Let's say that red team plays a through ball up the wing to a player making a run. Blue defender after a few steps catches up and tries to win the ball, but instead fouls the player from Red. Ref runs up on the scene and quickly issues a yellow to Blue. Then, realizing that Red was offside, he calls for an indirect restart for Blue, but the yellow stands. Is that proper for a card to stand in that situation? Would it matter if the "foul" happened before or after the CR blew his whistle for offside?
Misconduct can still occur when the ball is not play. Whether the player had time to react to the whistle having been blown might factor into a referee's decision, depending upon all the surrounding facts.
I think this is a good question. If the foul was reckless the card stands, I don't think there is any question about that. If the caution was strictly for a tactical foul I think it *should* be rescinded, but I don't believe there is any requirement to that effect.
Yea it actually happened twice in the game. Rather than try to explain the details of those specific incidents I thought I could more easily sum up the thrust of the question with a contrived example.
Certainly the referee has the authority to make that decision. I think it is the right decision in many cases. But on a truly blatant tactical foul such as grabbing a shirt from behind to pull down an opponent, I think the unsporting nature of the act still leaves a caution for USB an appropriate sanction. From a technical perspective, I suppose it would be run of the mill USB, not USB for a tactical foul, as there was no foul.
I have not seen the game in question, but unless the attacker touched the ball, no offside offense has occurred. According to law 11, interfering with play is defined as touching the ball. This is not considered interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage from an offside position either. Therefore, assuming the attacker has not touched the ball, the correct decision is to award the direct free kick for the foul and caution as necessary.
From the description, it sounds a whole heckuva lot like the attacker was challenging the defender for the ball, which is what led to the defender commiting the foul. And that would be interfering with an opponent.
If an opponent cannot get to the ball first so decides to foul, I'd consider that interfering with an opponent.
I thought the words were "Prevents an opponent from playing the ball". Might be the same as "challenging the defender for the ball" in many cases, but not all.
Reference: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...mentstothelawsofthegame-2013-2014_neutral.pdf "'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 challenging an opponent for the ball." The former scenario really only applies to goalkeepers. For the latter, in this situation the attacker had position and was running onto the ball. The defender is behind him and trying to catch up. He is not challenging an opponent for the ball. There was a video presentation on offside at a clinic I attended recently that included a scenario like this. The decision was no offside, which upset a lot of referees in the room. All that being said, I need to see a clip of this to be sure.
While 99+% of the time it will apply to GKs from how the game is played, I think we need to be cautious of framing it that way as it will create myths. If an OSP player is in a position that prevents another defender who had a chance to play the ball from seeing it, the provision would apply. And if we talk about it as only applying ot GKs, we're more likely to miss the call/ Details matter. The OP described the defender as catching up and trying to win the ball, which resulted in the foul. That means the OSP player was also trying to win the ball. I don't see any way to characterize that as anything other than challenging for the ball.
http://golazo.mlssoccer.com/matchce...d-timbers-vs-chicago-fire/details/video/42577 You have to call the foul here. Yes, it's a bang-bang play and you could make the technical argument that the Portland player touches the ball before he is fouled. But you've got a clear caution here and for match control purposes there just needs to be a DFK going in. If it was more obvious that the attacker touched the ball before any foul occurred, then it's a different story. But in a situation like this, on-field realities trump referee message board theory. Side note, but the body language in presenting the card was really poor.
I seem to be in an unusual string of disagreeing with MassRef, but I really disagree with this mode of analysis. (I'm again relying on descriptons, as the link won't go through the computer I'm on.) If the OSP player is challenging for the ball or touches the ball, he's offside -- he doesn't get forgiven for the OS because he gets fouled by the opponent. (I like the ATR explanation of close physical proximity -- absent close physical proximity, there can't be a foul, either.) I just don't think you need the DFK for match control -- both issues are addressed: the OS takes away the scoring opportunity and the caution punishes the misconduct. I just don't see that as a hard sell for match control -- any more than I see a hard sell to caution for behavior after the ball is off the field where the restart remains the TI/CK/GK. The caution/IFK out is not only technically correct, but sends the right message: if you're OS, you can't infterfere, and if you're a defender, you can't hack people down. The only reason a "foul" occurs in this situation is because the OSP player is challenging for the ball.
