anyone else think that no-call on roberto carlos' goal tues. was b.s.? how can three attackers be virtually in the goalmouth, yet not "interfering with play?"
the rule, as interpreted, is stupid. kev, my brother, if you can pls. direct me to the other nine threads, i'll give you my first-born. i was hoping to spark a worthwhile debate on the ref's board, but couldn't get even a half-decent explanation. that's why i came to the uefa board. maybe you can give me a good explanation and help me to stop starting these threads that obviously bother you so. how CAN three attackers be offside, directly in front of the goal (indeed almost in the goalmouth) and not be "interfering with play?" thanks in advance.
Watch the replay of this goal. That's how. Frankly I thought it was a good call after watching the replay from behind.
that's not an explanation. if they're in front of buffon and he has to think about them, reposition himself, etc., then they're interfering w/ the play. tell me how they weren't.
OK, I'll try. First off, sorry for the snotty reply. 10 was exaggerating. I have seen 3 or 4 pop up on the home page since Tuesday plus the one in the referee forum you talk about. To start with soccer (football) is governed by laws, not rules - I know, it's a minor point -- but there are Laws of the Game and Rules of Competition (which are more specific to a tournament or something). Let me break things down a bit. There are 2 major components to Law 11. 1) Being in an offside position -- ok, this part is pretty clear cut -- the player either is or isn't in an offside position -- closer to the goal than the 2nd last defender and the ball. 2) Involved in play -- this is less clear cut. Here unless the player actually plays the ball, it comes down to a judgement call -- usually they would have to be physically challenging the defender or forcing the defender to play the ball in order to be considered involved in the play. That's how we're taught to interpret the law. It is not enough to INFLUENCE the actions of the defenders -- they must actually be involved in the play. You made the statement a couple times that they had to have been "interfering" with play. That's not really the right criteria -- they must be involved with the play -- in this case involved with the act of having scored the goal. When you state that they must have been interfering with play, this is your opinion. In the opinion of the referee, they were not. That's really what it boils down to -- involvement is a judgement call. The last sentence of my explanation of involvement bears more examination -- and perhaps may be the heart of this situation. Again, it is not enough to INFLUENCE the actions of the defenders -- they must actually be involved in the play. Here's an example of this... Defenders are holding an offside line. One attacker breaks just before the ball is played and stops in an offside position when the ball is played. All of the defenders also stop (probably holding their arms up calling for the offside flag). Another attacker times his run correctly and runs through onto the ball and takes it in to score. No offside call is made. This is a textbook example right out of courses. Let's examine this a bit... You might argue that if the attacker in the offside position hadn't been there, the defenders wouldn't have stopped -- and you might be right. In other words, they were INFLUENCED by his presense in an offside position. However, it was their CHOICE to stop their play allowing another attacker to continue on and score. If the attacker is not INVOLVED in PLAYING THE BALL, they are not offside -- mearly in an offside position.
Thanks for the explanation, kev, but unsurprisingly, i have to quibble: Well, that's not what the rule....er, law says. Law Eleven says "interfering in play." I think the rule does make sense where you have an offside attacker lying injured (a la the example given in FIFA's Laws of the Game), or behind the goal, or something, but in a game where one goal really means something, you're asking the referee to interpret what was in the defender's mind, or should have been in the defender's mind. defenders and keepers need a clear cut rule so they know which attackers are in play and which aren't. the much better rule would be to eliminate the subjectivity and just say offside occurs when an attacker is in an offside position and the ball is played.
Ok, we're both right -- it states "...involved in active play by, interfering with play, ..." But the key thing that gets stressed in our clinics and interpretation meetings is the involvement. Now you're not talking about whether the call was correct in the game, but rather you're talking about the fact that the law should be changed. That's a completely different subject. Good luck with your petitions to the IFAB.
No man is an island. Everyone on the field is interfering with the play. Bad call, but the correct one.
That has to be the first real soccer koan I've come across. What is a "bad, correct call"? I think this is a good conversation that's gotten off the ground here, and there's another notion involved with offside that I think comes also from the LOTG: that of gaining advantage from the position. If I recall correctly, to be interfering or involved in the play there is (often?) some notion that you are gaining advantage from being there (like being in a position to play the rebound). I think where I'm going in a rather incoherent in fashion is this question: Doesn't being offside really pretty much have to involve playing the ball or being in playing distance of the ball? Being in an offside position clearly doesn't amount to much, only being involved in the play does. Are there ways to be involved in play or interfering without playing the ball as the LOTG are to be interpreted? Does screening the keeper count? (I'm guessing not). Thanks all! G.
Competition is not merely physical but mental as well, and having three players standing RIGHT in front of you has some effect on your ability to preform your duties. I don't see how it couldn't. Whats going through your mind in that moment that can distract you from saving the shot? A thousand things.
when i first saw the play, i thought the players were in an offside position, but i thought it was a good no call. it goes too far to say that they were "right" in front of him. they weren't, and that was illustrated by the camera that showed the shot from behind the goal. there were a bunch of players in the box, but that shot was between roberto and the goalie and everyone else was completely meaningless. and roberto beat him. this isn't a case where the ball rolled through an offside forward's legs and you had to worry about whether he was going to flick it or not. there was never any chance that they were going to play the ball, and i don't buy that the goalie was not positioned well because of their presence. the goalie was set, and expecting the shot, and he got beat. those 3 players had nothing to do with it. get on with it, and if you're lucky enough to have the broadcast, enjoy the second game today.
me? offsides? To me passive offside would be lets say someone in an offside position going back to the last defender, attempting to get back onside when the ball is played through. If they are offside and actively persueing play it should prolly be called. Its just one those gray areas like defenders using their hands to gain position on attackers, diving, and so forth. Personally in this situation I dont see how 3 people offside arent interferring with play. It distracts the goalie and maybe more importantly the defenders. Not to say the shot would have been stopped if there wasnt that distraction because it was rather well placed. I'll go with the decision because I've definately seen worse no-calls. Anyway its not the no call that was the decider in that match, one team outplayed the other.
Anyone have a link to the goal (Mpeg or something?) I didn't get a chance to see it, but heard the debate over internet radio. The announcers (a couple of former players from Spain, this was a Spanish radio broadcast) continued the debate much as it has gone on here. It was a tough call, but what really matters is the referee's interpretation, and FIFA has chosen to allow referees to interpret the game to a certain extent. Subjective calls will always result, but I would prefer a human element to these decision rather than going over replay after replay.
A good call. However, I wish that they would just get rid of this passive offside (no call) rule. It can be so difficult for the linesman to make a split-second decision as to whether a certain player (who is in offside position) is involved in the play, especially when it involves a teammate who ends up gaining possession of the ball and subsequently scoring. From a high camera angle, we can often tell that two offensive players are 15 yards apart (for example) and one (who is in offside position) is not involved in the play. I always wonder how well can the linesman (who does not have a good view from above) judge the distance between the two players in this example.