Simple solution to the bodypart hairsplitting. Call offside consistent with other rules and further to benefit of offense. Whole ball has to be over line for goal or out. Whole player needs to be past last defender for offside.
That just changes the argument to the other side of the attacker. It doesn't reduce hairsplitting at all.
You don't think we'd have the same arguments about whether he was entirely past instead of not past at all? It's the same argument just about the back of the player instead of the front.
Disagree. Seeing "daylight" is a lot easier than judging if a playable part is slightly past edge of defender's body, when the attacker and defender can eclipse each other.....
I'm not sure I agree. Throw a second player behind them and suddenly your daylight is the same color as the player your trying to determine if he's offside. I don't think it helps the edge case at all.
No matter how you define "the line" it will be an issue in seeing it "right" when you are a step or so off. Personally I like the "any body part" line because I have a visual line from me to the furthest defender body part and if anything from an attacker is sticking out over that line, he's off (ignoring arms of course) No matter what the imaginary "line" is, there will be issues.
That could well be the case at the professional level. But I still think that if you were to ask those ARs on close calls if they felt they were doubtful, they would say no. Now, is that because they know that's the instruction? Maybe. And of course they would likely readily admit they were wrong once viewing the video. It's a good point, though, that there is fear around getting this wrong.
I'm with you, mate. The AR is perfectly with the 2ndLD. The freeze-frame camera angle is from 10-20 yards downfield. I've seen a USA today photo taken from the other side of the stadium that looks like EJ is clearly offside due to his lean. To the AR, this may have been easier to see than most of us are saying based on a TV camera pic that is in the wrong position. I judge not the AR on this one.
The reality is, this is utterly blind conjecture. They are FIFA ARs for a reason...they're much better than you or I. What you see as to close to call, they might see as obvious.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/usa-mexico-usmnt-offside-referees/bkufowycuaahfb6/#main Try this. The author showed it in support of EJ being onside saying that their feet were even, not realizing that the torso being in an offside position would constitute being offside
I'm no expert in drawing offside lines, but it still looks inconclusive to me. Need an actual side-on view.
I'm at the same point I was when watching it live (the first replay, anyway). It's too close to tell by looking at it from the wrong angle without freezing the frames. Go with the guy paid to do the job. He may have got it wrong, but he's in the best position - and it looks like he his properly lined up.
Seriously? That looks like conclusive proof of offside to me. Playable body parts clearly beyond the playable body parts of the 2LD. Only possible quibble is the moment of the photo doesn't seem to be RIGHT as the ball is played. Or am I missing something?
Angles provided, don't show a definitive answer. All that matters is the assistant referee was sure of his call. To call the assistant wrong when we dont know is just ignorant IMHO.
That way, since you will be stopping the game for review anyway, they can work in a half a dozen TV time outs.
I don't like game stops any more than you do. But I think it can be done with minimal stops and substantial improvements in officiating quality. See here: http://www.fairfootball.com/video_ref.htm
This seems as good a place as any to post this, in the context of how and why we see what we see (or don't). This article was mentioned on NPR this evening, and it sounded interesting enough to go find it: Why Even Radiologists Can Miss A Gorilla Hiding In Plain Sight
I got this scenerio from US Soccer this morning. PRO obviously believes Henry should be adjudged offside. I tend to feel the other way. I understand the ball contacted him, but how much affect did it have on the flight of the ball and the play overall. Looking at the angles, I think they may not have been ussure whether the ball actually contacted Henry's back and thereby kept the flag down. http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week---2014---wk8.php
This is one of those situations where you can't disagree. The ball struck him. It was played last by a teammate. He was in an offside position when the ball was last played. End of story. This isn't even a slippery slope--it's more like a cliff. By this logic, we'd be allowing players in an OSP to tap the ball into the net as it neared the goal line because "it was going in anyway and it didn't affect the play overall." There's just no room for subjectivity here--Law 11 already has enough of it. Well, right. This is the entire point of the post from Rejer. The AR certainly wasn't sure and probably was close to certain that it didn't hit him. He--more or less--gets excused here. But the point is that Gamble had to have seen the touch. When you have a player coming backward, making no attempt to trap or flick that ball (and, in this case, trying to show he was not involved because he knew he was in an OSP), Rejer is saying those are enough context clues for Gamble to ask the question of the AR. Conversation is simple on the mic: CR: I've got a touch by Henry. Off? AR: Henry?! Yes. Couldn't see that. CR: [tweet!] It's more difficult to pull off for the masses, I admit. But if a goal had been scored here, the referee has to go initiate a conversation to be sure it's a good one. If the ball goes out for a goal kick or stays in play, you're probably just playing on and finding out at halftime that you missed it when you chat.