I am being a bit harsh. But the game was such a clutch and grab and hand banging affair, I thought there might have been a different way to control that. The number of fouls on the #17 Croat was astounding.
You are throwing out a red herring. A headed ball can be played with control, and a headed ball can be played without control. Just because you know it is a header does not mean it wasn't played "with possession and control". If 5 or 6 defenders are able to head the ball, to each other, I think there is a very good chance one of more of those headers were played with control.
I'm sorry, how is that a red herring? Please explain to me how one can have "possession" when they head the ball first time? I never said one cannot have a controlled header. Ironically, you're the one tossing out the red herring! The term from the ATR, in full, is "possession and control." It's not "possession or control." So asking how one meets the requirement for possession with a first-time header is a perfectly valid question.
In my opinion the word "possession" is unnecessary. Perhaps it is there to reinforce "control". You have the apparent opinion that "possession" requires some period of elapsed time. IMO a controlled ball was "possessed" by a player, if only briefly, with a one-touch kick or header. Surely you don't believe that USSF ever has or ever will imply that controlled, one-touch kicks/headers by the defense do NOT reset offside positions of the opponents.
So you're starting from an opinion that the ATR should not be taken literally. If it's unnecessary, why is it there? Ok, so that means a ball played first-time can be "possessed" and controlled, in your opinion. At least that's how I'm reading it. So why doesn't the Irish defender's first-time play meet that threshold? Solely because he kicked it someplace that he didn't want to? If that's the case, I reject the line of thinking. Because it fundamentally means we are looking to bail defenders out for their mistakes. Just like some of the ludicrous writing on DOGSO-H, I'm sure many referees have believed that based on the way the ATR is written. If I recall correctly, when the WiR I'm referring to was published, several on this site were surprised. And to be fair, a literal reading of the ATR does, in fact, imply that. You just cast aside the "possession" part because you don't think it should apply and it's unnecessary--in your opinion. I think the whole passage leaves a lot to be desired and is another instance of over-instruction.
Hi guys. Enjoying the ref forums and I have a question you might know how to answer. Do the referees at this level look at the replays of their calls at half time? I thought that Irish players fell rather easily several times in the first half - the foul leading to the goal and a dangerous free kick at the edge of the box stand out. After the half, I had a feeling the ref wasn't falling for it anymore. Also, on a unrelated note, it would be interesting to read the refs mind as Schildenfeld felled Keane in the box. In EPL, refs stop play when a player is on the ground and appears to have a head injury. Mandzukic was holding his head so weren't the Dutch referees required to stop the play? (Never, for a moment, did I think that Mandzukic was actually hurt but that's beside the point)
If he kicked some place he appeared to want to, I would say he had control (and, in the words of the ATR, possession). Failing that, I would say that if I felt that he should have been able to kick the ball to some place he wanted to, given the amount of time and space that he had, I would say he had possession, or, in the words of the ATR, that the ball was in his control and possession. In this case, the Irish defender took a rushed swing at the ball because he knew if he hesitated a second longer the ball would be by him and reach an opponent (who happened to have been in an offside position). It is obvious that he didn't kick the ball where he wanted to, and IMO he did not have the time and space to play the ball in a controlled manner, so the ball should not be considered to have ever have been in his control or possession.
With due respect, I think this amounts to you making up your own standard. The first paragraph is defining possession in a way I've never heard (after you earlier said that it wasn't even a necessary word in the ATR language). And with your second paragraph, you are deeper into the mind of a player than I think a referee ever should or can be. And now I think you're making up facts or just not remembering the play. Take a look again at the direction of the ball. It's not going toward either of the two players (#8 and #9) who were originally in an offside position. If it's going anywhere, it's going toward #17, who was onside. Video here: Actually, now that I watch that again, there is a smoking gun that should end all debate on this. The Irish player touches the ball twice!!! He gets hit with the ball, either on his knee or shin. It then drops in front of him and he tries to clear it. How on earth is that not possession? I'm open to grey areas and good-faith debate, but now that I see it again, I'm more convinced than ever that there is absolutely zero case to be made for offside. Ball hits him, lands in front of him, he kicks to clear and screws up. Sorry, but that absolutely must meet any standard for "played." See above. He most certainly did. And even if it had been a one-touch situation, the standards are higher for a professional player.
This. I'm just watching the rebroadcast through now and that's what I noticed right away. He gets a touch that puts it right at his feet. And then completely whiffs on the clearance. Too bad for you, good goal. Also, on the TSN (Canada) halftime show, it was mentioned that Joe Guest (was involved in PMGOL, then Head Ref for CSA, now in an executive CSA position) confirmed that it is a good goal as the player did have control.
MassRef, In your understanding, in circumstances could a defender deliberately play the ball, as this one did, and NOT reset offside? Are there any? Or is deliberately playing the ball your standard? DudsBro, did he actually use the word "control"?
This just may be brilliant. I can see myself thinking about it for a long time.... Is that really the standard? Or is it apples and oranges? Or does it simply open an intellectual door that has little practical application? Now I really can't wait for the next game. I need something to force that out of my head.
The problem is we're using words that each one of us could define a little differently. And that leads, inherently, to some subjectivity. Could a defender deliberately kick the ball, have it go to a player who was in an offside position when the ball was last touched by an attacking teammate, and have it still be an offside violation? Of course. Whether you define some of the possible examples as "deliberately playing" is up to debate, though. It's a case-by-case basis and not a science. This case is pretty obvious, though, once you see things in totality (and it's noteworthy that it's not so obvious in real-time, which makes the call all the more impressive). The ball deflects toward the Irish player. It hits him. It lands in front of me. He kicks it deliberately. Yes, he rushes himself because of where he is on the pitch and the potential danger around him. But that's his choice. He makes a bad kick and it goes to a place where he doesn't want it to go. Other professionals, under the exact same circumstances, would have cleared it with no issue whatsoever. We don't bail him out because he screwed up. And we certainly don't bail him out when it's the second touch and the ball is lying in front of him (I'd be open to some debate if it was taken first time, but as I made pretty clear above, I'd still be inclined to view it as a reset of offside given all the other circumstances).
It's two different Laws so two different fruits. I see no real connection and certainly have never been told about any in formal instruction. In fact, we're told that, when all else fails, the benefit of the doubt goes to the attack in offside decisions. On the contrary, if there's doubt about a backpass, I think the old IFAB language about trifling or dubious decisions comes into play and the benefit of the doubt goes to the defending team. Two totally different ways of looking at two totally different types of potential violations.
One of the hosts contacted him during the half for clarification, so the phrasing was second hand. However yes, he said the defender had control.
I agree the defender was in control of that ball. I mean I guess it's only for those who have played the game but from that position I could make that ball go anywhere.