opinions on non-offside call in Chelsea-Newcastle match?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Hello, all. I have come here because I was curious whether anyone had any thoughts on the refereeing controversy that took place in the Chelsea-Newcastle match this past Saturday.

Chelsea's John Obi Mikel, from beyond the penalty area, sent a strike toward goal. The ball was deflected in the box by Chelsea's Claudio Pizzaro, and was then put into the net for Chelsea by Saloman Kalou.

Kalou had been onside at the moment of Obi Mikel's strike, but had become several yards offside by the time the deflection occurred.

There was no offside call, and the goal stood.

This decision has been roundly criticised in the English press, with one paper suggesting that the AR who decided not to flag may expect demotion.

So, in a case of a deflected ball like this, what is the critical moment when offside position is to be judged? At the moment of the original strike? Or at the moment of the deflection?

[usasoccerhooligan]

i think, like in a handball call/no-call situation, it's a matter of whether the player played the ball or the ball played him. judging by the shoddy videos i've scene of the event, i don't think Pizarro actively played the ball. i think he's just been hit by the shot. thus, the right call was made, IMO. granted, i haven't found the clearest video.

EDIT: i'm wrong. see my post two posts below.

[sculber]

Law 11 reads, in part, "A player in an offside position is only penalized 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....."

I believe the deflection "updates" the offside "snapshot" -- and therefore a player deflecting a shot can result in an offside infraction if a teammate has moved from an onside to an offside position in the meantime. I'll be checking "Advice to Referees" directly.

[usasoccerhooligan]

oops, forgot about that little word "touches" in the Law. so let me retract what i said about the player playing the ball or the ball playing the player. it doesn't matter according to the Law.

[ref47]

as described, this is offside and should be penalized.

if ar believed ball deflected off a defender, then call was correct.
if ar did not see a deflection, then call was correct.
if deflection was not clear for the ar, then ar keeps flag down and the cr needed to make the call; and, cr apparently did make the call - goal.

[bluedevils]

the question for learning purposes is, 'how did the AR miss this?' Deflection situations can be difficult because you need to take more than one snapshot in time and be able to unravel what happened and when -- as the OP said, the goalscorer was onside at the time of original shot but offside when the ball was deflected to him inside the PA.

With no defenders nearby the attacker who deflected the ball, it would seem an EPL AR should be able to sort this out and get it right. It seemed fairly clear that this player DID touch the ball; with headsets, the crew should have been able to clarify this fact -- e.g. AR asks ref, did he touch that ball as it came thru? Ref says yes, AR says it is offside.

So I don't think the reason the flag stayed down is because the AR felt the attacker did NOT deflect the ball.

All I can think of is the AR felt the goalscorer was onside at the time of the original shot and he lost concentration and didn't realize the player was offside at the time of the deflection.

[stucknutah]

the question for learning purposes is, 'how did the AR miss this?' Deflection situations can be difficult because you need to take more than one snapshot in time and be able to unravel what happened and when -- as the OP said, the goalscorer was onside at the time of original shot but offside when the ball was deflected to him inside the PA.

With no defenders nearby the attacker who deflected the ball, it would seem an EPL AR should be able to sort this out and get it right. It seemed fairly clear that this player DID touch the ball; with headsets, the crew should have been able to clarify this fact -- e.g. AR asks ref, did he touch that ball as it came thru? Ref says yes, AR says it is offside.

So I don't think the reason the flag stayed down is because the AR felt the attacker did NOT deflect the ball.

All I can think of is the AR felt the goalscorer was onside at the time of the original shot and he lost concentration and didn't realize the player was offside at the time of the deflection.

This is an extremely tough call for the AR due to the fact he needs to be watching the last defender at the time of the shot and very well may either miss the deflection completely or not know who deflected the ball. The center actually has the best angle on the deflection, and could have handled the situation by checking with the AR to see if he saw the deflection or not.

[colins1993]

This is an extremely tough call for the AR due to the fact he needs to be watching the last defender at the time of the shot and very well may either miss the deflection completely or not know who deflected the ball. The center actually has the best angle on the deflection, and could have handled the situation by checking with the AR to see if he saw the deflection or not.

Man these are really hard to call. Sometimes when we are on the line we get too much "tunnel vision" when focusing on the 2LD, at least I know I have. However, in my personal experience, I can USUALLY tell when there was some sort of deflection.

My question is - what's wrong with raising the flag if you are unsure WHO deflected the shot? This way the CR (who usually has a better angle on these type of plays) can consult with you and a joint decision can be made? If he overrules your flag so be it, @ least there is precedence in that. If, however, the CR is SURE that it was OS and you do not have your flag up it is a little bit tougher sell is it not?

[Rufusabc]

There is a hint that the Chelsea attacker was offside when the original ball was played in, and it certainly is clear that he was YARDS offside when the goal was scored. How that crew got that wrong is beyond me. I just watched it again on the review show and from the angle they show it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss.

