Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
England was left tottering on the brink of elimination from Group D today after mad genius Luis Suarez bit twice to seal a 2-1 win for Uruguay.
And if English fans are feeling sorry for themselves now, wait until they figure out that Suarez’s winner was probably offside.
(Copyright AFP 2014/Luis Acosta)
According to a FIFA amendment to the offside rule last year, a player is offside if a ball “is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.”
And, as was the case with Mexico attacker Giovani Dos Santos against Cameroon, Suarez received the ball off a deflection from England captain Steven Gerrard. (Click HERE for footage of Dos Santos’ disallowed item against Cameroon).
The only exception to the rule is: “a player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.”
Suarez and Gerrard are Liverpool teammates but it is stretching it to to describe the Englishman’s deflected header as a deliberate assist.
One might think that FIFA’s decision to insert a clause on a deliberate pass from a player to an opponent defies logic. But this is an organisation that awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar and then said it is too hot to play there at the designated time.
Undoubtedly, no one seems to enjoy the taste of controversy more than the gifted Uruguayan.
In Group C, there was a different sort of heartbreaker.
Côte d’Ivoire midfielder Serey Die broke down in tears during the rendition of the national anthem and the UK’s Daily Mail revealed that the player lost his father roughly two hours before kick-off.
In truth, Die’s father died 10 years ago and he was simply overcome with emotion.
“Hello, I just want to say that it’s wrong what they all say,” said Die, via Instagram, that I was moved because of my dad, “but he died in 2004 and it was just the excitement of being in a World Cup and serving my country, Ivory Coast.
“I never thought one day I would be at this level of competition.”
It was the second major hoax to hit the World Cup after an image of Mexico goalkeeper Gabrielle Ochoa with six fingers and a customised glove to match.
Sadly, the holding midfielder was caught in possession for Colombia’s decisive second goal, which came off the boot of clever 21-year-old substitute Juan Quintero.
Côte d’Ivoire coach Sabri Lamouchi withdrew a visibly distraught Die promptly after his error and Gervinho halved the gap for the African nation with a brilliant solo effort. But, once Colombia does not lose to Japan, Yaya Toure and Didier Drogba can still get to the second round with a point from their final group match against Greece.
For England, the end is nigh.
The “Three Lions” must defeat Costa Rica in its final group match—possibly by two goals—and hope that Italy triumphs against Costa Rica and Uruguay respectively.
Suarez, with one good knee, was unplayable.
He peeled away from his marker to head home an Edinson Cavani cross and, after Wayne Rooney equalised with his first ever World Cup goal, Suarez benefitted from an inadvertent back header from Gerrard to drive past a hapless Joe Hart.
FIFA’s law change suggests that a player in an offside position can no longer benefit from an opponent’s error in that way.
But FIFA law often is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Today’s World Cup action
Group D
Uruguay 2 (Luis Suarez 39, 84), England 1 (Wayne Rooney 75)
Group C
Colombia 2 (James Rodriguez 64, Juan Quintero 70), Côte d’Ivoire 1 (Gervinho 73)
Japan 0, Greece o
Star of the Day
Uruguay striker Luis Suarez hopped off the sick bed to keep his nation’s World Cup dream alive with a brilliant all-round performance and two clinical finishes in Sao Paulo.
Villain of the Day
FIFA’s lawmakers for making the offside rule a clumsy and complex affair… Again!
Editor’s Note: FIFA amendment in full:
“Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball…
That rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.
“Pick your poison…” A football stakeholder who will vote at Saturday’s Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) general election summarised Read more
Members of the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) are now officially in election mode, after agreeing to constitutional amendments Read more
Trinidad and Tobago will remain under the direct grip of Fifa for at least another year, as the world governing Read more
The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (GoRTT) will commit a sum of TT$9m over a three-year span Read more
Less than six hours after threatening to refer the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) to the Gianni Infantino-led Bureau Read more
Fifa has threatened further action against the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) if members use their constitutional right to Read more
Lasana Liburd is the off side rule really relevant to the game or is it just tradition ? Quite frankly if moving it means more goals, sign me up. I have no problem with more 4-5 games.
Exactly Markus. And Suarez was in an offside position when the deflection came from Gerrard. 😉
Here it is, Lasana Liburd
That rebounds or is deflected to him of the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
A player in an offside position. Having been! Means: he needed to be offside before! That’s what I think! 🙂
Guess you need two lawyers to argue this rule….
