MLSnet.com has an "analysis" of what happened in the LA /Wizards match overtime goal here: http://www.mlsnet.com/content/03/mls1015offside.html I purposely haven't looked to see what people have written about this event on Bigsoccer because I knew it would be contraversial. However, this "analysis" is just incorrect. It states that "As Klein shoots, Igor Simutenkov moves forward, but is not offside." I've watched the video over and over again, and he's offside. If you freeze the video right as Klein's foot hits the ball, you can see blue jersey behind the last Galaxy defender. If Simutenkov's a part of the play, he is offside. And if he's not part of the play, he can't suddenly become part of it and score a goal.
Jezzes give it up............... Don't you see the only ones that are calling it offside still are a minority of Galaxy fan?
There is one thing I do not understand so don't flip out when I say this: I am under the belief that if the ball is behind the second to last defender, the offside rule is that the player simply has to behind the ball, not the second defender. Is this an erroneous assumption. In this case, the ball rebounded to Klein, who initially shot the ball and was behid the ball at all times, who then passed to Igor (i'm not spelling Simutenkov...oops) who moved forward after the pass, thus in my version, remained onside throughout. Bonaventur seems to imply that by being behind the LA defender, that Igor is automatically offside and I do not think tha is the case.
You are correct. You cannot be offside if the ball is in front of you, regardless of where the defenders are. This is why it's impossible to be offside on a corner kick... however some officials haven't quite figured that one out yet.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but this is the first time I can recall MLS feeling the need to explain a decision a ref made this way. Sad they need to defend poor ref calls like this.
Seeing how this was the correct call and the Galaxy were just throwing their hands all over instead of playing position, how was it a bad call? Neither player (Simutenkov, Klein) was ever in front (front = towards the goal) of a Galaxy player while the ball was behind them. Once Klein took the shot, all Wizard players who were onside when the shot was taken, even those in front of the Galaxy defense, are onside until the ball passes them Klein shoots, the rebound comes off the goal post back to Klein. Since the ball comes to Klein, he cannot be offside so he is out of this argument (discussion?). Simutenkov steps in front of the second-to-last Galaxy defender. Now if the ball is behind him, he is offside, but Igor is still behind the ball at the instant Klein passes the ball to him. No offside. Just many Galaxy players who don't know the rules. The key, again, is that a player behind the ball cannot be offside. Think of it like this. Remove all the Galaxy defenders, leave the goalie. Klein shoots the ball and it rebounds to Klein, who passes to Igor, who is behind the ball. Defenders or no, Igor is always onside, because he is BEHIND THE BALL. MLS is not defending a bad call, it is explaining to people who do not fully comprehend the offside rule, author included. Thusly, I have gone crosseyed
I think you all are missing what I'm saying about the play. I'll try to clarify: When Klein initially shoots the ball, Simutenkov is closer to the endline than any other player on the pitch (excluding Hartman). Dave Brull, take a look at the video. You can see blue jersey behind everyone when Klein shoots. That's OK because he's not a part of the play. But, the ball comes back to Klein who plays it to a player (Simutenkov) who's not supposed to be part of the play. How does that count? On the other hand, if Simutenkov is a part of the play, then he was intially offside (when the play started, i.e., Klein's shot). Now I'm not trying to beat a dead horse or start a conspiracy theory or anything like that, I'm just looking for clarification on the rules. I started this thread because of the MLSNet article which claimed Simutenkov was onside, which is clearly false.
Keep in mind that the officials don't have the luxury of "watching the video over and over again" and "freezing the video right as Klein's foot hits the ball". Since you're the only person that I've seen try to argue this point, there can't be a whole lot of people who feel the same way. However, even if you are correct & Igor is offside by an inch or so... how can you expect anybody to make that call in a live, game situation?
Ok, I understand what you are saying now. That Igor was initially offside, but not involved therefore no call. At what point, if any, would a new flow of play commence and Igor would be back onside. Once the ball hit the post it bounced back to Klein. Does it matter that Igor's position during Klein's pass to him (Igor) he is back onside due to location of the ball? It doesn't make sense to me that if at any time during the flow of play, a player in an offside position, where he gains no advantage, cannot participate in the play. If play has progressed to a point where his offside position did not give him advantage and he has resumed a legal position, why is his old position held against him. Once the ball hit the post, does position reset? To clarify, once the ball rebounded and a new offside location was set (ball vs. defender), Igor's old position couldn't be held against him. Or can it? (i'm having a little trouble explaining but I think you can grasp the idea)
Looks to me like Igor might be half a foot offside. The thing is, in the run of play that's too close to rely on the linesman for. If the defense trys to let that slide, they'll get burned and they did. I don't mind calls that are this close. I can understand a little bit of human error. It's the obvious screw ups that bother me.
OK, I just watched the play about twenty times. Igor's onside when the shot is taken, because he's even with his man. The only reason why it seems that he is off is because he's moving forward while the Gals defender that is closest to him is standing still. So, with the camera angle, and the movement of Igor, it seems as if he's offside. He is not, however, because his feet is even with the Galaxy member who is the closest to him. If you look at the jerseys only, the camera angle will fool you, but if you look at the players' feet, you will see that Igor is onside when Klein's shot is made. And it doesn't matter because: A) Calls that close are bound to go wither way and I'm sure everyone's OK with that because that's the nature of the game... B) The bitching by the announcers on the LA station weren't referring to this point at all, illustrating that you don't even need to know the rules of soccer to work in the game in this country... C) It comes nowhere near to the travesty that was Ruiz's 10-yard offside goal in the penultimate match of last season. To see scum fans whine about, what in reality is, a judgement call has to be the definition of "what goes around, comes around".
