The PK called against The USA's Nathan Harriel in the men's quarterfinal against Morocco was discussed in the Referee Forum. I'm glad to say there was at least some dissent from the orthodox position. A sample of some of the comments By @Beau Dure — Also @Beau Dure (although he's referring to far more than the PK call) From @mfw13 Orthodox viewpoint — Orthodox viewpoint — from @ifsteve — Orthodox viewpoint — I'm still (possibly) open to persuasion but I'm very uneasy about these PKs manifested by "The Foot of Mané" — which is more omnipotent in soccer, the Hand of God or the Foot of Mané?! First it's a gross mischaracterization to say Harriel kicked at the ball with the force necessary to send it to midfield Second, clearing the ball, at least out of the penalty area , is simply a normal soccer play as long as you're not kicking your studs straight towards an opponent in front of you. What is he supposed to do? Move to control the ball with your body with the attacker right there waiting for it? Try to insert your body between the ball and the opponent you see in front of you, to play the ball back towards the endline and your goal? Yeah, that would work out really great here Dangle your foot out gently to put it down by your feet, again with an attacker (or two) right there to take it off your feet? Referees in the Ref Forum make a big deal about how they have so much superiority on how to interpret the rules over players, coaches, fans. But then they have the arrogance, the temerity, to turn around and tell world-class players how to play the game. I know I'm always vulnerable to criticism because I've never played the game. Most referees at least have — but few of them have played it at high, professional levels, or if they have, it's a long time ago. Instead they've been spending years seeing the game the way referees see it, not the way players see it. *** Here's a link to one of the posts in the Referee Forum to take you to the thread if anyone's interested (again I can't quote directly because I'm persona non grata in the Ref Forum) https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/o...t-assignments-r.2130040/page-10#post-42433614
I re-watched about 30 minutes of the 1st half of the Spain / Brazil semifinal and I understand a little bit about Jenni Hermoso's complaint about Brazil's tactics, about their constant challenges to the backs of Spanish players. It was a bit cynical. It was also well-calculated — always one big thump to the back followed by a smaller aftershock or a push to keep a player with the ball off-balance and unable to make a clean pass. Would it have mattered as much if Spain didn't appear fatigued or slightly out-of-form, making errant passes even when unforced? At least Brazil appeared to play generally clean with their legs — nimble-footed, not kicking at or through their opponents' legs. I know many people express concern that the Swedish referee, Tess Olofsson, lets too much go — or people are dutifully attempting to protect her with a Reverse Jinx. It's a difficult challenge for any referee — or even impossible one — to draw the line on that level of cynical play. I'm hopeful, as both a US fan and as a foe of overly negative play, that the US playing style is just different enough that Brazil's tactics won't be as successful in the Gold Medal match and also that if Brazil also begins kicking at the back of their opponents' legs, that the referee will draw the line and call the foul ADD — also have to hope Brazil's negative tactics don't result in retaliations by Trinity Rodman and undo the careful work done by Big Soccer's Reverse Jinx thread...
1st half — Olofsson's been far from perfect but it's been reasonably good in a difficult match to referee (and some of her calls look better on replay!) — fast-paced, two skilled yet physical and determined teams unwilling to back down from each other.
