SF Analysis: URU-NED - Irmatov (UZB)

For what it's worth at this late stage of the discussion. I felt though borderline, Robin Van Persie interfered with the ability of the keeper to legally play the ball. That wiggle with his leg for me was enough to throw him off even if just a tenth of a second. It's also clear that Van Persie did not deflect or otherwise touch the ball.

 

Ad hominem isn't going to save you, I'm affraid. you might want to show the people you teach about offsides the video of this incident, in fact. You can clearly see the GK stutter steps while tracking the ball just as RVP does his phantom "step over".

 

Once again we have Irmatov failing to sanction, this time the much mentioned van Bommel, who clearly committed a tactical foul, but was not cautioned, only to be cautioned later for dissent? It was not clear. There is also no question that his failure to sanction may have had some influence in the post match pushing and shoving, though it was unclear since the feed from Cape Town did not really show who the enemy combatants were.

 

But your interpretation allows a goal to stand judged by intent, which is not how the rule is written. The gray area you bring up is very thought provoking. Again, as you mentioned earlier, the "in the opinion of the referee" part of the law is huge here.

 

MassRef says that I have to put up with this fanboy analysis.

 

On the debated goal, I wonder how the AR was trained to signal after the goal. He certainly sprinted up the line, which leads me to believe (if his mechanics match the US) that he thought the guy was either on side or not involved. If he had thought the guy was involved and off side, would he have stood?

Second, the play in the media is that the first goal was caused by a missed foul. Apparently that studs up tackle they replayed after the bicycle kick preceded the first Netherlands goal.

I am of the opinion that the player was onside anyway, but that that last offside call in injury time was really the travesty.

I know that there has been debate about using referees from small countries, and certainly I agree that FIFA has given these guys such exposure that they gain experience which is certainly battle-tested. But their AR's really do suffer. Those are the kind of calls that AR's really need to be working in a professional environment with large crowds to make consistently well, and I think these guys missed way too many offside calls (although I do go against the grain on this thread and think the 2nd Dutch goal was onside anyway).

 

In the US it's pop the flag if you see involvement by an offside player;
stand at the corner if there might have been involvment the CR could see by an offside player;
run up the line if you saw no involvement or no offside players.

It might be different elsewhere, but if the AR ran up the line, it looks like he never decided offside...

 

I respect your right to feel that RVP attempted to play the ball. I've said that repeatedly on this thread.

You seem to lack an appreciation that others see him merely getting out of the way. You appear to argue that it doesn't matter if he is getting out of the way, he is distracting the keeper. This is outside the spirit of Law 11. Good referees know the Laws. But great referees understand their Spirit and when that is more important than the Letter of the Law.

I have no idea if you are a referee or not, but your lack of an open mind to this topic suggests probably not. The comments you make that, to quote you, "Intent is inconsequential," shows a basic lack of understanding of Law 11 and its nuances. Intent has everything to do with Law 11. Perhaps you would prefer it didn't, and many people have agreed that Law 11 should be re-examined and possibly simplified.

A majority of people feel he was attempting to play the ball, and that is just fine. If you want to argue that he was playing the ball I have no qualms with that. But you cannot argue that even if he was trying to avoid it AND was not attempting to deceive or distract an opponent, he should be punished. That is in the opinion of the referee... it's written into the Law. Like it or not.

 

(I) I agree 100% with Alberto. His assessment is particularly accurate because of the pace of the game at this level. Quick decisions and hard shots score goals by fractions of a second. The degree of interference which took place in front of the goal should have annulled the goal.

(II) Some comments have focused on the degree of the offsides infraction. In other words, just how off sides was he? By analogy, I suggest that this focus is misguided. Being offsides is like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not. And once you are the consequences of interfering from an offsides position in a potential goal scoring situation can have significant, game changing impacts.

(III) Some earlier posts commented on how a replay rule would work. One brave poster invited lawyer input - a potentially scary proposition. From lawyers...well...looks like the NFL got to them. With limited exception, a decision made by a trial judge or a trial court enjoys a presumption of correctness when considered on appeal. Extending that logic to an on-the-soccer field situation would simply mean that the decision made on the field would be presumed correct unless the replay official on appeal saw clearly that the on-the-field decision was erroneous. This is essentially how the NFL handles it. There is an old saying that you should learn from the mistakes of others because you don't have time to make all the mistakes yourself. FIFA could learn plenty from the NFL replay system.

(IV) As an avid, devoted fan of Spain, the 2002 World Cup was ruined for me by the officiating. To this day, I firmly believe they were the best team in the world at the 2002 World Cup and were simply robbed. As an avid fan of the U.S., the 2002 World Cup left a bad taste in my mouth. The 2006 DMB goal called off against Italy stunk - and probably cost the U.S. chance to make into the 2nd round. This poor officiating at this World Cup topped it all.

Players give 110% at World Cup games. Fans spend thousands of dollars to cheer their teams and see the best the sport has to offer. Both players and fans have every right to demand that FIFA's commitment to officiating excellence be at the same level. It clearly is not and it has not been for quite a while. Change is needed now.

 

I'm not sure if the goalkeeper's perception is in question (whether the GK felt he was being distracted). I believe the question is the intent of the offside player to deceive the GK.

To be straight up, I am not a dutch fan, but I've looked at the replay and it looks like RVP is moving his leg out of the way.

I really hate to say it, but there's no offside.

 

It was his own fault he was offside, his own fault he stood in front of the goal mouth. He's not some innocent newborn baby that was placed there against his will.

