I think the right call was made. That said, you’d be hard pressed to show a better example of how stupidly expansive this interpretation has become. It undermines the entire point of even having an offside law. It encourages defenders not to play soccer in the hopes of getting the offside call. And it rewards players who are clearly in offside positions solely because their opponent tries to play soccer. Nonetheless, right now, I think it’s onside and a goal. I think eventually there will be blowback on this interpretation and things will change again. After all, the IFAB hasn’t tinkered with the Laws in a couple weeks so it’s due.
Stats update after week 3. Card counts have been quite high in the young season. #MLSRefStats2019 Regular SeasonIncludes all games through March 1735 g, 4.23 Y/g, 11 R (0.31/g), 17 pens (0.49/g), 24.89 F/gHOME TEAMS:2.06 Y/g, 4 R (0.11/g), 8 pens (0.23/g), 12.29 FC/g17 W - 11 D - 7 L (1.771 PPG)— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) March 18, 2019
I have a question about the non-call PK in the DCU vs RSL game. The incident occurred shortly after the PK that was called. DCU player Rodriguez broke in on goal and shot from maybe 16 yards out. A RSL player slid to block the shot and it hit his arm, which was behind him. DCU players all screamed for a handball. Shortly thereafter there was a stoppage from a foul and the CR held up play, listened in his headset for a moment, and then signaled for the restart and for play to continue. Based on a video I watched two years ago from US Soccer, this should 100% be a a handball and I don't understand how the VAR could miss this. The video I'm referring to was sent out in an email blast titled "U.S. Soccer Federation Referee Program Update: October 31, 2017" The video was: Continuing Education – Lifelong Learning - Video Series This month's Featured Topic: Handling the ball - Presented by FIFA Referee Instructor Esfandiar "Esse" Baharmast, click here The link does not appear to be working anymore. In the video, Esse is speaking to group of high level officials (I think maybe it was training for the US Development Academy playoffs but not positive) and he spoke about the problem of inconsistency with what's is called as handling, especially in the box. He played a number of videos, two of which featured a person sliding in to try and block a shot and asked people which they thought were a foul. On the two where people were sliding in, the room was divided roughly 50/50 on whether it was a handball. He said anytime a player slides in to block a shot and it hits him in the hand/arm it should be called as a foul. Among other reasons, the rationale was that the player was making a desperate, last-chance attempt to block a shot and should be penalized if the ball hits him in the arm when doing so. The room didn't seem to be in 100% agreement with this instruction (one of the videos seemed like it would be a VERY harsh call) but Esse said this was how it should be called and that FIFA agreed and they were teaching this in federations across the world. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work and I can't find it anywhere on the internet. Does anyone else remember this video / instruction? Has there been updated teaching/guidance that changes this interpretation? When I saw the replay, I was dumbfounded the VAR didn't say this should be reviewed.
Do you have a link to the non-call? I certainly remember a long discussion of the Esse handling presentation here, but I can't find it at the moment.
This is the video: Note that the directions on handling changed last year, so that the ball striking the support arm on a slide/sliding tackle was no longer considered "deliberate handling" and those changes were encored in the 19/20 Laws recently published (and discussed starting here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ifab-meeting.2101446/page-2#post-37600879 )
haven't been able to find a video yet but it happened right before the clock hit 36:00 if you have access to the full game replay.
I found the DCU video. The only replay I saw didn't give a good angle showing how far the arm was away from the body. My attempt to stop it at the point of contact makes it look like the ball hit the elbow. One of the more recent instructions since the 2016 handling video you reference is if the ball hits the upper or lower arm. You really can't do much about your upper arm. No matter where you move your hand, your upper arm pretty much stays in the same space. If you slide and the ball hits your wrist/hand that's away from your body then it's a foul. If you're sliding and it hits the upper arm then it's less likely to be a foul. if it hits the elbow then were kinda in the middle. My replay on the phone reaction was no foul, but as I said the one replay I saw wasnt clear about how far the arm was from the body.
Sorry I can't find/get a video for people to see. In the play I"m talking about, the defender goes to slide to block but when the ball hits him his entire body is still in the air. Both of his arms are stretched out behind him and it hits the closest arm. Don't know if that description makes any sense in terms of whether that would be considered a "support arm"
If I'm refereeing a U-16 match, yeah, I might lean toward calling that a deflection. Pro players, almost every move they make is to be considered deliberate and therefore they get zero benefit of the doubt.
The player in me fully agrees about forcing you to play it. But many of the times I try to make a play, I am unaware of whether an opponent is on or offside. As I was told in recertification when I expressed displeasure, "leave it to the referees to call it and you concentrate on playing."
All well and good. But from a philosophical perspective, why should a defender be punished and an attacker in an offside position rewarded solely because the professional defender made a bad play? You say pro players should get "zero benefit of the doubt." But, taking this example, it's not like the defender intended to play that ball and have it continue on to the attacker. You're giving zero benefit of the doubt to a defender who tried to make a play to stop a goal against his team, but giving all the benefit to an attacker who couldn't hold his run and drifted into an offside position. Again, to be clear, this is philosophical (and aimed toward the IFAB/FIFA when I say "you"). The call, I believe, was right. I just don't think anyone in power has stopped to really consider how at odds this interpretation is with the philosophy behind punishing offside as an offence in the first place. No, it is not an offence merely to be in an offside position. But the concept behind offside is that it's unfair for an attacker to start behind the defensive line, closer to the goal he is attacking at than his opponents, and benefit from that head start. That's exactly what is happening when we allow plays like this to be considered onside. Yet it seems like exactly what the IFAB/FIFA want right now.