Almost as bad as jermaine Defoe encroaching on the area as Robbie keane misses his penalty in the Spurs-REading match. Defoe is about 4 yard into the area at the time of the shot and his follow up is allowed to stand.

Or almost as bad as the end of the Man City Blakburn match where a playe in an offside position misses a eader on a cross but the ball goes to a player in the on side position who puts it in. Involved in active play? Surely.

There had to be at least 5 and maybe more, worn offside decisions made this weekend. Has the game gotten to fast fo the skills of the officials?

This isn't us out there trying to get things right in a U16 match, but top flight officials in a top flight league getting game deciding calls incorrect on a regular basis. What's going on? They have to be better than us, right?

R

[oneref]

Bad calls get made every week in every league around the world, something we should think about next time we bash our MLS officials...

Or almost as bad as the end of the Man City Blakburn match where a playe in an offside position misses a eader on a cross but the ball goes to a player in the on side position who puts it in. Involved in active play? Surely.

Remember how Involved in active play is defined, the player must either interfere with play (which is defined as touch the ball, which he did not), gain an advanvantage (which is defined as receiving the ball on a rebound from the goal or an opponent, which he did not) or Interfere with an opponent. From the replays I saw, I'm not sure his attempted header changed what a single defender did. If his action did not change what a single defender did, he did not interfere and it is a good goal.

[Rufusabc]

On the Blackburn goal, you are reading into the minds of the player. The player in an offisde position attempts to head the ball and MISSES. He is involved in the active play and therefore it should have been whistled IMO. What you are saying is that a player in an offside postion who dummies the ball is allowed to do that? I think not.

R

[oneref]

Under what criteria is he involved in active play? As I stated before, he did not touch the ball, therefore is not interfering with play, he did not receive the ball on a rebound, therefore did not gain an advantage. If his action did not distract or impede on opponent, he did not interfere with an opponent.

To the example of dummying the ball, if the action is done to deceive an opponent, that is clearly interfering with an opponent, but if there is no opponent near me, and I let the ball run through my legs into the goal, its still a goal.

[Eric B]

There is a hint that the Chelsea attacker was offside when the original ball was played in, and it certainly is clear that he was YARDS offside when the goal was scored. How that crew got that wrong is beyond me. I just watched it again on the review show and from the angle they show it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss.

I didn't see the Review show, but did catch the match live, and the angle showed during the telecast was much higher than ground level, where the AR would have been. I agree that it was obvious from 50 feet in the air.

IIRC, there was another defender that might have blocked the AR's view of Pizarro. Also, wasn't this the match from the EPL this weekend that the commentator's said the ref's headsets were out?

[Nesto]

I didn't see the Review show, but did catch the match live, and the angle showed during the telecast was much higher than ground level, where the AR would have been. I agree that it was obvious from 50 feet in the air.

IIRC, there was another defender that might have blocked the AR's view of Pizarro. Also, wasn't this the match from the EPL this weekend that the commentator's said the ref's headsets were out?

Yup, just catching up on the weekend games today. The 2LD was just about in line with the deflection - quite possible the AR was screened. Tragically bad miss.

[Rufusabc]

Answer to a couple of questions in posts...

The game where the headsets went out was Everton v. Arsenal where Wenger was trying to sub a player on a yellow who got his second yellow and red when he couldn't get him off the field.

IMO, if a player in an offisde position attempts to head a cross but MISSES he is certainly invovled in active play and should be whistled for offside. Just because the ball doesnt touch him, doesnt mean the defenders were not reacting to him. The AR raised his flag at first and then changed his mind.

I'm sorry, there is NO WAY that AR misses the position of the Chelsea attacker. He blew the call and no excuse about being blocked out can make up for it. Not on a professional level. Me, I'd miss the deflection in a heartbeat, but I'm not a pro. And there is too much on the line for him to not get it right.

R

[blech]

***

My question is - what's wrong with raising the flag if you are unsure WHO deflected the shot? This way the CR (who usually has a better angle on these type of plays) can consult with you and a joint decision can be made? If he overrules your flag so be it, @ least there is precedence in that. If, however, the CR is SURE that it was OS and you do not have your flag up it is a little bit tougher sell is it not?

I suppose at a philosophical level, the answer is that you don't raise the flag because there "may" be an offside, but rather because there is one. If the AR keeps the flag down, but remains stationary (i.e., don't run back up field), this will signal to the CR that there was an offside position but you were unable to tell in a case such as this one if the deflection was off an attacker or defender. And, in turn, will lead to the conference you suggest (which at the professional level they have the benefit of doing with headsets), or even an immediate whistle by a CR who saw that the ball was touched by an attacker and understands the signal of remaining stationary (at which point the AR can, belatedly, raise his flag).