The rules, in this incident, are not exactly ambiguous. They are pretty explicit. If you are in an offside position, and you perform any action that distracts someone who is making a play on the ball, play is dead. The only ambiguity at all in this instance is whether or not his actions distracted the GK. The stutter step makes that brilliantly apparent he was indeed distracted.

 

(II) Some comments have focused on the degree of the offsides infraction. In other words, just how off sides was he? By analogy, I suggest that this focus is misguided. Being offsides is like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not. And once you are the consequences of interfering from an offsides position in a potential goal scoring situation can have significant, game changing impacts.

Fine. RvP was not offside because the CR, with the advice of his AR, said so.

If you want to discuss it further, you do have to discuss "almost", because, beleive me, AR's are not looking at player's shoes and mentally calculating inches.

The 2006 DMB goal called off against Italy stunk - and probably cost the U.S. chance to make into the 2nd round.

You really need to take a refereeing course. I mean that kindly and sincerely.

 

Sorry to have to correct you, but you are not right about the current USSF procedure.

From page 27 of the USSF Guide to Procedures:

"If a player other than the scorer was in an offside position and, in the opinion of the assistant referee, was interfering with play or an opponent, stands at attention with the flag held straight down at the side"

*italics and bold done by the USSF not this poster

If you are going to provide instruction on this forum, please take the time to access the books and ensure that you are presenting correct information.

 

Don't you also raise the flag when the only possible play is by an OSP player? Like a keeper/offside striker race?
I meant clearcut involvment - touch or impending touch...

 

REALLY?

The rule leaves room for a degree of subjectivity. This opens the doors to a degree of inconsistency in the decision making. Those advocating that FIFA adopt replay should consider that under the NFL standard, an AR's exercise of discretion granted to him under the rule would not be subject to being overturned by a replay. The problem complained about in today's call would only be subjected to replay review if the rule were tightened up and the discretionary aspect eliminated.

 

Very different situation. What I quoted is specifically appropriate for the play which happened in the Netherlands/Uruguay match when a player other than the goal scorer was in an offside position and the AR had to make a determination about his involvement. I provided the correct USSF mechanics for dealing with that.
You want to take that situation and morph it into something else. You want to pose what does the AR do when instead of there being a shot on goal from an onside player, the only possible play on the ball is by an OSP player. Completely different situation and thus a completely different mechanic is appropriate.

You know that involvement encompasses much more than touching or being about to touch the ball.

 

Huh?
What are talking about?

I didn't post any rule or Law. I posted a mechanic detailing the actions that an assistant referee is supposed take when observing a certain situation. There is nothing subjective or ambiguous about those instructions. It's simply, if you see X, then do Y.
I have to question why you even quoted my post since you obviously have no idea what it was about.

 

I wish everyone would get off the question of interference with the goalkeeper. There wasn't any! BUT

If the Player in the offside position(you must ASSUME this first) was not exactly where he was, would the DEFENDER right next to him have not made a play on the shot and deflected it???? The DEFENDER next to the player makes no attempt on the shot because of the player in the offside position. He BLOCKS the save attempt by his offside position.

Anyway I believe the AR should have stood at attention and waited till the CR came over and they discussed the matter. It his job to advise there was a player in an offside position and POSSIBLY involved. Then they work it out. He makes the wrong call from 40yds away and the CR never knows the player was in an offside position.

Is this the best in the World?--Our 14yr old ARS do better

 

Had the defender made an attempt to play the ball and crashed into RVP, then your point would have merit. As it was there was NO ATTEMPT so there was no blocking by the player in the offside position.
One can't block what doesn't occur.

 

Bit late to this party.

Re Caceres's bicylce kick attempt; SOP in South American soccer. Very few of these result in cards. Different cultures, different interpretations.

 

EXACTLY my point--No attempt was made because of his offside position. Had he not been positioned where he was the defender would have made the attempt.

 

***

I really don't like it when people just say things that are possibly damaging to someones character without a shred of evidence to support their claims.

 

agreed. I won't mind of Mods remove this post. Sorry if I annoyed anyone in this blog.

 

Vetshak, I agree with some of the other posters and disagree with you. In my opinion, if the player makes a movement which, in the opinion of the referee, distracts or deceives the opponent, then offside can be given. I am not sure why you believe so strongly that *intent* is part and parcel of Offside, Law 11. Perhaps I am not enough of a historian on the Laws of the Game, but I do not recall intent being a part of it. We see and evaluate what the player does, and where he is, not what he is thinking or what he 'meant to do.'

I am of the mind that thinks van Persie was trying to play the ball. But I also was going to post yesterday, and for some reason decided not to bother, the same thing that a few other folks (most of them seemingly non-referees) that it does not matter whether the referee thinks the player is trying to play the ball or NOT play the ball. If he makes a movement that distracts/deceives, that is all that matters.

Of course, players need to be able to tell the difference between a movement that obviously shows to all the world, 'hey I am not trying to play this ball' and 'hey, I am trying to get my foot on this ball.' But if the ball comes so close to the player and he tries to avoid touching the ball but his movement(s) *still* deceives/distracts the attacker, I believe the flag should go up. And I say that from a 'Spirit of the Law' perspective, with a background as a referee and as a pretty decent player who has played a significant number of matches as defender, midfielder, attacker, and even goalkeeper. I just don't like a player being in an offside position and affecting how the defending team acts, especially when the player is very near the ball and does something that a reasonable person thinks could be an attempt to touch the ball. To me, that should be considered an offside infringement.