in the first pic: that player(# 10) at the bottom is attracting(or distracting) the attention of the goalkeeper(who does not know where that ball is going to go) as soon as the ball goes off the head, so he's clearly "in the play" and he takes advantage of his position looks like offside to me
If anything, this World Cup has had more complicated and difficult offside decisions that I can ever remember. After debating the Smeltz goal in the ITA-NZL thread and the Rooney offside call in the GER-ENG thread, this has GOT to be offside. Appiah is clearly in offside position on the first touch. The razor thin perception of this call boils down to whether or not the second touch is by the Ghanian player or the keeper. If the keeper punched it, he is doing so under duress from an opponent, which would define this as a deflection, not a misplay. And as a deflection, Appiah would therefore be gaining an advantage from offside position, and it should be called. If the argument is that the Ghanian player took the touch (or got at least a piece of this ball), then the offside decision is reset to his touch, and at that point it looks very close based on the second freeze frame. But this is absolutely crucial. If this is offside, there is no shot, no rebound, no second chance, no DOGSO-H, no PK. Suarez is playing in the semifinal. I glanced at this briefly before having to come back into work tonight and I thought it was the keeper only. I'll have to look at it closer again when I get home.
I understand your POV, but this is not how offside is currently interpreted under the laws. The clause you are referring to in law 11, the law for offside, is "interfering with an opponent". In this instance, this would only apply if #10 obstructed the view of the goalkeeper on a shot. Merely being in an offside position is not an offense, and #10 appears to have removed himself from the play, ergo no offside.
Appiah is wearing the number 10 jersey at the bottom of the second still frame, and he is not involved with the play at that point. It appears to me that the player involved with the goalkeeper is player who is just outside to goal area in the first shot, and therefore coming from an onside position. I may be mistaken, though.
No dispute about the player challenging the goalkeeper. There's nothing wrong with his position or what he is doing. The problem is if he (the attacker) does not touch the ball. If the ball is flicked on, then the keeper swats at it (under duress from an opponent, which makes it a "deflection" rather than a "misplay"), and the Ghanian attacker does not make contact, then the offside decision must come from the last touch by an attacker... the original flick. And on the original flick, Appiah is offside. If the keeper is the only one who touches this ball, then I believe this is offside. It's very close and complicated, but nonetheless, it is an important missed decision. Without that decision, Suarez is never guilty of a send-off offense.
I think he's offside whether the second Ghana player got a head on it or not. If it was only the keeper punching then he is clearly offside from the original flick, and if the second Ghana player got a piece of it in addition to the keeper then based on the second frame I think his foot is definitely in front of the second to last defender. Would be an extremely tough call for the AR to make given all the commotion that was going on, but looks like he missed it. Sucks for Suarez
Ah, I forgot that Appiah was involved in the next phase of play. Thanks for the clarification. While I think it's important that we know what the call should have been, the fact that we are uncertain even with the still shots and slow motion replay suggest that this would be practically impossible to call in real time. However, this is a good and complex example to test everyone's understanding of Law 11.
It is ironic that faking, diving Ghana goes out on one of the few things more cynical in soccer. But it is bad for the sport, the red is meaningless in this case, as far as this game is concerned. I vote to treat it like goaltending in basketball or interference in baseball and award the result, ie a goal.
Not really, it is worth discussing if the punishment under the LOTG is enough. Yes, the NFL is similar but your NBA analogy is wrong.The equilvalent play in Bball is goaltending, where the basket is awarded.
This is absolutely the way to think about the situation. Gyan's miss was justice done. There was no foul, and it was arguably the softest call Benquerenca or his ARs gave all match. To have denied Uruguay the chance to contest a legitimate, even-keel penalty shootout would have been a grave injustice in this match. It is already bad enough that they are now without Suarez against a much tougher opponent. Suarez was punished to the full extent for a foul which he never should have had to commit. There is no cheating there, only sacrifice for the cause, which again was a sacrifice that never should have needed to have been made. ...
