XI - Offside 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 field 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 U.S. in final, with a little controversy-Chicago Daily Herald Late goal gives Mexico other spot in title game-Chicago Daily Herald Sarachan 'can't understand' why he was fired-Chicago Sun Times U.S., Mexico go for the gold-Chicago Sun Times Chicago a road game for U.S. vs. Mexico-Chicago Tribune Questionable call helps U.S. beat Canada-Chicago Tribune Blanco greeted by new fans in Mexico victory-Chicago Tribune Matchup: MKS Cracovia at Fire-Chicago Tribune U.S. bounces Canada-Daily Southtown U.S. holds off Canada in Gold Cup-Dallas Morning News Donovan plays like the MVP; Keller is out of place in goal-Ft. Worth Star Telegram U.S. Gets Big Assist To Slip Past Canada-Washington Post Donovan, Hejduk score goals to put Americans in final-LA Times Galaxy acquires Klein for Findley and Sturgis-LA Times Galaxy trade for Klein as roster overhaul continues-Carson Daily Breeze Galaxy trades 2 youngsters for Klein-OC Register U.S. holds off Canada at the Gold Cup-Herald News Revs Aim To Better Defend Their Turf-Boston Herald Americans play semi-tough-Boston Globe Canadian coach slates referee selection-Reuters RSL brokers another trade with major player-Salt Lake Tribune Another Real surprise move-Deseret News U.S. Soccer beginning to turn heads-Houston Chronicle Well-rested Dynamo run winning streak to four-Houston Chronicle Vote early, often-Houston Chronicle U.S. to meet Mexico in Gold Cup final-USA Today TFC looking for new image on road-Toronto Sun Honda to end sponsorship of MLS after 12 years-AP
"Honda was one of six original MLS sponsors and its logo has adorned the back of the Chicago Fire jersey for several years. The Fire, however, opened a new stadium in suburban Bridgeview last year, selling the naming rights to Honda's rival and calling its building Toyota Park." Can we start to call these Guppyisms or something?
What I find interesting is that there is no mention of what the call should be if the ball is played "to" a player "in an offside position" by a member of the opposing team (e.g. Gooch's deflection to Hutchinson).
The way i see it is that sicne the canadian player played the ball when his player was onside EVEN though Gooch touched it it should still be onside. People let's be real there is no controversy here; Canada got royally screwed.
Indeed, and that is one of many misconceptions that surprisingly almost everyone not a referee has about Law XI. That and referring to them as "rules", as DeRosario did. The LOTG does address the opposite; that it is not an offense if an offensive player is offside when the ball deflects off a defender, as long as that players wasn't in an offside position when the original ball was played by theur teammate. The way I was tought was that it was a new play whenever the ball touched an offensive player or was intentionally played by the defense. I will admit, however, that I don't see that clearly addressed one wy or the other in the LOTG. Perhaps it is in the "Advice to Referees" that the USSF puts out...
Royally screwed is right! While there was a Canadian player offsides, he was in no way involved in the play or did not interfere with the US Goalkeeper. The Canadian player who scored was denied a legitimate goal. This would have been a perfect call for review by videotape (as the NFL does).
Was he the one the pass was intended for originally? Just a question, I honestly don't know the answer to, but if it was intended for the offside player than the call should've been made. The deflection changed the entire direction of the ball so couldn't this be the case?
No, in my opinion, the pass was not intended for the player that was offsides. If someone thinks otherwise, please post.
Last night I was sure Canada had gotten screwed, but I wasn't looking at DeRo. This morning, I am sure the correct call was made. DeRosario was clearly in an offside position when the original pass was made, and Onyewu had to redirect the ball to keep it from landing in open space right in front of DeRo, with only the keeper to beat. If that's not gaining an advantage by being in an offside position, I don't know what is. According to the law posted above, the player is penalized at the moment the ball is played or touched by one of his team. The play is dead before Onyewu ever touches it because at the moment the pass was made, DeRosario was in an offside position, was gaining an advantage by being in an offside position, and the ball was played to him. It's actually one of the best offside calls I have ever seen. EDIT: Actually, it doesn't even matter whether the pass was intended for DeRosario or not, as long as he was involved in the play. I think it's clear from the replay that the original trajectory of the pass would have put the ball in a place where DeRosario would be very likely to get there before anyone else.
Agreed, it no controversary over the rules. He was onside but Canada got screwed by the horrible CONCACAF officiating. I'm surprised that the ref didn't go over to the linesman to discuss and confirm what happened. Right after the play that linemsan had a deer-in-the-headlights look because he realized that he made the wrong call. Since they didn't have any radio communication devices, there's no harm in getting together to make sure the call is correct. But unfortunately too many refs (especially at the top level) are more concerned about "looking good" and always sticking with their initial split second decision than actually getting the call right. Years ago as a linesman, I once had a ref give this pre game speech: "Just don't make me look stupid. I don't care if you think my call was wrong, just go along with what I call."
As a USA fan, we were dewercs. Meaning, this reverses some of my lingering anger from being screwed last year (the PK in the Ghana WC match and the two reds vs. Italy). I feel badly for Canada, which deserved that goal. But not nearly as badly as I felt after Italy and Ghana. Bad calls are part of the game. They cost us mightily at the World Cup, and one benefited us yesterday.
No mention in the rules = no offense. However, the AR ruled that the Canadian player "gained an advantage" by being in that position. It is the same as if the ball was shot and rebounded from the crossbar, goal post, or off the GK. If the ball is passed and deflects off a defender to an offside opponent, then that palyer is offside for "gaining an advantage by being in that position." If the AR determined that Gooch intentionally played it back to the Canadian player, then it would not have been offside.
The rules on "offside" changed last year. You can be offside in your own half (feet) if a "playing part", either head, foot, chest, is in the opposition half ! It sounds a little crazy, but that's the new law. For example, if your feet are in your own half, but you stretch your head or one foot over the half way line to play the ball on, then you would be considered "offside" !
This is the correct interpretation of what happened. DeRo was actively offside, so by definition he interfered with the play. Hutchinson was never offside at all, but he wasn't the one who was flagged. I'd be apeshit livid if this call went against the US, granted, but being the benficiary of a controversial decision happens so rarely and is so welcome that I feel I've discovered a new appreciation for rational hindsight.
There is such a thing called passive offside. If the Canadian player that was indeed offside had touched the ball and scored it would have been the correct call. Saying that the ball was intended to be played into open space and that the Canadian player that was offside would have been in a position to score is a bit speculative. That speculation really shouldn't matter. Since the ball was touched by a Canadian player that was not offside and that player scored, the ref should have allowed the goal to stand. One last thought, it would really, really be hard for the linesman to speculate to who a pass was intended to with all those bodies in the way. In my opinion, the linesman saw the ball played forward, saw DeRosario offsides and put up his flag. He should have waited to see who touched the ball first.
But DeRo wasn't passively offside; he was making a run onto the pass, which Gooch was forced to attempt to clear out. Because the actions of an offside player forced a reaction from the defense he was actively offside, and his team benefitted from the situation.
As offside is determined the moment the ball is played I feel strongly this is the correct interpretation. Offside will always be one of those calls that can look horrendous as we very naturally tend to judge the action afterwards as evidence rather than the moment the ball is played.
Just curious but what replay did you see? Pause this viedo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Kt7eNSwYA at 7:01. It looks pretty clear that DeRo and Hutchinson are both even with Bocanegra. Although I agree with your interpretation that IF DeRo started in an offisde position, the correct call was made because he was definitely involved in the play.
"NEW YORK (June 21, 2007) - In a celebration of women's sports on the 35th anniversary of Title IX, U.S. Soccer and Nike unveiled the new U.S. Women's National Team uniforms at an interactive event on Thursday afternoon at Sara D. Roosevelt Park in New York City. The team's new gold uniforms will make their debut on Saturday, June 23, when the U.S. Women take on Brazil at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., live on ESPN2 and Galavision at 5 p.m. ET." Who is up for taking up a collection to buy one of those spiffy gold jerseys for Thomas Flannagan?
This version of the replay starts after the ball had been in the air. The one I posted shows the run up to the play. Dero started in an offside position and the defenders caught up to him as the ball was in the air.
Did that... Looking at that video - even with the craptacular Youtube compression - I'm not convinced that Hutchinson was in an onside position when the ball was played.
They are hideous. Although I love Hope's keeper shirt. Why isn't the red good enough for the US any more?