R16 Analysis: ARG-MEX - Rosetti (ITA)

Discussion in 'World Cup 2010: Refereeing' started by MassachusettsRef, Jun 27, 2010.

  1. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    He was offside when he headed the ball. There was no interference. Don't look at still shots. Look at the play in motion. He momentum from the initial play sent him through. The two defenders were also continuing their runs. One puts out his leg to try to block it but Tevez heads it.

    It is all Messi's fault. If he had an ounce of skill, he would have put it away cleanly. :rolleyes:
     
  2. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    http://referees.worldcupblog.org/news/sundays-referees-reviewed-3.html

    "Rosetti then gave the goal while enraged Mexicans surrounded linesman Paolo Calcagno as the replay played on the giant screens around Soccer City. Even though Calcagno knew his error and was informing Rosetti of it, the decision could not be reversed despite the clear evidence to contrary.



    Why? Rule 5 states “The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.” Now video evidence is not something the referees can use to determine decisions and since it was video evidence that made Calcagno realise his error, he cannot use it to change his mind."

    If that is true and not just speculation upon the part of the author...Oh, MY!!! :eek:
     
  3. LiquidYogi

    LiquidYogi Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Of course it's just speculation...you think Rosetti just simply forgot this fundamental Law of the Game?
     
  4. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    If you watch the replay, Calcagno indicated goal immediately. He never raised his flag. He turned at went up field. So the only way he could have known that the call was in error was watching the replay on the screen.
     
  5. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Again, like with bluedevils in the other thread... agreed fully.

    To my knowledge, neither Rosetti nor his AR have made any public remarks or remarks to the media. Until we see some substantiated, sourced confirmation, that's all speculation.
     
  6. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I too noticed this last night when I watched it again for the umpteenth time.
     
  7. Innawerkz

    Innawerkz Member

    May 11, 2010
    Canada
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    I would have to watch it again, but it was my opinion at the time that the defenders surely could have played the ball if Tevez wasn't there. Instead they had to move to where he was. That would seem to me like he is influencing the play.

    (tries best at being unbiased)
     
  8. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    How? If Tevez doesn't head it, and it is cleared off the line as you say it would have been, then how can you say that Tevez was "involved in play"?

    I disagree, however Tevez' interference made a significant difference on the play. The goal would have been scored regardless. Does that mean Tevez did not actually "interfere with play"? No.

    The defenders did not seem to be affected in the least by the presence of Tevez.
     
  9. Innawerkz

    Innawerkz Member

    May 11, 2010
    Canada
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTSycl0-r6w"]YouTube- Controversial Tevez Goal Argentina 1-0 Mexico 27-6-2010[/ame]

    Alright, just rewatched it. I'm of the opinion that Juarez (#16 - bottom defender @ 0:12 seconds) had a pretty good chance to clear it off the line if Tevez wasn't there. It actually looked like Juarez was trying to play the ball but Tevez knocked it in first.

    I'm guessing by your reasoning, if Tevez didn't touch it there, he wasn't interfering? He wasn't obstructing Juarez' ability to see/play the ball? Trying to understand what is considered interfering with the play.
     
  10. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    Perhaps opportunity to clear it off the line would be better, just as a GK who is screened by an offside player has an opportunity to make a save. His presence and actions of going for the ball, even if saved off the line, would also affect the quality of the defenders touch.

    I do agree it is more debatable if you assume Tevez doesn't touch the ball, but I still think it should have been called without the touch.
     
  11. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    If Tevez doesn't touch the ball, then he didn't "interfere with play". It doesn't matter how close he gets to the ball, if he doesn't touch it. He could still be guilty of "interfering with an opponent".

    I do think the best case for "interfering with an opponent" is a judgment that #16 would have taken a tighter angle to the ball if Tevez was not where he was, but a) I don't have any real evidence that he would have, and b) I don't think it would have made any difference (although technically, this doesn't matter). It is the other defender (#2) who has the best opportunity to play the ball, and he doesn't get within a yard of the ball.

    It isn't clear how much of a deflection Tevez gave the ball. It is possible that without the deflection, #16 might have gotten a touch on the ball, possibly clearing it. But #16 appeared to run to the goal line to make this potential touch deliberately. He also needed to avoid getting in the way of his teammate, #2, who was also trying to clear the ball. I just don't see how you can make an honest case that Tevez interfered with either opponent.
     
  12. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    Instead of screening the goalie, he is screening the defender trying to clear it off the line. Is this not obviously offside for the same reason screening the goalie is? If we replace the defender with a GK then I think the call is a no-brainer.
     
  13. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    At no point is Tevez between the ball and a defender, so I am curious as to how you could consider this to be "screening".
     
