View Full Version : was this a goal?
Chings goal in san jose (mms://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/11504/v0001/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2005/open/topplays/archive09/092405_fcdsje_ching_goal_384.wmv)
I copied my post from the san, Jose forum, and the link to the goal from MLSNEt.com. My question to all you refs is how would you have called it?
I just finally got to see the video on mlsnet.com. I asked my son, who is a referee for his opinion.
My opinion after watching was....
First off the Dallas commentators were way off by saying three players were offside, and this while watching the replay. Only Barrett was offside, but I have to say, after watching the video, that it should have been disallowed. Barrett with his later position was clearly gaining an advantage by being in an offside position and forced Garlick to stay at the near post.
But from the licensed ref in the house....
When Barrett was in the offside position he was never in reach of the ball, therefore he had no effect on the play. After the deflection barrett was no longer in an offside position so he was allowed to have an affect on the play. If the offside was going to be called it should have happened when Rico, kicked the ball, and art this point he was not gaining an advantage. I raised him well
This particular play would be a great one for a refereeing clinic. It's these types of goals that confuse many about the offside rule.
Ching's equalizer (http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/) \\link didn't work, please go here and look at Ching's equalizer, And will somone please give me lessons on HTML? :eek:
Craig P
27 Sep 2005, 02:24 AM
HTML is not relevant to BigSoccer, as it is turned off. You want to use "URL" in square brackets, e.g. {url=http://somesite.com}, only replace the braces with square brackets (not HTML angle brackets).
Finally (mms://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/11504/v0001/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2005/open/topplays/archive09/092405_fcdsje_ching_goal_384.wmv)
HTML is not relevant to BigSoccer, as it is turned off. You want to use "URL" in square brackets, e.g. {url=http://somesite.com}, only replace the braces with square brackets (not HTML angle brackets).
Thanks, i think i finally got it.
PirateJohn
27 Sep 2005, 02:46 AM
Good no call. The announcer was way off base.
Barrett was the only person in an offside position, but never even came close to touching the ball. And since he was at about the 18 yard line when the ball was played through, you really can't argue that he was interfering with the goalkeeper.
And by the time the cross came through, he was no longer offside since he was behind the ball.
law5guy
27 Sep 2005, 10:06 AM
paused my media player right at THE pass. Perfect call by the AR. not off, good goal.
GlennAA11
27 Sep 2005, 04:33 PM
Yes, that was a very good noncall; the Dallas announcers are morons. The PK that led to the other goal was a good call too.
I watched most of this game, but I think I must have been watching a completely different match than all of the SJ fans judging by all the posts complaining about how awful the referee was. I actually thought that under the circumstances he did a pretty good job. The two red cards were exactly right, but it took a little too much time and conversation to get to them. The complaints seem to be that he let too much go and made a lot of bad calls for both teams. To me it seemed like he was letting play flow and on that tiny field things happen very quickly. But then everyone likes to complain about the refs in MLS.
macheath
27 Sep 2005, 05:45 PM
Good no call. The announcer was way off base.
Barrett was the only person in an offside position, but never even came close to touching the ball. And since he was at about the 18 yard line when the ball was played through, you really can't argue that he was interfering with the goalkeeper.
And by the time the cross came through, he was no longer offside since he was behind the ball.
Yup, and good for FAS' son--he's a good ref, hope he stays with it. It isn't the keeper's responsibility to worry about offside players--the keeper stays with the ball, the refs call offside if warranted. You can't interpret "distraction" by players that "causes" the keeper to change position. The Advice is very clear on this.
Statesman
27 Sep 2005, 05:50 PM
Are we watching the same replay?
At the time of the pass it is fairly clear both center and right attackers are offside. The center then redirects the ball to the attacker on the right. True that his touch of the ball would put the other attacker back onside, but since the center was off in the first place the flag should have gone up.
Looking at that I could swear the center is a good yard or two in front of everybody. Maybe my eyesight is going.
MassachusettsRef
27 Sep 2005, 06:02 PM
Are we watching the same replay?
