Another offside position paper and the accompanying YouTube link. This deals with how much "interference" is needed to distract the goalkeeper. http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Offside_Issues.pdf http://youtube.com/watch?v=7fjR586niyY&feature=PlayList&p=A60788D95BFA05CB&index=7
From the angle shown, I have NO IDEA whether it should be called. If I were the AR, I might stand at attention, and if asked, tell the CR that a player was in an offside position, but you couldn't tell if he interfered with the keeper's ability to see the ball. It looks like the CR should have a much better view of the ball being shot and the view the keeper has. If the CR has a concern about this, he should definitely be looking at the AR.
Their position paper, if you read it carefully, effectively says that there is no "indisputable evidence" that the match officials got it wrong...not that they indisputably got it right. It also says that the video evidence "supports the decision"...NOT that a contrary decision would have been wrong. I usually play keeper, and if someone is between the ball and me...and pokes into the flight path of a hard shot with his foot, head, or any part of his body...it will likely take me a split second to determine whether or not there's a deflection that I need to adjust for. There may well be circumstances where an attempted play for the ball won't disturb the keeper...or make a difference to the outcome, and I wouldn't presume to second-guess a match official who allowed the goal. But I suspect that this position paper will cause more confusion than it prevents. And given the proximity of the offside attacker to both the keeper, and the ball's line of flight, I, for one, would probably have judged that the attackers actions distracted the keeper...thereby "interfering with an opponent"...and disallowed the goal. I suspect that this call would have been more widely accepted by most observers...players, spectators, commentators, as well as most other officials...than the call made at the field. ADDED SUBSEQUENTLY: I agree with our friend from Iowa...that the proper course for the AR would be to stand at attention, since the offside player didn't contact the ball. But on reviewing the clip again, it doesn't look to me like the Referee can really see things from the keeper's angle...and extrapolating the keeper's line of sight from the apparent positions of everyone on the field (shooter outside and to the edge of the PA, keeper just left of center in goal, offside attacker just beyond and to the right of the Spot), it sure looks to me like the attacker wasn't off harmlessly to the side.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff -- you speak the truth. I enthusiastically repped your post. EXACTLY. The words and wording of the position paper clearly show the gray area associated with this particular example, even though that is not the overall point made by the position paper. Gee, ya think?! Me too. This is a good point. In general, I do NOT advocate calling offside, or anything else, based on the wishes of the masses. But in this case, it is worth our time to consider what the people think is right. We refs can talk about this junk all day long...why not listen to what the players, coaches, fans, and commentators think? This particular clip is, after all, a judgement call.
One other thing about the memo... it comes from the point of view of the Monday Morning Quarterback, not the referee and AR who worked the match. For simplicity, let's say that the replays collectively showed this should NOT have been ruled offside. That's great and all, but what we should be more concerned with are these sorts of issues: 1. Could the ref and AR gotten this call right based on where they were positioned, what they saw, how they communicated with each other, etc etc etc. 2. What suggestions or improvements can we provide to referees, to help them maximize their chances of getting these calls right? In other words, if the ref and AR were doing their jobs right and STILL couldn't get a decision right, does it really matter what we can see on the multiple angles of video replay? In my view, the answer is 'not much.'
Ok, having watched the video a few more times just now, I am even more convinced than before that the offside-positioned player had an affect on how the goalkeeper responded to this shot coming in toward the goal. The clip is NOT high-resolution, but it still gives most of the necessary information. Here are some of MY impressions: 1. The first angle on the clip shows the shot is a LONG ways out... the player is at least 10 yards outside the top of the box, positioned in line with the side of the penalty area. This shot was probably from about 35 yards, I'd say. 2. The shot was NOT a wonder-strike. Was not hit incredibly hard. Was from a reasonably sharp angle, not directly in front of goal. Was not an upper-90 blast from 15 yards out that gave the GK no chance. This was a shot from long range that came in fairly low, which the GK normally would have a good chance of saving. 3. It is hard to see for sure, but the GK appears to react VERY late to the shot. Look at the last replay, starting around 25 seconds. It almost looks like he leans or goes right before diving to his left. Why the late reaction? It could be anything, but a very likely reason is the attacker who was in an offside position, who stuck his foot out in an attempt to touch the ball (or was it an attempt by a law-savvy player who knew he wouldn't be called offside as long as he missed the ball ), and who was somewhat 'in the way' of the GK's vision and/or of the ball. Burse is a young athletic GK who, presumably, has pretty good reaction time. It wasn't on display in this clip. On that shot, I would have expected a GK of his caliber to save comfortably. I hope my post has made clear WHY that did not happen.
