MLS referee crew major screw up

[madmonte]

Frankly the back defenders did not play to the whistle. They really should have in that case, but I can understand why Columbus players would be upset about it. I have a feeling that the Columbus captain, when talking to the official, o said "AND we heard a whistle", which was likely blown by a fan. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he called it back.

Edit: And yes, I know there was clearly no whistle. I'm just saying a player might try to confuse the ref by saying so. I wish this was big time Europe sometimes because in Europe this would have been investigated and the ref would have at least had to give some answers as to his thinking.

[Cheeta]

Bah, perfect example of why I think the passive offside rule is arse.

Offside DC (or should be). It's pretty obvious that DC gained an advantage from a player being in an offside position. Which is the case far too often and which is why the passive offside rule, as it is now, has been and well continue to be rubbish.

[Macksam]

More importantly, how did Porter look throughout the game?

[Unnamed Trialist]

For the offside rule "active involvement" does include attempting to play the ball. DCU offside player attempted to play the ball by running toward it but stopped when the flag went up...

Seems to me that the call is correct.

That is the right interpretation, they are wrong I think those here saying he did not play it. You do not have to play it, you simply have to show intent to play it and you are offside. So the linesman was right and the ref was wrong to say play on.

But I think once a goal is given you cannot call it back. That is the biggest error here, the ref calls back his own call with no basis for doing so, since the linesman can raise a flag, a ref can ignore it, both are their prerogatives. But reversing a goal given is not their right and they were wrong to call it back, it is an error that does not redress the others.

[tmcmurph]

The only thing I could fault the referee for was not blowing his whistle right away; if he had no one would even question what happened because we've all seen that offside call made hundreds of times.

+1 ^

Why he didn't is anyone's guess. Then after the goal he goes over and talks to the assistant? Stupid on his part and leads to this being a controversy rather than just another offside. Right or wrong nobody would care as much but because he let the play continue and then called back a goal it is getting a lot more intense scrutiny.

[Grizzly]

Pajol does not touch the ball, interfere with an opposing players ability to get the ball or to intercept Porter and he does not interfere with the keeper's ability to stop the shot. The passive offside rule allows a player to go for a ball and then not play it for whatever reason such as like realizing he is in an offside position as long as he does not interfere in the play. Pajol is simply not offside and the goal is not scored because he was in an offside position. The goal is scored because the Columbus players stopped playing even though the play had not been stopped by the ref.

The only influence Pajol being in an offside position (as opposed to actually being offside) had on the Columbus players was it confused them because they thought he was offside. However, that is not the fault of Pajol, it is the fault of the Columbus players if they are confused by their lack of knowledge of the the rules. They should have known that being in an offside position does not make a player automatically offside, it is not them but the ref who makes that call anyway and they should not stop playing until the ref blows his whistle.

And yes the ref could have saved himself some grief by whistling the play dead but it would have been a mistake because Pajol was passively offside not active. He would only be allowed to whistle the play dead if he thought no other DCU player could possibly get the ball. I suspect the ref actually knew the rules properly which is why he did not stop play but then chickened out on allowing the goal when he realized his linesman erroneously put the flag up. And likely he followed the rule that you will always get more heat for allowing a controversial goal than disallowing it so he took the safer path and not the right path. Regardless, again I say both the linesman and the ref should be disciplined for this and put down a tier or two until they learn the rules properly and/or are not afraid to apply them.

I personally do not like the passive offside rule because it leads to a lot of situations like this that even if clear in retrospect are not very clear in the run of play during a match with many things going on and little time for reflection. However, I think it is very clear that in the passive offside rules as they stand and as defined by FIFA this was a good goal and should have stood.

[alberta white]

Pajol does not touch the ball, interfere with an opposing players ability to get the ball or to intercept Porter and he does not interfere with the keeper's ability to stop the shot. The passive offside rule allows a player to go for a ball and then not play it for whatever reason such as like realizing he is in an offside position as long as he does not interfere in the play. Pajol is simply not offside and the goal is not scored because he was in an offside position. The goal is scored because the Columbus players stopped playing even though the play had not been stopped by the ref.

The only influence Pajol being in an offside position (as opposed to actually being offside) had on the Columbus players was it confused them because they thought he was offside. However, that is not the fault of Pajol, it is the fault of the Columbus players if they are confused by their lack of knowledge of the the rules. They should have known that being in an offside position does not make a player automatically offside, it is not them but the ref who makes that call anyway and they should not stop playing until the ref blows his whistle.

And yes the ref could have saved himself some grief by whistling the play dead but it would have been a mistake because Pajol was passively offside not active. He would only be allowed to whistle the play dead if he thought no other DCU player could possibly get the ball. I suspect the ref actually knew the rules properly which is why he did not stop play but then chickened out on allowing the goal when he realized his linesman erroneously put the flag up. And likely he followed the rule that you will always get more heat for allowing a controversial goal than disallowing it so he took the safer path and not the right path. Regardless, again I say both the linesman and the ref should be disciplined for this and put down a tier or two until they learn the rules properly and/or are not afraid to apply them.

