U.S. Soccer Position Paper: March 25, 2009

[jkc313007666]

in 2009 USSF declared a player must make contact with the ball to be guilty of interfering with play. This stance has been rescinded as of 2011. However, a case could easily be made in this video that he is interfering with an opponent as he is clearly blocking the keeper's line of sight and his ability to see and get to the ball

[CEPILLO6269]

no offside, i'm glad that who ever said it was an offside is not refering my game.

[tobasco40]

its not offsides if the ref didnt call it

[TheDuran21]

just because the ref didn't call it doesn't mean the ref was right... from this camera angle is easy to see he was offsides and the AR should of called it.

[catero01]

No goal.

The goalie has to consider the possibility of the off-side player touching the bal. That makes him part of the play.

[hedak7]

goal for two reasons. the man offsides did not make contact with the ball and the AR did not raise the flag

[TheDuran21]

Clearly offside... by many yards... doesnt matter if the offside player touches the ball.. just being close to it and going for the ball is called offside.

just because the AR doesnt call it doesnt mean the center ref cant call it.

[waltheat]

@TheDuran21 go read a us soccer memo...

[maisis00]

I would probably have ruled OFFSIDE and considered the attacker a distraction to the keeper. The keeper hesitated due to the offside attackers presence thinking the attacker might make a play on the ball. This hesitation cost him the goal. Hence my opinion for offsides.

[ITSAJARED]

No goal in my books.

Looks like he tried t kick it, and missed, but still tricked the goalie into thinking it would go another way than the original shot was taken.

[TheDuran21]

correct call.

[adderz92]

goal

[buccos2324]

The decision is based on the AR's opinion. If the player in the offside position wasn't there, the keeper could have potentially immediately made a dive for the ball. From 0:28 to 0:31, the keeper hesitates, and he cannot stop the ball. So is the player interfering with the keeper? It's the ARs call. I'd call him offside; he is the only player with a clear chance of playing the ball, so according to the rules he may be called offside before playing the ball (Appendix; Law 11 Diagrams).

[1992tam2009]

my thoughts exactly

[GiftsOfSin]

Even though the player did not touch the ball he made an effort to go for it and drew the defender (the keeper) towards him. In my book this is offsides.

[ANESTORLAK]

umm its a goal. there is no offside at all no1 touched it after #17 kicked.. it so goal..

[TheDuran21]

offsides player does not have to touch the ball to be called offsides. believe me im a ref.

just going for the ball is enough to call it offsides. infact if the player screened the goalie with out going for the ball it would be called.

[lydayjr]

the ball was passed to the player in the off sides positions however-

the player did not touch the ball

but... he did interfere with a defender since he was near a defender

so if it offsides ?

reply to this with your opinion

i am a USSF ref

[AntoKneeo619]

it is offside because the player interferes with the play, even if it is a direct shot, the golie is confused

[buccos2324]

0:10

I think this decision is incorrect. At this moment, he sticks his foot out, therefore making a "credible move" toward the ball.

that's up to the head people at u.s. soccer to decide

:)

im just a ref

bottom of the....todom pole....

[Sienyema]

This is how the law has always been. There's nothing new here. It is good that this is made available.

[hokie521]

I think it should have been called offside just because of his proximity to the ball. He did everything BUT touch it; this should be considered "interfering with play".

[castlehaven86]

Offside is determined here by whether Nyassi, who is in offside position, was interfering with play. He didn't touch the ball, but he was within playing distance of the ball. In fact, he takes a dummy swing at it. In my opinion, he interferes when he takes that "dummy" swing. US Soccer says not offside b/c he didn't contact the ball. I think US Soccer forgets the value of faking contact in order to distract the opponent into thinking the ball is about to change direction.

[lydayjr]

i agree- i think tht US soccer has since changed the rule to being offsides if you interfere with the play

[metathomas1]

Looks bad. Fans say offside, laws of the game say no.

The important question is this: Why is there such a massive disconnect between what the fans see (of course he is offside!) and what the referee sees (no offside, stupid unknowing fans!).

If high level soccer is for entertainment, then this is not entertaining for the fans--it seems stupid to them that this guy is not offside. No fun.

Somehow that gap between what the fans see and what the laws of the games dictate needs to be closed.

[pattycakepastry]

He did not interfere with play because, he did not interfere with play and did not interfere with the goalie/defender

[LiquidYogi]

USSoccer does not agree with you guy. They put out a position paper saying that this is not considered offsides, and that the referees were correct.

[smotryskij]

It was clear the player interefered in the play. Had he not been there, no goal would have been scored. Offsides.

[ultralight9]

the only thing that could have been said..was upstruction of view..from the golie. it was NOT a pass..it was a shot on goal.. sins the redbulls did not make a peep about that... it stands. the player in offsides..had nothing to do with the goal...you knuckleheads.

COYW :-) & DC-UNITED

[KevinMMcManus]

Not offside, no actively involved in play as defined by FIFA.

[smegle010]

According to the U.S. National Referee Committee, this is not offside, as the attacking player in the offside position is not "actively involved" in play.

[biskander]

Are you kidding me?? Of course offside, that player interfered with the goalie. He even stuck his foot. Stop the video at 30 sec and see. The sad thing is, had the people in charge not "LIKE" that AR, they would have said "Offside" What a joke

[cycoshorti]

He did not get in the way of a defender, make any movement or gesture which deceived or distracted an opponent, and, most importantly, did not block the goalkeepers line of sight

[CourtingDisaster]

He was certainly in an offside position, but he did not interfere with play because he did not touch the ball. He did not interfere with an opponent by blocking the keeper's line of sight on the shot--the shot came from the keeper's left whereas the player came from the keeper's right and was several yards from the keeper. He also did not gain an advantage by being in an offside position because the ball did not rebound from a goalpost, crossbar or opponent. No offside penalty.

[motopoxki]

this not offside...just observe when the ball was passed..dude was in line and even after the shot he didn't even touch the ball!!

clean goal!!! ciao from italy!!

[FrancoShoots]

guys, according to the Laws of the Game he was not involved because 1) he did not block the keeper view and 2) he did not touch the ball. You may say that he distracted the keeper, but that does not count according to the laws of the game.

[bmm1312]

nope

the goalie still throws himself at full force

just reacted late

[sergioconvers]

I Agree with Buccos. The player was definetly involved in the play, therefore, offside.

[buccos2324]

Offsides.

Had the offsides player not been in that position, the goalie would have made a complete effort to stop the ball from going into the goal.

The player definitely interfered in the play, despite not touching the ball.

[chillmco]

The point of the paper is that he did not interfere with play because he didn't touch the ball.

What you are arguing is that he interfered with an opponent. That is more subjective and the only way this can be an offside infraction.

[Ghosthead32]

Offside interfering with play.

[marvinmedrano]

Hell yeah i noticed it during the game.

[AsiniusHerius]

This is not offside.

Not active pos

[651478]

no audio?

[skittles2590]

i dont know why people think Montero is offside, the one defender backs up to keep him onside

[alfro911]

Not Montero the guy standing right in front of the goalie as the shot goes by is offsides