Lots of incidents to discuss in this game but boy oh boy, the commentators really struggled to understand what was happening in this game - and in every instance they took a path of injecting controversy into clear (and correct) decisions by Chesky and her crew. The goal scorer in this incident was in a clear offside position when the ball was last played by an attacker and received the ball from a desperate and out of control touch (save) by a defender. A Gotham goal correctly disallowed for a clear push in the back (5:45 in the video, 48:25 on the game clock) that the commentators assumed was poor marking and then "a little bit of a push" after seeing the replay ratcheted up tensions. The biggest and most interesting incident, IMO, came right as tensions were high from the disallowed goal - but these highlights don't include the incident. In the 52nd minute, there was an OFR for handball against KC that would have resulted in a penalty for Gotham. The KC defender is turning and appears to be tucking her arm behind her body, but the ball strikes her arm on its way to the goal. EDIT: found a clip: No PK given. It's a tough angle. Sharples is clearly in the act of tucking her arm behind her back. #KCBaby #GFCvKC #GothamFC pic.twitter.com/RS77g791Dd— Chad Smith (@PlayFor90) June 7, 2025 This is besides the point but I think there is a really distasteful culture in NWSL (and in my refereeing experience, it's mirrored all the way down to USL-W/WPSL) of baseline and immediate disrespect for the officials. It was on full display in this game.
Are we calling that play by the defender a deflection? Cuz there was no attacking player within 5 yards of her when she headed that ball. Her body position is always going to be like that if she's defending the cross, cuz she's not defending either attacker. That looks like a misplay rather than a deflection. Intentional header that is misplayed by the defender would negate the offside position by the attacker, right?
It is quite clearly not a shot on net, though. I think you're stretching that definition well beyond where it should be. The question is deliberate play or not. We need to go back to the considerations that IFAB came out with on Law 11 when they did all the clarifications in 2022: https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/ So, probably three components in favor of deliberate play and two components in favor of deflection for most people. As I pointed out at the time somewhere in this thread (https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2022-23-laws-of-the-game.2119514/page-2), I don't really know that means or why IFAB does this sort of thing. Is it majority vote here? My hunch is that instructors right now would say her body movement wasn't coordinated and it was an aerial ball, so that you say this was a deflection and it's offside. I have only a little doubt that the officiating team implemented what they've been taught here. But at the same time, she had a clear view of it and it came from distance. It wasn't moving that quickly. And the direction of the ball is completely expected. I could also argue she had time to coordinate her body movement even if she didn't actually do so successfully, but I'll leave that aside for the moment. Anyway, given all this I'm really not sure why we don't want those three things to outweigh the other two (particularly because as, in addition to some murkiness around the fourth bullet, the fifth bullet is actually akin to a value statement, rather than a true consideration--like, it doesn't say "the ball was on or near the ground"; so aerial balls can trigger deliberate play still). Lot of words to say the instructions are unclear on a play like this. But there will always be unclear instructions around subjective offside decisions. I think this could be legislated better. And I'd like the attack to get the benefit of the doubt here. But I suspect PRO will say it was correctly decided.
Yea, the stretching her body bullet doesn't fly with me because she had the time and expected flight of the ball to change her body position. The ball on the ground is easier to play the ball than in the air also leads me towards.... had she changed her body position to try and play the ball with her feet to clear it; that seems to be a much easier play than to bend over and lean into a waist-high header. Sometimes players make it harder than it needs to be. Referees do the same thing. We need to remember that these are professional athletes and their body control is superior to most everyone in the world. She made an attempt to play the ball and messed it up. Refs shouldn't have to bail the player out here.
I stopped reffing a good while ago so I guess I haven't kept up with all of the re-interpretations. At one point they seemed to say any play of the ball by a professional player is deliberate. So some nuance being introduced is worthwhile. This seemed like a poorly executed play by the defender to me. The explanation given to the pool reporter after the match was: "Gotham #9 González was in an offside position on the initial shot by Gotham #10 Geyse. The contact by the KC defender #5 Wheeler was determined to be not a deliberate play under the Law 11. Per Law 11, Gotham #9 Gonzalez was offside, gaining an advantage, no goal. KC defender #5 Wheeler’s action was determined to not be a deliberate play per Law 11, as the player had to stretch to make contact with an aerial ball, while moving back towards her own net."
Ha, so literally citing the 4th and 5th bullets, as I suspected. While ignoring the first three (or, at least, believing that an affirmative bullet or two outweighs the other considerations). For what it's worth, that's a very good and thorough answer to a pool question. Praise is deserved there. And, I do believe they made the call PRO teaches or expects. But at a fundamental level I wish IFAB went into details on how to weigh considerations like this to get more uniformity of application. The same goes with SFP to an extent. I feel like with SFP, referees and VARs often use the absence of one consideration to avoid red. Here, it seems like officials are using the presence of one to favor the defense. I can't say it's wrong, but I also can't say it's right.
I have really mixed feelings on the whole precision thing. I think there is certain totality of the circumstances that really does need to apply to what is a play/ As noted above, it swung too far towards almost everything is a play for a while. I think we need to give Rs attitude for judgment on this--even if that is not the model oft preferred in our VAR-focussed era. (I still think there was a a lot of merit the formulation USSF used some time ago of "possess and control.")
I was quite surprised with how lenient they became towards the defense on deliberate play vs deflection. This play, the defender really seems to have had most if not all of the requirements for a deliberate play, but I think she found a loophole of how to trick the referees: if you look very uncoordinated and fall down while doing it, they’ll call it a deflection. And also, why is “moving back towards her own net” considered a reason for it being non-deliberate?
uh, huh. The player deliberately looked bad to try to trick the R instead of playing a controlled ball away from the attacker. Sure. You go with that.
100% agree here. When I watched it live (well, on demand) my gut immediately said deflection. I think if you were able to get a 100% honest answer from the player she would tell you that she was not able to make a controlled play on the ball - regardless of the five factors. Isn't that the point?
Professional Soccer Referees Association (PSRA) Congratulations to our member officials who were selected to referee the inaugural USL Super League Final this past weekend between the Tampa Bay Sun and Fort Lauderdale United! Tiffini Turpin- AR1, Adorae Monroy- 4th, Danielle Chesky- Referee, Kendall McCardell- RAR, Katarzyna Wasiak- AR2.
Is this news? Haven’t seen this reported before. https://www.socceramerica.com/melis...-experience-to-manager-of-nwsl-referees-role/