Don’t hate the ref, hate the game
Posted on September 6, 2011 3:52 pm
So on Labor Day the Kansas City Wizards (shut up) eked out a point against one of the stingiest defenses in the league. They were screwed. Not only that, they were screwed by a correct call. Correct, at least, according to the simple-minded way we interpret passive offsides these days. Future historians will look back on 21st century soccer, and wonder if we were drinking lead-flavored Gatorade. But oh well.
For those of you too cool or lazy to click highlight links, on the first Los Angeles goal, Adam Cristman is strolling cheerfully near the penalty spot while Sean Franklin scores. Good for my fantasy team, but bad for truth and justice.
Insult was added to other insult later in the game, when Aurelin Collin’s goal was called back because he was offside. However, replays showed that Collin was clearly onside. Admittedly, it was Omar Bravo who kept him onside, but that’s no more silly than the rule as written. Collin was the defender victimized by the first Franklin goal, as well, which made the sad mime face he pulled (at 4:33 in the video) all the more poignant and/or hilarious.
There wasn’t visible daylight between Collin and the last defender, either, but I’m not going to win that battle any time soon, either.
Law 11, by itself, isn’t the problem. Law 11, despite its horrible reputation, is fairly easy to explain to newcomers – “It’s so guys don’t stand right by the goalkeeper waiting for the ball,” you say; “Ohhhhh,” says the newcomer; and you and your protege continue to enjoy the match.
This, on the other hand, is the problem: Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees – which is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.
Seriously, look at this:
A guy can be standing next to the six yard box, and not interfering with play. Admittedly, that diagram is hilarious, but the idea that a goalkeeper isn’t going to be distracted by an opposing player that close to the goal offends common sense. If you’re in the penalty area, you’re part of the play.
This is not what the Fathers of the Game had in mind when they wrote the Laws. And if they weren’t busy spinning in their graves over African and Indian colonies being given independence, they’d be spinning over this. And all for the misguided notion of “increasing scoring”, as if gifting a goal to Bunker Bruce and the Destroyers, on the road, will somehow stimulate offense.
At least Peter Vermes didn’t foam at the mouth with cliched self-pity over – no, just kidding, he did of course:
“We know one thing; it’s us against everybody,” Vermes said. “Nothing is going to go our way. We realize that, and that’s why our guys keep fighting back. They have unbelievable determination to get back into the game. They’re not going to die.”
Vermes is the guy who calls up and screams at the minimum wage customer service guy fresh out of college|the halfway house|a Third World war zone, while the supervisor sits in his office smoking opium and watching “Toddlers in Tiaras.” Way to NOT fight the power, Peter. Especially seeing as how the calls made in that game were, like Miss Manners, excruciatingly correct. This isn’t gutty Kansas City triumphing over a Trilateral Commission of AEG, SUM, and Don Garber’s bookie. The problem is in Zurich, not New York or Chicago.
Just to reiterate -LiVESTrong Park sure looks nice. (I too can capitalize words at random.) Let us pause to note the seeming economic viability of a $200 million soccer stadium that seats less than 20,000 and fits, apparently, less than 25K. That’s a far cry from the “Move the Wiz!” chorus we heard for the league’s first ten years. Part of that economic viability may come at the cost of the turf, which seems to be a victim of the stadium’s popularity. The Galaxy, who for years forced visiting teams to play on an X-Games landfill, have little room to complain, but paying fans of the Wizards (shut up) might.
I have no problem with the passive offside interpretation. I can’t stand to see good plays nullified by strict interpretation of the rules. Save the flag for obvious attempts to cheat.
I do have a problem with the passive offside interpretation. Any opposing player who commands even the tiniest bit of the goalkeeper’s attention is part of the play.
It gets blurry when the goalkeeper’s attention could be divided. But I’d still be inclined to be lenient. In this case, the goalkeeper might have been tracking Cristman just to know where he was — in another second or two, he would’ve been onside again, and he would’ve been a threat to receive a pass. But it’s not an unfair position to be in. He’s not in the line of sight, he’s not going to deflect the ball. If he receives a pass, it’s the assistant ref’s job to raise the flag.
