Welcome to the first edition of Don't Fight The Laws, in which I combine my years of being a referee with my years of being a smartass to provide my answers to your questions about the Laws of the Game, controversial decisions and other odds and ends relating to referees and what they do.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
Got a question? Send it over to canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com. But for this week, we have the following...
Squizz, please explain to us the situation of the 2007 Gold Cup, where a Canadian goal was deemed offside. Please explain the call that your blind brethren made and why it was correct/incorrect.
-- Tuscan
Yeah, may as well get this puppy out of the way right off the hop. The name Benito Archundia is to Canadian soccer dorks what Voldemort is to Harry Potter dorks, vilified as he is for a number of decisions that have gone against Les Rouges in critical games. The most oft-cited example came in the semi-finals of the 2007 Gold Cup, when the Mexican referee found himself in the middle of this debacle:
First of all, yes the call was wrong, and I'll get into that momentarily. Second, it wasn't Benito Archundia's fault.
Yeah, I know, I know, it's easy and fun to hold Archundia up as a bogeyman, emblematic of all that ails Canadian soccer. If you're desperate enough to still want a bogeyman, let it be Ramon Ricardo Louisville of Suriname -- he's the assistant referee that wrongly flagged Hutch for offside.
While the man/woman in the middle is the ultimate arbiter of the game, and may ignore the calls of the assistant referees, you will nearly never see a referee go against an AR's call on offside. Why? Because it is fucking impossible to accurately determine offside from the middle of the field. (Don't believe me? Try it sometime.) Hell, it's damn near impossible to do it properly from the sideline, particularly in the 94th minute of a match, as Mr. Lousville showed us.
Now, much was made about whether the ball was actively played by the American defender, or whether it simply rebounded off of him. This is relevant because the Laws state that a player's onside/offside position is determined "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team" and that a player is offside if they "(play) a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position."
In other words, if Hutch was in an offside position when his teammate made the cross, and the ball merely rebounded off the American defender, then he was, indeed, offside. But that replay makes clear that this was no mere rebound; it was an intentional (albeit terrible) header. While the Laws are infuriatingly vague in this instance, it's commonly understood that intentional control of the ball by the defending team (such as this crappy header) negates the original offside. This is not explicitly stated in the Laws, but is tacitly suggested by the usage of the words "rebounds ... off an opponent" rather than "rebounds, or is played by, an opponent".
For what it's worth, though, I think Hutch was onside even at the moment of the original pass, which renders this entire discussion moot. But in any event, yes everyone, Jack Warner was in the earpieces of Archundia, Lousville and the rest of the refs, specifically instructing them to screw us out of a well-earned equalizer. So I think we can put that one to bed.
Whew. The rest of the answers won't be that verbose, I swear.
What do the rules of the game say about (the recent deliberate sending offs by Jose and the like)?
-- Some Unidentified Person
Nothing, really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPplbi9QeKE
Obviously, Alonso and Ramos were intentionally wasting time. So the referee did exactly what he was supposed to do. He cautioned them for unsporting behaviour. Both were already on yellows. Both got sent off for a second cautionable offence.
UEFA has punished the players and their manager for this cynical ploy (although, it must be said, the ploy worked, as neither Alonso nor Ramos were hit with additional suspension time). But during the game, this additional punishment is none of the referee's concern. The ref's only recourse, when it comes to sanctioning players for their dickhead behaviour, is to caution them or send them off (with mitigating circumstances, if applicable, detailed in their match report). If a governing body chooses to take additional action (as UEFA did in this case), that's their call.
Perhaps the ref was fully aware of what Alonso and Ramos were doing. But to me, the individual referee's job, in any individual game, is not to take into account the broader implications of his/her decisions on that player, or the competition at large. Their job is to enforce the Laws of the Game, to the best of their abilities. There's no way for refs to avoid knowing what impact a yellow card may have on a player's eligibility for upcoming games, but that should (in theory) have no bearing on whether or not they choose to caution that player.
Also, you knew Luis Suarez had to be involved in this preposterous situation somehow, didn't ya?
Can you clarify for people on when you CAN'T be offside? For example in the World Cup I had many debates with England fanboys who were crying that the one German goal was offside, however the ball was played from a goal kick. Many people don't seem to know you cant be offside from a goal kick. Same with a throw in. -- Branden F.
First of all, I'm not sure why you're wasting your time discussing soccer with anyone idiotic enough to believe there was anything remotely offside about the opening goal by the Germans, scored by Miroslav Klose. But yes, you're right, a player cannot be offside if he/she:
- receives the ball from a goal kick, corner kick or throw-in; or
- is in his/her own half of the field at the moment the ball is played; or
- is level with the second-last or last two defending players; or
- is nearer to his/her own goal than the ball at the moment it is played
Points one and two are self-explanatory. Point three means that as long as you're not nearer to the opposing goal than two of the defending players (whether or not one of them is the goalkeeper), then you're in the clear. And point four explains why teammates that find themselves in a two-on-zero situation can still make a pass (even though the recipient is behind the second-last defender), just so long as it's a lateral or backward pass.
But, seriously, really? People really thought Klose was offside? I mean, Jesus Christ. He wasn't even close to being in an offside position! What did they think of Suarez's handball? That what he did was OK because he wasn't using a vuvuzela?
In the Tottenham-Liverpool game (on Sunday) there was a penalty awarded to Tottenham (which Defoe missed) when the ball was "handled" on, or just outside, the line of the 18 yard box. What do the rules say about placement of freekicks from handballs? The wall was clearly inside the box and the ref was not at an angle to see that the ball was handled outside the box.
-- Some Unidentified Person
If you haven't seen it, skip ahead to 7:25:
http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xfu3as_goaltube-org-sprs-rds_sport?additionalInfos=0
Law 12 states that a free kick is taken "from the place where the offence occurred" and that a penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct-free-kick offence "inside his own penalty area". There is no differentiation made between a free kick for a handball versus any other similar offence in this regard.
In terms of the penalty area, think about it like the regular field of play -- the ball is in the penalty area unless the whole of it is outside of the penalty area. The goalkeeper can handle the ball so long as a sliver of it is "breaking the plane" (to borrow some pointyball terminology) of the lines marking the penalty area.
Ergo... if the ball was handled deliberately (which it was, in my opinion) while it was on the edge of the penalty area (which, again, it was, IMO) then the "place where the offence occurred" is considered to be inside the penalty area, and the appropriate call is a penalty kick.
Now, whether or not the referee was in the ideal position to make this determination is debatable (it certainly couldn't have hurt for him to consult his AR). But from this replay, I think he got the call right. Either way, as you say, Defoe blotched the bloody spot kick, so it's all for naught anyway.
That's it for this week. Send me an email at canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com, and your query may turn up in the next edition of Don't Fight The Laws.