I wonder if we may see some clarification or change that will treat efforts to block a through ball similar to a save. (My preference would be to go back to the concept of "possess and control," but I don't see anything in the tea leaves to suggest that is likely.)
The arguments you make is exactly what Brad Freidel was yelling about yesterday. He knows the refs made the proper call, he was yelling at FIFA/IFAB
I made the mistake of trying to watch Instant Replay for the first time this year (and maybe since late last summer?). Wow. Warshaw saying that the first penalty in DCU was unnecessary because the ball was gone, the foul didn't affect play, and Silva didn't intend to step on Arriola is something else. This train has long ago left the station, but it is embarrassing that MLS allows this stuff out over its official channels. I know it's an entertainment industry, but when you're actively undermining--with garbage analysis--the employees whose role it is to uphold the integrity of the game... that feels like a problem to me.
It's sponsored by Cheez-its, what could possibly be wrong about it? Seriously, though, it's just sensationalism. I know there's a lot of focus on the black and white analysis of a snapshot in time, but I don't know that there's necessarily a whole lot of value in that, excepting as fodder for the rage machines. Sometimes they (or the refs) will get something right, and sometimes they (or the refs) will get something wrong; as long as a ref's performance is relatively consistent across a match, (or, if I can dream, a league's worth of matches) I wouldn't be overly concerned with it. Also, they're way too loud....
Aw, look at PRO being all transparent and stuff. http://proreferees.com/2019/03/19/tor-vs-ne-deliberate-play-on-the-ball/
I am new to this particular argument/discussion. Where are the instructions for referees to ignore part 3 of the offside law that says that the player in an offside position is only penalised if he itootr involved in active play by (1)...; (2)...; (3) "gaining an advantage by being in that position"? The situation being discussed appears, to me at least, to be a perfect example of gaining advantage by being in an offside position when the pass was initiated. The law makes no mention of defenders playing; not playing or attempting to play the ball. To take this one step further, would the referee have been wrong for declaring the attacker was offside? Note added: I just saw post #43 which links the official explanation. It answers my first question, but the answer is ridiculous. If the defender who made a deliberate effort to play the ball had not been worried about the advantage of the attacker somewhere behind him, he'd never have done so. As a defender, he must cover his own *ss and protect himself against a player who is goalside and ONSIDE. Making a deliberate attempt to intercept the pass played by his opponent should make no difference as the offside infraction starts the moment the ball is played to an opponent in an offside position who is deemed to be receiving an advantage by being so and not after the defender has decided or not to play the ball.
The stipulation that an attacker is penalized for "gaining an advantage by being in that position" refers to them receiving the ball from a fortuitous deflection, off of the post, from a save, off the referee, or a player. It does not include from a deliberate play by a defender.
Yes it's a stupid and silly take, but is it really any different than the take by PRO on a similar challenge in the Atlanta vs. Cincinnati game a week ago? http://proreferees.com/2019/03/16/the-definitive-angle-mls-week-2/ The challenge/tackle had more force in the DC game, but it was the same type of play essentially. Late on the attacker while the ball is called. An experienced MLS referee looked at the footage and basically said that a penalty was, essentially, "unnecessary" and PRO essentially agreed with him. I think the bigger issue is that two MLS referees look at the same play via replay and come to to two different decisions.
Can anyone explain what "time and options" means? I didn't see the defender as having time, hence the outstretched and lifted leg... it was a reach. As for options, everyone always has 2 options: act and don't act. I didn't see him having any act option other than a flailing attempt to stop a ball that was almost out of reach. Also... "distance and space" seem to be redundant to "time," as no matter how far you are, as having "time" is a function of ball speed and distance,,, not sure where "space" comes in. Poorly written guidance, bad outcome, from a fan's perspective,
@jeffmefun, I believe the 'options' are exactly what you say. If a player makes the decision to move and play the ball, that is his option that he has taken. As for "distance and space", I'd say that indeed, distance would be a component of time, but using the different word might help some with their understanding of it but space refers to opponents around you.
While I agree with what I believe your conclusion is--that both should be called as penalties--there are a couple important points here. The first is that both referees--Chapman and Gantar--looked at the initial challenges and decided to wave play on. I'm speculating a little, but Chapman was either screened or simply felt it was "not enough" whereas Gantar probably wasn't focused on the point of contact because it was so peculiar. Either way, neither initially called a foul. Gantar, however, then shows a caution at the next stoppage. Either as a result of help from a teammate on-field or simply a realization that the attacker was definitely injured by studs. Regardless, at that point the die is cast. He sanctioned misconduct for an action during dynamic play. The VAR takes one look and realizes it's in the penalty area, so he has to call Gantar over. At that point, Gantar literally only has one choice, which is to award the penalty. He can't do anything else because yellow cards aren't reviewable. The yellow card he gave was for a foul that should result in a penalty, therefore he has to award the penalty. If he had never given the yellow card, maybe he does the same thing Chapman does and says "that's not enough." Maybe Petrescu, the VAR, learns from PRO's position last week and says "that's not enough to send down." There are a couple ways this ends up as not a penalty if Gantar doesn't give the card. And at that point you have the same result that Chapman got. You can fault Chapman for not calling the penalty after the OFR. Or you could fault Jurisevic for sending down the review in the first place. And you can fault Gantar for either missing the incident or "guessing" without context after he missed it. But you can't fault Petrescu for sending down the penalty--he had no other choice. And since he had no other choice, the outcome had to be different than the Chapman incident.