Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Euro 2012 - Day 11

Spain 1 Croatia 0

It's a case of close but no Švargl for the Croats, who might have dominated in Group A and had their ambitions extinguished by a clearly offside Navas goal two minutes from time.

NSC Man of the Match: Luka Modrić (Croatia)


Croatia v Spain

Po | Myspace Video





Italy 2 Ireland 0

The Irish put up a (largely) fair fight, but Italy eventually eased their way to a second straight Euro-knockout phase for the first time in their history.

NSC Man of the Match: Andrea Pirlo (Italy)


szólj hozzá: ItIr20Hi





- Greg Seltzer

43 comments:

brian said...

i thought he was onsides...

Greg Seltzer said...

Navas was clearly offside when the original pass goes to the set-up man. Not even close. The linesman completely blew that call.

brian said...

but he was onsides when the pass was played to him? thats what i was looking at. haven't read too much anywhere saying it was a blown call.

dikranovich said...

spain deserved the win. croatia had a couple point blank shots and could not convert. when you play this style against spain, the team has to take advantage of its chances.

brian said...

here is a good GIF of this play (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1192245/offsides.gif). i still think he's good. Navas was offsides when the ball was played to iniesta. Navas then got himself back onsides to receive the pass from iniesta. If you were the ref, when do you blow the whistle? when iniesta receives the pass, when navas 1st touches it? what if inesta were to finish that and not pass to navas? i consider this 2 separate plays

brian said...

According to Rule 11, two conditions have to be met before an offside violation occurs: a player has to be in an offside position AND has to be determined to be in "active involvement" in the play. "Active involvement" means the player has to be in a position to play or touch the ball. When Fabregas passed the ball, Navas was in an offside position, but there was no violation, because the ball was passed to Iniesta. Moving forward, by the time Iniesta played the ball to Navas, Navas was slightly behind the ball, in an onside position. If Fabregas had played the ball down the middle between Iniesta and Navas, and Navas had made an attempt to play the ball, it would have been an offside offence, but that was not the case here.
Source(s):
http://www.fifa.com/lotg/football/en/flash/start.html

Greg Seltzer said...

I am going to tell you right now that I do not give a flying frack how the rule is now worded. They have re-explained that thing so many times, they've botched it to pieces now.

Navas is clearly offside when the initial pass comes in, and he IS in the play because the defenders must account for him, as proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the fact that he eventually scored the goal.

That goal was quite obviously offside, and no garbage re-wording of the rule can change that. It was a complete hash of a non-call, and if I was UEFA I would be supremely mortified by it - which, of course, means they will pretend it doesn't exist.

Jacob Klinger said...

Besides, by that "wording" you could just have someone hang around the opponents 18, waiting for a winger to be played through, and then have him get back "onside" to play the ball. Impractical, but for the soccer lawyers out there, correct me if I'm wrong.

Greg Seltzer said...

Hey Brian, I watched the link you sent. At no time and in no place does it describe "active involvement in play" as you did. Active involvement is NOT solely making like you will touch the ball. Navas is wildly involved in that play and right in the geographic middle of it.

If he was not making himself involved in the play, he would have turned around to walk back onside with his hand up, not paying any mind to the play.

Hreidarrson said...

He is not offsides. You are the only person who thinks that. Uefa wont look into because there is nothing to look at. This has happened quite a bit in football and I am actually very surprised with how passionate you are about this call. The pass was by no means to him so no way he was offsides. Happens the most on free kicks put in around the box with some guys on and some off.

Greg Seltzer said...

I am absolutely, positively not the only one who thinks that (not that I would care much if I was).

Grant Wahl said the same thing, it was clearly offside beyond any possible lawyering. Navas is geographically in the middle of the play the whole time, taking part as an attacker, with defenders needing to account for him. Of course, they did not do that successfully, probably in some regard because they knew he was wildly offside and were expecting a call - and then he scored the goal.

I would love to have anyone explain to me the parts of the play he was not involved in.

brian said...

so then when do you blow the whistle as a ref? as soon as iniesta touches the ball, since according to you, navas was in the middle of that play. no way! good non call

Greg Seltzer said...

