You apparently didn't understand my question. If you read my first post on this thread it will explain why I believe the AR made the correct call IN HIS MIND because the AR wouldn't be ball-watching but watching what he is supposed to be watching and therefore would have no idea that the ball was last played by a defender instead of his teammate OR from a 50/50 ball. That's why communication between CR & AR afterward is SO important... CR says "what you got??" AR says "goal-scorer was in offside position when the ball was played to him" CR says "yes but that ball was played by a defender" AR says "oh. then the goal should count" This is my theoretical interpretation of how that conversation could have gone down. What I asked from you, Silentounce, in my last post is for you to refer me to the LOTG or Instructions or Memos to Referees that will support your claim that "ARs are instructed to keep the flag down if the ball goes to an attacker in an offside position directly from a 50/50 ball." Thank you again...if you actually have some support for this assertion.
I don't know if Hume touched it... we'll never know because we'd need a picture with better resolution plus different angles. FSC doesn't use much bandwidth and motion is blurry and we can't have better pictures than exist. But if he did touch it, I don't think there's any way at all what you've asserted could possibly be true. If you plan to head a ball coming at you from 20 yds away and put your body into a certain motion because of that, and someone 1-2 yds away gets a touch on it, there's no way possible for Gooch to change his body motion so that it reflects Hume's touch and not the original attacker's kicked ball. He's just simply too close with the ball moving at that speed.
Repost of something I wrote in USMNT N&A, with emphasis added here. I think we have a rough consensus here. 1. Hutchinson was onside, barely, at the moment of the pass. 2. Hume almost certainly did NOT render Hutchinson offside by touching the ball before Gooch. 3. Gooch did NOT render Hutchinson onside by "playing" the ball, he was merely deflecting it. 4. DeRo was offside at the moment of the pass. 5. The pass was actually intended for DeRo. My question is, do points 4 and 5 together constitute DeRo gaining an advantage by being in an offside position, making this a good call, but with DeRo and not Hutchinson offside? ***************** I'm interested in an answer to the last question. Was DeRo, rather than Hutchinson, the guilty party?
Your question is tricky and left up to interpretation, really. If Onyewu is playing the ball solely because it's going to DeRosario, then yes, you could consider DeRosario offside. It's akin to when a defender deflects a ball out for a corner kick because he's trying to stop an attacker from getting the ball. If said attacker is clearly offside and was the only person that could have played the ball, you don't reward the attacking team by giving them a corner kick. You give the offside. That being said, in this case, Onyewu would have played that ball no matter what, so I don't think you can call the offside due to DeRosario's position. Moreover, is there really a consensus that DeRosario was in an offside position to begin with? From this video, where they freeze the play at about 1:56, he looks more onside than Hutchinson was (look where they freeze it, but then look at the angle of the field based on the top of the 18 after they play it through): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmc7...cer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=556001&page=16
Well, if he says the flag must go UP if the ball goes to an attacker off a 50/50 ball, that would contradict all instruction I've received that tells me to leave the flag down if I am not certain that an offside infraction has occurred. As far as I know, I've never heard 50/50 balls discussed regarding offside position anyway...still waiting for silent's reference to that memo/instruction.
No. For the purposes of Law 11, the phrase "gaining an advantage" has a very specific meaning. It has to do with a player in an offside position being able to play the ball after a rebound from a post or crossbar, a deflection from the goalkeeper or other defender. It seems I'm forgetting something else. Nevertheless, DeRo did not gain an advantage from being in an offside position (assuming that he was offside) according to Law 11.
Neither have I, but there are so many things wrong with the YouTube posting that I didn't even attempt to point out all of them.
I agree; however, being what you said, the difference in my mind was I truly believe Bocanegra was actually trying to initially play the ball but was just beat on the play (Carlos is NOT know for his speed), and Bradley clearly had NO intention of taking the ball away in his tackle. I will say from my vantage point, Bradley looked as if he tried desparately to try and correct his poor decision by (a) not extending the right leg (nearest ball)... which I believe is the one that clipped the player, and (b) seemed to be trying to pull away the left extended leg as it was rising and would have made the foul uglier than it already would appear to be. It was truly unfortunate for the young lad who had a stellar game in my book, but a huge lesson learned by him hopefully, as the official had LITTLE choice but to toss him (er... perhaps I should say "send him off" )
If by "intended" you mean that Dero had a chance of playing the ball (if no defenders acted), then there is no controversy to resolve with your view of the situation at the time of the pass.
No, the first time the flag was raised was when the ball went to Hutchinson's feet. Watch it again. (I was paying close attention to this when I rewatched because a poster in N&A had thought that the flag went up when Gooch headed it, but it's clear that the flag did not go up until the headed ball fell to Hutchinson.)