  14. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    I'd say he is right when Tevez heads the ball, and that Tevez, merely by going for the ball, is interfering with the defenders actions in trying to clear it off the line.
     
  15. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    It is not interfering with the play. He is offside for making an attempt to play the ball. Whether he touches it or not is irrelevant. It is no different than on a play where a ball is sent through and the player makes a run for it. I don't understand what this hypothetical discussion has to do with the events of the match.
     
  16. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    "He is offside for making an attempt to play the ball."

    I'm sorry, Falc, I don't see this listed in Law 11.

    The point regarding to this play is that if you consider Tevez to be somehow involved in play without touching the ball, then you cannot use the excuse that the touch was not seen by the referees to say that he should not have been called offside. Because with this logic, even though the touch was not seen, he STILL should have been called offside.
     
  17. Innawerkz

    Innawerkz Member

    May 11, 2010
    Canada
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    Third possibility based on what I've seen in the replay I just posted: The Argentineans are getting mad at the fact that the replay is (possibly) going to influence the decision and pointing at it in protest that it shouldn't influence the call.

    The Mexicans don't point at the big screen which reinforces my opinion that they already knew it was offside.
     
  18. Innawerkz

    Innawerkz Member

    May 11, 2010
    Canada
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    For me it is a learning point. I'm trying to understand where the line for

    • interfering with play or
    • interfering with an opponent or
    • gaining an advantage by being in that position.
    would fall in this context. To me - with my bias noted - Tevez is guilty of all three whether he played the ball or not. PVancouver has a different opinion and is doing his best to elaborate why he feels this isn't so.

    I'm finding this exercise beneficial to understanding the Law more clearly using this specific example from the match. If the mods feel this discussion is best served elsewhere, then let me know!
     
  19. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    That is my point, I don't think this call was missed due to not noticing the Tevez touch, and this is one of the main reasons why....
     
  20. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    I am not making that excuse. Many are speculating that to be the case. I am not. The AR just missed it. He most likely lost track of Tevez when the ball rebounded off of the keeper. By the time Tevez headed the ball, both Mexican defenders were near him. All of this happened in a matter of seconds. Tevez was offside. It was because he was making a play for the ball, which he did. It had nothing to do with interference. And if he did not touch the ball, he is not whistled for offside for interfering, he is offside for being in play.
     
  21. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    The Mexican defenders pleaded offside when the goal was scored. But that is done usually regardless if it was a valid call or not. That becomes even more dangerous territory for a referee to act upon a player's reaction.
     
  22. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    Despite the contrariness to any sense of reason, in offside terminology, you can only be guilty of "gaining an advantage" if there is a rebound off a defender, post, crossbar, corner flag, or referee.

    In this case, there is no rebound after the ball is kicked forward by Messi. (Actually, it is possible that the ball was touched by the goalkeeper after Messi kicked it, and, if this is the case, then technically by the law, Tevez was guilty of "gaining an advantage", and COULD NOT BE GUILTY of either of the other two clauses).

    It isn't absolutely clear if one can interfere with an opponent after a rebound and be guilty of offside, but I would argue that it certainly should be part of the law, if it isn't already. (We certainly don't need to be arguing about whether or not the goalkeeper touched it, and if he did, that then interference with an opponent doesn't apply.)

    I have argued many times that the "gaining an advantage" clause is unnecessary. Just make clear what "resets" offside position and this very confusing clause is not needed. It really isn't needed anyway.
     
  23. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    The only way to be called for offside is to be "involved in play".

    Setting aside "gaining an advantage", the ONLY way you can be called for offside is for "interfering". You can "interfere with play", or "interfere with an opponent". You need to tighten up your terminology.
     
  24. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    You are getting too picky with the terminology. And that is part of the problem with refereeing in general. It is like a Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote about pornography, I know it when I see it. Tavez was offside. The AR missed it. But if he saw it, he would have called it.
     
  25. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94672

    http://www.drcdurham.ca/pdf/Circular_874_FIFA.pdf

    Law 11 reads as follows: “A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball is touched or 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.”

    How to interpret:

    “interfering with play”

    -> PLAYING OR TOUCHING a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

    “interfering with an opponent”

    -> PREVENTING an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision or movements.
    -> Making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to DECEIVE OR DISTRACT AN OPPONENT.

    “gaining an advantage by being in that position”

    -> PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position.
    -> PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position.


    I'd say he's making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to DECEIVE OR DISTRACT AN OPPONENT, regardless of whether he touches it myself.

    YMMV :)

    TBH I don't think there's any argument here. It was just a bad call.
     

Share This Page