Cristman had no impact on the play. This wasn’t a case where the keeper/defenders had to prepare for a pass to Cristman. Horribly lazy defending is all that was.
Come on Dan, blame the KC defenders for lousy marking, not the rules. And do you really think that a soport in which the highest scoring teams average less than two goals a game is unfairly burdened with rule interpretations for “increased scoring”?
Since its recent inception, I have always thought the new passive offside rule was ridiculous, or just unfair to defenses in general. Either you have offside rule or you don’t.
Ok, I get it if the player is way out on the touch line, in an offside position, but not affecting play. The problem comes when the player is definitely gaining an advantage (by distracting a goalie or drawing a defender) by being in an offside position near the goal.
FIFA enacts rules to increase scoring and many of these rule changes are dismal failures. This is one such case.
Glad you asked. I’ve said this elsewhere, but coaches, like criminals, are a superstitious, cowardly lot. When a new rule is introduced meant to force more offense onto the game, coaches will adjust to it.
“By adding more talented players and implementing exciting, innovative scoring strategies?”
Yeah, dream the **** on.
By the laws of entropy, it is easier to destroy than create. The quickest way to respectability is through a strong defense – it looks better to lose 1-0 than 4-1, after all.
So now, we have a game lousy with offside traps, and forwards suddenly walking when five seconds before they were at a full sprint.
Anyway, scoring has gone down since the passive offside has been introduced. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, sure – except that the cure hasn’t done anything except make the patient look silly. If we must have defensive struggles, let’s have ones that make sense.
Well, I appreciate that you’ve pointed out it was not a bad call that generated the result you did not like. Over the past few years FIFA have been making the job of defending MUCH harder. Naturally, defensive minded players aren’t thrilled. But FIFA thinks that increased goal scoring is good for the game, and it makes sense to me at least that goals make the game more attractive.
But if you should like to make the case that Law 11 be changed (or its interpretation), then please make it simpler for the masses to understand, and less of a problem for referees to enforce.
Now to this case specifically… autogolazzo above here tries to differentiate between the player out on the touchline versus “near the goal.” From a refereeing perspective, if you begin down the path of trying to legislate exactly how close is too close or how far out is OK, you beg for the law to become unclear.
Now, it has never been an offense to be in an offside position. But now, the ways you can violate law 11 are far more specific. You must touch the ball or interfere with an opponent. The latter of course is vague.
USSF provides us with the following guidance: “Interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. Interference can also include active physical or verbal distraction of the goalkeeper by an opponent as well as blocking the view of the goalkeeper.
The theory goes, the goalkeeper should not be distracted by the player who is in an offside position because they should be worried about the player with the ball taking a shot on goal, furthermore if that ineligible player should happen to receive the ball, then play would be stopped for offside anyway, so why worry what this player is doing? Therefore, if the GK should not be distracted by the attacker they are left alone unless that person prevents the GK from seeing the ball or moving, or visually/verbally distracting the GK, in which case, they would be punished for offside.
Simple enough, right? Except, how on earth are you going to sell that the player who was standing to the left of the goal was “verbally distracting” the goalkeeper, so that the ref stops the game before the ball is even served up… that would be correct too, but it would make everyone crazy.
What ever changes you want to see, let’s just make sure they are CLEAR and easy to understand. Thank you!
That rationale always sounded like mollycoddling to me.
Basketball.
A game ends 19-18, they change a rule. Did the coaches adjust enough to bring it back down there?
I like the tags on this blog post.
I wouldn’t say that Cristman is “strolling near the penalty spot, though he is in an offside position. To me, he’s not in on the play–and if that were why the call was made, your case that KC got screwed by a correct call would be a good one. But on further inspection, I don’t think that’s the case.