I personally do not like the passive offside rule because it leads to a lot of situations like this that even if clear in retrospect are not very clear in the run of play during a match with many things going on and little time for reflection. However, I think it is very clear that in the passive offside rules as they stand and as defined by FIFA this was a good goal and should have stood.

Actually I agree with grizz in this respect, as running into, what would now be called "Ghosts positions" behind the back 4 was taught at my middle school. Usually not so close to the play of the ball as in this case, but the technique (in a 4-4-3formation) was set up with two of the three front runners going forward, calling for the ball, whilst the playmaker in the middle (who was actually brilliant but never made pro due to injuries) would look to play behind the defender who had the third striker on his blind side. So as the ball played the two ghost would check their runs, and follow in when level with the turning defence line. At school boy level the refing was such that linesmen tended to only call the ball if the player took the pass in an obvious offside position. as the running was actually coming in from a onside run that tactic worked really well as the Centre forward was something of a greyhound to boot. One caveat would be that the Calling from the ghost could be classified by some as a verbal interference, but Its debateable. Also help that the Referees tended to be the games masters themselves (ergo, the away coach would ref the game), and our chaps was rather good at getting the others Teachers to see things his way.

[afun]

I think most speaking here (except Grizzly and maccaliam) have not really understood the Offside law, has anyone bothered to review the Interactive Guide on the FIFA website!

Below from a referee on Bigsoccer,

Doesn't that interpretation require that we ignore this language in the very same section?

"This decision would require no onside attacker in the vicinity who could play the ball.

And this?"

Likewise, "because an attacker running from an offside position toward a ball played into space by a teammate could decide at any moment to stop or swerve away and thus avoid contact with the ball, the mere movement of the attacker toward the ball cannot constitute "interfering with play."

And, perhaps most importantly, this?

According to the IFAB Circular of August 17, 2005: "A player in an offside position may be penalized before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other teammate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.”

Yeah, a lot of people here making up rules. The above rule quite definitively shows the play should not have been called offside.

[alberta white]

However,we all should note the trump get out of jail free card...etc.

According to the IFAB Circular of August 17, 2005: "A player in an offside position may be penalized before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other teammate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.”

Correct me if I'm wrong but the shame is, it would have been Porters first goal;would it not?

[sulfur]

The trump is...

MLS admits officiating mistake in disallowing D.C. United "offside" goal Saturday

https://twitter.com/SoccerInsider/status/316216317990555648

[The Ref]

I did not see this situation nor the game so I can't say yes or no offside. But let me throw a few cents here. In spite of all the complications that FIFA keeps adding in order to simplify? the offside rule, the constant remains that it be judged the instant when the ball is passed/kicked by a teammate. Assistant referees should only raise their flag if he/she actually "saw" the offside, they should not raise their flag in the assumption that "surely he must have been offside". Lastly the referee must give detailed instructions to his assistants during the pre-game instructions and clarify to them how he wants things called. All referees tend to be somewhat different so they cannot assume the assistants will act according his wishes and not according a previous referee. Pre-game instructions are often done haphazardly if done at all.

[alberta white]

^ well said!

[jpg75]

This is the reason i hate the passive offside rule (hated it since the Netherlands-Czech Rep. group game at Euro 2004). The defenders have to run forward to put the opponent offside and then stop and run the other way because an onside opponent who gets a running start gets to make a play on the ball, and on top of that the linesman puts his flag up to screw with their heads.

Yeah, it's a goal based on the rules, but you don't have to like it....by the way, looks like Porter is doing alright at DCU.

[Grizzly]

Yeah, a lot of people here making up rules. The above rule quite definitively shows the play should not have been called offside.

Yes a lot of people posted their own interpretation of offside not FIFA's along with a lot of immaterial points like intent. And Maccaliam posted the FIFA document regarding offside but I think people just preferred to post their own opinion instead of taking the time to read it.

[Keegan]

A real shame for Porter and DCU. Watched this match and thought Porter looked average when he came on, a goal would have probably put him in the XI for next week though. DeRo also looked a little slow with some poor first touches.

[Grizzly]

This is the reason i hate the passive offside rule (hated it since the Netherlands-Czech Rep. group game at Euro 2004). The defenders have to run forward to put the opponent offside and then stop and run the other way because an onside opponent who gets a running start gets to make a play on the ball, and on top of that the linesman puts his flag up to screw with their heads.

Yeah, it's a goal based on the rules, but you don't have to like it....by the way, looks like Porter is doing alright at DCU.

I agree with you in general here though I would have little sympathy for Columbus in this instance had the goal counted. I dislike the passive offside rule because 1) any player in an offside position gives the offensive side a bit of an advantage since a defender still has to worry about a guy in an unfair position in case he suddenly becomes onside again 2) it is just too complicated to call properly on the spot and it is hard enough to get linesmen to call offsides accurately in the first place let alone burdening them with the additional task of determining in real time whether the offside is passive or active. On the other hand there has to be some sort of passive offside rule or defenders will be able to kill attacking plays by simply using the offside trap (unless they nullify the offside trap). However, I think the present definition of passive offside is far too liberal and does result in some unfair situations.