That's a really weird camera angle. Compare the far touchline (coming in from right to left) with the 18 yard line. The other television camera angle was less weird, and that one seems to show DeRo offsides by a foot or so.
Has everyone here been watching youtube replays? Nobody has the game recorded? Looking at the youtube videos is darn-near pointless. I've seen the replays on DVR and I can't find any reason the flag should have gone up on this play. One of the key things for me, which only one other person in this thread seemed to be interested in, is this: why didn't the ref consult with the AR after he blew the whistle? I wonder what their pregame was. It would seem to me that there was enough stuff going on with this play -- multiple attackers, close offside position, an attempted head-on by an attacker (Hume), a headed ball by a defender that could be construed as a deflection or a controlled touch, etc. -- to warrant a brief conference. Apparently, Archundia either was sure enough of the right decision that a conference was not necessary, or he felt that a conference would have added too much fuel to the fire at that stage of the match. The crew is lucky that the attacking team was not a more volatile squad. This match could have gotten REALLY ugly after the final whistle.
Assuming he had blown the whistle before the ball was shot, what good could a conference do after the fact? If the whistle is blown, I'm assuming he's unable to reverse the call and allow the goal to stand.
This photo is mislabled. The ball is NOT leaving the foot of the player indiciated. The Canadian to the far right of the screen is the one who passed the ball. Thus, this photo is slightly after the moment of the pass and thus not much use in determing offside.
Correct - if he blows the whistle before the goal is scored, he cannot allow the goal. I was thinking, although I'm not sure, that the whistle did not blow until AFTER the ball was in the back of the net. I.e., he could have awarded the goal after conferencing with the AR.
Personally, I think yellows to Hejduk and DeRosario was the right call. Hejduk challenged with his elbows up and made contact with DeRosario. DeRosario retaliated with a headbutt that was more of a push than a hard strike. Unless it is something that absolultely must be a red (and I didn't think the DeRosario was bad enough that it had to be called a red), then I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the one who was initially cheap fouled.
Was DeRosario offside? I don't think so. The pass did look to go to DeRosario, but it's moot if he's onside.
I just rewatched the video and you're right, oops. That's from a while ago and much better photos have been posted anyway. I think at this point, everbody has made their decisions about the call and no amount of discussion is going to change anyone's mind.
Yeah, I rewatched it, and while the angle makes it hard to be sure, I do NOT think DeRo was offside either.
Striking a player is absolutely a red card offense, doesn't matter if it was a "hard strike". Hedjuk was correctly carded for getting his elbows up, it was reckless but I wouldn't call it a cheap foul. Anyway, that does not excuse DeRosario from retaliating with a headbutt. Clear red card.
! The offside call right or wrong the AR felt it touched the Canadian Hume slightly then was deflected by the American defender. So spot on call, IF that was what occurred! The Canadian attacker was slightly behind the 2nd last defender at that point. At no time did the officials believe the ball was played as controlled possession off the defender. I remain gob smacked by any who think given the height, speed and angle of the ball in relationship to the defender's body position that header was a controlled possession to reset offside position for Canada??? The AR flagged immediately and the referee whistled play long before the Canadian attacker shot. Canada was lucky to get 4 minutes of extra time and digging a two to nil hole is a tough way to win a match. I watched the replay with my husband and we are unable to verify yes or no if it did brush the Canadian Hume? It is barely possible the AR thought the Canadian was offside positioned at the initial kick even though the replay showed he was just onside! In talking to a few inside people that appears not to have been the case. The best view of it is on the youtube june 22 review by concacaf go to the 10.40 time to get a look. there is a freeze frame that shows onside position at the time of the kick. What remains unclear is did HUME catch the ball ever so slightly off his head before the ball DEFLECTED off the American head? youtube Inside the Gold Cup, June 22, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCEevAWHNU4&mode=user&search= That said as in the Esse fiasco of 98 only a camera at the exact spot at the exact moment exonerated him from the penalty imaginaries perhaps here we must give some regard to the integrity of the AR! We have attempted to talk to Ian Hume and will try to get a straight answer from him. We asked our contact within the Mexican federation to talk to Armando for some feedback so perhaps later we will know a bit more. . There were a few offside calls that were certainly doubtful earlier but the only real foul we were upset at was the USA captain Bocanegra on Guz it was BRIGHT red in every way shape or form not yellow or orangey yellow as some suggest. My husband came off his chair and was unglued the USA player was not sent off. This was the only call we felt strongly that both of us would send off. There was some frisky tidbits and Rosario was lucky in our opinion as the head butt could easily have been a send off We both really respect the referee Mr. Archndia and since he whistled for the offside before the goal was scored only an INDFK out makes any sense. Could you imagine a drop ball restart for an oops! Anyway no use crying over something that cannot be changed. Well done USA against Mexico. Canada will get you next gold cup!