Originally posted by Melanerpes the broadcast I was watching drew a line that showed that Dempsey was clearly even with the defender at the moment the ball was being struck.
Originally posted by Palynka http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb0YeJpPZxE
Offside seen by his knee ahead of the line. Note that the arms do not count, so the Algerian defender's closest part to the goal line is his foot.
But we're really splitting hairs here, aren't we?
If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).
If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
Originally posted by sh76 If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).
If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
The problem with making an offside call is that an onside player can seem to be way offside because he gets a great jump on his defender after the ball has been hit. I'd be very surprised if the refs don't make mistakes very often on these types of calls.
That's what happened on the Dempsey play. When I saw it live, I thought for sure that he was CLEARLY offside -- but the video showed that when the ball was hit, Dempsey was indeed even with the defender (at least even enough for it to be a 50-50 call).
Originally posted by sh76 If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).
If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
Rules are rules. If it disqualifies a goal then it's the player's fault for committing the infraction and not the fault of the ref for calling it.
Calls do sometimes end up deciding the result of a match but that shouldn't prevent the ref from calling the foul.
Originally posted by sh76 If it's the referee's job to control the outcome of the game then, yes, it makes sense to split hairs in determining whether he was offsides (which he was not, but I digress).
If the goal is to let the players play the game, then you don't blow the whistle and nullify a goal (that most elusive phenomenon in this sport) unless you have a damn good reason to do so. You don't call off a perfectly good goal unless you're sure.
The rule states offense should get the benefit of the doubt. Why is this never applied? Dempsey was not offside, but should have gotten benefit of the doubt.
23 Jun '10 16:01
YouTube
USA 1 Refs 0
Back to Top