Gold Cup USA:CAN (R)

What I thought I saw, when I single-framed FSC, was the following:

1. The AR's flag was not raised until the ball went to Hutchinson's feet (there was a post suggesting it went up sooner on USMNT N&A).

2. Because of his forward lean, Hutchinson was offside right about until the moment the ball was struck. At that moment, I thought he was even, but I only had one mow-line to judge by and Chiller's photo that also includes the 18 makes me think that he could even have been offside.

3. The flight of the ball is not visibly altered by Hume, I can't determine if he actually touched it.

Regardless, it's by no means the travesty that most people are making it out to be, unless you argue that Gooch's headed ball counts as a play by the defender giving Hutchinson carte blanche. (And that really is a question I would like to see more of the official contingent here address.)

 

Hmmm, btw on some of your screen caps above. The red line you are drawing needs to be perpendicular to the sideline which would make it like this \

Someone with a decent photo editing software needs the make a perpendicular line to see better.

 

Has anyone noticed that all of the video shots of the field are warped? The sideline isn't a straight line and the angles of the grass cut lines and penalty area line are all at different angles. You have to adjust for the perspective and at best guestimate the proper offside line.

Also no one has provided any evidence that Hume didn't get a slight touch on the ball before Onyewu headed it. There is no conclusive replay.

Last night I was convinced that it was the wrong call but I'm undecided now after numerous video reviews from multiple sources.

The worst noncall of the night was not giving DeRo a straight red. I'm not a ref but I do know that a headbutt is a clear red card.

 

The USSF had the field laid out like that on purpose so that all offsides calls would look mor ein the US's favor.

I am dumb-founded that some people are using really crappy video shots, of what has to be one of the closest calls I have seen in recent memory, as if they had just found more irrefutable evidence of the Grassy Knoll shooter. (Chiller, thanks for the pic...my pot shot is at the people using your pic like it is something handed down from God)

I certainly hope those who are advocating such nonesense run right out and sign up for their association's very next Grade 8 referee clinic. And if they are already referees, please be sure to let me know when your next assessment is. I would love to come and give your matches this same scrutiny.

 

Hard to tell from the angle, but at the moment the ball was played (or perceived to have been played) it looked like they were offside. Gooch's "header" notwithstanding, it would still be offside. But who knows for sure...the replay is worse than the Bigfoot films of the 1970s. If you play it backwards it says, "Paul is dead" (beatles fans).

 

I made the line in relation to the 18 yard line, not from the touch line. On an angled picture things get very hard to draw with out something to measure the angles accurately. Since the 18 yard is already at 90 degrees with the touchline, I used that as reference. So, hey if you can come up with a better/more accurate photo/offside line then I'd be happy to see it. I did the best I could with what I had. Oh, and bigger picture = worse quality, so I would have made it smaller.

From what I can tell from in relation to the grass-lines and the 18 yard line, the Canadian player appears to be onside.

 

Hmmm... I'm not sure if it was this thread that it was said in...

DeRosario is definitely offsides when the ball is played, we can all agree to that right?

It really does look like the ball was played to him before Gooch touched. As any ref knows, the offsides call comes when the ball is first played. So it doesn't matter whether Gooched touched it or not because DeRosario was gaining an advantage. If DeRosario hadn't been in that position Gooch wouldn't have had to make that play.

I don't think that that was the call that the AR made, but it is correct, right?

Here are the laws, emphasis added on the pertinent points:

Offside Position
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second last opponent
A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the fi eld of play or
• he is level with the second last opponent or
• he is level with the last two opponents
Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the
ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of
the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position
No Offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
• a goal kick or
• a throw-in or
• a corner kick
Infringements/Sanctions
For any offside offence, the referee awards an indirect free kick to the
opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement
occurred. * (see page 3)
Decisions of the International F.A. Board
Decision 1
In the defi nition of offside position, “nearer to his opponents’ goal
line” means that any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his
opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.
The arms are not included in this defi nition.
Decision 2
The defi nitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:
• Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate.
• 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.
• Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a
ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been
in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an
opponent having been in an offside position.

 

Firstly, there is no such thing as offsideS! You are in offside position before you are called offside. I believe the big debate here is weather or not DeRosario was in offside position when his teammate last touched the ball. The header from Gooch I think was more of a deflection, so him touching it is irrelevant (in my opinion).

So your saying a defender heading the ball away wouldn't have happened if an attacker was onside?

 

You know what, disregard my former post. I just solved the crime with help from all things, a guy posting on youtube. This is what he had to say:

"If this movement (attempting to head the ball) "impaired" the defender's ability to clear the ball effectively, then Canada would gain an "unfair advantage" by having the player in the offside position. The call would be 100% right. In the referee's opinion, any attempt to play the ball can be just as valid as actually playing the ball. Therefore... Offside.

