Just saw the last half of France v Canada for the olympic bronze. France dominated the second half. But with a few minutes to go Canada scored. They only showed a quick replay as the goal was scored. There was a Canadian player in a offside position a passive offside. Which means she did not effect the play. But if you watch the whole attack she did effect the play by getting in the keepers line of vision. The goal came from the right side past where the passive offside player was standing. I would have loved to be able to see the whole sequence again but they never showed it. Question for you guys if the offside positioned player gets in the way of the keepers line of sight should an offside be called? Even if 2 seconds later the goal is scored.
A bit of a stretch. The play was stopped by a defender, not the keeper, who left a sitter for Matheson. The ball was not last played or touched by a Canadian, so there is no offsides when Matheson Shoots.
I posted this on the other thread about the goal: But I didn't see what you are talking about regarding line of sight. She was behind the goalkeeper. By the time she would have obstructed her vision in any way, the ball would have been well behind her. Unless you mean that she went across her line of sight during the build-up. If so, that's irrelevant.
Remember we judge offside from the moment the attacker plays the ball. So, in a situation like this we only consider the attackers position from when the shot is taken. At that point forward, the attacker is considered in an offside position until the next phase. If the attacker is/does block the GK's vision or movement during that time frame that would be considered interfering with an opponent and an infringement would have taken place. If you are saying that the line of sight was blocked prior to the shot being taken, there is no offense that I can see.
I strongly think the attacker should've been called offside. It appears to me that the goalkeeper was drawn out of the goalie box at least in part by the offside attacker running, first to get in front of the goalie, (around 4 seconds in the video), and then changing course to park herself directly in front of the center of the goal after the goalie runs out of the goalie box. This seems like it satisfies the "active play" requirements of Rule 11, to me. It appears that the referee is running toward the far corner when the attacker first goes into the offside position. To say an attacker is sitting alone in the goalkeeper's box is not somehow involved in a play where a goal is scored seems a little far-fetched to me. But it's a technicality. Bad calls are part of the game. Congratulations to Canada, and Condolences to France.
You are correct, but this was not one. Flag stayed down and the CR didn't blow the whistle because this player was NOT actively involved in play, nor did she distract the keeper, etc. It was a good non-call and a good goal.
Q: When is offside position judged? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to go through the process with you. Think about this one... when was the ball last played by the attacking team (prior to ending up in the goal)? At that time, was the attacker who was in the offside position blocking the movement or vision of the GK? Did she touch the ball at that time? Also, GK's do not block players, they aim to block the ball. In the clip the GK moves out of the goal area to defend the shot, not the attacker.
Maybe it's my natural cynicism, guys, but this is yet another person who signs up to the entire site and posts in the referee forum all on the same day. That's the third one this week and I don't think I've noticed instances prior to this for several years. It might be something completely above board and just a coincidence, but it's also something to keep in mind when deciding how much you want to invest into a response--particularly when someone gravitates initially to a referee forum and gets, well, absolutely everything wrong in his first post.
You mean like that guy who shows up late to your Grade 9 and starts every question with "Last week in my game the ref called X?"
You've got me pegged, Massachusetts ref, as far as joining just because of one call in a recent widely publicised game. I'm not a ref, (didn't realise it was a ref's forum), and haven't played organised ball in decades. So apologies for my rusty knowledge. I'm not trying to be insolent, I just can't believe that that was the right call. Paper St. Soap, easiest one first, GK's move to block shot angles, but also passes to open players, for instance, a 2 on 1 breakaway would present more area than a 1 on 1 for the goalie to protect. Wrong of me to presume to know why the GK moved; the only time I played that position I had 4 goals scored on me in what seemed like 2 minutes. Wisely, no one made the mistake of putting me in that position again. As for when should the call be made? I would say no later than at 7 seconds in the above video, where the attacker is parked inside the goalie box, behind every other defender on the field. The ball is shot so that she has to dive to get out of its path. Regards. p.s. I didn't bring up the blocking the vision claim. But the idea of a player standing in the goalie box behind every single defender seems like the very reason an offside rule would exist.
Well I'm glad you're here learning. Things have changed over the years, here's what you need to know. In this case we judge offside position at the time the shot is taken. I agree with you that the attacker is in an offside position. However, she doesn't become involved (no contact with the ball, she doesn't interfere with an opponent or does she gain an advantage off a rebound, as the ball goes right into the net). At the time of the shot, she was actually behind the GK so she couldn't have block vision or movement. That's why I asked the questions I did.