At the time of the pass it is fairly clear both center and right attackers are offside. The center then redirects the ball to the attacker on the right. True that his touch of the ball would put the other attacker back onside, but since the center was off in the first place the flag should have gone up.
Looking at that I could swear the center is a good yard or two in front of everybody. Maybe my eyesight is going.Statesman, take another look...
The attacker in the center of the field (who is in an offside position) never touches the ball. It's deflected by a defender (who is attempting to block the shot) to Mullan (the attacker on the right side of the field) who is NOT in an offside position. Look to the far side of the field, as the right back for Dallas is keeping him onside.
uniteo
27 Sep 2005, 06:10 PM
Are we watching the same replay?
At the time of the pass it is fairly clear both center and right attackers are offside. The center then redirects the ball to the attacker on the right. True that his touch of the ball would put the other attacker back onside, but since the center was off in the first place the flag should have gone up.
Looking at that I could swear the center is a good yard or two in front of everybody. Maybe my eyesight is going.
apparently not, since I saw the central player in an offsid position on the initial pass which was deflected by the defender. Near (camera) side offensive plaer appears to be even with the far side defender as is the far side offensive player (Ching). Initial ball is played in, immediatley deflected by a defender towards near sideline, where near side offensive player chases it down.
Once he plays the ball it re-sets the play and near side player crosses from endline past central offensive player and to Ching, both of whom were behind the ball when it was crossed and therefore on-side.
ManiacalClown
27 Sep 2005, 07:15 PM
Agreed. Goal was onside.
macheath
27 Sep 2005, 07:20 PM
Are we watching the same replay?
At the time of the pass it is fairly clear both center and right attackers are offside. The center then redirects the ball to the attacker on the right....(snip).
It depends on which camera angle you're watching. If you see the replay from the AR/sideline point of view, it looks like the center player, who is in an offside position, deflects the ball to the player wide right (who is onside). BUT if you look at the original camera shot, you'll see that the center attacker never touches the ball--the deflection from the defender is what sends the ball out to the right. So no offside. But a great lesson on what a different perspective can mean for a call--if you only had the sideline view, it does look like the ball might have come off the center offside attacker, when in reality it was nowhere near him.
Statesman
27 Sep 2005, 07:20 PM
Ok, so I hopped on a DSL connection and made the video player a bit bigger and see now the deflection from the defender. Originally it looked like the center attacker deflected the ball to the right attacker after being offside. Also couldn't tell as clearly if the right attacker was offside or not, but can see he is in line now.
So... no offside, good goal!
JayJay4Pres
27 Sep 2005, 08:16 PM
Great "no call". Barret(?) the offside player was never involved. The only time he could even have been considered involved would of been on the final cross(Mullan to Ching), but he was onside because he was behind the ball. Ching was way on at the start of the play, and Mullan appears even.
Yup, and good for FAS' son--he's a good ref, hope he stays with it. It isn't the keeper's responsibility to worry about offside players--the keeper stays with the ball, the refs call offside if warranted. You can't interpret "distraction" by players that "causes" the keeper to change position. The Advice is very clear on this.
Thanks, I'll tell him what you said :) And thanks to everyone else who posted too, It looks like the right call was made for sure based on the unanimous response here. Thanks again everyone, now I know where to come in future if there's a squabble, if that's okay with you all.
refontherun
28 Sep 2005, 11:22 AM
The first couple of times I looked at it, I thought the same thing. Because the ball was popped up a bit it did appear to come off the central attacker, but after closer review, it did not. GOL!
Wreave
28 Sep 2005, 04:19 PM
I haven't seen the video, but here's a question based on my reading: did the defender play the ball because of the offside center who was obviously so close to him that it appears from some camera angles that the center touched the ball? If so, wasn't the offside center involved in the play, causing a defensive reaction?
MassachusettsRef
28 Sep 2005, 04:25 PM
I haven't seen the video, but here's a question based on my reading: did the defender play the ball because of the offside center who was obviously so close to him that it appears from some camera angles that the center touched the ball? If so, wasn't the offside center involved in the play, causing a defensive reaction?No.
The defender played the ball in order to block a shot on goal.