"I think there's something that everyone's missing. When the ball is played, the attacker is even. But, during the same phase of play, another Canadian attacker attempts to head the ball within a yard of the US defender, which introduces "the potential for physical contact." That movement toward the ball is absolutely a "part" of this play. At that moment, the attacker is offside.

"Asst. Referee's are trained that if there is a challenge between two players on opposing teams, that no matter who wins the challenge, if the ball falls to a player in the offside position, the flag MUST go up. In my opinion, there is definitely a challenge for the ball in the center of the pitch. At the moment of that challenge, Canadian player is offside by about 2 feet. Doesn't matter who it came off of."

He also says this, the time is a reference to the youtube video:
"Yes, challenge. At 7:01, the US defender and Hume are standing directly next to each other. As the ball is in the air, Hume then steps up to head it. Players in this proximity are definitely defined to be challenging for the same ball. Just because he misjudged it, has absolutely no relevance, because he was involved in the play. When the ball is played, Hume and US defender are in the same space."

This guy sounds like a ref that knows his stuff.

And this:
"Don't forget in the FIFA laws. Attempting to play the ball and actually playing the ball, in the discretion of the referee's, can be deemed a new phase of play. That is why if you dummy the ball to a player in the offside position, who may have been originally onside, the play is then whistled for offside. Canadian player clearly challenged US player for the ball."

And this:
" t doesn't matter who touches it last, if there was a 50/50 challenge for the ball, then Canada can NOT gain an unfair advantage, by having a player in the OFFSIDE position pick up the loose ball. There is clearly a 2 player challenge, and it is is only AFTER this challenge that the flag goes up. Has NOTHING to do with original ball played in. Watch the Asst. Ref's movements from 6:27-6:31. Flag up after 50/50 challenge. Very clear."

"Look, when the ball comes off the defender's head (and even when the ball grazes by Hume's head), Canadian attacker is clearly offside. Since the rebound off the defender's head was a result of the challenge between Hume and him, the attempt made by Hume to play the ball constitutes a new phase of play, and therefore has NOTHING to do with the original ball played in from 40 yards out. Canada gained an unfair advantage."

Dude's screen name is slvrsrfrm. Here's the youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Kt7eNSwYA


And there is your answer. It explains why the flag didn't go up until about when Gooch headed it. The Canadian, I think it was Hume, attempted to play the ball also. It doesn't matter if he actually played it or not.

 

WOW I REALLY SHOULD HAVE SEEN THIS GAME. Had a couple of final exams and I was buried in schoolwork so I didn't watch the game but I have watched the Utube video...once in full speed like I always do when I'm about to try to share my opinion about the work of a fellow referee.

ITOOthisR...Everybody get ready now...watching it once full speed on You Tube quality video...I think the ball was deliberately played by the American defender (Gooch? Ogu...? right?) as the ball clearly changes direction by about 90 degrees...which puts it right at the feet of the eventual scorer. His physical moves before and immediately after making contact with the ball shows me that he was attempting to play the ball and headed the ball away from the middle of the field which is generally a good defensive play...that it ended up on the foot of an opposing player is his problem (yes I am an American and a fan of our MNT) but he most certainly moved to and then did make a deliberate play on the ball...he almost falls over from the effort of getting to the ball to re-direct it away from its original course of travel.

Your list of what defines offside position is negated by the one glaring exception to being penalized for being in that position...there is no offside if the ball was last PLAYED BY a defender. IMHO...all of the discussion and line-drawing (while cool and much appreciated) is unnecessary because the ball...before reaching the Canadian goal-scorer...was last PLAYED BY...our American defender.

In lining up to present all the reasons that I'm completely wrong in my interpretation...please remember that I only watched it once at full speed and am going with my initial impression and interpretation...like the guys on the field had to do. Also please remember that as a soccer referee I am also almost completely blind as well as completely ignorant of the LOTG.

I do, however, believe that Canada got the short end of the stick on this deal...the AR couldn't have seen WHO played the ball to the feet of the attacker because he would have been watching the 2LD line and listening for the sound of the ball being played. From his standpoint, the correct call was made. The error...in my very humble Grade 08 opinion...was made by the CR who didn't see that the ball was last played by an American defender and therefore the offside flag should have been waved down.

All this high and mighty opinion could drastically change if I watch a higher-quality video of this play in question, but that same video made me seriously question why ol' Boca wasn't sent to the showers IMMEDIATELY after his reckless and careless and extremely dangerous tackle of that Canadian attacker who went ass over teakettle and was lucky he didn't break his neck. SFP no doubt in my mind on that one.

Can't wait to have another offside debate with my brothers & sisters in gold...and red...and black...and blue...and green???