In terms of raising the flag making it easier to sell, keep in mind in this scenario that the deflection came off the attacker, so it turns out that raising the flag would have ended up being the correct call. But that won't always be the case. For example, change the facts to have him raise the flag as you suggest but with the deflection coming off a defender. Now you have a flag up, but no offside, and have to explain to angry defenders why you are allowing a goal when the flag is clearly up. Also, with the flag up, you could well end up with a CR calling the offside and not realizing that a conference is necessary (i.e., the player could have been offside when the ball was originally played in, in which case it wouldn't matter whether the deflection came off an attacker or defender).

Seems to me the mechanic of remaining stationary provides more information to the CR, and gets you to the same place of a conference between the CR and AR, and calling the offside if (a) the AR gets the offside position in the first place and (b) the CR sees the deflection. Not sure where it broke down in this case.

[Hattrix]

Just saw the replay of this on the EPL Review Show. At the moment the ball hits Pizzaro, there is a Newcastle defender on either side of him, about five yards away on each side, with the one furthest from the AR about a half step in front and the one closer to the AR about a half step behind. The CR is perfectly positioned to see that the ball came off the Chelsea player, but the AR would have a very tough time telling who that ball deflected off. The correct procedure would have been to stand at attention, and then, in conference with the AR, explain that he was uncertain of who made the deflection, but that the goal scorer was clearly passed the last man at the moment of the deflection. Then the CR would disallow the goal.

Since that didn't happen, there are only three possible explanations for why the AR didn't either raise the flag or stand at attention.
1-He thought the goal scorer was onside at the time of the deflection. In this case, he's incompetent. Compelling, but not too likely.
2-He saw no deflection. Hard to believe since he would have been moving slightly upfield wih the last defender when the shot was taken and would have had to see the ball change paths.
3-He believed he saw a deflection off of a defensive player. This involves seeing something that didn't happen, but is the most likely reason the goal was allowed. If there was any doubt at all as to who made the deflection, the AR should have stood at attention, and not moved towards midflield.

One wonders, then, what those headsets are FOR.

[blech]

Anyone see Sol Campbell's goal against Reading on New Year's day? Hahneman came out to catch a cross, but bobbled it, it was played forward by Portsmouth's Papa Baba Diop (I love that name) and then touched from short distance into the net by Campbell. The Reading players were asking for a handball on Campbell (and the ball may well have come off his arm but it wasn't clear), which was the discussion of the announcers in the minutes that followed as well, but no one seemed to comment on the fact that Campbell appeared to be offside when the ball was played to him. He had a defender between him and the goalline, but as Hahnemann had come out, there was no second defender. It looked like a great video for training ARs. My immediate reaction was goalie is out -- there needs to be another defender - and it was interesting that everyone got wrapped up in the handball question when there seemed to be a clearer reason to call the goal back. Unless there was someone off the screen, looks like there may have been another questionable offside that slipped by....

[colins1993]

I suppose at a philosophical level, the answer is that you don't raise the flag because there "may" be an offside, but rather because there is one. If the AR keeps the flag down, but remains stationary (i.e., don't run back up field), this will signal to the CR that there was an offside position but you were unable to tell in a case such as this one if the deflection was off an attacker or defender. And, in turn, will lead to the conference you suggest (which at the professional level they have the benefit of doing with headsets), or even an immediate whistle by a CR who saw that the ball was touched by an attacker and understands the signal of remaining stationary (at which point the AR can, belatedly, raise his flag).

In terms of raising the flag making it easier to sell, keep in mind in this scenario that the deflection came off the attacker, so it turns out that raising the flag would have ended up being the correct call. But that won't always be the case. For example, change the facts to have him raise the flag as you suggest but with the deflection coming off a defender. Now you have a flag up, but no offside, and have to explain to angry defenders why you are allowing a goal when the flag is clearly up. Also, with the flag up, you could well end up with a CR calling the offside and not realizing that a conference is necessary (i.e., the player could have been offside when the ball was originally played in, in which case it wouldn't matter whether the deflection came off an attacker or defender).

Seems to me the mechanic of remaining stationary provides more information to the CR, and gets you to the same place of a conference between the CR and AR, and calling the offside if (a) the AR gets the offside position in the first place and (b) the CR sees the deflection. Not sure where it broke down in this case.

That makes good sense Blech and I totally forgot about remaining stationary when you are not positive if a goal is valid or not.

But has anyone ever actually seen this mechanic demonstrated @ a higher level?
Just curious on this, that's all.

Perhaps the wireless headsets render this mechanic rare?

[dlgeier]

it would seem an EPL AR should be able to sort this out and get it right. It seemed fairly clear that this player DID touch the ball; with headsets, the crew should have been able to clarify this fact -- e.g. AR asks ref, did he touch that ball as it came thru? Ref says yes, AR says it is offside.

What does being an EPL assistant referee or having the ability for that EPL assistant referee to communicate to his referee by headseat have to do with the question at hand?