However, while I can think of some examples of goals I thought were legal but unfair under the passive offside rule, this is not one of them had it counted. The defenders play the offside trap on Pajol he does not put himself offside. If they are knowledgeable enough about the rules to play the offside trap they should also be knowledgeable enough to realize that the trapped player is only passively offside and react accordingly. And it is too bad the linesmen erroneously put up his flag but even I know you play to the whistle (and I am not even a good amateur player) so professional soccer players certainly should know this rule. Indeed both passive offside possibilities and playing to the whistle should be something players train into themselves so they do the right thing automatically. The fault on this goal is poor soccer and rule knowledge on the part of the Columbus players not the passive offside rule itself.

What is getting lost in this is that this was an incredibly heads up play by Porter whether through good knowledge of the rules or pure instinct. He takes the ball instead of assuming like all the rest of the players that the play was blown dead. And then when he sees everyone else has stopped playing he does not stop himself like many players would but looks back at the ref to see if he has blown the play dead. He sees that play has not been stopped, continues and scores. It is a rookie showing up a lot of veterans who should have known better. It is unfortunate they called it back because it would have and should have been a brilliant first goal for Porter. At the very least it seems to indicate that he has some very good instincts for the game. Reminds me a bit of the Hutch-DeRo goal against Panama, the type of smart soccer intelligent play we do not see often enough from Canadian players.

[Grizzly]

Here is a very good article that explains the history of the offside rule and in which the author defends the current laws as allowing a more beautiful and technical game that allows teams to play attractive soccer like Barcelona.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-law-genius

And in reference to the exact wording of when a player is actively offside he quotes the rules:

"Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate." A later amendment clarified that: "A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.

"If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalised for interfering with an opponent."

[MM2]

Apparently PRO (Professional Referee Organization) which assigns MLS referees has apologized to DC United for the disallowed goal and will be posting an analysis of the play, as soon as I find a link I will post it.

[tmcmurph]

http://www.mlssoccer.com/video/2013/03/25/instant-replay-laws-surrounding-dc-uniteds-offside-goal

And MLS gives their take on the week's calls and non-calls including the topic of this thread. Their take is that the goal should have counted and "Columbus, play the whistle".

[Yohan]

Apparently PRO (Professional Referee Organization) which assigns MLS referees has apologized to DC United for the disallowed goal and will be posting an analysis of the play, as soon as I find a link I will post it.

http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week---wk4.php

[madmonte]

Grizz good point about Porter, you are right, that was very heads up, and it did get lost in the shuffle.

[Trillium]

Here is a very good article that explains the history of the offside rule and in which the author defends the current laws as allowing a more beautiful and technical game that allows teams to play attractive soccer like Barcelona.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-law-genius

And in reference to the exact wording of when a player is actively offside he quotes the rules:

"Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate." A later amendment clarified that: "A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.

"If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalised for interfering with an opponent."

From the IFAB http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/ifab/media/news/newsid=99799/index.html

The wording of Law 11 and Decisions 1 and 2 taken by the IFAB during its meeting in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, on 26 February 2005 were not changed, nor was their spirit. However, the first on-field experiences of the application of these decisions indicated a need for clarification. For that purpose, the working group met and agreed on the following text as "advice on the application of Law 11, IFAB Decision 2":

"A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.

"If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalised for interfering with an opponent."

[Grizzly]

From the IFAB http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/ifab/media/news/newsid=99799/index.html

The wording of Law 11 and Decisions 1 and 2 taken by the IFAB during its meeting in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, on 26 February 2005 were not changed, nor was their spirit. However, the first on-field experiences of the application of these decisions indicated a need for clarification. For that purpose, the working group met and agreed on the following text as "advice on the application of Law 11, IFAB Decision 2":

"A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.

"If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalised for interfering with an opponent."

Yes exactly. There was a teammate in an onside position who had the opportunity to play the ball (Porter) so number 1 does not apply. The opposition players stopped playing even though one plays to the whistle (a childhood soccer maxim) and there was no potential at all for Pajol to interfere with an opponent since they did not come anywhere near him so number 2 does not apply. Sorry Doug but you and a lot of others who posted on this thread just did not understand the offside rules as clearly defined by FIFA. There is no debate on this play. There are borderline/interpretation calls all the time in football but this is not one of them. You can agree or disagree with the rules but according to how FIFA currently defines offside this is clearly 100% onside and the ref and linesman made a major screw up that should be heavily sanctioned for incompetence because their ignorance of the rules affected the outcome of a game.

[alberta white]

To lighten the mood on this a little

Who says the English never produced anything of quality, other than the game itself

[Grizzly]

Here is a goal correctly disallowed for passive offside in the LA - Chivas game last weekend:

http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week---wk17.php