Tuesday June 7, 2016 - 10:30 (EDT) - Pasadena Referee: Heber Lopes Assistant Referee 1: Kleber Lucio Gil Assistant Referee 2: Bruno Boschilia Fourth Official: Julio Bascuñan (CHI) This thread is for all pre-match, play-by-play and post-match discussion and analysis of the refereeing team. Per the forum guidelines (http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/welcome-forum-guidelines.2032251/), this thread will be heavily moderated. For more general or partisan discussions of the match, please go to the general Group thread or the individual team forums.
Rough start for Lopes. Gets in the way and causes a Colombia turnover and then he misses an elbow to the head of a Paraguay player and doesn't even call a foul. And that's just the first 3 minutes.
Dr. Joe on Fox says unequivocally that Lopes got the offside/penalty for Paraguay wrong, and it should have been a penalty kick.
Interesting situation around the 48(ish) minute of play. A ball is crossed into the area to where a Paraguayan player, who was in an offside position, receives the ball. Around the same time apparently another Paraguayan player is brought down in the area by a defender. Referees goes with the offside but according to Dr. Machnik the penalty should of been called since "it's the more serious offense". I will need to find a replay so we can better grasp the timing of the events but thoughts from anyone?
OMG Machnik literally just said that a foul/penalty takes precedence over offside because the foul is the more serious of the two offenses. It's one thing when he gives a bad opinion, but when he's spreading LOTG misinformation befitting a newly-minted G8, I'd like to rip my hair out EDIT: Page 127 of the new Laws actually provides for this result when the referee determines that offenses have occurred simultaneously. Machnik's comments still miss the point, as I explain in Post #20, but the textual principle mentioned is actually codified in Law 5 for 2016-17, for better or worse.
Timing is the key, obviously, and it has nothing to do with the severity of the respective offenses. Looked to me like the offside player was probably involved in active play before the foul occurred, but the ultimate decision here is 100% subjective.
Not a fan of his overly-dramatic card technique. I think the offside/PK situation is very interesting. I thought that in order to be "involved in active play" you had to either touch the ball or in some way impede an opponent. If the player who was fouled was not the one in an offside position, why wouldn't you call the PK if the foul occurred before the offside? The offside offense doesn't occur until the player in OSP touches the ball.
In order to become involved in active play, the OSP player needs to interfere with play by touching the ball or interfere with an opponent in some way. The offside player is right in the mix of the action along with his OSP teammate and two defenders as the ball comes in, so I think it's totally fair to say that he was interfering with the opponents by making movement toward the drop zone and causing them to pay attention to him. When, precisely, involvement occurs is totally subjective, but we have to keep in mind that it's especially difficult to make that decision with confidence since the events are being observed by two different people. For the purposes of this forum, the important thing is that everyone understand that this decision has nothing to do with the severity of the offenses involved.
The beauty is that the Laws allow for two completely contrary decisions to both be completely defensible based solely on TOOTR. As long as the decision was based upon timing of becoming involved, I'd accept either decision.
Disagree. The offside attacker does not touch an opponent, does not interfere with his line of sight, and does not make an opponent change his movements based on any action that he does. The offside attacker has not become involved in play, nor has he challenged an opponent, at the time of the foul that would have resulted in a PK. Undoubtedly a difficult decision. The same play happened in MLS earlier this year and was highlighted on the Week in Review section. http://www.proassistantreferees.com/week-in-review/2016/5/14/week-10-may-6-8 Notably, PRO uses the incorrect wording as well. MLS has not adopted the new LOTG yet and the old LOTG says that if simultaneous offenses occur, it should be a Dropped Ball. However, with an Offside situation, it is virtually impossible to have one player's Involvement occur at the exact same time that another player is being fouled - one of them happened before the other. As was pointed out to me, a good side-by-side reference is on page 127 of the 2016-2017 LOTG (http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/60/Laws of the Game_16-17_Digital_Eng.pdf) Well, according to the 2016-2017 LOTG, it might. IF we deem that these happened simultaneously, then we should "punish the more serious offense, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity, and tactical impact, when more than one offense occurs at the same time". A Penalty Kick (DFK) would outweigh an IFK for Offside, theoretically, so a PK would be correct here. I also want to point out that if the Offside player was the one who was fouled, this becomes a much, much more difficult decision and I'd probably use some common sense & rule that the Offside player became involved prior to being fouled, therefore yielding an IFK coming out for Offside. So, while I find it disheartening that I even halfway agree with "Dr. Joe", I disagree with him because I do not believe these offenses were simultaneous. I think the foul happened first and the result should be a Penalty Kick.
Thank you for this. Never in a million years would I apply this provision in this situation. The 15/16 laws clearly state that "more serious offense" is only for "Offenses committed by two players from the same team" So, applying that law, this is a drop if you consider offenses committed by opponents to have occurred at the same time. If not at the same time, call the first. The 16/17 laws clearly state "It should not matter if it is one or several players or from which team(s) as the most serious offense should be penalized." So, applying that law, if you consider offenses committed by opponents to have occurred at the same time, punish the more severe. If not at the same time, call the first. So, you are correct, according to the new laws. Thank you I hadn't realized that. Now, in practice I would act as I always would - if two opposing fouls are committed very very near in time, use the gut and decide which occurred first. The chances of them occurring at exactly the same time are very very small. So, although you are correct regarding the change in the law, I still would never I apply this provision in this situation in a million years. YMMV For you lawyers out there, FIFA just went from pure contributory negligence to modified comparative fault.
Mea culpa. Had no idea this was one of the many changes this year. Nevertheless, it's an absurd provision that doesn't have a whole lot of practical use. Think about it...it's a pretty extraordinary claim to factually determine that two events happened simultaneously. The instances where this provision could actually be useful are few and far between. In order for this to even be discussed, the referee must first determine that the offenses were simultaneous, which means that timing should still be the primary point of discussion here. The "simultaneous" provision is secondary to the primary issue of timing, but Machnik had to jump in immediately and infer to viewership that the referee made an error in Law. Not cool.
I would think this scenario would be much easier as I cant imagine a scenario where any player can be fouled without interfering with in an opponent first.
Rare, but there are times when there isn't a practical way to tell which came first -- while I think it will be rarely used, I like it for those very few times it will matter. We just need to be sure that it isn't an excuse when things happen close in time.
What if the offenses are equally serious "in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact"? What if one offense is more serious in terms of restart but the other is more serious in terms of physical severity? (e.g. attacker commits red-card foul and defender commits yellow-card foul in penalty area simultaneously)
As you say, these simultaneous (or too close to tell) cases are going to be rare. ITOOTR is going to apply. And if ITOOTR they are equal, then it would still end up a DB -- just as it would in the old rules. In my mind, all this really does is give the referee an additional too that allows him to resolve a situation in the SOTG in very rare instances. (An interesting question from the language is whether, for these purposes, a PK is intended to be more serious than a defensive DFK. My instinct is that they are not, and that language was primarily intended to differentiate between IFK and DFK offenses. But it is mushy.)
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I don't think it's mushy at all, a penalty kick is clearly a more "serious" restart than a defensive DFK. The fact that it also mentions "tactical impact" as a consideration for seriousness means that a DFK 20 yards from goal overrules a DFK going the other way. The whole thing is completely absurd.