Unfortunately, I did not tape the game, so I can't reconstruct the play. But if Hutchinson was in an offside position when Gooch headed the ball the correct call is offside, no goal. Here's why: LAW 11 – OFFSIDE Decisions of the International F.A. Board Decision 1 In the definition 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 definition. Decision 2 The definitions 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. The key here is the 3rd element in Decision 2 of the FA Board. It's downloadable on p. 34 of the Laws of the Game (link at bottom of home page) at http://www.fifa.com
the fact is for anyone who saw the replay, Hutchinson was clearly onside when the ball was headed back, once again the US got away with one. What do you expect, they are the hosts. God forbid they lose to lowly Canada.
The US didn't get away with one. There's no way there should have been that much extra time--the game should have been over already.
There should have been only one minute of stoppage time anyway. But still, I'm embarassed to win like this.... I mean really, who are we, Mexico? We don't need that type of 'help'...
I just posted this without the official rules. I pointed out that if your team-mate shoots while you are offside and the keeper saves it and you knock in the rebound it is an offside.This is a a very common play in soccer, and you are offside even if the keeper was the last person to touch the ball.
4 seconds??? It is not uncommon for injury time to go over the initial allotment. I'd understand if it was a minute or two, but four seconds??
Except that the "moment of judgement"...meaning the time at which the attacking player is judged as to whether or not he is in an offside position is the exact moment the ball is played by a teammate. Not when it is played by a defender (in this case Onyewu). So if the player was in an offside position when the ball was first played by his teammate (and I am not saying he was...need to look again) the fact that Onyewu touched it means nothing in determining if the player was in an offside position. The key here is did Onyewu "deflect" it or "play" it. If it was ruled a deflection and not an intentional play on the ball (which was apparently the judgement by the referee)...then it is offside. If it was ruled that Onyewu touch was an intentional "play" on the ball, then no offside since you can only be offside when receiving a ball played by your teammate. personally I thought he played the ball and it should not have been offside.
I agree with the time. Too much. That offside was past 94 minutes. Should have been over. The offside.... it was a goal. Scored tied. Canada got screwed. Gooch needs to sit.
rubbish....as a USA fan that particular play went off about 4 minutes into extra time....it was at the death, but you cant say the game should have been over....thats a total homer comment. as for the play....it was clearly on side....even if by some chance he was off, Onyewu played it to him negating his postition... all i can say is that Canada would have had the advantage going into extras, as USA was down a man, and took off Dempsey and Mastroeni already.
No no. I agree with your first sentence, Supporter. There's no way there should have been four minutes in the first place. Maybe two.
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 The ball was headed back by Onweyu, not by a Canadian player. It doesn't matter if Hutcheson was in an offside position or not - there should be no call if the ball was not played to him by one of his teammates. It was not. He got the ball off of an attempted backpass by Onweyu. Horrible call, and Canada's goal should've counted.
And as I said in the other thread, it sure seemed to me that Keller stopped playing, possibly because of a whistle or possibly because he saw the flag. If that's the case, you can't assume that's a goal. (But if Hutchinson wasn't offside when the ball was played, then it's still a bad call denying a golden opportunity, which is bad enough.)
Um, exactly. There was no reason for there to be 4 minutes of extra time. If you disagree, show some precedence.
I'm going to leave this before I head out to run. Canada had 95 minutes to win the game. If you can't equalize after 95 minutes, then.. well...
You've misinterpreted Decision 2 of The FA Board: • 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. It says nothing about an "intentional" play. All that has to happen is that it rebounds to him off the opponent. Intention is irrelevant.
5 substitutions in the second half, three cards, and a few occasions of players on the pitch after a foul. Justified in my biased opinion.
I don't have an opinion on the call yet ... need to see it again. However, what sticks in my throat is this: they ran one quick replay of the play then the US goal over and over again ... then cut to commercial. I left at that point because my ride was out the door. But why in h*ll didn't they show a decent replay of the critical call of the game?!?!?! Was there a conclusive good replay after the commercial. Doesn't sound like it from the previous posts ... I'll not accuse anyone of anything, because maybe it was the right call, maybe it was the wrong call and the ref had a bad day ... but as a US fan for 20 years I will for damn sure say that that winning like this just stinks.