Markus, if the player went to Gerrard straight from the goalkeeper, Suarez would be onside. But it didn’t. It came from Gerrard. Gerrard’s flick and Suarez’s positioning at the time made it offside.
Lasana Liburd I don’t agree! It says: having been in an offside position. So he had to be offside before! But he was not offside when the ball came from the goalie
Markus, it is where the striker stands when the ball is played to him. The rule no longer differentiates with regard to if that final pass came from a teammate or an opponent. Once you are in an offside position at that point, then you are offside.
I suppose the fact that this debate has been this long suggests that fifa’s law is nowhere near as clear as it should be.
I quoted the law amendment in the article.
That’s such a cruel goal to give up
Robert Dumas, it is precisely because Gerrard got the touch that it was offside. I quoted the relevant law. Click on the story and read for yourself.
What was FIFA’s amendment to the offside rule last year? I saw Suarez in a clearly offside position BEFORE the England player butted the ball; but I’m being advised that last year the rule was amended so the goal is good.
According to a referee (well respected one at that) It’s not necessarily the deflection that allowed Suarez to be onside. From what I understand, Suarez will not be considered offside IF the player who deflected the ball had ample time to make a play on the ball but miss-hits or deflects the ball. The key to the ruling is if the referee thinks the defending player had enough time to make a play on the ball. From the kick by the GK to the head of the defending player (Gerrard) is more than enough time to make a play on the ball. It ends up being a discretionary call by the referee and his assistants. Good goal.
Where does it say in the rule about having ample time to play the ball?
Karma finally caught up with England for pulling Brent Sancho’s locks during the WC some years ago.
I don’t believe it was offside, Steven Gerrard got a touch and so it was fair play, had he not got that touch then it would’ve been offside. England desperately need a crosser of the ball, and decisive passer, missing the likes of Scholes and Beckham.
I don’t agree with removal of the law but the “interference of play” & active play needs to be reviewed.
I watchin all dis footbal for d last year and didn kno dat amendment yes
wattttt
ok Sir Philip ha..
I have been in favor of getting rid of the offside rule ! My dear friends think I crazy. Then at least have instant replay. Too often officials affect the outcome of games, and I’m no English fan….
Lasana it wi will take time like all other LAW changes foe all referees to become adept remember this change just came into effect for the 2013-2014 year. Another thing Colin the are called Laws not rules!
Serey Die did not lose his father before kick off…
http://screamer.deadspin.com/serey-die-broke-down-during-his-national-anthem-1593384573?
Hmm well a lot of commentators and people probably aren’t au fait with the little rule change then, because i recall of a lot high profiles football pundits berating the official for calling that Dos Santos goal vs Mexico off-side at the time
Potentially an excellent observation here L…
That wouldn’t have helped Spain though because they picked the wrong squad to start with. Lol
Actually Lasana, the rules for dangerous play have pretty much been abandoned. And believe me, there are numerous players on the local scene who can clear a ball end to end with ease and accuracy.
Your point about the substitutions is quite valid. It does make for a faster pace and gives a savvy coach much more tactical latitude to change a game.
Suarez was correctly not called offside and here is why: Gerrard rose for the header and got a touch, meaning he “deliberately plays the ball.” The amendment language about a “save” is in reference to goalkeepers.
Yes, Suarez was behind the last defender, but it’s Gerrard’s deliberate touch off of his head and backwards. The rule does not care if the touch is careless, as Gerrard’s was. Gerrard meant to head the ball, it was deliberate, so Suarez can be in that position and play the ball.
Guys, I cover hockey and I can testify to what Kendall is saying. Yes, teams can leave a loafer upfront. But then it means you have less numbers at the other end.
I think the clincher might be that hockey has unlimited subs. And once you are fresh enough to press your opponent, it doesn’t matter who is offside because they cannot get it to them.
And it is more difficult to clear the ball long in hockey (in my opinion) because of rules for dangerous play.
Here is Giovani Dos Santos “goal” against Cameroon that was ruled out for the same principle.
I know what you suggesting. And I get it. But it will create players who really just loitering, not contributing much, waiting for an opportunity. It will send scores up and it will kill the game. I think the offside rule works.
Sorry lasana we don’t always get it right that’s why we have goal line technology being introduced now!
What makes you say that? All I said was the removal of offside didn’t result in what Kirk predicted. I play both sports and played before and after the rule change. If you watch the sport, you will see what I mean.
