October 28, 2014

Video Training: Offside Goals in Schalke 04 - NK Maribor? Solutions!


The following match situations are both taken from the UEFA Champions League Matchday 2 tie between Schalke 04 and NK Maribor and belongs to the category Offside.
The officials involved were Carlos Velasco Carballo (referee), Roberto Alonso Fernández (assistant referee 1) and Carlos Del Cerro Grande (additional assistant referee 1) from Spain.



Solution: 
At the moment of a shot on goal, a yellow-dressed attacking player is clearly in an offside position. However, does he become active? Yes, he does.
He is both clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision and is making a clear action within playing distance having a clear impact on the goalkeeper's ability to save the ball by impeding his movement and actions. For this reason, the attacker interferes with an opponent.
The goal should have been disallowed for offside offence. It must be highlighted that only clear cases of obstructing the line of vision of an opponent can be penalized in the sense of Law 11. This was the case here. 
Furthermore, the referee himself as well as the additional assistant referee have a responsibility and should take action and fulfill their duty to follow play attentively in order to be prepared to support their team-mate, who does not have the best angle to gauge the punishability of the offside position from his position at the sideline.

OFFSIDE OFFENCE

89% of you agreed with this solution.



Solution:
Again, at the moment of a shot on goal, an attacking player is standing in an offside position between the ball and the goalkeeper. You can argue that he maybe obstructs the goalkeeper's line of vision. However, the attacker does not clearly obstruct his line of vision. He jumps over the travelling ball and, being a bit farther away from the goalkeeper than the attacker in clip 1, allows the goalkeeper a wider visual angle and better visual contact to the ball. Law 11 demands that such an obstruction is really clear, and this was not the case here.
In addition, the attacker does not have an impact on the goalkeeper's ability to save the ball, as there is no clear action within playing distance and as he makes no attempt to play the ball. By jumping over the ball, he makes clear he has no interest in playing or touching it and also stays far enough away. The referee team's decision must be supported and should be deemed as correct for this case.

NO OFFSIDE OFFENCE

59% of you agreed with this solution, which demonstrates that this clip has been of higher difficulty and that there is the need to clarify such cases in a clearer and more uniform way in future.

Our solutions were given as such in our match report uploaded last month and are in line with UEFA's interpretation of these clips.

18 Comments:

  1. Clip 2 - A player who has to jump to let the ball pass to me is clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision. Ergo offside.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Both are offside.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2811768/Referee-Mark-Clattenburg-axed-breaking-protocol-travelling-wouldn-t-miss-Ed-Sheeran-concert.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is a new post in Offside Explained that also questions the 7.9 given to the assistants in Chelsea-Maribor and Roma-Bayern

    http://www.law-11.com/blog/the-angles-of-deceivement

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I study business psychology I am familiar with cognitive psychology and deceiving visual angles. So I normally conduct photoshop calculations with specific measuring tools to identify whether an offside position existed or did not exist. In both cases the attackers were in very tight but existing offside positions. Normally we would not reproach the ARs (and the 30-50 cm mentioned in the report were a wrong estimation and will be corrected). But as both assistant referees were wrongly positioned (and also for that we had to reproach them given their late acceleration - we don't consider these passes as totally unexpected), we decided in favour of these 7.9s.
      The screenshots shown at OE provide us with better footage so that we will conduct these calculations again but probably Klasenius' mark will be changed as it seems that there was a raised foot by a defender we were unaware of last week.

      Delete
    2. Klasenius report mentions 3 offside decisions wrong - 39 is clearly right, 65 must be supported, 69 can not be supported.

      Delete
    3. Hi Anonymous, I am gitzlo who wrote this report. I watched the game in TV live, there I saw two offside-positions (wrong lines were drawn), so it was my mistake of course but not deliberately. I am sorry, thanks for your advice!!

      Delete
  5. What about these two situations?
    Estudiantes LP-River. Copa Sudamericana
    Referee: Diego Abal (ARG)

    Penalty?
    http://www.ole.com.ar/futbol-internacional/sudamericana/paso-aca_3_1238906159.html

    Second yellow and red?
    http://www.ole.com.ar/futbol-internacional/sudamericana/Abal-expulso-Sanchez_3_1238906164.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) PK+YC
      2) PK

      Thanks for situations.