No, as soon as the pass goes to Navas.

I'll ask again: at what point in the play exactly do you claim he was not involved? Name it.

brian said...

the original pass from cesc to iniesta, he was not involved in that play. if he was the play should have been blown dead. the ball was clearly intended for iniesta. Iniesta then recieved the ball, and passed to an onside navas.

Greg Seltzer said...

Amid defenders in the middle lane of the area, Navas was not involved in the play he finished!

I've heard everything now. :)

brian said...

why do you blow it when navas first touches it? he was onside when the ball was played to him.. makes no sense.

brian said...

so if ineasta would have finished it off himself, navas wouldnt be part of the (buildup) play? obviously i am correct, the refs and uefa agree with me :)…time to watch the games.

Greg Seltzer said...

I did not say when Navas touches it. I said when the tic-tac-toe play goes from tac to toe with Iniesta's pass to him. This is the original and proper intent of the rule, which has been continually re-"clarified" to death over the last 10 years.

brian said...

you are just seeing this through your rose colored glasses… nothing new. there was TWO plays in the build up. 1. cesc pass to iniesta. 2. inesta pass to navas

Greg Seltzer said...

Rose-colored glasses? That doesn't make sense. And I am not arguing about the current wording; I am arguing that the current wording is faulty and that the old wording was correct.

But apparently, Navas magically disappeared from the play while the defenders had to account for him rushing up the middle, where he could receive a pass to score. :)

brian said...

But apparently, Navas magically disappeared from the play while the defenders had to account for him rushing up the middle, where he could receive a pass to score. :)

COULD being the key word. if he received that pass, then yes offside, he didnt receive it. play goes on. i win

Greg Seltzer said...

The mere FACT that he could have received a pass there proves that the defenders had to account for him, making him squarely a part of the play from start to finish. They failed to keep up with him, quite possibly because they hesitated knowing he was clearly offside.

But that's not even what I meant. I meant he eventually received the second pass of the tic-tac-toe play to score.

brian said...

alright… whatever makes you sleep better tonight.

BTM said...

And I am not arguing about the current wording; I am arguing that the current wording is faulty and that the old wording was correct.

That's completely fair and your prerogative.

It's not fair to blame the linesman and say he blew the call and made a hash of it, though. He has to deal with the law as it's currently written. The referee's guidelines make it absolutely clear that it wasn't an offside offense.

I'm not sure what the linesman or UEFA could do, other than lobby FIFA to change the law.

dikranovich said...

this is a good debate and id like to give some further opinion to this debate. rule 11 is the offside rule and three things are involved in active play, 1. interfering with the play, 2. interfering with an opponent, 3. gaining advantage from being in the position. these three requirements are with regard to the moment the pass is being made and at the moment which it leaves the passers foot.

greg can try and make a point that by running in an offside position, he is thus interfering with the opponent, but really, the interpretation of the rule is with regards to actually blocking physically.

this harkens back to the 06 world cup when dmb scored a goal against italy which was dissallowed because, i think it was mcbride, but he was in an offside position and though he did not touch the ball, he did interfere with the play and that was called offsides, rightfully, but unfortunately .

now number three in active play refers to gaining advantage by being in an offside position. this one is tricky, because it maybe could be interpreted a couple of different ways. i think ultimately, if navas was onside when the ball was passed from iniesta, then it has to be a good goal

this debate is still a little inconclusive, but i think it is leaning a little more towards it being a good goal, only if navas is onside when the ball is passed from iniesta

BTM said...

The "gaining an advantage" bit is defined in the guidelines as being in a position to play a rebound off the goalpost or an opponent.

It (like the other two you mentioned) does not apply to Navas in this situation.

Greg Seltzer said...

I think you fellas need to scroll back up and read Jacob's comment. This "being in an offside position doesn't necessarily make you offside" passage refers to the guy who holds his hand up and walks back to an onside position, clearly not making any effort to take part in the play. Navas was not being that guy.

These linesmen know this. They have no excuse whatsoever.

Greg Seltzer said...

And FIFA rule 11 does NOT only say the player has to touch the ball or physically interfere.

"Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent."

Such as, say, running right down the middle of the area toward goal through a pack of defenders who must account for that player - especially when that guy scores a second later.

And until anyone describes a portion of that play Navas was not involved in, I will continue to insist that the linesman and ref blew it bigtime.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/5.%20law%2011_554.pdf

BTM said...

"Active involvement" has to fall under one of the three criteria that dikranovich mentioned. Here are their full definitions taken directly from the Laws of the Game:

• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate

• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent

• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position


Obviously Navas was good under the first and third. The second would require that his distracting movement prevented an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. Nobody is prevented from making a play on the ball by Navas's run. Nobody runs with Navas, and not even the guy closest to Iniesta had a chance in hell to make on play on the ball.

Plays like this come up all the time where a guy who's an option on the original pass but offside re-establishes onside position and receives a later pass. They don't usually receive much notice because they don't usually lead to goals - much less elimination from the Euro - but they almost never are flagged offside.

Hate the rule and its wording all you want, but it was correctly and consistently applied here.

Greg Seltzer said...

As I said, they have mangled the wording by changing it several times in recent years, for reasons I still do not get.

If you or anyone can tell me one portion of that play where Navas was not involved, I will gladly give over. As of yet, no one has even attempted such an explanation. This is probably mostly because he was involved in the play, without interruption, from its start to its literal finish.

BTM said...

Greg, no one is attempting to argue that he wasn't involved in the play, because that's not at issue. The question is whether he was "actively involved" on the pass to Iniesta according to the precise definition of that term in the Laws. He was not. My entire previous post is devoted that issue.

Greg Seltzer said...

"or by making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent"


On what planet is running through a crowd of defenders down the absolute center lane of the box toward goal, where you then finish the goal play NOT considered a gesture or movement that distracts the defenders?

The issue here is the "in the opinion of the referee (and/or linesman, as it were)" bit. Until someone demonstrates one second of this play where Navas is not a concern to the defenders and keeper, I will continue to insist the ref and linesman screwed this up. Their "opinion" of the play is ridiculous.

Navas was not way out wide in an offside position, stray from the play, and then eventually the ball got around to him and he scored. That would be fine.

BTM said...

You ripped that out of context. See my 9:45 post. The distracting movement would have to have prevented a defender from making a play on the ball. Which defender runs with Navas thereby preventing him from getting to the ball and make a play before Iniesta?

Anyway, I'm done here. The alternating raising of irrelevancies and issues that have already been specifically addressed in previous posts is getting beyond frustrating.

Greg Seltzer said...

Yeah... so imagine how I feel by now. ;)

Greg Seltzer said...

Let's be very clear to wrap this up: no one will even start to argue he was not making a movement that distracted the opponent's defense, and there is a very good reason for that.

Meanwhile, I've continually asked for one point of debate the whole time. One.

brian said...

onsides. good goal/non call.

Greg Seltzer said...

Feel free to support your declaration with one relevant debate point pulled verbatim from the rule you refer to and I'll be happy to agree with you.

Greg Seltzer said...

Or as you describe it: 'ripped out of context'. Heh.

dikranovich said...

And I do hate to beat a dead horse, but do you still hold the same opinion on the Dempsey dubious goal committee own goal Greg ? I think all of these rules of the game and there interpretation do have a lot of importance

brian said...

dikran - what was the final outcome of that? OG or did deuce get credit for it?

dikranovich said...

It was ruled an own goal and the rules make it pretty clear as to why it is an own goal. Great shot, hits the post, goes wayward, hits the keeper, definitively, goes in. Own goal.

Jacob Klinger said...

@BTM Well the keeper has to account for Navas. That glues him to his line, allowing Iniesta to pass to the originally offside attacker in question. I'd say he's a significant defender.

dikranovich said...

Jacob, if he was in an onside position when cesc made the pass, the keeper would still be having to account for him.