Not the same at all for a couple of reasons: 1) swatting at the ball in basketball is normal.. The only distinction between a legal and an illegal play is the trajectory of the ball. Ie, whether the ball has reached the peak of it's arc. 2) The penalty is pretty minor-something on the order of .005 of the total scoring, or often a couple dozen percent of the score differential. There is no foul to the player. The old penalty was a foul, and shots, but that was considered too severe. The penalty is appropriate, I think. Any more, and refs would be hesitant to award them, just as they now don't award a PK for holding in the box on a corner. That's a foul that seems never to be called. ( Reference USA Slovenia)
I had the feeling that #10 is offside when watching the original scene, but it's a topic I cannot decide as you really need experts for that... Clear is that #10 is in passive offside when the ball comes in; also clear is that the goalie defends the ball to him. BUT it requires an expert to evaluate the situation is the goalie defense with his hand actually a play at all that generates a new situation? If the ball had bounced back from the post/crossbar #10's offside would have turned from passive to active and this is what I assume has to be decided here as well - but that's just my assumption, not backed by rule knowledge since a goalie defense cannot really be evaluated as new pass. Still, that's a tricky situation and a typical sample for the need of a video proof. The ref did a good job overall. Regarding Suarez: well, with his hand ball he is the man of the match, he decided it... but unfair? No, he is punished according to the rules and Ghana had the chance to score, they have to blame themselves and wouldn't have acted differently. And in general: I hate it that a forward who tries to score a goal with his hand is considered to be a smart guy who just tried to get an advantage - when he is caught he smiles at the ref, thinks it was worth the try and accepts a yellow. But what he does is the same what a defender does on the line. I will never understand why this is treated differently according to the personal punishment, but, well, that's just a side topic...
Nope. It's far more complicated than "obstructing the view". It all comes down to the referee, though.: "Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent." I would say number 10 was a distraction as he made a run on the goal.
And it's more complicated than you think. Simply making a run or other normal soccer playing movements is NOT a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent. The intent of that sentence is to prevent a player who waves his arms, hops up and down while yelling, or engages in some other non-soccer action which is solely intended to distract the opponent. If it were as you interpret, then any player in an offside position who is not standing motionless would be penalized. That's certainly not how it works.
No they wouldn't. You have to remember that ball hooked down from a free kick. It was a pass in the air that could have hooked down and been put in by either of those two guys right in front of the goal.
I wasn't able to watch the game live (had to dvr it), so I had the luxury of re-watching that play as many times as I wanted before continuing. I thought it looked offside at first, and freeze-framing it at the instant the Ghanaian player heads the ball (and he did head it) shows that it was probably slightly offside, but it was so close that even freeze-framed, it was difficult to call. Can't call it when it's that close. Not sure if you got a replay of the foul (ESPN didn't show one for some reason), but I thought it looked like his heel was clipped. Hard to tell, but a dive in that situation would be a strange decision, considering he had a good opportunity to cross the ball and the risk of the ref not making the call. I just wish we got some replays of the foul from closer angles.
The player at the bottom looked offside only because the keeper and defender stepped up. I also think looking at still frames alone can be misleading. In video replay, every one was moving through out that sequence. I watched the replay several times and I could not tell 100%. When you are not 100%, you can't call offside, can you?
+1. Being in an offside position near the post when the ball is flicked on does not mean Appiah should have been punished for offside. This is one of the basic slides taught to new referees in every introductory course. The idea is that the keeper does not have to worry about that player because he is offside. If he becomes involved in active play, then he is punished. Standing there on the opposite side of the goal is not interfering with an opponent... you either have to be obstructing the view or path of the opponent, or (as Mr RC pointed out) making a purposeful effort to distract the opponent (Like yelling, "Hey keeper, look at me!").
Give me an example of a distracting movement that is a. not a gesture b. has no effect on the visibility of the goal keeper.
If you have to freeze frame the play to determine if the guy was offside or not, it's even - no call... Ghana is not a team of angels. Yes, their games were suspect. Maybe even overall, justice was done and they got what they had coming to them in the game against Uruguay. But within the confines of that single match - the deliberate handball completely changed the outcome of the game. A sure goal in the final minute was illegally prevented from occurring and instead a PK (with a supposed 75% chance of conversion) was awarded and missed. Uruguay supporters are trying to absolve their team of any guilt by claiming everyone cheats and that justice was 'done' with the awarding of the missed PK. That's not justice, its winning via technicality. Uruguay is still guilty but the laws don't exist to properly deal with such actions. The game is and has always been imperfect, relying upon gentlemen(fewer and fewer in number?) to play fairly with the aid of an official. It's moments like these that make for legends. Now if only Uruguay can make this moment count.
Don't get me wrong... I think this was an extraordinarily difficult call to make. Absolutely, when in doubt, keep the flag down. But still, the issue here is whether or not the possibility of offside was recognized. It's a very interesting situation, made exceptionally more interesting by the fact that, without offside, a send-off and game-winning PK opportunity results. I don't fault the AR for not seeing it, no more than I don't fault the Uruguayan AR for not seeing Lampard's shot over the line. But had Gyan converted, it would have been a potential major talking point.
Incidentally, while I've stayed out of the debate about the sporting behavior and punishment of Suarez, Yahoo! is reporting this morning that FIFA is considering extending his one game ban through the Final/3rd place match.
As Alexi Lalas said about Fifa saying they will review goal line technology this past week, unfortunately, I think Fifa may just throw out a bone to make everyone happy.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the "standard" suspension 2 games, with 1 signalling "maybe that was harsh" and 3, 4 "that was disgusting!".