Player was in OSP, AR waited a step or two and decided he was indeed challenging for the ball and raised his flag. The OSP player indeed touched the ball and his position between the defender and his team mate where he looked to touch pass to gave the defender no way to get to the ball. Had the OSP player not been there (not challenging for the ball) the defender would have had an unobstructed path to clear or control the ball. Regardless of any of this the tackle he made (whether offside or not) was terrible and deserved at least a YC - from behind with no chance of getting to the ball except through (as in literally physically going through not between or around) the legs of the opponent could have earned a red, his studs down and mostly being under control likely saved him. The AR flagging the play perfectly would have given the referee all he needed to explain the IFK and the card explained itself - match control intact except the mechanics of the referee. The player who got the YC could have easily earned his second for holding the referee and not going away after it appeared the referee waved him off several times - backing up the entire time and retreating while showing the card.
MassRef, I rarely disagree with you, but this time I just can't accept your line of reasoning. If I'm doing Men's league on a Sunday, then I think it would be acceptable to ignore the offside here for match control purposes. But this is the pros, and I think that the LOTG at this level need to be applied correctly in all but the most extreme circumstances. I think to ignore the offside for the purpose of match control is disingenuous, and slightly cowardly refereeing. Give the card for USB, then clearly indicate with that the player was offside. The players can figure it out. But if the Timbers score right off this ensuing free kick, then you've got a story.
If you are absolutely certain the touch occurs before there is a foul, you won't get any arguments from me. But that's why I said in my post that it would be a "different story" if the timing of the touch was "more obvious." This is a bang-bang play and I would posit you wouldn't be 100% sure as it occurred on field level. In that case, giving the DFK is the smart decision. I don't like to employ the word cowardly too often, but I think it could just as easily be argued that cautioning but not giving the free kick might be viewed as the cowardly option by some. It might look, particularly early on in a match, that you are too much of a 'book' referee and don't have a feel for the game. Opinions are going to vary on this, of course, but I've talked to some pretty high-level people who support (and have actually informed) my opinion on this. To reiterate, if it's clear, I'm not saying you start picking which Laws you want to follow. And maybe this one is 'clear' for you--and others--on replay. But if it's close, in the heat of the moment... DFK every time for me.
But do you really think an actual touch of the ball is necessary here for an infringement? To me, the offside player is clearly challenging the opponent for the ball and is interfering with his ability to play it. If you watch the second replay, the assistant has clearly put up his flag before contact with the ball is made, and before the foul, so he thinks that offside has already occurred before the ball was touched. I'm inclined to agree with him.
From everyone I heard this Marcos guy was suppose to be the best of the Platinum Program class and the most "PRO ready." I didn't watch the game, just saw the highlights, but he did not look that good. His card delivery was poor and just didn't look that confident.
Do any of us look really good the first time we are challenged by a new level? And he was doing it in less than stellar circumstances. Hardly, in my opinion, the best time to come to a full judgment. Let alone drawing conclusions from just the highlights.
You're right about that, but at this point in his career his demeanor and the way he carries himself is almost set. You think the way he shows cards is going to change that much. A national assessor told me that once you become a 5, you are what you are as a referee and will not change that much.
Not sure what the restart was? Does anyone know? Pretty clear to me (at any level of skill) that the ball was not in play (unless the Referee waived down AR1's offside). If R waived it down: Caution for Blue (there was a foul), DFK for Red. [[ I think this scenario is highly unlikely ]] If R did not wave it down: Caution for Blue (there was misconduct), IDFK for Blue (result of the offside infraction). Did R and AR1 have a conversation about AR1's flag? What was the result, the video ends.