      Delete
  6. predictions for next week?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many Elite referees without match on MD3, therefore some of them have to get less attractive games:
      MAL-ATL: Stark
      JUV-OLY: Clattenburg
      BAS-LUD: Turpin
      REA-LIV: Benquerenca (farewell present...)
      BEN-MON: Thomson
      ZEN-LEV: Undiano
      ARS-AND: Lannoy
      DOR-GAL: Proenca
      MANC-CSKA: Sidiropoulos
      BAY-ROMA: Kassai
      AMS-BAR: Brych
      PAR-NIC: Moen
      MAR-CHE: Tagliavento
      SPO-SCH: Cakir
      BIL-POR: Atkinson
      DON-BOR: Rocchi

      Delete
    2. I think that Orsato should get a CL match in this MD (as former Elite development), having already officiatedin EL on MD1.
      Not sure about Rocchi, after ARS - GAL, perhaps he will appear in EL.

      Delete
  7. I am very curious to hear what you have to say about the situations here:
    http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week---2014---wk33.php

    I agree with Reijer on the first one: deliberate play, no offside. On the second one, however, I do not see how one can classify this as anything else than a deliberate save. I know MLS does not necessarily follow the UEFA guidelines (which I consulted on law-11.com); however, if this is not a "deliberate save", then no action by a defender can be a deliberate save. The Law does not state that a deliberate save must come from the goaltender, but is made by "an opponent": that includes defenders, and in my view this is a save. Therefore, offside and no goal in my view.

    PS: the referee in situation 1 is Ricardo Salazar, FIFA. The referee in situation 2 is Ismail Elfath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First case: it is clearly a deliberate play in my opinion, so offside is not punishable, correct decision to allow the goal.

      Second case: more difficult and very interesting. I understand your point of view, but for me one can discuss about the fact that it wasn't a save. The problem is the presence of the keeper behind the defender, without his touch it could have been a save. So, I don't see this action as a "deliberate save". Of course, if not deliberate save, the situation must be evaluated as "deliberate play" and not "deflection", because the defender makes a clear movement towards the ball prior to play it. I can understand assistant referee's decision, but I think that the question here is all about how to describe a "deliberate save" when, especially in these cases, it doesn't happen on the line, and there is still the keeper behind.
      Anyway, very interesting situations...

      Delete
    2. Hi Emil and Chefren!

      1) Law 11 says: A player receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.

      2) UEFA guidelines say: to save a goal from being scored, made by any player.

      3) In 2013 UEFA compared "a deliberate act" vs "finds the ball coming against him and makes an instinctive attempt to play". Here for us this is "an instinctive attempt to play". UEFA has not spoken out for over a year now what they think or do not think of deliberate play, so we assume the same arguments apply.

      4) You cannot start to analyse what is and what is not a "deliberate save" in such cases where there is a shot on goal and the ball is clearly going towards the goal. Where do you draw the line then? This is clearly an attempt to save a goal from being scored - the defender and the referee cannot analyse whether the goalkeeper has a chance as well. Yes - there is also common sense - when you clearly consider it not to be a shot.

      Regards,
      Offside Explained

      Delete
    3. fully agree with Anonymous and if we follow FIFA interpretation of laws of the game (any other shouldn't by applied), then both the situation are offside.

      In both cases the defenders make defending touches, which are not considered as deliberate play. For that reason both situations should be avaluated as offsides.

      I thought the new wording in law of the games made it clearer but I see it made the opposite for some :-/

      Delete
  8. ... just to add.

    Should we then start to interpret such cases as "deliberate play" rather than "deliberate save"? Where do we draw the line?

    https://vimeo.com/106944022

    The best solution would be an direct answer by UEFA to 10-20 difficult situations. The answer could be even "grey zone, reasons to consider, rather …, can support the referee with both decisions".

    This also one of the main reasons behind "Offside Explained" - to show with the polls that there is a big confusion amongst referees across the world. This could one day show FIFA and UEFA that they should use a more direct way to explain the Law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous3/11/14 16:47

    https://sportnetwork.rs./Cukaricki-Mladost
    Offside or not offside

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger