An offside call negated a goal in the game last night. Some folks are very bent out of shape about it. See this Plenderleith article. I saw the play. It was a very nice, and very, very close, give and go. Too bad it was called back, but should ARs give advantage to the attackers? Here's what Plenderleith writes (note that he thinks the attacker, Mendoza, was onside): So, it would be wiser to have refs deciding whether an offside violation is or is not in the spirit of the game before calling it??
That quote is one of the more moronic ones I have seen in quite a while. Either he is off or he is not. This is not one of those "spirit of the game" calls, like simulation or something. This is like calling a ball in or out of play. If the AR thinks the player is offside, he pops the flag. On a bang-bang play like that, you have to make a gut call. I really think comments like this and thinking like this is one of the reasons soccer does not catch on here like it does in other countries. Games have rules to follow.
Re: Dallas-Chives [R] offside issue NO. I think the IFAB gave a very clear indication that the decision is to be very "black or white" in the way they most recently changed how we are to judge offside. In the past we were instructed that judgment was to be based on the "torso", now we are instructed that we are to judge "any playable surface". By making a head or a foot etc. being "nearer the goal", than the ball or the 2LD, we are being instructed to make a very "narrow" definitive judgment. So my argument would be NO, "spirit of the game" should not be an influence on the narrow definitive judgment of offside.
Re: Dallas-Chives [R] offside issue The "spirit if the game" is that you should not benefit from being in an offside position. If the attacker was just a half step ahead of the defender, this goes against the "spirit of the game" and he should be flagged. One offside situation which I'd like to see go away is the "started from an offside position and came back to receive the ball", which you see every now and then with long clearance balls or GK punts. It's a tough one to call, especially in youth matches, where 90% of the spectators don't understand it. Especially, if the attackers is an offside position in the attacking half, when the ball is played, and comes back into his own haf to receive the ball. Nothing like having a whole sideline of parents yell at you "He can't be offside in his own half". That's when you have to make sure you give the resultant IDF at the point where the attacker was when the ball was played. These are certainly situation where the attacker did not gain a benefit from being in an offside position.
Re: Dallas-Chives [R] offside issue Well said. As an AR I have gotten to the point where I don't bother with that call. The quizzical look from the referee ain't worth it.
well, I think the issue might be if as an AR in proper position you have to take your eye of the attacking player to see when the ball is played. If your vision leaves the attacking player while not in an offside position, focuses on the pass and returns to the attacking player, then in an offside position...what are you to do? Well then what if the motion and speed of the player leaves you to believe that he would have been offside but you were unable to see both offensive player and ball?
I agree with what most of Plenderleith says, but the fact is we do have "huge pressure on game officials to get decisions right, and thanks to the presence of so many TV cameras and the consequent scrutiny of every last kick we’ve come to believe that the offside law must be scrupulously applied". So allowing attackers to be slightly offside, while still within the spirit of the game IMO, just as trifling fouls are, allows too much indecision where a lack of decision is unnecessary. I advocate allowing the dangerous scoring opportunity to continue on close plays and use video review to refute or affirm goals if one is scored. For Chivas to be obviously incorrectly denied the game-winning goal is extremely harsh. And Preki is right. Chivas has been denied a number of such goals this year.
The problem with video to determine if a proper offside call has been made, is that the camera is also not always in the perfect position to provide proof. Unless there are American football lines on the field or the situation occurred right at the 18, I would have to say that the AR had a better angle than the video. Even with a nice, wide camera angle, in which you can freeze the picture at the point where the pass leaves the foot, you can't absolutely trust the camera angle
I would go with the on-field call unless the video is clear cut. (Alternatively, you could give the advantage to the attacker.) Somehow US football manages to put virtual lines on the field where none actually exist. I suspect soccer could do the same. In fact, it could do one better, it could put a virtual plane on the field. I don't know how the football technology works, however.
The football technology relies on someone in the production truck to locate the the first down marker IIRC, and it doesn't always get the line right (sometimes it's visibly tilted with respect to the nearby yard markers). If you watch a lot of stuff on FSC, you'll sometimes see replays with something like the first down line imposed on the image to show the offside line. I don't remember which league telecasts usually have this. (Another nice feature is the 10 yd circle around the free kick, and the graphics showing distance to goal of a free kick.)
I've always wondered if some sort of goggles could be developed to project a virtual line across the field that only the AR would see. It wouldn't project the offside line if the AR was out of position, but at least the AR could see from the line that he is indeed out of position.
From the article: That is not what I was taught. I should call offside if an inch of the attacker's boot or the tip of his nose is behind the 2LD. However I give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker if I am not sure. What he is saying is "Tie (or maybe a foot or so late) goes to the runner."
You could make an argument that if the play is that close then there should be some doubt in the mind of the AR. If you can detect with surety who is onside or offside by an inch the moment the ball is kicked by a teammate, you should be working international FIFA matches.
I took a look at the play on espn360 and the AR clearly signals that he is calling #14 offside. Unfortunately Galindo wears #11, but I highly suspect that is who he was calling. Of course, he probably called Galindo offside not because he was involved in the play, he wasn't, but because it gave the AR an easy out to call offside on a bang-bang play that was nearly impossible to call real time. And since it WAS nearly impossible to call, he SHOULD have given the advantage to the attacker. Mendoza and Rhine were running in opposite directions at relatively high speed. While a large number of players were in the area, the AR's view was not blocked at the critical time. Mendoza was #6, so the AR was not flagging him. If you stop the slow motion replay at the instant the ball is hit, you can see that Mendoza is onside by a yard. But in real time you might think he was offside by 3 yards. It is a very difficult play to judge accurately in real time. If the AR still stands by his decision to flag Galindo even after seeing the slow-motion replay, then that is a subject for another discussion. With video review, be it using a center referee, an onsite 4th official, or an offsite review committee, would probably all award a goal to Chivas. Of course the CR would have had to hold his whistle for a half-second longer.