https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=903387#post903387 i know he made the correct call but diddt know how to explain it.also feel free to disscuss it here
Okay you refs, everyone put down their white canes and sunglasses, the world needs your opinions. In the US - Venezuala game this afternoon ES takes a free kick and McBride and Boca, both on break to the goal. Boca is a step ahead of McBride who heads off the crossbar. Ball rebounds to Boca who is/isn't off, as he was ahead of McBride during the shot. Bocanegra's header goes off the postto Jovan K who bounces the ball off the goalie's nose for the 1-0 lead. Inquiring minds want to know: was Bocanegera off due to his position when McBride shot?
1. The offside position is judged by the player's position at the moment that his teammate plays the ball. 2. Bocanegra was ahead of the ball and the 2nd to last defender when the ball was played. And so he was in offside position. 3. He cannot be placed back onside by the ball hitting the post. He can only be placed back onside by being onside when the ball is next played by a teammate. 4. He gained a clear advantage from being in that position, and therefore he should have been whistled for offside.
Should have been offside on Bocanegra, no goal. Yeah, we all know how much TV announcers know about the Laws. Ty kept talking about how everyone was kept onside when the ball was first served in by Stewart. Didn't seem to matter that it was not Stewart's touch that put Boca offside, but McBride's header. And what's worse, if the AR had gotten the call correct, you just know that Ty would have used the telestrator to show the call was correct! Grrr.
I was coming to this forum to post the exact same question to the senior refs here. As a new ref, I wanted to make sure I understand the rules correctly. My opinion was Boca was definitely offside when the ball was played into the crossbar and should have been whistled. The goal itself was onside because Kiro was behind Boca when it was played. The only way Boca could have been ruled onside was if the keeper had parried the ball back to Boca. The amusing thing was that I sensed during Keough's commentary on repeated viewing of the goal, he realized the call was wrong but didn't have the guts to correct himself after praising the AR for getting it right. If you listen to the commentary over a few times, you'll notice he talks a bunch about the first and third shots but never mentions Boca. In fact, as the ball comes to him, he just takes a long pause, and then explains why Kiro was onside.
The way we were taught in class is... A rebound (ball bounces uncontrolled off keeper's hands, head, shins, etc.) is the same off the keeper as it is off the crossbar. A parry (keeper deliberately punches or swats at the ball in an effort to play it out of his area) is a change of possession and would dictate a new "snapshot" of players positioning to determine offside. Therefore, a rebound off the keeper would still have kept Boca offside. A parry from the keeper would have placed him onside.
It doesn't matter whether it had come off the post or the goalie. Either way, the whistle should have blown when the second player played the ball on the rebound. He was in an offside position when the ball was played and obtained an advantage from it (even though he too failed to finish). Having just watched it, I think it is quite generous to say that Ty knew he was wrong and just didn't want to admit it. I didn't think he had a clue.
I'm unsure of the correct call, but that doesn't seem right. If I'm taking a penalty kick and the ball hits off the post right back to me, I can't touch that ball. Whereas, if it hits the goalie I'm free to go for it. In fact, if you really count the goalie the same as a rebound off the post, all direct kicks that are shot off the post and into the goal would count and I know that isn't true.
I'm not trying to argue either way but I want to get things clear. So we can all agree that: - Bocanegra was onside when Stewart made the cross. - Bocanegra was in an offside position when McBride headed the ball. - The play does not "reset" when the ball hits the bar. Now, this is directly from the Laws of the Game: Offence A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position "At the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team", as in when McBride heads the ball, Bocanegra is not interfering with the play or an opponent. As for the last reminaing criteria, couldn't one argue that he is not "gaining an advantage by being in that position" since it doesn't matter whether he is onside or offside because Venezuelan defenders obviously decided not to defend the three US players in front of the goal?
bdr, you are comparing the "double-touch" rule with the offside law. When taking a PK there is no opportunity for the kicker to be offside so the 'keeper touch on the ball satisfies the LOTG prohibition against a second touch by the original kicker.
What I'm saying is that I believe the goal posts are just considered part of the field and the fact that it hit off the post is not the same as hitting another player.
Somebody should mail copies of those diagrams to Mr. Keough so that he might actually learn something about the LOTG. Not sure how the AR and the CR both missed this. The CR seemed to also bascically be in line with the "offside" line and even if his AR blew it he should have seen it himself. Wonder how that assessment went? Skipshady asks: "'At the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team", as in when McBride heads the ball, Bocanegra is not interfering with the play or an opponent. As for the last reminaing criteria, couldn't one argue that he is not "gaining an advantage by being in that position" since it doesn't matter whether he is onside or offside because Venezuelan defenders obviously decided not to defend the three US players in front of the goal?" No, I don't think you can argue that. He certainly gains an advantage from his offside position in that he takes a clear shot at goal. The fact that the defenders know or think he is in an offside position and therefore do not attempt to defend against him doesn't matter at all.
Simply put Bocanegra should have been judged offside. When McBride heads the ball he is clearly in an offside position and then receives the ball off the goal post. It doesnt matter how close Boca and McBride were or if the defenders decide to defend or not or if the moon is made of cheese. Think of it this way, if McBride had headed the ball from the top of the 18 and Bocanegra received the ball off the post (or goalkeeper) he would just as clearly been offside. When do you think the Canadian AR did his last game? 6 months ago?
It wasn't just the AR. The central referee was right there, just about on the line of the six yard box looking right at the play. Having said that, as a non-referee who was pressed, a few times, into linesman's duties at my kids youth games when there was a no-show, I have to say how impressed I am with what a difficult call that can be and how often re-play shows the call to be right (but not this time). The "bang bang" and its over quality to it, without being able to do what I did at leisure -- stop the tape and watch it frame by frame -- make the task of the officials truly daunting at times, and one that I couldn't handle with very much skill. As a fan, I of course reserve the right to bitch and moan, but I also have a lot of respect for the job the officials do.
Boydreilly, The difference is between a TOUCH and POSSESSION. In the case of judging offside, the opponent (in this case the goal keeper) must have possession in order for the attacker to be brought back onside. In your situation, the taking of a PK or any free kick, only a touch is needed to make it legal for the kicker to play it again.
When I took my Grade 08 class a couple of months ago, the instructor warned us that players and coaches are clueless about the offside law, but of course will vigorously argue a call as though God himself had come to them with ultimate knowledge of Law 11 application. I thought that surely after you've played or coached a few years, you will understand the Law at least as well as a newbie referee who's had an hour or two of instruction on it. Now I look over at the USA Men's forum, and see dozens of very knowledgable, life long soccer fans and players who are absolutely convinced that there was no offside offense, because the ball rebounded off the bar, or because Bocanegra was behind the ball when it rebounded, or because they were onside when the first ball was played in by Stewart. You were right, Steve. Now I know the smugness that comes with being a ref and knowing you're always right.
Yes, refs are always right. Except in this case where 2 of them made a wrong no-call. Kind of ironic, heh?
I say this as a player who has never refereed, and I say it in good fun. I never thought I would find myself agreeing with a bunch of refs, but he was offsides. I'm glad some people know the rules!
Cynics? Maybe the CR & the AR's had a touch of Cynicism? Maybe they decided, "Well, if Venezuela's defenders aren't going to mark anybody; I'm not going to do their job for them by calling Bocanegra offside. If they want some offside calls to go their way, they will have to do a little defending in their spare time."