San Jose v Salt Lake [R]

[PVancouver]

Referees reverse call on would-be Real score (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700236050,00.html)

Unfortunately, the goal was apparently good.

It has already been much discussed in the Salt Lake forum (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=706877&page=15).

Mods, please add an [R] to the title.

[NHRef]

Two things come to mind:

1) They did NOT reverse a decision, they delayed making one
2) He was offside.

[gosellit]

Having not seen the play, my comment is based on what I read from the article.

First of all, let's assume the AR considered Beckerman in an offside position.

The article got it wrong by stating that not raising the flag, he considered him onside.

My guess, because Anno went to discuss, the AR held his position with his flag down indicating that a player other than the shooter was in an offside position.
If he was not sure that Beckerman touched the ball, this is the proper procedure.

Sounds like the crew go it right. NHRef, I agree, the call was delayed, not reversed.

[GOOOOAL!!]

The highlights of the game are on MLSNET. Click on "video" in the scoreboard in the upper right. The play is about 1/2 way through the highlights.

The call is too close to see if the player in the lower right keeps the attacker on with the angles they show. It was definitely very close. You can't see the AR so you don't know if he was in a good position or not. It was a corner and he did only have to come up the line 3-4 yards to be in line with the 2RD so he should have been there. Knowing Strickland, he probably got it right.

Regardless of whether the call was right or wrong, it sounds like the correct mechanics were followed. Ball went into the net, a player may have been guilty of OS but the AR isn't sure so he stayed put without a flag, the R comes over, they talk about it and determine that the player in the OS position played the ball so OS is the call.

Announcers even figured it out. Get them on the Euro2008 games.

[Wreave]

Boy is that a tight call. The attacker was clearly ahead of the defender right next to him, but whether he's ahead of the one that's casually walking upfield on the near side is questionable. I think he's even, and therefore onside.

That's a tough call to make, with a near side defender 15 yards away setting the offside line.

[DadOf6]

Boy is that a tight call. The attacker was clearly ahead of the defender right next to him, but whether he's ahead of the one that's casually walking upfield on the near side is questionable. I think he's even, and therefore onside.

That's a tough call to make, with a near side defender 15 yards away setting the offside line.

I can't tell from the replay. One time it looks offside and another time it looks not offside. Like I said on the RSL board, if I can't tell with multiple replays and freeze frames I will not second guess what the AR saw.

But the CR did overrule the AR (sort of). I sit on the front row opposite the benches. When the ball went in I leaned over the rail to see the AR coming towards me. THEN I grabbed my flag and started waving it around. I was sad to put it back down.

[PVancouver]

Having not seen the play, my comment is based on what I read from the article.

First of all, let's assume the AR considered Beckerman in an offside position.

The article got it wrong by stating that not raising the flag, he considered him onside.

My guess, because Anno went to discuss, the AR held his position with his flag down indicating that a player other than the shooter was in an offside position.
If he was not sure that Beckerman touched the ball, this is the proper procedure.

Sounds like the crew go it right. NHRef, I agree, the call was delayed, not reversed.

Can someone point out where this "proper procedure" is documented on-line?

The AR did not hold his position. Several spectators (presumably) have all declared that Strickland ran upfield. One even said:

Not only did he sprint back upfield, he was emphatically wagging his finger at the SJ players that were screaming at him for an offside call. He clearly, at that moment, thought the goal was good. There was no doubt by his actions.

You can't see Strickland, but you can see Grabavoy, one of three SJ players to put their arms out pleading for an offside call, and he makes and arcing run toward the sideline presumably trying to catch up with Strickland. Apparently Strickland is faster than Grabavoy ;) .

[gosellit]

Looks like I guessed wrong if it is correct that Strickland ran upfield after the ball went into the goal. No replay that I have seen showed this, so, I have to believe eyewitness testimony. I would be very interested in knowing what Strickland saw.

[gosellit]

Can someone point out where this "proper procedure" is documented on-line?


"this" as in what actually happened or "this" as in what I assumed happened?

[GOOOOAL!!]

Can someone point out where this "proper procedure" is documented on-line?

The AR did not hold his position. Several spectators (presumably) have all declared that Strickland ran upfield. One even said:



You can't see Strickland, but you can see Grabavoy, one of three SJ players to put their arms out pleading for an offside call, and he makes and arcing run toward the sideline presumably trying to catch up with Strickland. Apparently Strickland is faster than Grabavoy ;) .

If it was the case that Strickland ran up the line, then the R did smell something was wrong and went to the AR to clarify. If that's what happened then the R gets a Gold Star for getting the call right in the end.

With the info that Strickland had, he didn't really do anything wrong. In the article is said the AR didn't think the second attacker touched the ball so he would have run up the line signaling a good goal. There isn't really a set procedure for the "AR doesn't think the player in the OS position was involved in the play but the R thinks he might have been" situation.

Here is the link to the R, AR and 4th's procedures:
http://ussoccer.com/laws/index.jsp.html
Third link down from the top - Guide to Procedures
Page 27 covers disallowing a goal.


BTW - Strickland may just be faster than Grabavoy.... especially when he's beign chased.

[CalNorth Pride]

First of all the RSL field is an embarassement for the MLS. Now, If Strickland saw the offside player touch the ball then proper mechanic would be to hold flag up to indicate offside infraction. He would keep the flag down and hold position if (A) a player in an offside position interfered with play on a goal, or (B) something occurs on a goal and he just is not clear and wants to get the referee's attention to talk it over. The video is not clear on what Strickland did, but if he did run up the field, I would bet that it is b/c he did not believe that the offside player touched the ball nor interfered with play.

At any rate, Strickland is a FIFA AR and WC veteran, so he won't make many mistakes. It seems he missed the touch, the center got it, conferred with Strickland on what he saw and correctly ruled an offside infraction. IDK for SJ. This was truly a good piece of officiating b/c they got it right even if it was a little bit hincky.

[GOOOOAL!!]

First of all the RSL field is an embarassement for the MLS. Now, If Strickland saw the offside player touch the ball then proper mechanic would be to hold flag up to indicate offside infraction. He would keep the flag down and hold position if (A) a player in an offside position interfered with play on a goal, or (B) something occurs on a goal and he just is not clear and wants to get the referee's attention to talk it over. The video is not clear on what Strickland did, but if he did run up the field, I would bet that it is b/c he did not believe that the offside player touched the ball nor interfered with play.

At any rate, Strickland is a FIFA AR and WC veteran, so he won't make many mistakes. It seems he missed the touch, the center got it, conferred with Strickland on what he saw and correctly ruled an offside infraction. IDK for SJ. This was truly a good piece of officiating b/c they got it right even if it was a little bit hincky.

Yeah, what he said. (very well worded)

[gosellit]

If it was the case that Strickland ran up the line, then the R did smell something was wrong and went to the AR to clarify. If that's what happened then the R gets a Gold Star for getting the call right in the end.

With the info that Strickland had, he didn't really do anything wrong. In the article is said the AR didn't think the second attacker touched the ball so he would have run up the line signaling a good goal. There isn't really a set procedure for the "AR doesn't think the player in the OS position was involved in the play but the R thinks he might have been" situation.



That would be my next guess as to what happened.

[PVancouver]

"this" as in what actually happened or "this" as in what I assumed happened?

"This" as in what you assumed happened, i.e., the "AR held his position with his flag down indicating that a player other than the shooter was in an offside position. If he was not sure that Beckerman touched the ball, this is the proper procedure."

[gosellit]

"This" as in what you assumed happened, i.e., the "AR held his position with his flag down indicating that a player other than the shooter was in an offside position. If he was not sure that Beckerman touched the ball, this is the proper procedure."

See post#10 from gooooal!!

[PVancouver]

I found it. It is in the Guide to Procedures, but slightly different from what has been said:

"If a player other than the scorer was in an offside position and, in the opinion of the assistant referee, was interfering with play or with an opponent, stands at attention with the flag held straight down at the side"

This is included in the section "Apparent Goal to be Disallowed".

Since the AR in this case did not think that the goal needed to be disallowed, he simply headed up field.

The referee, on the other hand (presumably wondering if an apparent goal should be disallowed),

"Confers with assistant referee if further information is believed needed (maintain focus on the field while doing so)"

So this was in fact done by the book, if you ignore the who saw what when questions.

[PVancouver]

See post#10 from gooooal!!

Yep, that's it.

[PVancouver]

Apparent Goal to be Disallowed

"If a player other than the scorer was in an offside position and, in the opinion of the assistant referee, was interfering with play or with an opponent, stands at attention with the flag held straight down at the side"

It seems to me this would be very difficult to implement in practice.

Why not just give a standard offside signal? Isn't that what everyone would expect? Wouldn't everyone check to see if the flag was up, if there were any doubts? If Strickland does what he is supposed to do in such a situation in Columbus while calling back a Crew goal, he will be heavily showered with more than just water!

Ditto for a foul by an attacker seen by an AR but not the CR just before a goal is scored.

Wouldn't the AR have at least begun to put his flag up in these situations?

[Wreave]

It seems to me this would be very difficult to implement in practice.

Why not just give a standard offside signal?

Because the referee makes the final decision as to whether or not to accept or reject the AR's flag. If the signal makes the CR believe that the AR is flagging the shooter, and the CR knows the shooter was onside, then he may wave down the flag erroneously.

More importantly, though, the CR has the angle to determine if an offside-positioned player was interfering with the line of sight of the keeper, whereas the AR has the angle to determine if the player in question was offside. So, the CR looks to the AR, sees the AR standing still, receives the communication that a non-scorer was off, and decides whether or not that player was interfering with an opponent.

[PVancouver]

Because the referee makes the final decision as to whether or not to accept or reject the AR's flag. If the signal makes the CR believe that the AR is flagging the shooter, and the CR knows the shooter was onside, then he may wave down the flag erroneously.

More importantly, though, the CR has the angle to determine if an offside-positioned player was interfering with the line of sight of the keeper, whereas the AR has the angle to determine if the player in question was offside. So, the CR looks to the AR, sees the AR standing still, receives the communication that a non-scorer was off, and decides whether or not that player was interfering with an opponent.

But if the flag goes up and a goal is immediately scored, the referee still has the power to wave off the flag. He can question the AR on which player he was flagging (which hopefully is already obvious from his position signal). I think that would be a lot easier to explain away than the reverse.

I could see using this signal if the AR was sure the player had been an offside position, but wasn't sure if he had interfered with play or an opponent (but thought there was a possibility he did). Then he would be communicating the fact that a player had been in an offside position (if there was a question about which player, the CR would simply have to ask), and the CR would know that he had to decide, immediately after a goal was scored, if the player who was in an offside position had been involved in play.

This is closer to DadOf6's version of the proper procedure and I think it would work much better that what we currently seem to have.

As it is, and if Strickland was sure that Beckerman played the ball, then Beckerman becomes the scorer. Strickland is to flag offside immediately. Strickland does have an option of telling the CR that a player was in an offside position, but may or may not have interfered with play.

Only if some offside positioned third attacker had interfered with an opponent (or somehow, with play), should Strickland stand at attention with the flag down. And Strickland is to be sure that there was interference even in this case. He does not have an option to indicate to the referee that a player was clearly in an offside position, and he may or may not have interfered with an opponent.