Then there is the ever-popular "daylight rule" that never seems to get enforced. A player is not offside unless there is daylight between him and the second to last defender. Certainly there was no daylight between Igor and the last defender. MLS is correct to publish an explanation, because Hopkins, the king of doofuses, went out of his way to impugn MLS refereeing in general because of the call. Even though he himself explicitly stated that "everyone was clearly onside" on the initial shot.
I did not see this play, so I am only commenting upon what people say here and answering the technicalities of the law. 1) Igor may or may not have been in an offside position when the initial shot is taken. That shot rebounds off the goal and returns to Klein. Therefore, Igor was not involved in the play and no offside infraction occurs. 2) When Klein plays the ball next, we are now looking at a new situation (in refereeing, we call it taking a new snapshot). Whatever the position during snapshot 1 above is no longer relevant. When Klein plays the ball, if Igor is behind the ball at that point in time, then he is onside regardless of the position of defenders. Therefore, no offside infraction. Again, the key here is that the play after the rebound is a SEPARATE play.
I think it was a fair goal, and the ref got it right, and the announcers made a mess of it. But the point made above is something about the "passive offside" rule that has always bothered me (especially as a defender). Consider: What if a team had a slow forward with a good shot (think Stoichkov now, or something), and he just sat around near the 18 being "passive." Now, if the team mananaged, using other players, to get the ball up to the area and then passed it to him (new "snapshot"), and he scored. How is that at all fair? He gained a distinct advantage the whole time because he can't run, and didn't have to. I suppose this extreme case is a bit ridiculous, but you can imagine something similar to the KC-LA incident where there was perhaps more space between defense and goal, and Simutenkov was clearly offside at the first shot, but eventually scored the goal at the end of a play. How did his being offside in the one "snapshot" not give him an advantage of being in the right place for the goal "snapshot?" Guess it's a question for another forum. Bretos is an idiot...
You are wrong; I can think of two other instances where they did this. One was on the very same topic involving Fire-KC and a passive Stoitchov. The other was re: Meola vs. Ruiz when Meola "stopped a goal scoring opportunity" when Ruiz flopped into Meola, who was then sent off and Ruiz was awarded a penalty kick (laws of the game support the call except everyone supposed Ruiz was fouled when he flopped, and that Meola didn't play the ball, which he did.) Seeing as these are just related to KC, I'm sure they did this more often, and I just didn't pay attention because they didn't include my team.
Thanks everybody. If my questions haven't been answered, they've at least been clarified. Many points that you've brought up are exactly the reason I think there should be more specific information coming out of MLS about this play. First, the line judge did call Simutenkov offside but the ref overruled it. So, as far as the play was "too close to call", the ref should have relied on his line judge. Second, the point made about whether its the same play or whether Simutenkov had the advantage in a "new play" gets right to it. That's my basic question. I see it this way. We've all seen the player who's offside that takes himself out of the play by putting his head down and walking towards his own goal. The ref lets it go because the player's taken himself out of the play. Now, suppose that as soon as the play passes him up, he jumps into action and scores a goal. Would it be allowed because he took himself out of the offsides play and it's now a "new play"? I don't think so. It's too hard to distinguish when a new play begins and the old ends (especially in the run of play). In the Simutenkov case, it happens so fast that you can't just see it as two different plays. So, I'm back to my final point: 1. If Simutenkov is initially offside (even if he's even with the last defender -- he's not, but for sake of argument -- the ref should have taken the call from his line judge), then the play is dead, no goal. 2. If Simutenkov is not offside because he's not part of the play, he can't become part of the play and score a goal. Again, thanks everyone.
Wrong on both points. 1. It is perfectly legal for Simuntenkov to be in an offside position. Once he becomes part of the play-by playing the ball or distracting a defender-then he is called offside. He did neither on the shot. 2. When the ball returned to Klein, a new play starts. It doesn't matter if Igor was a mile offside on the previous play. If he is onside when the ball is played to him, the goal is good.
Did the linesman flag Igor for being offside on the shot, or on the pass? If the original shot had bounced off the post to Igor and not to Klein, it may have been called offside. Unless I missed it, nobody previded any information about the assistant ref calling the pass from Klein offside and the ref overruling him. You're a little confused about the "new play" rule. For the sake of offside, every time an offensive player touches the ball it's a "new play". In your scenario, an offensive player puts his head down and walks toward his own goal because a ball was played to him when he was in an offside position. When the ball (or a defender) passes him, and a teammate plays the ball to him again, all that matters is whether he is onside when the ball is played to him, not whether he was offside a minute ago. The defenders are well aware of this rule. A quick point on gaining an advantage: This is referring to gaining an advantage from a defensive mistake by being in an offside position. If you're offside and the ball comes to you from a deflection off of a defender or a rebound off the goalie, then the ball was never played to you by a teammate, but you're still offside. This is different from standing in an offside position and having your teammate wait until you come back onside to pass you the ball. I won't restate what I said above, but I will point out that even if Igor is offside onthe original shot, the play shouldn't be ruled dead unless he either made a play for the ball or tried to distract a defender.