elmateo Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There is quite a bit of controversy here in Argentina over an allowed goal in a match last weekend, San Lorenzo v. Colon. The match resulted in a tie. I've written about the context on my blog: http://murgaycarnaval.blogspot.com.ar/2012/03/injustice-at-nuevo-gasometro.html But I'm wondering if anyone here is able to interpret the rules better than me, from an objective perspective. Here is the goal: http://youtu.be/x9e7U56AlrA My question is does the defensive header actually negate the advantage of the attacker who previously was not in an 'active' offside position, but nevertheless offside? There is a lot more significance to this goal as San Lorenzo needed the win, and more or less dominated the match, despite not getting one more. Violence etc. happened after the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alberta white Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Cannot see the You tube as it is blocked. However what you describe may be the Ref considering First and second phase ball. First phase is when the attack strike the ball forward. Second phase been the ball coming off the defender. The forward may be legally active at that point. If the ball had cleared the defender the offside in the second phase would be apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I've never seen that before, all the defenders stopped playing before the whistle went? They deserve what they got. I'm a house league ref myself, so from what I got in the training course, that goal stands. Here are the FIFA rules: A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: • interfering with play or • interfering with an opponent or • gaining an advantage by being in that position At the time that the ball was played, that player was not gaining any advantage. I think it would be different if he was right behind the defender and there was a deflection... Instead it was the defender which deliberately played the ball and was not, at the time, being influenced by any player in an offside position. That negates the offside position and the goal stands. Play the whistle, play the whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmateo Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 This might work, I don't know what is cut off because of "argentina" boundaries: http://youtu.be/4viTL6EXTtI?t=3m54s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivaldo Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 My question is does the defensive header actually negate the advantage of the attacker who previously was not in an 'active' offside position, but nevertheless offside?The defender getting his head in front of the shot does not negate the offside. The relevant portion of the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees is:“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means ... playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside positionThe linesman raised his flag for offside. The referee should have called it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The referee is an idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizz1402635577 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I wouldn't say the defenders deserve what they got. It's instinctual to assume that if the AR puts the flag up, the ref will make the call. And 9,999 times out of 10,000, they will. But the ref is still the ultimate authority and entitled to ignore the call of the AR. This is a weird case. From the angle on the video, it's tough to tell if the guy who made the cross was even in an offside position to begin with. If he was, then the AR was right, and the ref screwed up by allowing play to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I wouldn't say the defenders deserve what they got. It's instinctual to assume that if the AR puts the flag up, the ref will make the call. And 9,999 times out of 10,000, they will. But the ref is still the ultimate authority and entitled to ignore the call of the AR. This is a weird case. From the angle on the video, it's tough to tell if the guy who made the cross was even in an offside position to begin with. If he was, then the AR was right, and the ref screwed up by allowing play to continue. I think the reason why the ref overruled his AR like that is because he felt the defender header was a controlled header, negating the offside rule. That's where the debate should lie IMO. Did the defending team took control of the ball on that play? IMO, it's a grey area and for that reason the ref should've followed with his AR decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think the reason why the ref overruled his AR like that is because he felt the defender header was a controlled header, negating the offside rule. .... My thoughts exactly. Not saying its the right decision, just saying I suspect this is how the ref viewed the play. Defender headed the ball with a clear purpose. That said header didn't exactly work out as intended for the defender's team in question is neither here nor there so far as the passive offside rule is concerned. The defender played the ball (unsuccessfully) with a purpose. Except that the question remains what was he suppose to do? Not attempt to obstruct the flight of the ball towards goal because playing it in a manner in which he was comfortable might create a greater danger by delivering the ball to an offside opponent? That's double jeopardy. Damned if you do or damned if you don't. Either way the offside player gains his team an advantage by being offside. A shot on goal which should be blocked isn't or a try-agin if the shot is blocked. Don't think that is, or should be the intent of the passive offside rule. So to answer the question, yes, it's offside to my mind but the fools who quit playing have to wear that goal, not the officiating team. They stopped playing when everything around them which mattered (that is to say, the refs whistle and not their own opinion) was indicating they should do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmateo Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 Less than conclusive other than the obvious, players should always play the whistle! It is interesting hearing the debating points from an Argentine perspective, 'playing the whistle' is a point raised much less often in the outrage of the supporters. Even more the fact that San Lorenzo (in white) had been playing a player up for 60 minutes by the end and