USA vs. Sweden, Thursday 6/20, 3pm, FOX

  • Welcome to NYCFC Forums 2.0. Since completing our upgrade I've had a number of people request to make a donation. If you'd like to Donate you may do so via this Paypal link below. Thank you all for the support and your willingness to cobtribute.
Consider becoming a 'donor' member to help support the forums! Click Here To Upgrade

Christopher Jee

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 24, 2014
3,127
8,116
353
36

NYCFC_Dan

Senior Member
Staff member
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 17, 2014
6,588
13,133
303
29
Tampa, Florida
Am I the only one puzzled by how that second goal wasnt overturned?
She makes a play for the ball, in an offside position which forced the defender to make a clearance. Isn’t offside determined by the positioning of the attacking player when a ball is played to them... even if the ball doesn’t arrive if the defender is forced to make a play on the ball wouldn’t the offside rule then come into play?
 

Keith Putnam

Senior Member
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
May 4, 2015
2,274
4,769
323
41
Astoria
highwatermedia.com
Am I the only one puzzled by how that second goal wasnt overturned?
While it really should have been, the fact that it wasn't is consistent with what happened in the AUS v BRA match. The refs decided in that match too that the offside attacker did not "interfere" with the play because she was passively waiting to receive the ball and didn't make a play on it.

It's a bad interpretation of the letter of the rule, but at least they're sticking to it.

I'm much more annoyed by how long the review took (and how weirdly long *all* reviews are taking in the WWC). That Lloyd was technically offside was immediately apparent from a single replay, and the booth should have only taken seconds to alert the ref that she might want to check the playback and confirm the goal.
 
Last edited:

NYCFC_Dan

Senior Member
Staff member
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 17, 2014
6,588
13,133
303
29
Tampa, Florida
While it really should have been, the fact that it wasn't is consistent with what happened in the AUS v BRA match. The refs decided in that that match too that the offside attacker did not "interfere" with the play because she was passively waiting to receive the ball and didn't make a play on it.

It's a bad interpretation of the letter of the rule, but at least they're sticking to it.

I'm much more annoyed by how long the review took (and how weirdly long *all* reviews are taking in the WWC). That Lloyd was technically offside was immediately apparent from a single replay, and the booth should have only taken seconds to alert the ref that she might want to check the playback and confirm the goal.
That’s why I don’t get either. It takes way too long for a referee to decide to go to video review. They could have that discussion while walking over and begin reviewing if it’s going to have to happen every single time something is close.
As for the rule, you’re basically penalizing a defender for doing their job. In this case if the defender let the ball go it hits Lloyd and possibly goes in. Which would then be offside because she’s making a clear and obvious run for the ball.
 

Ulrich

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 5, 2015
12,846
24,717
353
While it really should have been, the fact that it wasn't is consistent with what happened in the AUS v BRA match. The refs decided in that that match too that the offside attacker did not "interfere" with the play because she was passively waiting to receive the ball and didn't make a play on it.

It's a bad interpretation of the letter of the rule, but at least they're sticking to it.

I'm much more annoyed by how long the review took (and how weirdly long *all* reviews are taking in the WWC). That Lloyd was technically offside was immediately apparent from a single replay, and the booth should have only taken seconds to alert the ref that she might want to check the playback and confirm the goal.
I’ve never liked the reinterpretation of the offside rule with a player being passive and not involved in the play. That’s total and utter BS because when a defender knows a player is behind them, even if not the recipient of the ball, it diverts their attention to a player that should not have to be worried about.

I’d really like to see them do away with it, so the team on the attack always has to be cognizant of checking back on side.
 

Christopher Jee

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 24, 2014
3,127
8,116
353
36
That’s why I don’t get either. It takes way too long for a referee to decide to go to video review. They could have that discussion while walking over and begin reviewing if it’s going to have to happen every single time something is close.
As for the rule, you’re basically penalizing a defender for doing their job. In this case if the defender let the ball go it hits Lloyd and possibly goes in. Which would then be offside because she’s making a clear and obvious run for the ball.
The one caveat to this is that the defender can choose not to go with the play and instead step up and play offside. So they have some agency. This is also similar to offside in general in the sense that you're relying on your sense of whether the attacker is onside or not in order to decide what to do. It's just that the consequences are worse if you make the wrong decision and actually play the ball because there are more ways to be punished. I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kangaroo Jack

mgarbowski

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
11,532
32,615
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
I like the aspect of the offside rule that allows players to be offside as long as they're not [paraphrased] actively involved in the play. Josef Martinez does this all the time, but he usually is way off from where the ball is played so there's no close call to be made (an exception being when he interfered with SJ negating a goal against NYCFC last year). I like how it allows a forward to push a defense relying on a high line and unnerve them.

But it seems in this WWC they're taking a very narrow understanding of "challenging for the ball" that allows the players in the offside position to run alongside the defender towards the ball and as long as the defender wins without very specific interference they call no violation. I thought the AUS-BRA instance was worse because the Matilda was running step for step with the Brazilian defender, and the only reason she wasn't in violation is the defender managed to gain a clear advantage on the ball so the offensive player didn't jump literally right with her.
 

Ulrich

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 5, 2015
12,846
24,717
353
I like the aspect of the offside rule that allows players to be offside as long as they're not [paraphrased] actively involved in the play. Josef Martinez does this all the time, but he usually is way off from where the ball is played so there's no close call to be made (an exception being when he interfered with SJ negating a goal against NYCFC last year). I like how it allows a forward to push a defense relying on a high line and unnerve them.