If you really watch the replay, it’s clear that the call was made not because of the line judge’s conscious decision, but because he was out of position (as you can see in the image below).
http://imgur.com/JgwsT
Actually, this particular line judge is out of position for the entire play, which leads me to believe he didn’t raise his flag because he didn’t see the play properly. He actually never lines up with the second-last defender, but rather stays glued to the third-last the entire time.
Good article though, and great comment by USSF Ref.
USSF REF sez: “From a refereeing perspective, if you begin down the path of trying to legislate exactly how close is too close or how far out is OK, you beg for the law to become unclear.”
OK, how about if he is inside the penalty area? So if a guy is way off in the corner tying his shoe, he is not cloese enough to be a distraction, but if he is in the area, but definition, he is close enough to be a distraction.
I’ve always believed that offside is offside and that’s it. No wild assumptions. Plain and simple.
I completely agree. Collin left Franklin onside by about 3 yards and Cristman even in an offside position was nowhere near impeding the goalkeeper. I read this blog, re-watched the highlights and kept thinking, what is this guy going on about?? The only injustice of this game was the pitch, plain and simple guys.
I don’t think anyone wants the Game to adhere to the original intent of the “Fathers of the Game.”
They started spinning in the 1920s when the Law was rewritten to require 2 defenders instead of three.
[img]http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff174/jayhonk/OS4.jpg[/img]
This photo shows that it was very close but his head and shoulders were past the defender as the ball was played.
I find it troubling that in the FIFA diagram the referee is not lined up with the second last defender.
Why would anyone be pissed at you referring to KC as the “Wizards”? I mean, am I suffering audio hallucinations, or do their fans still sing “We are the Wizards” and “KC Wiz”? If I am hearing right, it sounds like the fans have chosen the unofficial nickname of Sporting Kansas City and it’s the same as the old official nickname.
Or nearer to the goal than the second last defender if the ball is in flight past him
But, yeh, that certainly is an oddity in that diagram.
Ok, but that’s never been the case though. Being in an offside position has never in of itself been an offence as has already been pointed out.
It could work, but it wouldn’t be practical for the assistant referee to determine this, especially if players are on both sides of the penalty area. It is difficult enough for the AR to determine which players are closer to the goal line on the X-Y axis, when you go adding the element of depth, you’re making it too difficult to tell if the player was legal or not.
Sorry Dan, I’m a goalkeeper, on Franklin’s goal I’m looking at him. If I am looking at anyone else there is no way I can react effectively to the shot. On Collin’s offside, he was a little ahead not dead even. As a referee my judgement is if I think he is ahead, I call it off, if I am in doubt, the tie goes to the attacker.
Maybe I’m blending sports theory here, but I always figured the tie goes to the attacker. I was watching this game on mute in a bar of ill-repute in south america, so I didn’t get the full explanation, but that SKC goal looked good to me.
In that diagram, the AR is incorrectly positioned. NOW WE KNOW WHERE MLS AR’S ARE GETTING THIS FROM!!
Apples and Oranges, its like if soccer teams were no longer allowed to have goalies, you think that would have the same impact scoring wise as players no longer being able to foul out in basketball?
The shot clock completely changed the way the game was played, it wasnt just a minor rule adjustment.
“This isn’t gutty Kansas City triumphing over a Trilateral Commission of AEG, SUM, and Don Garber’s bookie. The problem is in Zurich, not New York or Chicago.”
So you’re saying it’s not puzzlin’ evidence?
It was indeed a much bigger rule change than any likely ever to be seen in soccer.
That said the effect was also larger than any being seriously looked for. There’s no form reason to believe that a more moderate change couldn’t produce a moderate impact.
Even more troubling is that the diagram that Dan shows is different than the one to which his link refers.
From the original blog post right above the diagram: “This, on the other hand, is the problem: Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees…”
Now look at diagram 7 on page 107 in the linked website. The AR is in the correct spot. WTF? I had to look at this three times to make sure of what I was seeing.
Popular Store Items
Popular Posts
Latest from the Forum
About Big Soccer
Copyright © 2011 Big Internet Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Click here for our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Views expressed by the bloggers and users of BigSoccer do not represent the views of Big Internet Group, LLC.