U can’t be serious Kendall Tull
Shambolic…I like that word a lot.
Not so Kirk. The experience in hockey which is tactically like football doesn’t support that statement. Defences push up to compress the play – same as before. Keeper play a sweeping role, same as before.
Hmm yea Big L, that does suggest Suarez was off-side clearly then. Ah well ENG still defended shambolic.
Philip Ignacio SC, this has nothing to do with interpretation. It is black and white.
“Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball…
That rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.
I was showing my husband the thread on your status about this whole offside position when your tag came in. To be quite honest offside is the only thing in football for the life of me I cannot understand to the point that I have given up trying. Whenever I dont understand something in football you know who I turning to but not even him and my other football experts cud get me to understand offside. But am loving the debating though 🙂
Ha the ENG media done starting the hectic potential post tournament inquest, very boring. ENG got stuffed by a lethal Suarez & they won’t be last team to @ club or international football. End of.
Without offside rules teams would torture oppositions defence. It is a vital part of the game.
Suarez was inside when keeper kicked ball, thus – not offside.
Even basic English is difficult for some people. The rule itself couldn’t explain it ownself anymore, unless it could speak..
Lasagna if you could interpret this Law change you better become a referee instructor, because I am one and it is difficult to interpret! It is also in the opinion of the referee to make the call. So I am saying the referee was correct in his call!
The ball was deflected to Suarez; Gerrard didn’t intentionally try to find him.
Ainsley Nate Noel and Darin Lewis, interference doesn’t come into the rule change at all. Here it is:
“Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball…
That rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.
Ahem. I’m not an England fan and could not care less Rodney Gopaul. As a sport journalist, I try to pay attention to the rules though.
amazing what Suarez brought to Uruguay
that a lie don’t make any excuses take it like a big man !!!
I say remove offside and be done with the nonsense.
yikes. lol
Lasana Liburd I think you are wrong! Because the rules says: “… Having been in an offside position.” And Suarez was not offside at the time the goalie kicked the ball, he was only offside when the ball came from Gerrard. But that doesn’t matter, because he was not offside before!
People in favor of no offside will be singing a different tune when man like Hernandez have 49 goals in 11 games:)
@Lisana Liburd: Actually, pretty much everyone in the international press agrees that both goals scored by Dos Santos in the match vs. Cameroon and ruled out for offside were valid. In fact, the only debatable one was the first one, where he was in line with the defenders. The second one, scored from a corner after a deflection from a Cameroonian player, was an outrageous decision by the ref. Did you actually read any press at all on the matter before posting that video?
First of all, I am a member of the press myself. So why should I wait for everyone else to say something before I know whether it is true or not?
Secondly, I just had a conversation with a friend at ESPN who pointed out that Steve Nicol was the only person to find the rule book for the Cameroon/Mexico game. Everyone thought he was mad at first but realised that Nicol was correct and Dos Santos was offside.
By that same token, he accepts that Suarez was offside.
Don’t stick with the herd Paul W. Read the rule yourself.
Actually, Suarez was perfectly onside scoring his winner, as the amendment to the offside rule linked in the article clearly states.
That’s because he was onside when the keeper cleared the ball, so the second part of the rule (“having been offside”) is not applicable at the time Gerrard attempted the save.
What the rule says is that the player has to be offside in the first place (i.e., when their last teammate touches the ball) in order to be offside when an opponent (or the post/crossbar) makes the save. It continues to say that if a player was offside when their last teammate touched the ball, but in the meantime the opposing team recovered it and one of the players of the opposing team makes a deliberate pass that is intercepted by the player who was previously in an offside position, then that should NOT count as an offside as it was not an unfair gain of advantage.
In conclusion, Suarez would only have been offside when scoring if he had already been offside when the ball was cleared. He was onside at the time, as all the cameras and the post-match analysis showed, so the goal was perfectly valid.
In any case, England did a good job and both teams deserve their share of respect for the performance displayed today.
Wow. You just did the impossible and made offside more complicated.
If a Uruguay player headed the ball to Suarez instead of Gerrard would he have been offside?
Yes, he would have been. The law attempts to take away any distinction between who makes final pass and focus on where the attacking player is.
As a result, Suarez was offside. Let us not make it more complex than it is.
The story about Serey Die is not quite true, his father passed away in 2004, not the 2 hours before the game that the internet as deemed to be the case.
http://screamer.deadspin.com/serey-die-broke-down-during-his-national-anthem-1593384573?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Thanks Scott!