 

Well, silent...I guess we can disregard my last post too. I couldn't tell from the YouTube video that when Gooch played the ball there was a Canadian attacker behind him and it was a 50/50 ball...what I saw from my one and done viewing of the play was only the American defender playing the ball...taking your word for the fact that it was a 50/50 ball and that there was an attacking player that affected the re-direction of the ball (my deliberate play by Gooch)...I can clearly and emphatically...without viewing the video again...state that my opinion has changed.

Clearly offside...clearly the attacker was in offside position when the ball was played by Gooch AND the Canadian attacker AFTER that initial pass. Good call. Go refs! (I know that's a strange sounding cheer but we're the only team I've got left now!)

 

Yes!

Bocanegra should have been sent off for his tackle. High cleat into the players leg.

Heydude's yellow was for the initial challenge and well deserved.

I agree on the other Canadian challenges being worthy of cautions.

DeRosario should have been sent off for the head butt. The fact the referee saw it and only issued a cuation is very troubling to me. It was bush league and a very cynical play. DeRosario should on that play he has no class and is a coward to boot. If you are going to retaliate do it straight up at the player not by trying to sneak in a cheap shot from behind.

 

Please stop this nonsense. Go watch the video yourself -- Hume was 6 - 8 ft away from Gooch when Gooch headed ball backward and in fact he was never within 6 ft of the ball. Just because he was not far off from Gooch when the ball was played, suddenly he's automatically in play and became part pf 50-50 challenge even though he's nowhere near the ball or Gooch?!

You know how ridiculous this sounds. If he moved closer to Gooch, you would say he's definitely part of the play, but he was actually moving away from Gooch (as in this particular case), you said he "attempted" and "misjudged" so he's still part of the play. In other words, no matter what he did or didn't do, he's responsible for putting his teammate in an offside position. Poor Hume! He’s doomed to be the goat the moment the ball was played to his general direction!

 

I'm thinking you need to watch the video again. The attacker(Hume?) was definitely closer than 6-8 ft. and made an obvious attempt to play the ball.

 

I am having a hard time understanding what Hume has to do with this at all. If Hume is the bald white dude next too Gooch and is not the one who played the ball forward or one of the two guys in a potentially offside position, then he could be up Gooch's shorts or 500 miles away and it would make no difference!!!!

Guys, remember, this is a referee forum. If you are going to post about the LOTG please make sure you understand them. Even basic Grade 9s know that Hume's position - as long as he did not touch the ball, was in an offside position, commit another foul - makes positively NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. If you want to argue about your opinions, please take it to the USMNT forum or something. But don't bring silly conjecture with no basis in the Laws. You might as well argue that a player can never play the ball while being on the ground.

 

Prove it.

 

I've read the laws of the game, don't assume I haven't. And, like you said, you're just a guy on the Internet, too.

 

Hmmmm...

Like the debate above, it looks like I'm going to have to find out for myself. Based on everyones information that the Canadian (Hume?) had nothing to do with Gooch heading the ball away right to the feet of the eventual goal-scorer, I will now revert back to my original opinion.

Deliberate play on the ball by a defender, no offside, goal should have been recorded.

I really really miss my DVR.

Have to agree with MassRef here as well. That 50/50 ball means leave the flag down stuff is something I KNOW I've never been taught...and this is from a guy who's passed the Grade 08 entry course 5 times in 3 different states.

 

Please direct me to the instruction regarding leaving the flag down if the ball goes to a player in offside position directly from a 50/50 ball.

Thank you.

 

What are you on about? He didn't leave the flag down. The first time the flag was raised was when Gooch touched the ball while Hume was challenging him. Some people have said that the AR said that that was the offsides call, not the original service. I haven't read it anywhere myself, but that was when the AR raised his flag. He didn't keep it down until it was played by the eventually goal scorer.

 

Ambiguous. Was the attacker who attempted to head the ball in an offside position when the ball was played? Which attacker would be called for offside?

This is utter nonsense. The position at the time of a challenge does not affect the offside call. It is the position when the ball was passed.

The winner of a challenge also makes a difference. If the defender wins ( the word "wins" implies control--not a deflection) there cannot be offside until another attacker plays the ball. If the attacker making the challenge wins, offside is reset at the moment he touches the ball; there is no offside unless a teammate who was in an offside position when the challenge was won becomes involved in play.

If the attacker who made the challenge was in an offside position when the ball was played toward him the flag should have gone up as soon as he interfered with the defender, not when the ball falls to his teammate.

This guy sounds like he knows his stuff. (recommended link, very funny)

No, a mere attempt does not reset offside. Law 11 is clear that offside is determined when the ball is played; there is NO wiggle room that would allow a reset for a mere attempt.

An attempt can cause the AR to raise the flag if the attempt interfered with an opponent but the decision if he was in an offside position was made when the ball was played.

Nonsense, see above.

see above.

He's writing referee-like language. I hope the problen is unclear writing and not fundamental misunderstanding of Law 11.

see above.

 

He must have been given the "Parents' Edition."