I think the point of the paper is to clarify the conditions that offside may be called, pointing out the matters of fact versus those that are opinion. It is not trying to say what was the definitive correct call in this situation. The paper is pointing out that the attacker was not interfering with play, and was not gaining an advantage by his position. These are matters of fact, and people must recognize these elements of the play as facts. The attacker MAY have been interfering with an opponent. This is the only way that the attacker can be considered for an offside infraction. In this case, it is a matter of opinion, and it is the opinion of the ref that counts. It is a judgment call, and there is no definitive way to say that the player should or should not have been judged offside. If the player had touched the ball, it would be a definitive offside for interfering with play. Since he did not, it is left to the opinion of the referee if he interfered with the opponent or not. That is the point of the memo.
Good post. This is a good summary. I agree this SHOULD BE the final stance / point / summary of the memo, but that is not what I get when reading it. The last sentence of the memo, which is underlined, is, "...none of the elements of involvement in active play while in an offside position were present and the referee's decision not to penalize Herron for his position must be supported."
Were I the AR in that video, aside from what was apparent in the camera angles, I would need to see the goalie's eyes to find evidence of distracting an opponent. Else, the goal is good. Sandcrab
Excellent point. If the keeper isn't complaining about the obstruction, it probably didn't happen. It's a little hard to tell since he's flat on his back after the dive, but he didn't bounce back immediately complaining. Not that I want to referee based on how players are complaining, but it definitely can provide clues to what they could or couldn't see.
Also remember benefit of any doubt goes to the attackers, if you are not 100% sure its an offside infraction, then it isn't.
- Interfering with play or - none, FACT, agree. - Interfering with an opponent or - maybe/maybe not, OPINION, can defend EITHER decision. View on the field from Center and AR perspective seems more relevant. - Gaining an advantage by being in that position. - none, FACT, agree. After watching several times, leaning toward allowing the goal given what the Center/AR would see. But wouldn't argue an offside call for Interfering either...
I'm a little disappointed that this post didn't spur anyone to look at the play from the goalkeeper's point of view.
I was thinking of my posts #4 and #12. It's hard to look at it from the keeper's point of view when the angle provided is from the top of the stadium about 30 yards up from the endline. Yes, from whatever angle you have, you have to determine what the keeper could see.
It just seems to me that the GK would normally make this save pretty easily without a player in offside position near the path of the ball as it comes in toward goal. Nobody seems to have agreed with that.
That wasn't what I saw. After viewing the clip several times, I decided that the keeper's view wasn't obstructed. But then, you're not the first one to question my vision. I'll definitely assert that from where the clip was taken, it's extremely difficult to tell.
Great non-call and again I have to give the USSF a big pat on the back for using Youtube. I wish someone would put together a site with these position papers and Youtube clips. It would be a great aid to people brought up with the overly officious game of football to see the difference in mentality between the beautiful game and that other game. Not so. That is why the USSF is trying so hard to recalibrate people's thinking on this issue.
The Louisiana State Referees Association puts these up pretty regularly. Here is the link http://www.referee-la.com/Position_Papers.html ANR
I wasn't saying I thought the offside player obstructed the GK's view; I feel that it is impossible to tell from the clip. But it seems that the offside player had an effect on the GK, based on how late the GK appears to react to such a long-range shot.
Thank you very much. From the site: and here is the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A60788D95BFA05CB I believe the USSF statement is that distracting is not interfering. If we were to go down that road, keepers would be complaining about every passively offside player as being distracting.
I would have liked to have seen a replay from behind the goal to formulate an informed opinion on whether the keeper's vision was obstructed by the forward. You really can't tell from the angles shown. Another point about the keeper NOT complaining after the goal was scored - his eyes are focused on the BALL ONLY once the shot is taken , so he would have no idea if that forward was OS - unless of course the forward was so blatantly in an OS position, by say another 10 yards. I use to be a keeper.