Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Offside trap

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Offside trap

    For those interested, there's an excellent discussion of the offside trap at http://topdrawersoccer.com/NationalT...p=152#more-152.

    It uses the recent MNT loss to Argentina as a source for illustrative examples and includes links to information on the corresponding law, current interpretation, and evolution of the law over the past 150 years.

    For such a simple law, it's amazing the difficulties it creates for referees, defenders, and soccer fans (parents on the sidelines ;) )!
    Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious -- George Orwell

    #2
    Very interesting link - thanks for the post

    In the old forum someone posted a scientific analysis that indicated it was impossible for a human eye/ear to capture all of the factors necessary for a consistent correct call in complex off side situations. What other sport has a such an important error prone, by officials and players alike, rule (law) that the governing bodies care so little about correcting? The only one I can think of is basketball with is it a charge or blocking; or perhaps football with pass interference. But those two are more like the soccer judgement call on foul/no foul not an institutionalized choatic situation.

    Soccer has a lot of that type of backward thinking. Think about all of the phony carting off of players on a stretcher only to have them return 2 minutes later in the last World Cup and authorities not addressing it. Think about having the capability to accurately account for time in a game but choosing to leave it up to an officials discretion. Think about defensive players ability to stall in restart situations and negate an offensive numbers advantage. In many ways it is a sport wedded to bad historical precedence.

    Comment


      #3
      On the old site there was a post regarding the difference between soccer and rugby. The saying goes something like this: rugby is a game of gentlemen acting like scoundrels, soccer is a game of scoundrels pretending to be gentlemen. There is also a great line from the movie Brubaker with Robert Redford in which a crooked local poltician defends his graft by stating that "you don't f@#* with tradition." I think this explains a lot of why things are a certain way in this sport!!

      Comment


        #4
        What a great post/link. This shows how difficult it is to achieve world class defending for an unbroken run of 90 to 95 minutes of play. That's why the Italians are so amazing. They are so disciplined and intelligent so consistently. As Argentina attacked in greater numbers and with more speed and purpose in the second half, its clear USA lost defensive focus and cohesion.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Blue Devil
          Very interesting link - thanks for the post

          In the old forum someone posted a scientific analysis that indicated it was impossible for a human eye/ear to capture all of the factors necessary for a consistent correct call in complex off side situations. What other sport has a such an important error prone, by officials and players alike, rule (law) that the governing bodies care so little about correcting? The only one I can think of is basketball with is it a charge or blocking; or perhaps football with pass interference. But those two are more like the soccer judgement call on foul/no foul not an institutionalized choatic situation.

          Soccer has a lot of that type of backward thinking. Think about all of the phony carting off of players on a stretcher only to have them return 2 minutes later in the last World Cup and authorities not addressing it. Think about having the capability to accurately account for time in a game but choosing to leave it up to an officials discretion. Think about defensive players ability to stall in restart situations and negate an offensive numbers advantage. In many ways it is a sport wedded to bad historical precedence.
          Jamie Trecker wrote an article last fall about the use of video replay in soccer. His suggestion was for the MLS to take the lead and start using it. I thought it a pretty good idea, because it's probably unlikely to happen elsewhere because old habits are hard to break (plus some are obviously capitalizing from the status quo). I was at a Revs game last year where the defender tried to make it look as if Twellman had knocked him down (kind of unusual since it's usually a forward doing this to a defender). I don't even remember what the call was, other than it did break up a chance for Twellman to score, but as the game was being telelvised they were able to show the replay on the big screen in the stadium and it was so obvious that there was no contact there should have been a red card issued for diving.

          Here's the article:

          MLS should show the world how it works
          Jamie Trecker / Fox Soccer Channel

          One of these days there will be video replay in soccer.


          It's already available to all of us in our homes, making it a question of when, not if, video will come onto the playing field.

          Everyone involved in soccer needs to find out exactly what replay might be able to accomplish. Even more important, a full-fledged test of a system would also help to determine exactly how disruptive to the game's flow it might be. Until we try it, no one really knows.

          Therefore, wouldn't it be nice to see Major League Soccer take a leading role and offer itself to FIFA and the International Board as guinea pigs to sort out the good and bad about introducing modern technology into the grand old game?

          North America, after all, is a perfect place to try to things out. Our fans are used to replay in football, hockey and basketball. Our spectators are also used to games stopping and starting.

