Dictionary.com

U.S. soccer has been plagued by the offside rule. Get its meaning

The U.S. soccer team brought the victory drama against Algeria with a nail-biting late goal by instant-superstar Landon Donovan. What made the World Cup match even more epic was the intense hardship the U.S. has suffered from referees and the interpretation of Law 11 of the official soccer Rules of the Game: the offside rule.

So far, referees have disqualified a goal that would have allowed the U.S. to win a match, as well another goal in the game against Algeria. In both cases, calls involving offsides were the reason. There’s no replay in soccer, but both penalties have drawn outcries from fans who say that in hindsight, the rulings were ambiguous (to say the least.)

What is offsides? Basically a player can’t just hang out by the opposing team’s goal and wait for the ball to appear, then overpower the goalie. Three factors define the offside position:

  1. A player is in front of the ball.
  2. A player is closer to the opponent’s goal than his or her own.
  3. Less  than two opposing players are between the player and the opposing goal.

Here’s the part that causes problems. Offside position is fine until it turns into an offside offence, which happens when a player’s position (in offsides) affects gameplay. If for example a player kicks the ball to a player in offside position, then and only then can the situation become an offside offence. How do referees define when an offside position becomes an offside offense? Well, now isn’t that a good question.

Players can purposefully create an offside situation to sabotage a potential goal, among other messy tactics. The bottom line: the ball moves so fast that referees make calls that often make players, and fans, quite emotional.

The word offside  is simply an abbreviation of the notion of a player being “off his side” of the field. Throughout the history of the game, authorities have made the rule more or less strict, sometimes allowing players to be stationed near the goals for “kick-throughs” that took advantage of a goalie left alone.

Now, do you think that FIFA (Federation of International Football Associations), the world soccer authority, should allow instant replays? Add your thoughts in a comment, and expect some strong opinions.

Chicken Pox Vaccine Okay for Children With Kidney Disease.

Ascribe Higher Education News Service December 17, 2002 Byline: Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions BALTIMORE, Dec. 17 (AScribe Newswire) — Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center report that two doses of the varicella vaccine for chicken pox given one to two months apart can be safe and effective in children with chronic kidney disease.

The findings, reported in the January issue of Pediatric Nephrology, are critical for chronic kidney disease patients, particularly children who will eventually undergo a kidney transplant. After transplantation, immunosuppressive medications put these children at high risk for severe chicken pox complications, including pneumonia, brain inflammation, and death. web site chicken pox vaccine

“We recommend pediatric nephrologists include chicken pox vaccination as an important component of pre-end-stage renal disease and end-stage renal disease care,” said the study’s lead author, Susan L. Furth, M.D, Ph.D., a pediatric nephrologist at the Children’s Center.

Varicella vaccine contains small doses of weakened strains of the chicken pox virus that activate immune system “memory” and mount a protective response to subsequent exposures. site chicken pox vaccine

In healthy children under 12 years of age, vaccination in a single dose is recommended, while two doses are recommended for adolescents. Without vaccination, infections in children whose immune systems have been weakened by a genetic disorder, disease, or medical treatment can cause serious complications.

In a multi-center, prospective, three-year clinical trial, Hopkins researchers, with the cooperation of the Southwest Pediatric Nephrology Study Group, identified 96 children with chronic kidney disease with no history of chicken pox. About half of these patients did not have detectable varicella antibodies. Each child received two injections of varicella vaccine, rather than the one dose typically given to healthy children. The doses were administered four to eight weeks apart.

One child developed chicken pox following a known exposure. There were no reported serious side effects following vaccination. Eleven patients developed a rash associated with the vaccine, and seven patients reported mild to moderate redness or soreness at the site of injection.

Over three years of follow-up, researchers report each child – including 16 children who received kidney transplants following vaccination – maintained the varicella antibody, and 87 percent retained antibody levels for more than three years. Although kidney transplant recipients tended to have lower varicella antibody levels during the first two years of follow-up, researchers report that antibody levels increased over time.