oh gosh, was that one of those horse-pucky "passive offside" calls like the Bruno Fernandes/ Marcus Rashford goal for Manchester United against City a couple seasons ago? If it is, can't blame the AR, it's the way IFAB and the other higher-ups have rewritten the rules
Clip of the non-PK call when Crystal Dunn defends against Adriana entering the side of the penalty area in the 21st minute. It looks like a good decision to me. From @Mikael_Referee on the Law5 Referee Blogspot https://www.streambug.io/cv/bac8d7
I'm happy the US won the Gold Medal but that goal is a good example of how the "passive offside" rule has been perverted. Sure, defenders of the current interpretation can point out the ways Smith is not affecting the play but she is absolutely affecting it and any 5 year-old — at least any 5 year old who's started playing kiddie soccer or kiddie hockey or even kiddie basketball — knows there's a big difference between defending a 2-on-1 attack versus a 1-on-1 even if the ball or puck never goes to the 2nd attacker. The goalkeeper is frozen and can't come out to cut down the angle because to do so would be to open up the entire goal for Swanson to pass to Smith for an easy tap-in. At 3'51 of the highlight video Again, referees are coming up with explanations which work for them — but they have nothing to do with how the game is played — or any other game where outnumbered attacks are part of the game. It is arrogant. It is presumptuous. Again, Who is the game for? For players and fans? Or for referees to be superior to everyone else, to know they're right and everyone else is wrong? Because that is the primary purpose, the primary function, of how the laws have been currently rewritten and refashioned the last several years. They're not making the game better for players or fans. They're making the game better for referees so that they can be defended by a cottage industry of commentators and "experts" and ex-referees whose job it is is to explain it all to everyone else, the "ignorant masses" From the Ref Forum: Smith absolutely impacts the play. Are there differences in contrast to "the Rashford play"? Of course, but it's totally arbitrary on the part of the Poobahs, Rulemakers, and Governing Bodies to say those are the differences between impacting the play and not impacting the play. It would be as logical to say the play is offside if it's on a Tuesday but a good goal any other day of the week
Pray tell, what's your point? Is it that fans, like little children , should be seen and not heard? For what it's worth, a large number of fans are easily persuaded to agree with or side with the referees and quickly mollified by the explanations of experts and ex-referees,which is fine. To a point. It means they're open to reason (unless it's that they're persuaded by appeals to authority) *** ADD — I'm only a fan, but I took your side on the Harriel PK in USA vs Morocco.
Below is the current version of FIFA's offside rule. Before reading the rule, I thought the ref should have called offside because Smith was in an offside position in the vicinity of play so that a defender might have been drawn to take her into account in the defender's positioning. Having read the rule carefully, however, I think it was correct not to make an offside call, since what the rule defines as offside does not include what I just described. The situation simply did not fit the details of what is offside under the rule. Now, to be clear on where I am coming from, I am a retired attorney who specialized in government-related work (for both public and private clients) and did a lot of drafting of laws, rules, and regulations and evaluating how they applied to particular sets of facts. To me, a rule should be applied as written and, if you don't like the outcome, don't ignore the rule rather change it. I have bold faced the portion of the rule that I believe applies to the Smith situation. I do not see anything in that portion that describes what occurred. ******************************************************************* 1. Offside position It is not an offence to be in an offside position. A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents 2. Offside offence A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or interfering with an opponent by: preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball *The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used or gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent been deliberately saved by any opponent A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. *‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of: passing the ball to a team-mate; gaining possession of the ball; or clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it) If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball. The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball: The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it The ball was not moving quickly The direction of the ball was not unexpected The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area). In situations where: a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12 a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge 3. No offence There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from: a goal kick a throw-in a corner kick 4. Offences and sanctions If an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick where the offence occurred, including if it is in the player’s own half of the field of play. A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play. An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned. If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts and inside the goal as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be awarded unless the player commits an offside offence or Law 12 offence in which case play is restarted with an indirect or direct free kick.
I guess my point is that the refs in the "Referee" forum have developed such tunnel vision that they are largely incapable of comprehending other perspectives. I'm a fan, just like you, and I've lost count of the times I've gotten "shouted down" by guys like MassRef for pointing out the the way many LOTG are being currently interpreted are largely nonsensical to your average fan.