But it seems in this WWC they're taking a very narrow understanding of "challenging for the ball" that allows the players in the offside position to run alongside the defender towards the ball and as long as the defender wins without very specific interference they call no violation. I thought the AUS-BRA instance was worse because the Matilda was running step for step with the Brazilian defender, and the only reason she wasn't in violation is the defender managed to gain a clear advantage on the ball so the offensive player didn't jump literally right with her.
See, I hate that very example - if an offensive player is off at the far side of the field and the play is on the near side, then it shouldn’t be on the defense to remember there’s a guy off in the chance that he can hang out ahead of the play until the moment the ball finally takes the lead and he’s deemed onside and unmarked. If he never tags back at the beginning of the play, then it’s on him and he is in violation if he receives the ball.
 

mgarbowski

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
11,532
32,615
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
See, I hate that very example - if an offensive player is off at the far side of the field and the play is on the near side, then it shouldn’t be on the defense to remember there’s a guy off in the chance that he can hang out ahead of the play until the moment the ball finally takes the lead and he’s deemed onside and unmarked. If he never tags back at the beginning of the play, then it’s on him and he is in violation if he receives the ball.
It's a matter of preference. I take little pleasure in watching teams build a defense around the offside rule. I also really like the idea that players and teams are rewarded when unselfish forwards are willing to open up space by moving into positions where they literally cannot receive the ball.
 

Ulrich

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 5, 2015
12,846
24,717
353
It's a matter of preference. I take little pleasure in watching teams build a defense around the offside rule. I also really like the idea that players and teams are rewarded when unselfish forwards are willing to open up space by moving into positions where they literally cannot receive the ball.
I have no problem with any of that. My issue is that the forward who wasn’t able to receive the ball can literally ghost around behind the play, while not having to tag back, and all of a sudden be eligible because the ball carrier moved a step forward. Whereas in hockey, a player can be offside all they want, and the defense has to watch for the skate to touch back on the line, before the puck is brought in. That sort of play is what you’re referring to with razor thin adherence to the rule that can punish a defense, but at the same time doesn’t give the offense the opportunity to hack the rules in an unintended application.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgarbowski

mgarbowski

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
11,532
32,615
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
I have no problem with any of that. My issue is that the forward who wasn’t able to receive the ball can literally ghost around behind the play, while not having to tag back, and all of a sudden be eligible because the ball carrier moved a step forward. Whereas in hockey, a player can be offside all they want, and the defense has to watch for the skate to touch back on the line, before the puck is brought in. That sort of play is what you’re referring to with razor thin adherence to the rule that can punish a defense, but at the same time doesn’t give the offense the opportunity to hack the rules in an unintended application.
I don't see how that could work. I think a stricter rule, that says all offensive players must be onside when the ball is played forward, can work. It's not my preference but officials could call it and it would work.

But allowing players to be offside but then force them to tag back when the offside line is fluid -- how do you even measure that? It works in hockey because the blue lines don't move.
Player A is is 5 yards behind the last defender when the ball is played deep into the opposite corner. His teammate B who was onside runs it down with a defender at his side. Player A does not move, and now has a defender and the keeper between him and goal. He is now in an onside position. That never happens in hockey. A player cannot be offside then onside without moving. To where must Player A track back before B can do anything further? To where the last defender was when the deep corner ball was struck? Can the side official keep track of that? Can A and B keep track of that? I don't that that's even remotely possible. Or are you suggesting that Player B cannot even run down the corner ball because A was off until A tracks back? First, I'm not sure how that differs from the simpler rule I just suggested above: all players must be onside when the ball goes forward or all teammates can't touch it. Second, I again doubt that the side official can mark that spot and remember it until A gets back. I think this asks way to much of side officials. It also asks a lot of B, to notice and remember the position of both his teammate and the last defender as of 3 seconds ago. Again, it's so different in hockey because of the blue line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kangaroo Jack

Ulrich

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 5, 2015
12,846
24,717
353
I don't see how that could work. I think a stricter rule, that says all offensive players must be onside when the ball is played forward, can work. It's not my preference but officials could call it and it would work.

But allowing players to be offside but then force them to tag back when the offside line is fluid -- how do you even measure that? It works in hockey because the blue lines don't move.
Player A is is 5 yards behind the last defender when the ball is played deep into the opposite corner. His teammate B who was onside runs it down with a defender at his side. Player A does not move, and now has a defender and the keeper between him and goal. He is now in an onside position. That never happens in hockey. A player cannot be offside then onside without moving. To where must Player A track back before B can do anything further? To where the last defender was when the deep corner ball was struck? Can the side official keep track of that? Can A and B keep track of that? I don't that that's even remotely possible. Or are you suggesting that Player B cannot even run down the corner ball because A was off until A tracks back? First, I'm not sure how that differs from the simpler rule I just suggested above: all players must be onside when the ball goes forward or all teammates can't touch it. Second, I again doubt that the side official can mark that spot and remember it until A gets back. I think this asks way to much of side officials. It also asks a lot of B, to notice and remember the position of both his teammate and the last defender as of 3 seconds ago. Again, it's so different in hockey because of the blue line.
I don’t have an answer which is why passive offsides creates unnecessary problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgarbowski