AHA! I think we found out where Mark Watson got his training! Well, at least the arm waving in the air part...
If they get around to "schooling" these refs on the offsides rules, they may want to include a class on the advantage rule. We already got burned on that one in Dallas....
While there's some merit in his thesis that assistant referees should give a greater benefit of the doubt to offensive players, Whitfield was offside by a mile in the Chicago-SJ game and it was painfully obvious on the replay that the ref simply blew it. The logical result of using Whitfield's offiside as an example of "reasonable doubt" is an even more arbitrary rule in practice than what we already have. It's supposed to be an objective decision of whether the attacker was even with the last defender at the time the ball is played. Emphasizing "doubt" means a linesman has a margin of error to mask incompetence that will have fans pulling their hair out (or pitching a few foreign objects at the guys with the flags).
While this doesn't apply to the SJ-CHI goal, I'd like to see FIFA adopt the old NASL rule where the offsides line was at the 35 yard line. This would still keep the rule in effect to prevent total poaching but it would open up the field at the sae time. Clearly, a compromise is in order and this seems like a good one.
I don't know what to say here except that I don't believe you. I don't think you're serious. If you are, then you've forgotten the freak show track meet that the offside "line" created. You had at least one, sometimes three guys lined up in a pseudo crouching position waiting for the gun to go off. NO thanks. Tim
I say use phases like Donkey-Brained tactical masters, and bone-headed lummox's more often! Those are classic! Oh..... and offsides calls suck, but I hated the 35 yard rule. I'd rather see linesman that just don't call the game very tight.
I just don't get the point. The rule is in place to prevent a bunch of guys from hanging around in the 6 yard box waiting for a ball to come there way. Removing the rule will give us back that exciting brand of soccer... As for the off-sides trap, when well executed it really displays the team work and discipline necessary to be successful in soccer. I don't understand why fiddling with the rules to "improve" the game is so important to people. What is it about soccer that drives people (and I include all those at FIFA as well) to seek to "fix" it. Perhaps the simplicity of it all drives these people crazy or they need justification for their jobs or something. Seems to me that the rule is fine as written. Sure, assistant ref's get it wrong all the time and punish one team. However, isn't that also part of the allure of the game - "the debate over the right call"... The last thing I want to see is pumping up those goal totals through elimination of the one rule that highlights that soccer is a team game! Sorry, Ian, while I enjoy many of your columns, I think you got this one wrong.
Revolution.....he never says he wants to change the writing of the rule.....just give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player, as it's supposed to be. I totally agree! John
Thanks, John. I'm certainly NOT saying abolish the the offside rule. The piece even says at one point that the law is necessary. Jimbo: I accept your argument, to some extent, but I was taking Chicago's goal as an extreme example to make a point (we'll see few decisions as blatantly wrong as that one over the course of the season. And if it was against DC in the last minute just as we were about to win our first game I'd probably be baying for the linesman's entrails along with the rest of you). The article is really an appeal to linesmen to let the marginal ones go, and to reward fast attackers instead of static defenders. At present I think they're way too cautious in favour of the defending side, as we often see from replays when legitimate attacks have been halted. But how many of us make judgments on an offside, only to change our minds when we see the replay? The linesman doesn't have that benefit, obviously, so in such cases when it's a very close call then he should let them play on. And then cite the "doubt clause" afterwards when coaches moan about bad officiating. Cheers, Ian.
Well, I never do that, I can tell you. Nice piece Ian. I'm gonna be pissed off at you for raising the subject if we lose on an offsides goal this weekend though.
The idiotic part of the column is not that he doesnt like the offside rule as it currently stands, but that he was happy over a horrendous call. The officiating has no integrity when the rules and the players expect the game to be called one way and it is randomly and without reason called differently. Inconsistent and arbitrary rulings are never a good thing.
who cares how they call it, as long as they're consistent... that's the biggest problem right now with the offsides rule (among a host of others)
Then your blind. There is no way that that play was questionable. If you wanted to call into question the "judgement" aspect of offsides two other better plays illustrate this. First the positive example, where Jamil Walker was offside by a half step and the play was let go. Second was a play in the first half where a close call that went against Ian Russel in the first half that negated a 1v1 with the keeper. Both were closer calls, one case going to the side of the attacker, one to the side of the defenders. The 3rd chicago goal was painfully obviously offside, and points to referee incompetence in getting into correct positioning to make that call. Its not like he even broke offside, he was standing at least 2 yards offside when the ball was played in. The fact that you can be happy about sub-standard officiating is beyond me.
Referees will never be consistent. They're human beings. It's like expecting players never to make mistakes. If you read the laws of the game they are littered with phrases like "If in the referee's judgment..." The rules are flexible, they are open to interpretation, and they are applied in a split second by an arbitrator who reacts almost as instinctively as the players. It can be frustrating as hell for the fans and the players and the coaches. But if they can't deal with it they shouldn't be in the stadium and on the pitch/bench. Soccer's not about rigidly applying rules and "consistency". If you want that then you should study accountancy, or sit back and enjoy gridiron while the referee takes ten minutes to look at the video replay. Part of soccer's beauty is the endless controversy and debate caused by its flexible laws. And of course laughing out loud when a blatantly offside goal is scored against San Jose.