I once thought i wanted to be a referee and I thought that I would be a good one. However as i moved up in age and ability of the teams I refed I was constantly criticized for wanting to call the laws exactly as written and I was often told I called too many fouls and disrupted matches too much. It seems the referee powers that be could not understand that calling fouls the same all the time and making players play the way the laws are actually written was a good way to clean up the games. What they thought and continue to think is that nothing should be called if it would mean controversy. That is the referees in power wanted the referees to call only the most obvious fouls. But I could not continue due to the fact that the teams that won a lot of the time was only because they were more able to make fouls that would get ignored by most referees. I wanted clean soccer but the people in power wanted invisible referees, as much as possible.. I refed matches up to the college level but I stopped enjoying the matches because I was not allowed to actually call the fouls as they happened. Referees have decided that they are not to call fouls even if obvious. This has led to holding all over the field and nothing gets called unless the player fouling actually seem to want the fouls called. see the current usage of the professional foul where the fouling player expects a call so they get it. This has led to holding on virtually every play that goes uncalled because "both players are doing it" and that leads to even more fouls during things like corners and other free kicks. The "fix" is, I think, if two players both grab the other's jersey or shorts the the one that grabbed first should be called for the foul but both should be carded for "unsportsmanlike play" as grabbing a jersey is always a voluntary act so the player knows it is wrong and chooses to foul anyway. Hence "unsportsmanlike" as it is a choice. There are those that say that so many cards will disrupt the matches but I believe hat the players with any brain power at all will quickly adjust and quit their illegal actions. Those that do not have the brains to stop fouling will simply not be played by their coaches. Referees are basically cowards that want to not affect play but have an impact by not making calls way more than calling the fouls ever would. I now just watch the matches and try to enjoy it as much as possible and i also try to ignore the calls the refs make. BTW: Has anyone noticed that we hold 10 year olds to much stricter standards than we do adults. Just watch a typical match for so called "pros" and count the number of illegal throw ins that happen then watch a U11 match. You will see that virtually no bad throw-ins were called for the pros (failure to keep the back foot on the ground is the most common) while every single one of the bad throws get called for the kids. I counted 15 bad throws in the Men's gold medal match and not one was called. There was even one where a long through was attempted and both feet were in the air as the throw was made and not one bad throw was called. As I said refs are cowards and just try to hide as much as possible during the match. If the refs would just call the fouls as they happen it would clean up soccer a lot and make it easier for players and fans to know what is and is not a foul. I have yet to see any modern ref call a single match and not insert themselves into it as not making calls is even more invasive than making calls. Referees refuse, in general, to change how they call the matches. See that when they changed to offside law to where it read "if there is a doubt then the offensive player is deemed to be onside" and suddenly the "doubts" that existed before disappeared. That is the referees kept calling offside the same way as always they just forgot to have doubts. Now, with VAR the refs do not even have to have any doubt as VAR has moved the responsibility to a location removed from the limelight. This got real long and could even be longer but I will stop here. I just do not think the current crop of referees are any good. BTW: I think that by reasonable analysis the USA goal was offside but I did not expect it to be called off if VAR could find any excuse to make it stand.
HIGHLY SOLID REPLY!!! (at least you haven't gotten yourself banned from the place! Congratulations!) add: You're welcome to weigh in with your opinions down here in the heathen wilds of WoSo. I've been keeping a few threads going in the NWSL forum on thematic issues in refereeing. Naturally I still draw on the Ref Forum as a good source for more "authoritative" views than my own but there are also points of view that we're free to express that perhaps are beyond what we can expect to be tolerated in the more clubby atmosphere of the Ref Forum)
I agreed with what you wrote, but find this inconsistent with what you wrote. If you read the current rule, it was not offside. It has nothing to do with reasonable analysis. The way the rule now is written, the facts did not fit the requirement for onside. (And, as I wrote previously, before I read the current rule, I thought it was offside.)
This is why its important to keep up with law changes. The offside law has been modified over the years with lots of clarifications and I think it needs to be further modified in the light of VAR technology (we will see if this happens). This one was pretty clear to me though. It may have been considered offside 20 years ago but it hasn't been offside for some time.
Yesterday, when I saw the goal (live and in the instant replay), I was troubled that this may have been a questionable call. However, after watching the replay many times today, without the emotions of the moment, I'm now convinced that Smith had no impact on the defenders or keeper. The defenders were very far from goal when the Swanson-Smith near-convergence too place. The defenders had plenty of time to see what was happening and to react. The goalkeeper certainly was not affected by Smith as she had her eye on the ball and Swanson the whole time. This was a good goal. Here's a video, at the moment when the play began:
The problem is that few actual fans understand half the changes, as well as the fact that controversial offside decisions are not effectively communicated to fans in stadia (and often not even to broadcasters). I was in the stadium last weekend for Sounders goal against Nexaca that was ruled out for offsides, and nobody in the stadium had any clue what was going on, especially since the goal came off a dribble and shot by De La Vega that was clearly onside. It was only after I got home after the match that I found out that the goal was ruled out for a play that occurred roughly 30-40 seconds before the goal in which the ball went between the legs (but did not touch) a Sounders player coming back from an offside position, after which the ball eventually found its way to De La Vega, who then dribbled and shot. Technically correct, but utterly nonsensical to the average fan.