Interesting offside (non)decision in ManUtd v. Bolton [R]

[wjarrettc]

This game was on PPV this morning and will be re-aired on FSW Tues 11pm EDT and YES Thur 7pm interested in case you want to see this play...


In the 77th minute, with ball in midfield, Djemba-Djemba slots a through ball towards an obviously offside Ruud Van Nistleroy. RVN visibly lets up on his run but the ball ricochets off his back leg into the path of an onside Paul Scholes who races in uncontested on the keeper for Man Utd's 3rd goal.

The AR kept his flag down and Paul Durkin let the goal stand. I thought it was the right call because RVN made no motion to play the ball and there really was no advantage gained. The ricochet did not change whether or not Scholes would have gotten to the ball.

I just thought it was interesting since it was a case of the player being played by the ball (instead of vice versa) in the offside position.

[giggs88]

http://mrwood95.valuehost.co.uk/0304/Scholes-Bolton-h.mpg

here's the goal.

[bostonsoccermdl]

Originally posted by wjarrettc

. I thought it was the right call because RVN made no motion to play the ball and there really was no advantage gained. The ricochet did not change whether or not Scholes would have gotten to the ball.


It looked like a flick-on to me by RVN.. a deliberate play. I am a MAN U fan, and even I admit it should have been called back.....

In the whole scheme of things it didnt really matter though. That is the fortunate part of it; no one wants the final result to be determined by a questionable call like that.

[IASocFan]

I would have flagged it.

[Gary V]

Provided he was in an offside position (can't definitively tell from the video clip) I would have called it. Maybe he didn't gain an advantage, but he surely interfered with play. We always debate "the ball doesn't actually have to get to the player to make him involved" - well, this time the ball did get there - and we're still saying he's not involved? Sometimes players are involved simply because of their position on the field, despite any attempts at non-involvement, because play goes right to them. That was illustrated in a video with excerpts from the '99 WWC, shown at recert classes a year or two ago.

But then again, I'll never do a game at this level, so what do I know?

[wjarrettc]

Originally posted by Gary V
Provided he was in an offside position (can't definitively tell from the video clip) I would have called it. Maybe he didn't gain an advantage, but he surely interfered with play. We always debate "the ball doesn't actually have to get to the player to make him involved" - well, this time the ball did get there - and we're still saying he's not involved? Sometimes players are involved simply because of their position on the field, despite any attempts at non-involvement, because play goes right to them. That was illustrated in a video with excerpts from the '99 WWC, shown at recert classes a year or two ago.

But then again, I'll never do a game at this level, so what do I know?

I watched the replay about a half dozen times, a luxury not afforded to anyone involved. These are the points that I concluded.

1) RVN was definitely in an offside position (there was a camera angle that showed this clearly).

2) RVN's body language suggests he realized he was offside and was trying to not involve himself in the play.

Whether or not a player of RVN's skill can disguise a flick on is beyond me...I wouldn't put it past him.

In realtime, I'm sure my flag would have been up, but after further review, I like the call that was made here.

[Kryten]

I'm not a referee, but I like reading this forum to learn more about how the Laws of the Game work.

I can't understand this ruling... Ruud is in an offside position, and the ball comes right to him and bounces off him. How can he be said to have not "interfered with play"? Whether by intent or not, he has become involved in active play from an offside position, and the flag should have gone up.

That's my two cents. Now, someone tell me why I'm wrong :)

John

[Crowdie]

Originally posted by Kryten
I'm not a referee, but I like reading this forum to learn more about how the Laws of the Game work.

I can't understand this ruling... Ruud is in an offside position, and the ball comes right to him and bounces off him. How can he be said to have not "interfered with play"? Whether by intent or not, he has become involved in active play from an offside position, and the flag should have gone up.

That's my two cents. Now, someone tell me why I'm wrong :)

John

Couldn't agree with you more. You could argue that Paul Scholes was offside as well - but I have the advantage of Windows Media Player's pause button and the ARs don't.

Crowdie.

[wjarrettc]

Originally posted by Kryten
Now, someone tell me why I'm wrong :)

okay :)

But seriously though, the laws are all subject to the interpretation of whomever is calling the game. There is black and white (ball in and out of play for example) but most of the laws are very grey and open to judgement calls on the part of the referees.

I personally do not believe that RVN's position on this play either (a) interfered with play, (b) interfered with an opponent, or (c) gained him any advantage.

Those are the three criteria listed in Law 11 that determine if a player is involved in active play. You may argue that he interfered with play by touching the ball, but I really don't believe that had any bearing on whether or not Scholes would have gotten the ball to run in uncontested against the Bolton keeper (yes, I know his name but have no hope of spelling it!)

Remove RVN from field of play and ask yourself if you believe the outcome would have changed (this is an excercise they always give us in referee certification class). If you don't believe it would change, then he should not be penalized for being in an offside position.

I admit that this is a rather liberal interpretation of the wording but one conclusion you can come to by reading the laws of the game.

[Crowdie]

Originally posted by wjarrettc
I personally do not believe that RVN's position on this play either (a) interfered with play, (b) interfered with an opponent, or (c) gained him any advantage.

All RVN had to do is avoid the ball. I believe that as soon as he touched the ball in an offside position he was offside.

Originally posted by wjarrettc
Those are the three criteria listed in Law 11 that determine if a player is involved in active play. You may argue that he interfered with play by touching the ball, but I really don't believe that had any bearing on whether or not Scholes would have gotten the ball to run in uncontested against the Bolton keeper (yes, I know his name but have no hope of spelling it!)

Remove RVN from field of play and ask yourself if you believe the outcome would have changed (this is an excercise they always give us in referee certification class). If you don't believe it would change, then he should not be penalized for being in an offside position.

