Well, the first one is off and just a straight miss. Happens to the best in the world. Second one seems like a great call, to be honest. Even if he's a fraction offside, we're talking under 3" probably. No problem there. By the time you get to the third one, there have been so many frames and so much redirection of the ball, it's somewhat understandable that the AR is out of position. At that point, he's got to give the benefit of the doubt to the attack. Does it look like the goalscorer is ahead of the ball? Yes. But camera angles can be deceptive. There is a chance that, since it's airborne, that ball is further into the goal area than it appears and the goalscorer is actually even. Can't tell for certain either way, really. He's probably off, but it's close. Other than missing the initial offside at the top of the penalty area, I'm not sure what the AR did wrong here.
It took me three tries to figure out from where the fourth attacker materialized on the initial cross. I don't know how you call a guy offside when you can't even see him. The second one was close...you can't make that call The third one was definitely offside by about a yard, as the ball was three feet off the ground and the offside attacker's forward foot was on the ground well past the six-yard line...but very understandable given the way play unfolded why the AR was not in position to make that call.
guys, you are 100 percent right in your comments. I originally found the link on the guardian page and it mentioned getting a call wrong several times, so when I looked at the link, I unfortunately let that cloud my judgement. After looking at the clip again, I offer up a mea culpa
It looks like three very close calls - ADVANTAGE to attacker. The last one is from a deceptive angle, and I think is the best non-call. The first one you have two teammates who are offside, but the one that played the ball looks within an inch or two of onside.
I never understand why people complain about this - actually, I understand, I just do not accept it. As players, we've all been told by coaches, "let the ball do the work" and "you can never out run the ball". Yet, they expect a AR to out run the ball. If an AR is on the proper line, he can make the call. (acknowledging the AR blew that one although on the proper line.) But if that ball is first timed to another player and then that ball is first timed to a third player, it is physically impossible for the AR to be in proper position, for he, as the players, can not out run the ball. I'll never accept the notion that AR's are supposed to perform as if they are not bound by the laws of physics.
Agreed - best part about the video is the girl in the cowboy hat when it's over...................though it took me a while before I noticed she was wearing a hat.
Just a FYI this AR blew at least 2 other calls during that game. He was suspended for at least 30 days and sent back for " training" both for fitness and positioning. I'm trying to find the article from the Brazilian newspaper. They also say that he is on the list for the 2014 world cup. I'll post when I find it.
You owe us a posting the the Referee Nerd Alert thread. I.e. I read newspapers in other countries like the UK to get my fix. Do it soon or I'll have to steal your thunder. Ha.
Here it is http://globotv.globo.com/rede-globo...eirinha-do-jogo-santos-x-corinthians/2099255/ (video) http://www.foxsports.com.br/futebol/61195-assistente-de-santos-x-corinthians-e-rebaixado-pela-fpf
Ouch. He missed offsides twice on that play.... He was definitely in position for the first one and you can't really make the argument of waiting to see who played the ball as ALL the attackers were offside. I think he guessed on the second pass because he was in a bad position to see, however he got it right.... The third one was a close decision though and the AR was a whole yard plus behind the play... no wonder he got it wrong. This all could have been averted if he made the right call to begin with.
I have long had the opinion that the game would be improved if there were some simple way to loosen the offside law and give some little advantage to the offense, so maybe the AR was reading my mind. However, this year my son has switched to playing defense, and I feel a prejudice developing toward using the offside line as a defensive skill.
How long? It's been done several times. Long ago went from 3LD to 2LD. Since I first reffed, we went from "even is is off" to "even is on" and we went from "seeking to gain an advantage" to the much more narrow interfere with play or an opponent or gain an advantage along with the clear instructions to resolve doubt in favor of the attack not the defense. And we focused on "wait and see." (As far as I can tell, the only change that was made to offside that aided the defense was in the late 70's when they took out the provision that a deflection off the defense re-set offside.) While I think all of the tweaks have been good and has reduced the prevalence and impact of the offside trap, I'm a bit hard pressed to see how at this point we can loosen further without fundamentally changing the game. There are possibilities, but I'm not sure any of them are really satisfactory: The "daylight" interpretation. Some have argued that the attacker should be considered even with the defender unless completely behind the defender -- unless daylight can be seen between them. This is probably the most plausible, but is that too much of an advantage for the attack such that it will force defenses to bunker more to be effective? I'm inclined to think it would not be a net benefit to the game. No OS on free kicks. This is plausible, but I think what we'd really like to see is more goals in the run of play -- not a greater reason to try to get free kicks. No OS on a teammate's touch that travels backwards. This might make sense, but would rarely have an impact -- and could be hard on ARs on relatively flat passes to an OSP player coming back. No OS if the player is no longer in an OSP once he touches the ball. I think this would get ugly and tactical on passes -- do we really want defenders to stop playing in the hope it will create an OS call. No OS if the teammate's play or touch is in the PA. Again, not that common of an event, so probably not a lot of impact from the change -- and very hard for the AR to apply when the ball enters the PA on the far side. Alternatively, could eliminate OS once the ball is inside the 18 -- I kinda like that version, but I can't imagine as an AR trying to judge balls close to the 18 and the offside line at the same time. So, if we were to loosen up OS yet again how would we do it?
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but isn't this already not offside? Or are you saying regardless of the position of the second attacker it should not be offside? (ie, A1 has the ball on the 6, and passes it backwards towards the penalty spot. A2, who was in an Offside position on the goal line, runs and beats the defenders to the ball. Would A2 no longer be considered offside by this new interpretation?)
Yes, that's what the change would be. Currently, the direction the ball travels (now) is irrelevantt to the offside determination. So if A1 is in OSP and A2 plays the ball backwards, A1 would be punished for offside if he touched the ball. So, yes, the modification would mean that in any case when the ball was played backward, A1 could collect the ball, as it would become (if adopted) impossible to be offside on a ball played backward. (Of course, probably half the coaches and 90% of announcers out there today probably think you can only be OS if the ball is played forward . . . .)
If you phrase it that way, you can't. The scenario would be A1 running backwards from OSP to get to the ball played backward (probably mostly sideways but slightly backward) by A2. (E.g. in a two-on-one scneario, A1 (without the ball) gets closer to the goal line the 2LD and the ball; A2 caught up with the defender plays it slightly back toward A1, who comes back to retrieve the ball.)