          And, to be perfectly honest, the passion levels are a bit lower in MLS than they are when Manchester United faces Chelsea. Reversing a decision in a game between the Red Bulls and the Revolution isn't likely to be greeted in quite the same way that disallowing a goal at Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge might be.

          Hardly a week goes by these days that officiating isn't in the news. UEFA is reportedly thinking of limiting who can talk to the referee on the field. More than one manager — Blackburn's Mark Hughes is simply the latest — has pointed out that in today's big money game, where relegation can cost millions and players and coaches their jobs, it probably is more important to get decisions right than to preserve a system which isn't working.

          Soccer has made many small steps and compromises, to be sure. Unfortunately, they haven't worked as planned. Wiring officials so that they can communicate with one another seems to be largely ineffective. Putting a fourth official on the sidelines, while a good idea, also seems to make no difference at all the big decisions have to be made.

          Perhaps the best example came in Graham Poll's performance at the World Cup, when he gave three yellow cards to the same player in one match. Did all four officials miss this, or did no one bother to tell Poll? Either way, the system collapsed spectacularly.

          Certainly there is room for human error in soccer. It's present in all sports. And replay has consistently demonstrated that officials are, in fact, right most of the time. Even in baseball (where it is not used) television replays of close calls at the bases show that umpires are usually correct. That's why its important to find out what replay can do in this sport, and if it can be introduced without breaking the flow of the game.

          Here are two suggestions for Don Garber and Ivan Gazidis in the MLS office:

          1. Drop FIFA a note which offers the 2007 MLS season for an experiment in video replay. As all of the games are now televised, there should be little additional cost to the league although some tweaking of camera positions might be required.

          2. Clearly outline when replay will be used. We suggest three situations:

          Review every goal or disallowed goal. In many cases this will be almost automatic and require little or no stoppage of time.

          Review every penalty decision with the proviso that no cards be issued until the review is completed; after a review a player commiting a foul could receive a card or a player seen to go to ground without contact could also be carded. Had such system been in place in Germany 2006, there would have been some key decisions reversed.

          Allow the fourth official to keep a record of all cards and fouls he sees which he believes are worthy of a card, but are missed by the official. He would record the time of the incidents, but not stop play. After the match, all incidents would be reviewed by the four match officials before the final match report is completed. Cards could be changed in color, added or deleted.

          These three aspects could address some of the most crucial areas where mistakes are seen to cost games. We should know whether the ball crossed the line or not and we should have a second look at contentious decisions which disallow goals. Goals, after all, are hard to come by and when disallowed incorrectly can be damaging to the highest degree.

          Penalties, especially in this age of diving, are equally crucial. Many French supporters will believe that they should have had a second awarded against Italy, for example, while there must be at least one or two Australians still trying to figure out exactly why their team was eliminated by the Azzurri.

          The review of cards and "unseen" fouls in matches is overdue. It is actually used on a regular basis now, but only when incidents seem bad enough to require another look. We suggest that officials should review all cards immediately, while the match is fresh in their minds because whether a player is suspended or not does make a difference.

          Will such review make for a better game? I don't know — but no one else does yet either.

          The fact is that keeping our heads in the sand won't produce answers, either. FIFA President Sepp Blatter can decry modern technology all he wishes, but somehow I doubt he is traveling between venues via ox cart instead of flying first-class.

          My own guess is that such limited use of replay as suggested will make a difference. Further more, I'm of the opinion that there will be little or no delay of game as a result. The technology is here, the fourth official is in place and all it takes is a good monitor and video technician to order up all of the desired replays.

          The 1994 World Cup in the United States produced a major change in the way that championship is run. People may have forgotten, but World Cup '94 was the first time that cards did not automatically carry over from one round to the next. Alan Rothenberg understood that fans want the stars on the field, not sitting on the sidelines for a semifinal because of cards collected in games one and five by teams which kept on winning. It was a major change, and for the better.

          MLS' 2007 could also be a spot for such a change in the game. Mr. Garber and Mr. Gazidis: See if you can get permission to give it a try.
          Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

          Comment


            #6
            I hate video replay for a number of reasons:

            1) It takes away from the natural flow of the game.
            2) Officiating becomes worse, since officials know that almost every call is subject to review.
            3) Lengthens the games.
            4) Provides too many opportunities for more advertising.

            Officials make calls. Players, coaches, and fans have to live with it.

            The instant replay has ruined football both college and professional and is a complete disaster in hockey. The only place where it has been somewhat successful is in tennis.