From the LOTG Page 13:

"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"

As soon as RVD touched the ball he became involved in active play while in an offside position.

This is one of those situations where different countries interpret the LOTG differently. USSF issues a guide to it's interpretation of the LOTG but it is worth remembering that these interpretations are not valid once you leave US soil and this incident happened in the United Kingdom.

At the end of the day neither the CR or AR ruled RVN offside and the British papers reported it as a goal the next morning. I am sure that RVN will have a few legitimate goals disallowed this season so hopefully it will all even out by the end of the season.

Crowdie.

[superdave]

How can you touch the ball and not be involved in the play?!?!

[DC Braveheart]

Originally posted by Crowdie
All RVN had to do is avoid the ball. I believe that as soon as he touched the ball in an offside position he was offside.



From the LOTG Page 13:

"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"

As soon as RVD touched the ball he became involved in active play while in an offside position.

This is one of those situations where different countries interpret the LOTG differently. USSF issues a guide to it's interpretation of the LOTG but it is worth remembering that these interpretations are not valid once you leave US soil and this incident happened in the United Kingdom.

At the end of the day neither the CR or AR ruled RVN offside and the British papers reported it as a goal the next morning. I am sure that RVN will have a few legitimate goals disallowed this season so hopefully it will all even out by the end of the season.

Crowdie.

Note that the law states that the offside judgement is made at the time the ball was LAST touched by a teammate of the player in the offside position. At that time the ball had not touched RVN! The linesman made the judgement that RVN was not actively in the play when the ball was last touched - that the ball subsequently hit him doesn't necessarily change the vailidity of that judgement - in fact that next touch is the point at which the next off-side judgement is to be made (not a review of the last one).

[SocFan]

He was certainly involved in the play. Once the ball touches him, the flag goes up. If he gets out of the way, that's another story.

[Crowdie]

Originally posted by DC Braveheart
Note that the law states that the offside judgement is made at the time the ball was LAST touched by a teammate of the player in the offside position. At that time the ball had not touched RVN!

Using this logic no player can ever be called offside. Have a careful think about that.

Originally posted by DC Braveheart
The linesman made the judgement that RVN was not actively in the play when the ball was last touched - that the ball subsequently hit him doesn't necessarily change the vailidity of that judgement - in fact that next touch is the point at which the next off-side judgement is to be made (not a review of the last one).

As soon as RVN touched the ball while either in or returning from an offside position he was offside. His own actions showed he knew he was offside. How often do you see RVN not want to go after a ball and score a goal?

Crowdie.

[HeadHunter]

Originally posted by DC Braveheart
Note that the law states that the offside judgement is made at the time the ball was LAST touched by a teammate of the player in the offside position. At that time the ball had not touched RVN! The linesman made the judgement that RVN was not actively in the play when the ball was last touched - that the ball subsequently hit him doesn't necessarily change the vailidity of that judgement - in fact that next touch is the point at which the next off-side judgement is to be made (not a review of the last one).

Id say that you are confusing the determination of offside position with the actual flagging of an offside violation. as I understand it, those are two seperate judgements that the linesman has to make. However, a more experienced ref could confirm/deny this.

[wjarrettc]

Following up the question of how can you not be "interfering with play" when you touch the ball, I throw a hypothetical situation out there.

Instead of standing up, what if RVN had been down on the ground injured in an offside position. Djemba's through ball is played to Scholes but on the way it deflects off the prostrate RVN who is clearly not making any effort to participate in the play.

Does this change your opinion on whether or not the player is interfering in the play and thus guilty of an offside infraction?

[Crowdie]

Originally posted by wjarrettc
Following up the question of how can you not be "interfering with play" when you touch the ball, I throw a hypothetical situation out there.

Instead of standing up, what if RVN had been down on the ground injured in an offside position. Djemba's through ball is played to Scholes but on the way it deflects off the prostrate RVN who is clearly not making any effort to participate in the play.

Does this change your opinion on whether or not the player is interfering in the play and thus guilty of an offside infraction?

I will still call him offside. I believe that in the spirit of the offside law he would still be offside.

Crowdie.

[Gary V]

Originally posted by wjarrettc
Instead of standing up, what if RVN had been down on the ground injured in an offside position. Djemba's through ball is played to Scholes but on the way it deflects off the prostrate RVN who is clearly not making any effort to participate in the play.
Is this not similar to the illustration on page 47 of the 2003 LOTG? A player is on the ground (whether injured or no, we aren't told) and his position prevents the keeper from getting to the ball - offside.

[Justin O]

Originally posted by wjarrettc
Instead of standing up, what if RVN had been down on the ground injured in an offside position. Djemba's through ball is played to Scholes but on the way it deflects off the prostrate RVN who is clearly not making any effort to participate in the play.

Does this change your opinion on whether or not the player is interfering in the play and thus guilty of an offside infraction?

If you alter the trajectory of the ball you're as involved as you can get. In both cases it would be offside. Other interpreations seem silly.

[HeadHunter]

Originally posted by wjarrettc
Following up the question of how can you not be "interfering with play" when you touch the ball, I throw a hypothetical situation out there.

Instead of standing up, what if RVN had been down on the ground injured in an offside position. Djemba's through ball is played to Scholes but on the way it deflects off the prostrate RVN who is clearly not making any effort to participate in the play.

Does this change your opinion on whether or not the player is interfering in the play and thus guilty of an offside infraction?

While in this hypothetical RVN has clearly not intentionally interfered with play, he still has interfered with how the play would have occured had he not been in that position. I don't think this is a situation where the Laws ask us to judge player intent. As a result, I see it as a definite offside