|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 3, 2015 10:32:28 GMT -5
New MLS offside interpretation for 2015 - more emphasis this year on offside players "impacting the ability" of the defense to make a play. a flinch towards the ball, impacts the ability for the goalie to make a play on the ball, and under the new interpretation is now considered offside. still going to be a judgement call.. but you make the call, offside or not. 1. redbulls vs chicago 2. seattle vs chv story -- www.blackandredunited.com/2015/2/1/7959291/new-interpretation-of-offside-in-mls-in-2015 |
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 3, 2015 11:30:51 GMT -5
In the spirit of what the rule is supposed to prevent, I believe if the keeper adjusted his or her position to prevent a shot from the player in the offside position who believably could have made a play on the ball, then advantage was gained and the call should be offside.
So in the first video I think the keeper could easily have saved the shot if he were not trying to cover the attacking player (who was in an offside position -- a fact which doesn't seem to be in doubt for either video).
The second video, it looked to me as if the keeper was beaten by the shot, and the attacking player in the offside position made no difference to the keeper's ability (inability) to save the original shot.
So I voted yes, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 3, 2015 11:43:01 GMT -5
agree on video 1, voted off
video 2 is tough call, keeper was beat for sure, but i think the player in attacking position caused some confusion, because it appeared he almost/attempted to play the ball in the air vs getting out of the way. not until the ball passed did he raise his arms as if - he didn't touch the ball/interfere. keeper was in a bad position for sure and was beat.
i think i would have called him off. i voted off for this one also though. both are tough tough calls. but keepers might be able to speak up on how difficult it is to focus with a player standing wide open in an offside position near the 6 yard box.
|
|
|
|
Post by sidelinemama on Feb 3, 2015 12:13:42 GMT -5
I would just like to go on record and say that I am glad I'm not a Keeper;)
|
|
|
|
Post by jack4343 on Feb 3, 2015 21:28:13 GMT -5
They both look offside to me. In the 1st one, McGee was a very active participant and made the keeper adjust his positioning which would now be offside. Martins looks offside upon receiving the 1st pass to him in the 2nd video, regardless of what happened afterwards. However, if he wasn't, the highest attacker did look to interfere with the keepers judgement by flinching.
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Feb 3, 2015 22:07:28 GMT -5
In the spirit of what the rule is supposed to prevent, I believe if the keeper adjusted his or her position to prevent a shot from the player in the offside position who believably could have made a play on the ball, then advantage was gained and the call should be offside. So in the first video I think the keeper could easily have saved the shot if he were not trying to cover the attacking player (who was in an offside position -- a fact which doesn't seem to be in doubt for either video). The second video, it looked to me as if the keeper was beaten by the shot, and the attacking player in the offside position made no difference to the keeper's ability (inability) to save the original shot. So I voted yes, no. Turns out that I agree 100%.. Same logic exactly. But I also must admit that I truly don't know what's right due to this nuance: Does it matter if the shot was beyond the keepers reach? Another coin in the "referees have a difficult job" jar. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 6, 2015 7:41:07 GMT -5
Interesting!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 6, 2015 8:57:27 GMT -5
They both look offside to me. In the 1st one, McGee was a very active participant and made the keeper adjust his positioning which would now be offside. Martins looks offside upon receiving the 1st pass to him in the 2nd video, regardless of what happened afterwards. However, if he wasn't, the highest attacker did look to interfere with the keepers judgement by flinching. Well now I think I agree that Martins was offside in the second video, but I honestly didn't even look at that part because I was focused on the new interpretation section. But I still say the keeper was beaten with or without the high attacker. However, it's far too much of a judgment call for me to try to claim I'm "right". It could easily go either way and I wouldn't complain, no matter which call or which team I supported. |
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Feb 6, 2015 14:08:01 GMT -5
I am not so sure the keeper was beaten, but that is a judgement call. Honestly I think that should not matter. it is another very very difficult judgement to make. The more judgements an official has to make to enforce a rule the more difficult it will be to have consistency of implementation across scenarios. The critical thing should be, in my view, the simple fact that in both instances the player in the offside position gave the appearance of intent to deceive. That intent to deceive, if left unchecked (e.g., because "the keeper was beaten" anyway) will be another loophole for cheaters to exploit. Ergo, punish the bastards for their intent to cheat. NO GOAL!
|
|