Children’s Center pediatric nephrologist Barbara A. Fivush, M.D., and researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Columbia Hospital at Medical City, and Merck & Co. contributed to the report. The study was funded by a grant from Merck & Co.

51 Comments

  1. Terry -  May 2, 2011 - 9:52 am

    “Less than two opposing players are between the player and the opposing goal”

    Oh come on, ‘fewer than’…. surely!

    Reply
  2. Tammy D -  January 1, 2011 - 8:32 am

    @Hoichi on June 24, 2010 at 7:00 am
    On a dictionary website, surely you should recognize the difference between “effect” and “affect” as in “when a player’s position (in offsides) effects gameplay.”

    Hoichi is wrong. See the definitions of affect and effect on Dictionary.com.

    af·fect    /v. əˈfɛkt; n. ˈæfɛkt/ Show Spelled
    [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt]
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.

    effect
    ef·fect   /ɪˈfɛkt/ Show Spelled
    [ih-fekt]
    –noun
    1. something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.

    Reply
  3. GET IT | BLOGCHI@mayopia.com -  August 16, 2010 - 10:02 am

    [...] SOCCER is a game we played for Saint Patrick’s in the 1950s — We never wore our glasses — we were somewhat poor which gave PEACHES and HOSS a case of the thrifties. — In other words we didn’t have a back up pair and our vanity prevailed — though we couldn’t see the ball that well — very often past us the soccer ball sailed. — It wasn’t quite as frantic as soccer is today — but the one rule we remember is off sides was still that way. — We weren’t very good but still they let us play — and no one ever suggested that wearing the glasses would make a difference — B’More’s 10-12 Catholic soccer league worked on participation and otherwise “INDIFFERENCE”. — Since no matter if we won or lost we still were going to heaven — and all non Catholics were going to HELL after the age of SEVEN. –>>Rupert L.T.Rhyme [...]

    Reply
  4. Soccer Offside Rule News | Broadcasting News -  July 23, 2010 - 8:16 am

    [...] U.S. soccer has been plagued by the offside rule. Get its meaning …The basic flaw in the soccer offside rule is that the offside line keeps shifting with the movements of the defensive players. In other words, the defense gets to determine where the floating offside line is. Even soccer aficiandos … Read more [...]

    Reply
  5. Courtenay -  July 6, 2010 - 4:54 am

    Well, after reading this article, I STILL don’t understand the offside rule… I think I’ll stick to Aussie Rules football.

    Reply
  6. hangonimcomin -  July 6, 2010 - 1:28 am

    well mr tim charhill – you achully spell the guy’s name ‘cahill’

    Reply
  7. Tim Charhill -  June 27, 2010 - 3:59 am

    JUST TO GET BACK TO YOU GUYS!!!! HOW IS IT!!! sorry were out… VERY VERY SORRY… SOrry bout my red card and all that. very sorry. feel i have the whole of Australia down!!!! please accept my appologies!

    anyhow…

    I find this statement pejorative: football is eveyone’s game. I am American, my son is American and my friends are American and we have not played or watched more any other sport in our lives than Association Football (soccer), so what is your next remark? That we are not Americans?

    Association Football is everyone’s game. And I go deeper: where did you learn that we Americans have the exclusive right to replays?

    The if you are trying to say that Europeans are the legitimate owners of soccer because it was organized professionally there for the first time over a century ago (although the Chinese played it almost a millennium ago) it is precisely in Europe where the idea of instant replay is growing roots these days, the debate dominates the news every day.

    For those who oppose LIMITED INSTANT REPLAY because it affects the flow of the game I find amusing the fact that FIFA recently tried other things that are more detrimental, disruptive and absurd that a couple of video replays to correct wrong refereeing. Do you remember that stupidity called “Golden Goal” that was implemented and abandoned as soon as it proved to be an aberration?

    ere needs to be a rule like in cricket so that each team has 2 or 3 appeals. So when something like this happens a team can go to a third umpire who checks a replay and decides outcome. It won’t significantly affect the the game as there are limited appeals yet unless the ref is really bad it will stop crap calls like America and Australia had against them.

    I’ve always understood that the ref is an integral part of the game of football. Don’t the rules pretty much qualify the rules of the game by stating that all rules are subject to the “decision of the ref?” I thought the ref had the power to overrule–for example, to give a red card for things that involve repeated warnings, like disrespect or sly off-ball fouls (or repeated diving).

    You know, there are lots of situations in US-based games where calls are questionable. It’s all part of sport. In a perfect world, the questionable calls are even enough that it doesn’t matter.

    As for instant replay,football is not “our game.” We have no right to demand that the American way of seeing things now be adopted by the world just because we finally sat up and started appreciating the beautiful game.

    THANKS GUYS!!!!!

    TIM CHARHILL!!!!!!!! GO SOCCEROOS & the whole game of… (wait) SOCCER….. SOCCER… SOCCER… and again S O C C E R!!!!

    Reply
  8. soetens -  June 26, 2010 - 2:09 am

    the offside rule is an unfair rule:
    has an impossible mission (assistant doesn´t have free movement)
    is against the spirit of the game
    is an infraction of the law (fraude)
    see problem and solution http://www.offsidesystem.com

    Reply
  9. tonichi -  June 25, 2010 - 6:27 am

    PART OF WINING OVER 13 PERSONS ON THE FIELD — MAKES WINNING EVEN BETTER — THAT’S LIFE BEING REPLICATED IN EACH GAME — LIFE DOES NOT GIVE YOU AND EQUAL CHANCE TO WIN — LIFE GIVES YOU MORE (13 NOT 11 PERSONS VS YOUR 11 PLAYERS)HURDLES TO OVERCOME AND WINNING ALL THE MORE IS SWEET.

    Reply
  10. tonichi -  June 25, 2010 - 6:23 am

    Leave the game as IT IS, just punish the inefficient referees (Let him know that there is a performance review and performance rating). Leaving the games AS IT IS means leaving the game with its imperfection IT IS PART OF THE GAME — PART OF THE FRUSTRATIONS OF LIFE, PART OF THE AGONY OF DEFEAT, PART OF THE GLORY OF A GOAL, PART OF THE SWEETNESS OF THE WIN, ETC, ETC,

    Reply
  11. Tim Charhill -  June 25, 2010 - 4:57 am

    ..please let me explain it to you later sometime. i dont have time right now. got it all a bit wrong! sorry bout that folks, try catcha up.. bit busy. anyway have fun playing soccer. GREAT GAME isn’t it. that Y i play.
    im doing this off my Iphone in South Africa @ the mo.. so betta go!!!

    cheers!!!!many thanks 4 aussies continuous support of socceroos!!!

    Tim C

    Reply
  12. Coco -  June 24, 2010 - 9:37 pm

    Well, I truly think offside is a moronic rule that unnecessarily obstructs the dynamic of the game (one that is already very tedious and monotonous at times). Just like in basketball, it should be the responsibility of the defense to see who is where and simply have a time limit for the offense to be in a particular area without having possession. Having referees cancel passes all because the offense was two feet in front of the defense is utter stupidity. Yet, equal stupidity is for FIFA to still be allowing referees to call any play without checking instant replays and thus foment an unnecessary culture of deceit.

    Reply
  13. coolio -  June 24, 2010 - 3:50 pm

    let there be replays FIFA

    Reply
  14. Jorge -  June 24, 2010 - 10:43 am

    (…) As for instant replay, football is not “our game.”(…)

    I find this statement pejorative: football is eveyone’s game. I am American, my son is American and my friends are American and we have not played or watched more any other sport in our lives than Association Football (soccer), so what is your next remark? That we are not Americans?

    Association Football is everyone’s game. And I go deeper: where did you learn that we Americans have the exclusive right to replays?

    The if you are trying to say that Europeans are the legitimate owners of soccer because it was organized professionally there for the first time over a century ago (although the Chinese played it almost a millennium ago) it is precisely in Europe where the idea of instant replay is growing roots these days, the debate dominates the news every day.

    For those who oppose LIMITED INSTANT REPLAY because it affects the flow of the game I find amusing the fact that FIFA recently tried other things that are more detrimental, disruptive and absurd that a couple of video replays to correct wrong refereeing. Do you remember that stupidity called “Golden Goal” that was implemented and abandoned as soon as it proved to be an aberration?

    Reply
  15. Silvia -  June 24, 2010 - 10:09 am

    Yes, FIFA should allow replay. A hard fought game deserves a fair decision. In such fast plays the human eye can make mistakes. Replays will avoid what happend with the US team to happen again in the future.

    Reply
  16. Ron -  June 24, 2010 - 9:51 am

    “the rulings were ambiguous (to say the least.)”

    The rulings were not ambiguous. Rulings are definitive, regardless of their accuracy. The player is ruled to be onside or offside, there is no room for ambiguity.

    Reply
  17. MANOJ BHATIA -  June 24, 2010 - 8:40 am

    All things apart an offside is a part of the game so no matter how boring it is we have to bear it so stop commenting on that and enjoy the game

    Reply
  18. dave -  June 24, 2010 - 8:00 am

    There needs to be a rule like in cricket so that each team has 2 or 3 appeals. So when something like this happens a team can go to a third umpire who checks a replay and decides outcome. It won’t significantly affect the the game as there are limited appeals yet unless the ref is really bad it will stop crap calls like America and Australia had against them.

    Reply
  19. Neil the freelance copywriter -  June 24, 2010 - 7:46 am

    Very poor article. I can’t understand why this has been linked from the front page of Dictionary.com.

    Reply
  20. Dash -  June 24, 2010 - 7:24 am

    I think each team should have a limited number of challenges, say two, kind of like American Futbol. During the challenges,they should then use replay to see if the play was correct.

    Reply
  21. Cindi -  June 24, 2010 - 7:13 am

    I’ve always understood that the ref is an integral part of the game of football. Don’t the rules pretty much qualify the rules of the game by stating that all rules are subject to the “decision of the ref?” I thought the ref had the power to overrule–for example, to give a red card for things that involve repeated warnings, like disrespect or sly off-ball fouls (or repeated diving).

    You know, there are lots of situations in US-based games where calls are questionable. It’s all part of sport. In a perfect world, the questionable calls are even enough that it doesn’t matter.

    As for instant replay,football is not “our game.” We have no right to demand that the American way of seeing things now be adopted by the world just because we finally sat up and started appreciating the beautiful game.

    BTW, go USA!

    Reply
  22. Chintan -  June 24, 2010 - 7:05 am

    Thanks a lot for this article. I’m in India and more of a cricket fan than football fan, but started loving this game June 11 onwards. I was wondering what off-side actually meant, now I’m clear. BTW, I luv USA’s team too ;)

    Reply
  23. Hoichi -  June 24, 2010 - 7:00 am

    On a dictionary website, surely you should recognize the difference between “effect” and “affect” as in “when a player’s position (in offsides) effects gameplay.”

    Reply
  24. SheilaC -  June 24, 2010 - 6:59 am

    Good call Blue Sun, on all counts.

    I am completely against replays during the game. They would completely ruin the spirit of play and turn football matches into a 4-hour ordeal that no one wants to watch.

    However, I do think FIFA could sanction players after the fact for the most offensive cases; for example, in blatant cases of simulation that result in ejection, i.e. Keita’s shameful display that got Kaká sent off. The US-Slovenia match and some other questionable calls this year are just that–questionable–but not completely clear while on the field. Kaká’s second yellow, on the other hand, could not possibly be argued as just. It was simply a case of simulation and the referee missing the event and then, for whatever reason, believing the “injured” player.

    In cases like this, a FIFA post-match review followed by suspension of the offending player could help cut down on future cases of certain players’ temptations to simulate (yes Cristiano Ronaldo, I’m talking about you). In any case, I don’t think reviews should ever change a game result, but instead allow for issuing or removing penalties (where individual players are concerned, like Keita & Kaká).

    Also–good lord, who wrote this explanation?–FIFA is not the “Federation of International Football Associations”. Fédération Internationale de Football Association translates to: International Federation of Association Football. HUGE difference. Hot Word, you should correct this!

    Reply
  25. yomama -  June 24, 2010 - 6:15 am

    Instant replays. ALL sports. Period. No human is God. Athletes work too hard to fall victim to the selfish whims of ANY entity who believes that this may not be true.

    Reply
  26. Jorge -  June 24, 2010 - 6:01 am

    Well said Steve S, these days we are dealing with a lot of fans (this is good for US Soccer)that are not really familiar with soccer and the emotions are running high.

    I believe Instant Replay should be implemented gradually in soccer, at the beginning ONLY for extreme case situations protested by a team with a limit of one per half and if the claim is legitimate it should not count against the team. FIFA claims that will have a detrimental effect in the flow of the game, but some injuries (some fake) stop the game for over a minute all the time, substitutions stop the game and so on, what’s the deal with a couple of minutes (potentially) per team per game?

    The offside can be solved with technology the same goes for the ball crossing the goal line of not. A Swedish company successfully tested a system a few years ago with microchips inside the ball as well as players shoes with an accuracy rate close to 90%, if improved it can get close to 100%. Then all you need is an audiovisual signal behind each goal to instantly rule the goal out.

    So far as long as Sepp Blatters is president of FIFA (and in next year’s election he will get re-elected for four more years) FIFA business will be as usual.

    Reply
  27. Football Frankie -  June 24, 2010 - 5:58 am

    Is everyone in the US a bunch of cry-babies? When you participate in a sporting event you must always play well enough to beat the other team, overcome your own shortfalls and those of the refs. The US should have won that match by 5 goals and all any US cry-baby can talk about is an offside call. Give America back to the Indians, move back to England, and assume your role as the premier wankers of the world.

    Reply
  28. Jamie Sidhu -  June 24, 2010 - 5:24 am

    I think FIFA should keep pace with the latest developments in sports and should allow Video Refferels just like Cricket and Hockey.

    Reply
  29. Meinl -  June 24, 2010 - 5:15 am

    Maybe eliminating or modifying the rule toward simplicity for refs and fans would result in more scoring . . . and more interest.

    Reply
  30. darell -  June 24, 2010 - 3:50 am

    this is a not a great explanation of the offside rule, not exactly how it works, look at Blue Sun’s comment for a better explnation.

    the offside rule plays an important part in football. if we didnt have this rule we would just have a bunch of goal hangers lobbing the ball to each other from the other side of the pitch; there would be little mid-pitch play or tactical passing. this would make the game very boring to watch and we wouldn’t be able to see the players’ individual skills.

    if you dont like the offside rule and the absense of instant replays then DONT WATCH FOOTBALL. easy. go watch basketball or something.

    Reply
  31. Mike -  June 24, 2010 - 3:32 am

    Instant replays would make football boring if you ask me; referees making mistakes is part of football now. If they didn’t we would have nobody to blame when our team loses.

    Reply
  32. David -  June 24, 2010 - 3:27 am

    FIFA are ignoring the fact that soccer has had to move with the times and is not a sport for a few chaps to spend an hour having recreational fun with a ball. They need to get their heads round the fact that football is a multi billion dollar industry and one or too bad decisions at a high level can have huge financial implications. Most other sports, including the very conservative tennis & cricket, has allowed computer decision making to be a vital part of the game.
    Footballing authorities have no defenceable argument to deny replay. There is too much at stake now to resist any longer!

    Reply
  33. St James -  June 24, 2010 - 1:58 am

    Anthony must I fear be an American to equate FOOTBALL( not soccer) to War my oh my all the gear and absolutely no idea

    Reply
  34. Robert -  June 24, 2010 - 1:47 am

    Dear Anthony – What are you ON man?!?!?!? Seems to me the police ought to be visiting your home right now with a warrant to confiscate your probable arsenal of illegal weapons. And, Mr. Ali Altamimi, the US doesn’t expect special treatment. Most Americans would no doubt be blasting the officials if the Algerians had got a goal taken away on a bad call. OK, maybe not during THAT particular game, but in general. As for the offsides thing, it’s the new rule that’s the problem. It allows a player to maybe-maybe not be offsides, depending on whether the referee thinks his offsides position gave the attacking team an unfair advantage. He DOES NOT have to be the recipient of a pass for this to be the case.

    Reply
  35. PhilJ -  June 24, 2010 - 1:41 am

    The basic flaw in the soccer offside rule is that the offside line keeps shifting with the movements of the defensive players. In other words, the defense gets to determine where the floating offside line is. Even soccer aficiandos aren’t sure where the offside line is at any given moment.

    Soccer needs to change the offside rule so that there is a fixed line on the field over which the ball must precede each attacking player, allowing for an attacking player to be straddling the line when the ball crosses it and still be onside. The obvious line to use is the outside line of the penalty area, extended to the sidelines. This would be, in effect, the same offside rule as used in ice hockey, the penalty box offside line in soccer being analogous to the forward blue line in ice hockey for the purpose of determining whether attacking players are onside or offside.

    Reply
  36. alan -  June 24, 2010 - 12:53 am

    You Yanks! Welcome to the world of football (that’s soccer to you). Wasn’t it your own captain that said you should get on with it and stop moaning? Referees sometimes get it wrong and everyone has felt hard done by at some time or another – get over it. What you guys want is to ‘Americanise’ everything by bringing in technology, breaking the game every few minutes to scutinise replays. Why not go the whole hog and bring in the health & safety people and have the players all dressed up in armour? Then the game will get as boring and predictable as American Football. Yes folks — and now a word from our sponsors ‘Crap Food Corporation’…..oops I’m losing it now.

    Reply
  37. steveskangaroo -  June 24, 2010 - 12:37 am

    In my country, Australia, soccer is the fifth most popular spectator sport behind cricket, Australian Rules Football, rugby league and rugby union – all of which use video replays (successfully). Soccer is the worlds simplest sport to play physically and technically – except for that offside rule. Let’s start using the video ref at club level and then for internationals so it can be used in the next soccer World Cup. P.S. Now that Australia is out of the WC. Go USA!!!

    Reply
  38. Michelle -  June 23, 2010 - 11:26 pm

    yes, FIFA should definitely allow instant replays!

    Reply
  39. Steve S -  June 23, 2010 - 10:19 pm

    In the Slovenia game, the Malian ref called a foul, not an offside, when he disallowed the goal. The assistant ref did not raise his flag because, as stated, no offside is visible. Also, the Malian ref started play with a direct free kick appropriate after a called foul, not an indirect free kick which would be the case if he had called offside. It is speculated that he saw a U.S. player holding a Slovenian player when the free kick was taken (that was in fact visible in photos, in addition to three Slovenian players giving bear hugs to three U.S. players). Whatever he saw, this was an incompetent, harsh foul to call when the U.S. scored a goal. You can’t call a foul on one team when the other team is doing the same thing or worse. The U.S. player who scored the disallowed goal committed no foul.

    In the Algerian game, the U.S. player was not offside because he was even with the second-last defender at the moment the ball was kicked to him. In this case, the assistant ref raised his flag and the ref took his word. Unfortunately, the assistant ref was out of position and from his angle it looked like the U.S. player was in front of the second-last defender so he called offside. Two different camera replay views showed he was clearly even. In this case the assistant ref was incompetent since he was out of position and his incorrect offside call caused a perfectly good goal to be disallowed.

    World Cup games in the preliminary rounds often have poor refereeing since FIFA feels obliged to use refs and assistant refs from countries that don’t have the high level of competition that refs need to improve their skills sufficiently to ref at World Cup level. In one World Cup Italy lost to Spain when it had two perfectly good goals disallowed due to an incompetent ref and assistant refs. These incompetent refs are sent home after the preliminary rounds and don’t ref the playoff rounds (group of 16, quarter-finals, semi-finals, and final), so you should see the best refs in the playoff games.

    Reply
  40. Nisha -  June 23, 2010 - 9:58 pm

    There were over-punitive referees also seen who were handing out
    yellow and direct red cards in very minor pushing around between
    players.

    This is high speed, high energy game where various players are
    rushing to same spot in split second. You want game where no other
    player should even go near another, watch golf, chess. Or play
    solitaire.

    Hitting with an intention to cause injury is only situation allowed
    for direct red card. Referees were seen handing out red card just
    for pushing around during struggle for a ball. FIFA admin zombies
    do not do anything even after strong criticism.

    It is not that player only is sent out of field. Most of the time
    it is entire nation is pushed out of the tournament by such stupid
    decisions.

    Shame on FIFA managers.

    Reply
  41. cheqnavarro -  June 23, 2010 - 9:53 pm

    Bluesun I perfectly agree with you regarding your offside explanation. I am an England fan but I commiserate with the US for being robbed of two legitimate goals from 2 different matches. It’s a good thing you still made it to the top of your draw, you deserve it! Go England!!!

    Reply
  42. Djinn -  June 23, 2010 - 9:39 pm

    Kamon Coulibaly, the most hated referee in the United States, did not whistle an offside but a holding against Edu before he could kick the ball into the back of the net, but after Landon Donavan had hit his free kick to him. As “Blue Sun” accurately writes it, there were more Slovenians fouls than Americans ones at this time in the penalty area.
    Unfortunately Mr Coulibaly was able to see Edu’s infraction only.

    Reply
  43. Steve -  June 23, 2010 - 8:57 pm

    If FIFA changes the decision of the referee on the pitch, it creates a vacoom for bribery and curruption.They let referees decision stand to eliminate this, and punish him if they found his decision wrong.

    Reply
  44. Tiwi BK -  June 23, 2010 - 8:26 pm

    Theres no way replay will ever be introduced to into futbol anywhere. Offsides is like the strike zone, it should be OBJECTIVE but the game is so fast it is often SUBJECTIVE. Additionally, think how long the game would the be if we had replays for every close offsides call. Leaving it up to a replay ref in a booth would also largely relegate the touch line referees.

    A goal line camera like in hockey might be simple and useful however.

    !!!!!!!Go USA!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  45. jesus -  June 23, 2010 - 7:47 pm

    no one expects US to go this far, and they have fought on and perseverance drove them here so booya refs!

    Reply
  46. jesus -  June 23, 2010 - 7:44 pm

    Don’t ever allow replay replay replay replay…. see, it takes away from the emotions and agony that come with the game. Let them play!!!

    Reply
  47. ANTHONY -  June 23, 2010 - 7:11 pm

    OFFSIDE I CRAP, IF YOU CAN GET TEN PLAYERS TO YOUR OPPENENTS GOAL FASTER THAN THEY CAN GET THEIR DEFENSES YOU SHOULD WIN. IF I SEND AN ARMY TO IRAQ AND BOMB THEM ALL BEFORE THEY CAN STOP ME , I WIN! ISNT THAT THE WAY IT WORKS IN WAR? HISTORY SHOWS US THIS, IN EVERY SPORT ITS ABOUT BEATING YOUR OPPONENTS, YET IN SOCCER THERE IS A GREY AREA LEFT OPEN TO MISUNDERSTANDING, OH SORRY, YOUR TEAM WAS TOO GOOD , OFFSIDE! LOL, WHAT A JOKE!

    Reply
  48. David -  June 23, 2010 - 6:43 pm

    “Players can purposefully create an offside situation to sabotage a potential goal, among other messy tactics.” This is not a messy tactic it is often the hallmark of an excellent defence and is integral. Also, linesmen make offside calls not referees. Having said that, you guys were robbed of two perfectly good goals, but well done for finishing top you deserve it unlike us (England)

    Reply
  49. Blue Sun -  June 23, 2010 - 6:00 pm

    Poor explanation.

    The offside rule requires that the player be offside (beyond the next to last player) WHEN THE BALL IS FIRST PLAYED TO HIM – not when he receives it. As long as he is onside when another player kicks the ball to him, he can run beyond the opposing player to receive it. Breakaways are created by the passer and receiver coordinating so that the receiver starts running in an onside position and the passer kicks the ball over their heads just before or as the player passes the opponent.

    Technically, under modern interpretation, a player is only offside if he is BEYOND the second to last player. If he is even with him, he is not offside. Also, the rule specifies that if there is any doubt or ambiguity in the mind of the official, the benefit is given to the attacking player.

    The offside against America in the US vs Slovenia game that took away a last-minute victory has been reviewed and reviewed in slo-mo videotape throughout the world, and, to my knowledge, the only person in the world who believes it was an offside (or possibly a foul, the ref refuses to explain to anybody about what he was calling or why he made the call) is the referee (who has since been suspended by FIFA for at least a week).

    I carefully examined my digital recording at 15-to-1 and 60-to-one slo-mo as well as singlestepping through the frames, and there was NO US player who was even remotely offside. In addition, the only foul I saw was a Slovenian player with his back to the net wrapping both arms around a US player and giving him a bear hug in the penalty area. So the only visible foul was a Slovenian one and not only should that goal have counted, but if the ball hadn’t gone in, there should have been a US penalty kick. In playing and watching soccer for over 50 years, that is the single most inexplicable and outrageous call I’ve ever seen – since the ref was right in the middle of the action and should have had a full view.

    The offside call in the Algeria game was also wrong – the US player was dead even with the last defender when the ball was played to him. But, that at least is the kind of call that sideline officials make mistakes on routinely, so it was just a bad call – part of the game.

    Interestingly, in Mexico’s first goal against France, the tape shows that Hernandez was clearly offside by a stride when the ball was played to him, but the sideline official missed that call in the other direction.

    On the whole, I think the refereeing in this World Cup has been very up and down, and not of the quality one would expect from the world’s top refs in the most important sporting event on the planet.

    Yet, that said, the call against the US in the Slovenia match was so blatantly wrong, and the ref’s refusal to explain why he blew the whistle is unprecedented. While I don’t think the entire football world is prejudiced against the US (indeed, I heard support for the goal from every journalist, coach, and player I saw interviewed), it certainly is open to speculation that this one person was acting out of some personal or political antipathy to the US.

    Reply
  50. SS -  June 23, 2010 - 5:42 pm

    Actually…they do care. There are bets circulating round and round. If it’s in their power and the referee’s to tilt the game in order to win money for themselves, then why not?

    Reply
  51. ali altamimi -  June 23, 2010 - 5:09 pm

    you know this unfairness in soccer happens to everyone in every team and in every game. The fifa association doesnt seem to care very much on who wins and who loses and how they win or lose as long as they get their fat cheques at the end of the month. The U.s. isn’t anymore special there for it doesn’t diserve any special treatment.

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required):

Related articles

Back to Top