            Comment


              #7
              Ruined football? That is ridiculous. What it has done is make sure that games are won or lost via the play on the field not by a mistake of the ref. But football is different because it is so fragmented a game. Sports like soccer, hockey or basketball - that are continuous - don't offer as much opportunity for real review. This is because you can't rewind and re-start a play that was already stopped. I guess it would be possible to allow any potential offside to continue until a natural stop, and if a goal results that goal could be nullified by a video review. However, even in football any call that requires judgment by a ref is not subject by review so I would think that some elements of the offside call (since it isn't merely a question of whether a player is in an off-sides position when the ball is played) could not be reviewed. Other limited things like whether a ball crosses the goal line probably could.

              Comment


                #8
                The instant replay has ruined football both college and professional



                MASC must be a Raiders fan :D

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by FSM
                  Originally posted by Blue Devil
                  Very interesting link - thanks for the post

                  In the old forum someone posted a scientific analysis that indicated it was impossible for a human eye/ear to capture all of the factors necessary for a consistent correct call in complex off side situations. What other sport has a such an important error prone, by officials and players alike, rule (law) that the governing bodies care so little about correcting? The only one I can think of is basketball with is it a charge or blocking; or perhaps football with pass interference. But those two are more like the soccer judgement call on foul/no foul not an institutionalized choatic situation.

                  Soccer has a lot of that type of backward thinking. Think about all of the phony carting off of players on a stretcher only to have them return 2 minutes later in the last World Cup and authorities not addressing it. Think about having the capability to accurately account for time in a game but choosing to leave it up to an officials discretion. Think about defensive players ability to stall in restart situations and negate an offensive numbers advantage. In many ways it is a sport wedded to bad historical precedence.
                  Jamie Trecker wrote an article last fall about the use of video replay in soccer. His suggestion was for the MLS to take the lead and start using it. I thought it a pretty good idea, because it's probably unlikely to happen elsewhere because old habits are hard to break (plus some are obviously capitalizing from the status quo). I was at a Revs game last year where the defender tried to make it look as if Twellman had knocked him down (kind of unusual since it's usually a forward doing this to a defender). I don't even remember what the call was, other than it did break up a chance for Twellman to score, but as the game was being telelvised they were able to show the replay on the big screen in the stadium and it was so obvious that there was no contact there should have been a red card issued for diving.

                  Here's the article:

                  MLS should show the world how it works
                  Jamie Trecker / Fox Soccer Channel

                  One of these days there will be video replay in soccer.


                  It's already available to all of us in our homes, making it a question of when, not if, video will come onto the playing field.

                  Everyone involved in soccer needs to find out exactly what replay might be able to accomplish. Even more important, a full-fledged test of a system would also help to determine exactly how disruptive to the game's flow it might be. Until we try it, no one really knows.

                  Therefore, wouldn't it be nice to see Major League Soccer take a leading role and offer itself to FIFA and the International Board as guinea pigs to sort out the good and bad about introducing modern technology into the grand old game?

                  North America, after all, is a perfect place to try to things out. Our fans are used to replay in football, hockey and basketball. Our spectators are also used to games stopping and starting.

                  And, to be perfectly honest, the passion levels are a bit lower in MLS than they are when Manchester United faces Chelsea. Reversing a decision in a game between the Red Bulls and the Revolution isn't likely to be greeted in quite the same way that disallowing a goal at Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge might be.

                  Hardly a week goes by these days that officiating isn't in the news. UEFA is reportedly thinking of limiting who can talk to the referee on the field. More than one manager — Blackburn's Mark Hughes is simply the latest — has pointed out that in today's big money game, where relegation can cost millions and players and coaches their jobs, it probably is more important to get decisions right than to preserve a system which isn't working.

                  Soccer has made many small steps and compromises, to be sure. Unfortunately, they haven't worked as planned. Wiring officials so that they can communicate with one another seems to be largely ineffective. Putting a fourth official on the sidelines, while a good idea, also seems to make no difference at all the big decisions have to be made.

                  Perhaps the best example came in Graham Poll's performance at the World Cup, when he gave three yellow cards to the same player in one match. Did all four officials miss this, or did no one bother to tell Poll? Either way, the system collapsed spectacularly.

                  Certainly there is room for human error in soccer. It's present in all sports. And replay has consistently demonstrated that officials are, in fact, right most of the time. Even in baseball (where it is not used) television replays of close calls at the bases show that umpires are usually correct. That's why its important to find out what replay can do in this sport, and if it can be introduced without breaking the flow of the game.

