my opinion as to whether it was offside or not. I don't have a tape or the facility to replay in slow motion or have different angles.

1) But I can tell you what you consider to be the key 3rd element in Decision 2, it does not apply here. That refers to shots on goal that rebound to an attacker who was on an offside position when the shot was taken. So forget that.

2) Based on other posters who have the facilities to view the play one frame at a time, it has been clearly established that Huch was not in an offside position when the ball was played by his teammate. So the whole of Law 11 does not apply.

3) Now let us assume hypothetically that he was offside. A player is not penalized for just being in an offside position, he/she must play the ball, then an only then the flag goes up (this is one of those new things that has created some controversy because of the delay involved). If the pass to this offside player touches an opponent in its trajectory, that "touch" is irrelevant because the judgement of offside is made when the ball is played. But remember the flag does not go up until later. Sound complicated, well it is. Now if the pass in its trajectory get played by an opponent resulting in a bad pass by the opponent for instance, that is considered not to be the same play, but a new one and hence a player who may have been in an offside position who receives the ball from such a misplayed pass by the opponent is not penalized as an offside, since he received the ball directly from an opponent. This creates its own controversy as there aren't any clear guidelines, when a play becomes a new play.

All of the above may be wrong, but what the hell, I am only human.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Elias

BREATHE ... BREATHE PEOPLE ... JUST BREATHE FOR A SECOND

My blood is boiling like it has never boiled before. And if this ref ever comes to Canada again there better be riots including ... anyways.

It did look like Atiba was in an offside position when the ball was played. So if it had been played directly to him, it would have been offside. The last point in the rule below is the key. It might have been the right call after all. Although it was still fixed.

Some clown on BS posted the following:

LAW 11 – OFFSIDE

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

Decision 1

In the definition of offside position, “nearer to his opponents’ goal

line” means that any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his

opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

The arms are not included in this definition.

Decision 2

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:

• Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or

touched by a team-mate.

• Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from

playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the

opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or

movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts

an opponent.

• Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a

ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been

in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an

opponent having been in an offside position.

The key here is the 3rd element in Decision 2 of the FA Board.

It's downloadable on p. 34 of the Laws of the Game (link at bottom of home page) at http://www.fifa.com

I was trying to stay away from giving my opinion as to whether it was offside or not. I don't have a tape or the facility to replay in slow motion or have different angles.

1) But I can tell you what you consider to be the key 3rd element in Decision 2, it does not apply here. That refers to shots on goal that rebound to an attacker who was on an offside position when the shot was taken. So forget that.

2) Based on other posters who have the facilities to view the play one frame at a time, it has been clearly established that Huch was not in an offside position when the ball was played by his teammate. So the whole of Law 11 does not apply.

3) Now let us assume hypothetically that he was offside. A player is not penalized for just being in an offside position, he/she must play the ball, then an only then the flag goes up (this is one of those new things that has created some controversy because of the delay involved). If the pass to this offside player touches an opponent in its trajectory, that "touch" is irrelevant because the judgement of offside is made when the ball is played. But remember the flag does not go up until later. Sound complicated, well it is. Now if the pass in its trajectory get played by an opponent resulting in a bad pass by the opponent for instance, that is considered not to be the same play, but a new one and hence a player who may have been in an offside position who receives the ball from such a misplayed pass by the opponent is not penalized as an offside, since he received the ball directly from an opponent. This creates its own controversy as there aren't any clear guidelines, when a play becomes a new play.

All of the above may be wrong, but what the hell, I am only human.

[Jon Que]

I would just love for Concacaf to give some explanation from the officials as to what they saw and why they did what they did?