Some people might think it wasn't the right call because they lack training or knowledge in some of Law 11's finer points, so here's a crash course on why the call was correct. There were two separate offside decisions made. The first was at the 0.07 mark of the video at the moment the blond player shot the ball. At this point the Canada player in question is clearly in an offside position when the ball is kicked. However she did not interfere with play (roughly defined as touching the ball), nor did she interfere with an opponent (e.g. get in their way, block their vision, actively distract them by shouting or making a gesture), nor did she gain an advantage by being in that position (e.g. the ball didn't deflect off a defender or the goalpost to her). So the correct decision is "not offside". The second decision was made at about 0:08 of the video when the goal-scorer shot the ball. Again, the Canada player in question was clearly in an offside position when the ball is kicked. Again, however, she did not interfere with play by touching the ball. She also didn't interfere with an opponent, although it was a little closer this time. But in fact the opponents were still a little too far away and she didn't really prevent them from playing the ball. (Note as a hypothetical that had the Canada player in the offside position actually been in one of the France players' way, then she should have been called offside.) And again she did not gain an advantage by being in that position. The correct decision is again "not offside". A very common error made by some is to extend the notion of "interfering with an opponent" to include what I would call passive distraction, or "causing worry", to put it another way. In the context of Law 11 - Offside, it is not sufficient to make a player concerned about your presence. Even if for some tactical reason a defender should be concerned, that is not the meaning of "interfering with an opponent". Once you understand the limited meaning of "interfering with an opponent", you'll be on your way to being an offside expert. The France defenders, as with most top players now, instinctively knew that the Canada player was not guilty of offside and they had no complaint about the decision (not that players are always right about these things, but it can often be a pretty good clue.)
Hey motownmutt, didn't mean to "peg" you... it's just a tough balance on anonymous internet forums and it was a weird coincidence, I guess. I notice the other posters disappeared as quickly as they appeared. You haven't and obviously seem willing to learn, which is a good thing. Sorry if it came across as insulting, but I also didn't want to all the regular posters fired up for no reason either.
No worries, Mass Ref, I am here to learn, but I'll admit to having a stubborn streak, so pardon my lack of decorum at times. Now, U.S. Soccer rules are not FIFA, but a possible point of contention: "If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts and inside the goal net as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be awarded." http://www.ussoccer.com/Referees/Laws-of-the-Game/Law-11.aspx The player in question dove out of the way, was not stationary. She only was in violation, apparently, if the ball had nicked her heel while she dove out of the way? lemma, I truly believe, although I can't divine the GK's mind, that she was drawn forward to block a possible passing angle to the attacker who was charging forward. This is why I question the "active play" ruling. As a hypothetical, and I truly appreciate you all taking the time to answer me, consider a hypothetical. The whistle blows to start the game, and a player jogs down to the opposing team's goalie box, and just stands there, never interfering with the goalie or defenders. As long as that player manages to dodge contact with the ball, nor interfere with other players, she is never called for offside? Respectfully.
And just to completely tie the anchor of ignorance around my neck, as a defender, I would've expected the call at 4 seconds.
Correct. (Kinda pointless though, innit?) As I think has been mentioned, Law 11 has been re-interpreted to narrow what constitutes being involved for purposes of offside. (There was also a minor tweak to the language of the Law, I believe in the great re-write when Law XI became Law 11, which changed the language from "attempting to gain an advantage" to "gains an advantage.")
But that can't be the judging factor. At this level every defender and GK is almost always aware of where every attacking player is at all times and they adjust their position accordingly. We can't read players minds. We can only judge if that player in the offside position is blocking the view of the GK/defender or makes an movement or gesture that distracts them. So sure the GK almost certainly knew that attacker was there and maybe even made a positional adjustment towards that player but it doesn't make it offside. If it did then you could argue everytime a player goes into an offside position that some defender is being distracted by that player.
In a nutshell, that's exactly my position. This wasn't a player on the far side of the field away from the action, this was a player charging right to the goal line, and remaining there to the point she had to dive out of the way to avoid being hit by the ball. I appreciate your responses, and while I disagree, I do respect your more informed opinions. I'll see you in another four years when a call goes against my sensibilities. Respectfully, Mo
The offside player appears to try and play the ball as it passes her. She changes the direction of one of her legs into the path of the ball but misses. While this is detectable on a replay, the refs would have had great difficulty picking it up. I am curious from a purely technical point of view if a foot flick was detected would it place her in an offside position - she did not contact the ball but was attempting to take part in the play and the goalkeeper would need to consider her deflection attempt? Thanks for the very informative discussion by the way.
She would have had to touch the ball for it to be offsides under these circumstances since she was behind everybody and nobody could claim to be affected by the attempt to play the ball (I also firmly believe that she was getting herself out of the way, but that isn't really important). Having said that, if you put a player (or the GK) on the goal-line who is attempting to make a save, then it becomes a much fuzzier question. But to even be a truly questionable decision, you would require a French player who could potentially have stopped the ball from entering the net, and who was affected by the Canadian players attempt to play the ball.