                  Here are two suggestions for Don Garber and Ivan Gazidis in the MLS office:

                  1. Drop FIFA a note which offers the 2007 MLS season for an experiment in video replay. As all of the games are now televised, there should be little additional cost to the league although some tweaking of camera positions might be required.

                  2. Clearly outline when replay will be used. We suggest three situations:

                  Review every goal or disallowed goal. In many cases this will be almost automatic and require little or no stoppage of time.

                  Review every penalty decision with the proviso that no cards be issued until the review is completed; after a review a player commiting a foul could receive a card or a player seen to go to ground without contact could also be carded. Had such system been in place in Germany 2006, there would have been some key decisions reversed.

                  Allow the fourth official to keep a record of all cards and fouls he sees which he believes are worthy of a card, but are missed by the official. He would record the time of the incidents, but not stop play. After the match, all incidents would be reviewed by the four match officials before the final match report is completed. Cards could be changed in color, added or deleted.

                  These three aspects could address some of the most crucial areas where mistakes are seen to cost games. We should know whether the ball crossed the line or not and we should have a second look at contentious decisions which disallow goals. Goals, after all, are hard to come by and when disallowed incorrectly can be damaging to the highest degree.

                  Penalties, especially in this age of diving, are equally crucial. Many French supporters will believe that they should have had a second awarded against Italy, for example, while there must be at least one or two Australians still trying to figure out exactly why their team was eliminated by the Azzurri.

                  The review of cards and "unseen" fouls in matches is overdue. It is actually used on a regular basis now, but only when incidents seem bad enough to require another look. We suggest that officials should review all cards immediately, while the match is fresh in their minds because whether a player is suspended or not does make a difference.

                  Will such review make for a better game? I don't know — but no one else does yet either.

                  The fact is that keeping our heads in the sand won't produce answers, either. FIFA President Sepp Blatter can decry modern technology all he wishes, but somehow I doubt he is traveling between venues via ox cart instead of flying first-class.

                  My own guess is that such limited use of replay as suggested will make a difference. Further more, I'm of the opinion that there will be little or no delay of game as a result. The technology is here, the fourth official is in place and all it takes is a good monitor and video technician to order up all of the desired replays.

                  The 1994 World Cup in the United States produced a major change in the way that championship is run. People may have forgotten, but World Cup '94 was the first time that cards did not automatically carry over from one round to the next. Alan Rothenberg understood that fans want the stars on the field, not sitting on the sidelines for a semifinal because of cards collected in games one and five by teams which kept on winning. It was a major change, and for the better.

                  MLS' 2007 could also be a spot for such a change in the game. Mr. Garber and Mr. Gazidis: See if you can get permission to give it a try.
                  I have waffled on video in the past but I think that the NFL and NHL have used it in a way that improves the game. Other than preserving tradition, why not use it in soccer. If it helps get the call right I can not think of a reason why not to.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Vman971
                    The instant replay has ruined football both college and professional



                    MASC must be a Raiders fan :D
                    I am hurt :cry:

                    The delays in the flow of the game take away most of the enjoyment. I have been to several BCS football games and between the TV timeouts and the innumerable reviews the game lost much of its excitement.

                    Let's live with referee's decisions. Over the long haul they tend to even out.

                    The only possible fair use of replay would be to have cameras in the goals to see if the ball actually crossed the plane.

                    I don't entirely trust the accuracy of the "scientific" studies with respect to the ability to call offsides. There is a not so hidden adgenda.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Double post, sorry.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by MASC
                        Originally posted by Vman971
                        The instant replay has ruined football both college and professional



                        MASC must be a Raiders fan :D
                        I am hurt :cry:

                        The delays in the flow of the game take away most of the enjoyment. I have been to several BCS football games and between the TV timeouts and the innumerable reviews the game lost much of its excitement.

                        Let's live with referee's decisions. Over the long haul they tend to even out.

                        The only possible fair use of replay would be to have cameras in the goals to see if the ball actually crossed the plane.

                        I don't entirely trust the accuracy of the "scientific" studies with respect to the ability to call offsides. There is a not so hidden adgenda.
                        Of course it disrupts the flow, but so does Vicente Milegisabrokena flopping around on the field waiting for a stretcher. Limit it's use to PK's and contested goals, one per coach per half and if you lose your challenge you lose a substitution.

                        Comment

                        Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                        Auto-Saved
                        x
                        Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                        x
                        Working...
                        X