only managed one goal... Football culture is very 'different'. As a result of the violence after the match (mostly conducted by the equivalent of BMO centre field business season ticket holders; not the 'hooligan' barra bravas - if they were involved it probably would have been much worse), San Lorenzo is having its next two home games suspended for local supporters. But people are already planning to go to the stadium anyways even if they cannot enter. San Lorenzo is in a similar position that River Plate was in last year and is one of the 'big 5' in the country, so if the trend continues you might be reading stories about incidents in the Guardian come June/July. This referee's decision will have played a big role in the outcome of a negative season; talk about 'context' for an ambiguous refereeing decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Very strange goal. The opposition player is offside when his teammate kicks the ball but he is actually onside when the defender heads the ball so I think he is not offside. He was in an onside position when the last deliberate play of the ball was made so he gained no advantage of his previous position so I think that would cancel the offside. It would be a bit harder to interpret if he remained in an offside position when the defender headed the ball and an argument could be made that he gained advantage of his previous offside position. However, even in this case the passive offside rule often is interpreted to allow such goals to stand even though I disagree with this interpretation. In my opinion this goal is totally legitimate because the player came onside again when the last deliberate play of the ball was made and gained no advantage from previously being offside. Indeed this is a play in which shows a proper example of a passive offside that should not be called (while there are many that I feel should be called). There is no doubt that the linesman's flag causes the San Lorenzo defenders to stop playing and even the goal scorer I think put the ball in the net more to be an ass than to score (he doesn't celebrate until his teammate runs to him to celebrate). However, an offside position can be canceled during play and a referee can overrule the linesman so it is the players' own fault that they stopped playing and a hard lesson in the rules of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizz1402635577 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The opposition player is offside when his teammate kicks the ball but he is actually onside when the defender heads the ball so I think he is not offside. He was in an onside position when the last deliberate play of the ball was made so he gained no advantage of his previous position so I think that would cancel the offside. Nope. It's when the ball is last touched by a teammate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 San Lorenzo is in a similar position that River Plate was in last year and is one of the 'big 5' in the country,... Thought there was supposed to be a big six? Guess Huracan don't count these days maybe. On the goal I think it all boils down to whether the ball simply rebounded off the defender or he actively did something to guide it away from the goal under some level of control. Linesman thinks the former, referee mistakenly, in my opinion, thinks the latter maybe because of the angle he is standing at. What the defending team lost sight of is that the linesman is only there to assist the referee so it is not safe to assume offside will be called when he puts his flag up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Nope. It's when the ball is last touched by a teammate. Exactly. What the ball does subsequently is irrelevant, including it being touched by an opponent. The referee was an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivaldo Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 From the angle on the video, it's tough to tell if the guy who made the cross was even in an offside position to begin with. If he was, then the AR was right, and the ref screwed up by allowing play to continue.It's pretty clear with the offside line/graphic at about 2:30 in the clip. Ditto to what squizz and The Ref wrote. Does anyone really think there was a change of possession in that play? elmateo, did the ref ever explain his decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmateo Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 The referee has since said he made a mistake, but that is also under the very difficult situation of having his house and phone number posted on the internet and a fury of angry angry comments (plus the violence that occurred in the stadium). I don't think he would explain the call in such a circumstance even if he felt he was right. There have been other calls where a pass back (or one touch purposeful redirections) by the defender negates an attackers offside, but there is just so many weird things that happened. Worse is how the decision affected the match and San Lorenzo's future in the top division... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklefan Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think the reason why the ref overruled his AR like that is because he felt the defender header was a controlled header, negating the offside rule. That's where the debate should lie IMO. I never read or heard about a rule suggesting the quoted comment. If such rule regarding the offside exists, then it wasn't an offside. But if such rule doesn't exist, on replay it's a clear offside. My interpretation of thing is: controlled header or not, it was a deflected shot from the opponent (or the attacking team), so it was offside. If it was a back pass from a teammate rather than a play from the opponent (the attacking team), then it wouldn't have been an offside. Very strange goal. The opposition player is offside when his teammate kicks the ball but he is actually onside when the defender heads the ball so I think he is not offside. He was in an onside position when the last deliberate play of the ball was made so he gained no advantage of his previous position so I think that would cancel the offside. That's not how the offside rule works. In that kind of situation, the only thing that matters is if the the player is onside or offside position when the shot of his teammate takes place. In the replay, Federico Higuain was clearly offside at the moment his teammate shots the ball. The linesman got it right. The ref screwed San Lorenzo there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alberta white Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Second Phase ball anyone? http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offpics.htm Combine Senarios 18b 18C and 25 and we have effectivley the situation at hand. 18b deals with the matter of the header as a deflection. AR calls correctly . 