LA v Morelia CCL 9/28 [R]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by GlennAA11, Sep 29, 2011.

  1. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    How was LA's winning goal not ruled offside?

    Here's the video. See around 1:45
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjQRXUYiCO4"]9.28.11 CCL Highlights LA Galaxy vs. Morelia - YouTube[/ame]

    LA has a player standing pretty much right in front of the GK when the shot is taken.
     
  2. SoccerMan94043

    SoccerMan94043 Member+

    May 29, 2003
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not sure how that could be considered passive. It also odd that none of the Morelia players seemed to complain.
     
  3. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The video has a terrible angle.

    The defender who was at the near post when the corner was taken could have held the LA player onside. He was moving up, but to me the LA player looked onside at the moment the ball bounced before it reached the player who took the shot. I could not get a clean screen capture at the moment the shot was taken.
     
  4. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    The part of law 11 that stipulates a player who blocks the view of the gk is interfering has always struck me as essentially unenforceable.

    The AR knows who is a piop, but can't tell if he is between the goalie and shooter. He sees the ball go into the net without a touch and the flag stays down.

    The CR might be able to tell if a defender is obscuring a shot from a keeper's view, but that's not an infraction unless the he is a piop. Especially with a bang/bang play like we have here, what mechanic is there that would allow the correct call to be made?
     
  5. aphelorah

    aphelorah Member

    Jun 9, 2010
    USA
    As AR, stand at attention, signalling to the referee that you believe there is a problem with the goal. The referee should come over and discuss it, allowing the AR the tell the referee what he saw.
     
  6. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    I think his question is more, what "pre-shot" mechanic would allow the referee team to know that the otherwise-passive attacker was obscuring the keeper's view? It's very difficult for the AR to know. And, unless the CR is behind the shooter (looking over his shoulder towards the keeper), he won't know either.

    I suggest the 5th and 6th official change their position to behind the net, keeping the keeper and ball in line.
    1) They will know if the attacker was blocking the keeper's view at the time of the shot.
    2) They won't be screened by players along the goal line to make those crtitical goal/no-goal decisions
    3) With the constant movement required, they won't get nearly as bored as they do now.
    4) They will look really cool dancing back and forth to stay lined up (Well, at least they won't look any stupider than they do now :D)
     
  7. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    right- i know that mechanic.

    if you don't have AAR's, how are we to detect this? As an AR, if the ball goes into the net and didn't touch a PIOP in the box, I am running up the line. I have never seen an AR not give a goal for this "visual obstruction" form of offside. I would be curious to know if anyone else has, or seen it done. Again, the AR really cannot tell at all if a PIOP is in the line of the goalie's vision or not.

    i guess one way would be for the AR to call the CR over after every potential goal that occurs with a PIOP in the PA. AR: "CR, I had #8 in offside position on that goal." CR: "thanks. that guy wasn't in the line of the shot at all." or "cool- the ball crossed behind him on it's way into the goal. i'll go with offside."
     
  8. NW Referee

    NW Referee Member

    Jun 25, 2008
    Washington
    This is a tough, tough call as an AR and it can be really hard for the AR to judge the relative position of an offside positioned player versus are they blocking the GK by being in line with the shot. It looks like the Referee has a pretty good look at this play although he is obviously not directly in line behind the ball. What constitutes interferring with play is held to a very hight standard at the professional level so close to be in line is not always interferring with play. We don't see very much in the clip after the goal but the GK does not immediately get up and start obviously complaining about the goal. This could be validation that allowing the goal was the correct call.

    One advantage that professional referees usually have is radios and headsets were worn in this game. The Referee could ask the AR if the player was offside and then the Referee would have to decide on if they were interferring with play. With the radios, the AR would be able to raise their flag and make it look like less of a train wreck. The Referee and the AR certainly could have talked about this play.

    And yes, the mechanic for if you are unsure about a goal has already been mentioned.
     
  9. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Here:
    [​IMG]

    The 2LD is nearer the top of goal box than the attacker = PIOP.

    The reason this should be flagged IMO is that (facing the goal) the keeper is to the left of the attacker at the time of the shot. The shot goes to the right of the attacker. It would have been impossible not to have a blocked sight line of the traveling ball.
     
  10. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Inconclusive. It would be clear if the ball was on the shooter's foot, but we can't see the ball. The defender was moving up toward the six as the shot was taken so he was somewhat closer to the goal line when the shot was taken.

    Close enough to put the attacker in front of the 'keeper onside? I can't tell either way.
     
  11. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm guessing the player was probably about half a body length offside.

    Still, MLS deserved to have a close call go their way against a Mexican team.
     
  12. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    The ball IS on his foot.
     
  13. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I see fuzz. I see more fuzz just over the shooter's left shoulder. There is a white something near the shooter's head (edit: I think that is a defender's boot).

    I don't see it clearly enough to make me call out the refs.
     
  14. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I watched this game live on FSC-HD and I was surprised the goal was not ruled offside for the LA player interfering with the ability of the goal keeper to play.

    Like it or not; enforce it or not; it's part of law 11. This is a textbook example of interfering with an opponent. The attacker screened the keeper. Bad no call. It should have been the referee's decision to make. The AR could not make this decision.
     
  15. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    I was watching UF women v Vanderbilt on Fox last night cuz a buddy of mine had the whistle. He called one back for this.
    As the shot was taken, he WAS directly behind the shooter, so he had the perfect angle to see if the keeper was screened.
    In a perfect world, he probably doesn't want to be there, but it worked!
     
  16. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    I cut the still from the video.
    I promise you the white dot by the foot is the ball.

    Just prior:
    [​IMG]

    Just After:
    [​IMG]
     
  17. rippingood

    rippingood Member

    Feb 13, 2004
    LosAngeles
    Club:
    Liverpool LFC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thought the following quote from a BS blog (Loney) fit here:

    "I’d like to say Todd Dunivant was screening the keeper on Juninho’s winning goal, but that’s not accurate. You can see through a screen."

    Now, whether he was offside:
    saw a replay of the match and I reclal there was another camera angle with the camera closer to the end line than the one in Sport Billy's pic. Looked more like offside - don't have TIVO, etc. so don't have a way to check more cerfully or to share it.
     
  18. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    OK. The two photos together convince me.
     

Share This Page