Offfensive player with the ball at the 18 on the left side beats the GK who has come out of the goal. No one in front of him. He shoots the ball towards the right side of the goal. Player in an offside position on the right side runs up and hammers the goal home one yard in front of the goal. If the referee believes that the offside player touch did not affect whether the goal is scored (the ball would have gone in the goal without the extra touch), should the offside be ignored as "trifling"? As an AR, do you put up the flag in these types of cases, and let the CR make the decision, thereby possibly inciting a riot by the defenders?
In High School Federation, the player who "hammers the ball in", is deemed offside and the goal is not counted. As long as that player was in an offside position when the ball is played toward the goal. As an AR you would put the flag up for the player being offside as soon as he/she becomes involved in the play.
the call needs to be made - offside; no goal. ar flag up. cr makes the call. in this situation - offside; no goal. if the ball was going solwly enough for this offside player to run on and play it, it doesn't sound like the original shot was a sure thing anyway. not that that would change my call.
He played the ball into the goal. How much more involved can you get? The player should have realized his offside position and let the ball roll in on its own.
A few questions. Was the player in front of the ball at the time the intiial shot was taken? You said no one in front of him, then player in offside position on the right side.. was he offside when the ball was played? How far off the play was the player when the ball was played? Was he out of the position? Did the initial attacker pass it, or take a shot? Here's what I'm looking for. One, was he interfering with the opponent? Two, was he interfereing with play? Or three, did he _GAIN_ an advantage by being in that position? If the ball's going into the goal.. does he interfere with play by putting it in? Does he interfere with an opponent if he's down? And finally, does he gain an advantage from a defender's mistake when the only defender was the GK? I'm somewhat confused iif this should or should not be offsides depending on the circumstances. The spirit of the game seems to suggest that if it was a definate goal that popping the flag would be a bit trifling. Jarrod
Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the initial attacker on the left had no defenders in front of him. The second attacker on the right was ahead of him and the ball, and in an offside position when the ball was shot towards the net by the initial attacker. In my question I assumed that the ball would go into the net whether or not touched by the second attacker and that no defensive player could have stopped it. It seems to me that this scenario happens in real life (this is not a ball deflating because aliens shot a ray gun at it set of facts) but maybe does not always get flagged?
Under that, I'd consider wave it down. It depends on the pace and intensity of the game thus far. I don't want the added insanity that disallowing a goal like that would cause. ATR says that the LOTG were written with the intent that we minimize the amount of interruptions on doubtful breaches and to penalize only deliberate breaches. An attacker blasting a sure goal into the back of the net is an exclamation of excitement, not a deliberate breach. I know I've seen plenty of times where players are in offside positions, not involved in the play, and then blast the sure goal into the back of the net... and these are in higher levels of play. Jarrod
I don't think you can wave it down, the goal was scored by an offside player, it doesn't get any more clear than that. We asked, during grade 8 class about during a DOGSO, if the player grabs the ball just before it goes into the net, and it was 100%+ sure it was going in the net, wouldn't the "fair and right" thing to do be to just grant the goal and give the kid a yellow/red card? After all you are possibly taking a sure goal away from the attacking team? answer was, Nope, no can do, rules says so. I see this in the same way, the kid is in an offside position and becomes involved and gains an advantage from being there (ie he will be credited with the goal). Same as for if a dog suddenly ran out onto the field and grabbed the ball before going in the net. Can't give the goal here either. I know logic seems to say, well it was going in anyway, team gained nothing, but that's not what the rule intends.
The original question was can a goal be allowed if it would have gone in without the interferrence that did occur. The answer is NO. We cannot award goals that might have gone in but did not. Once the ball was touched by the offside player (or by some outsider running on to the field), the play was dead. No might have beens.
I agree on the LOTG side of it. Now, you're almost never going to see that call in RL at the professional levels.. they'll always have the player joyously slamming the ball in. Course, we all know pro soccer is nothing like what most of us do. Jarrod
Maybe I am missing something here, but to me you have to call that offside. Who cares whether or not the player 'is joyously slamming' the ball in the net, its offsides. If you dont have enough composure to let the ball go in then thats your own fault.