18c deals with interpretation of the hearder as a controlled movement which the Ref played with. 25 means the ball played behind "the line of scrimmag"e (urgh!-yes I know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brethers Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Second Phase ball anyone? http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offpics.htm Combine Senarios 18b 18C and 25 and we have effectivley the situation at hand. 18b deals with the matter of the header as a deflection. AR calls correctly . 18c deals with interpretation of the hearder as a controlled movement which the Ref played with. 25 means the ball played behind "the line of scrimmag"e (urgh!-yes I know) This. It's the same reason why Hutch and co. were contesting his ruled out strike against the US all that time ago. I would say because the cross was headed clear by the defender that there is a case for the referee being right in this instance. It is a very murky area though, and very open to subjection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Nope. It's when the ball is last touched by a teammate. That depends on whether the ref considers possession to have changed. It was a directed header and the player had other options than to do what he did. What if the ball had been at his feet and he kicked it to the same area? Then no one would be arguing that he did not have possession or that it was a deflection. The idea behind the offside rule is to stop the attacker from having an unfair advantage not to bail out a defender who has made a poor play whether under pressure or not. However, I do think the ref made a poor discretionary call in a very murky situation. Certainly a case could be made both for the goal being offside and onside depending on interpretation. Even if the ref's interpretation was that it was onside, seeing that his lineman's raising the flag and the defending players stopping because of it being the main reason for the goal having been scored I think he should have ruled on the side of the defenders even if they probably should have played to the whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 ...I would say because the cross was headed clear by the defender that there is a case for the referee being right in this instance. It is a very murky area though, and very open to subjection Think it was a shot given he is cutting in from the right wing and uses the inside of his left foot. That's what I think makes it difficult to see how it can reasonably be interpreted as anything other than a rebound off the defender. It's surprising to me that only one San Lorenzo player covers the short corner because you usually need two to prevent what immediately unfolded and top tier pro level teams seldom get caught out on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaliam Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 That depends on whether the ref considers possession to have changed. It was a directed header and the player had other options than to do what he did. What if the ball had been at his feet and he kicked it to the same area? Then no one would be arguing that he did not have possession or that it was a deflection. The idea behind the offside rule is to stop the attacker from having an unfair advantage not to bail out a defender who has made a poor play whether under pressure or not. I recently attended a refereeing course with Keith Hackett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Hackett) and Paul Rejer (http://www.cornwallfa.com/News/2009/09/IsItOffsideOrNotGetTheInsideView.htm), who have been directly involved with giving information sessions to both UEFA and Premier League clubs on the offside rule. We spent a couple of hours looking at different situations where there was a question of an offside, discussing why it was or wasn't in each case. It was really enlightening, and according to them, even if a player intentionally plays a balls but mis-hits it, that is not considered having changed possession. I have highlighted Grizzly's post bc that was my exact point when we were shown plays of players making a bad clearance and an attacker benefitting from it and scoring, and each time it was deemed to have been (or should have been) offside. If a player is clearing a ball, it is only considered having changed possession if they have pretty much absolutely 100% control of the ball before playing it. I argued that was stupid and disagreed, but according to the rules of the game, which Paul Rejer agreed with, that is how the ref must make his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brethers Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Think it was a shot given he is cutting in from the right wing and uses the inside of his left foot. That's what I think makes it difficult to see how it can reasonably be interpreted as anything other than a rebound off the defender. It's surprising to me that only one San Lorenzo player covers the short corner because you usually need two to prevent what immediately unfolded and top tier pro level teams seldom get caught out on that. Aaaah ok, if he was shooting then yeah there is a strong case of just a shot block instead of a directed header. The problem with offside is no one knows fully what is offside or not, I have friends who still think things result in being onside/offside even though they were taken out of the equation a while ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alberta white Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Aaaah ok, if he was shooting then yeah there is a strong case of just a shot block instead of a directed header. The problem with offside is no one knows fully what is offside or not, I have friends who still think things result in being onside/offside even though they were taken out of the equation a while ago To Sumize, If you're a meter behind the last outfield player with only the keeper on the line.... and you are wearing RED at OLD TRAFFORD, then you are onside. Same applies with White at the Bernabau and Blue and Crimson in Catalunya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.