Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

Weekend Kickaround

D.C. United is off this weekend, which means I am off this weekend. (Mostly.) So let's wrap up a few things and look ahead to others.....

*Considering Brazil's scoring problems at home in World Cup qualifying, everyone figured Dunga would be the next South American coach to depart. Instead, it's Alfio Basile in Argentina, who resigned following a 1-0 loss at Chile that left the Albiceleste in third place.

*Washington Freedom marquee player Abby Wambach stopped by RFK Stadium last night for promotional purposes and, in an quick interview with the Insider before catching a flight back home to Los Angeles, said she started jogging last week as part of her rehab from a broken leg.

"Hopefully, I will be back playing at a full level in three months," she said.

Any complications? "Not so far -- knock on titanium."

Do you fear this injury will impact the way you play?

"I don't think so, but you never know until you get into a regular situation again. I don't know any other way to play, so I don't think it's going to change me."

*A clarification on my United material last night: DCU does not necessarily have to win at Columbus next weekend. It is possible that most of the other teams in the wild-card race will lose their remaining two games. In reality, though, by the time DCU step onto the field at Crew Stadium late next Sunday afternoon, it will probably have to win to avoid the second tiebreaker, the fatal goal differential (DCU is now minus-7).

*College soccer tonight: No. 6 Maryland (10-3) hosts Evansville (7-5-1) at 7:30 p.m. and No. 14 Virginia (8-3, 4-0 ACC) puts its six-game winning streak on the line at Boston College (6-4-2, 2-2-0).

*For a good cause, plan to stop by the Williamsburg Middle School fields in Arlington next Saturday (Oct. 25) at 3 p.m. to donate equipment for soccer programs in the African nation of Mali. Last year Badara Dia, a teacher at Kenmore Middle School in Arlington and a native of Mali, approached the Northwest Lions Soccer Club (part of the Arlington Soccer Association) about extra equipment that he could take home with him to organize a program in his hometown. This past summer the Lions expanded their assistance and provided balls, cleats and uniforms.

For the Saturday TV schedule, jump below.....

England, Middlesbrough-Chelsea 7:30 a.m. ET Setanta
England, Liverpool-Wigan 9:40 a.m. Setanta
England, Arsenal-Everton 10 a.m. Fox Soccer Channel
Germany, Werder Bremen-Dortmund 11:30 a.m. GolTV
England, Crystal Palace-Barnsley 12:15 p.m. Setanta
England, Manchester United-West Brom 12:30 p.m. FSC
Spain, Atletico Madrid-Real Madrid 2 p.m. GolTV
Italy, Napoli-Juventus 2:30 p.m. FSC
France, Lyon-Lille 2:55 p.m. Setanta
Spain, Espanyol-Villarreal 4 p.m. GolTV
Italy, Fiorentina-Reggina 4:30 p.m. FSC
England, Aston Villa-Portsmouth 5 p.m. Setanta
Mexico, Monterrey-Tigres 6 p.m. Telemundo
Mexico, Cruz Azul-Morelia 6 p.m. Azteca America
England, Fulham-Sunderland 6:30 p.m. FSC
Colombia, Once Caldas-Cali 8 p.m. GolTV
Mexico, Indios-America 8 p.m. Azteca America
Mexico, Chivas-Atlante 8 p.m. Telemundo
MLS, Houston-Los Angeles 8:30 p.m. HDNet
MLS, Real Salt Lake-Dallas 9 p.m. FSC
Germany, Karlsruhe-Bayern Munich 10 p.m. GolTV
Mexico, Necaxa-Atlas 10 p.m. Telefutura
England, Bolton-Blackburn 10:15 p.m. Setanta

By Steve Goff  |  October 17, 2008; 10:15 AM ET
Categories:  2010 World Cup , College Soccer , Women  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: United-Revs, the Aftermath
Next: A Goalkeeper's Goal

Comments

Hey Steve thanks for all the news and have a great weekend!

Posted by: dadryan | October 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Dang Goff, a super-sized post stuffed with all kind of "goodies". Reminds me of a Fry or Chest post (both in quality and quantity). Nice job, Sir, nice job in deed.

Thanks for the heads up and you go ahead enjoy your weekend. As for me, I will be glued to the tube watching all kinds of footie, rooting for friends and enemies (in MLS) alike.

Posted by: Kosh | October 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

That Madrid derby looks great (despite injuries), followed by Villarreal...

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

One question about last night's game -- on the New England goal, does anyone think Twellman was offside when the pass was originally played? I thought Castro was onside, but Twellman was off. If so, was he far enough away that it could be considered not part of the play? But, he received the pass from Castro, so would that mean he was part of the play? Perhaps someone here that understands the offside rule better than I do could explain the correct interpretation. Thanks.

Posted by: teamn | October 17, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Once Castro played it, it was a new play. Twellman wasn't involved in the original play/pass.

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Put the kids to bed, then walked downstairs last night to see Doe find the upper 90 -- then clenched my teeth for 14-plus minutes to see our boys pull out the win. Very encouraging.

Since United is not expected to make the playoffs, and if they do they are not expected to last long, perhaps THIS will be the year they run the table. Being the underdog has its advantages.

Hmmmm, what to do Saturday...

Posted by: Joe The Doc | October 17, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

That Twellman goal rubbed me the wrong way, too. So, can a player just stand next to the opposing keeper all game and wait for a teammate to beat the last man and pass to him? It doesn't seem like a terrible strategy, in some cases, though I've never seen it.

Posted by: danj | October 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Good La Liga matches tomorrow

Posted by: Kev | October 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"Perhaps someone here that understands the offside rule better than I do "

That would be an understatement. The laws are published on FIFA's website. It would greatly enhance your appreciation of the game to understand the game.

Posted by: B. Toledo | October 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

OT (or actually previous T) but I'm going to brag anyway. Found out yesterday that my Godson is being scouted for the US program/school thingie in Florida. He is a 'keeper. He has trained with Athletico Madrid's youth program and is currently in a youth set up in Colombia. Fingers crossed.

Posted by: Karen | October 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of TV, I read endless discussion here, usually ripping into the ESPN and FSC announcers -- for being homers (Bretos) for making repeated mistakes about players (Miles) or just making pointless comments (Harkes). I'm wondering how folks here feel about Ray Hudson's pornographic commentary on GOL TV? Doing a lkittle research this morning, I've discovered there is a blog devoted to "Hudsonia".

I'm up late last night, and I hear Hudson go WAY beyond his old standard of "testicular fortitude" in GOL's re-broadcast of the the Germany-Russia WC qualifier from last week.

Podolski scored, and Hudson started going on about his finishing being classic "Germanic, Teutonic efficiency", when he switched modes. The goal was a "beautiful dream of a goal...a wet dream". His broadcast partner picked up that metaphor and ran with it -- saying "Grab your towels, because there may be more to come."

Does GOL ensure that these colorful descriptions are confined to late-night TV?

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I was more frustrated with the ref last night when someone foulled before Emilio gave away to rebound the Rev's goal. Ref gave our boys advantage play (at least I thought) but if it didn't go to DC's advantage immediately he should've call the foul there. Rev's goal I thought was already a legit one but that goal was lead from the foul was not called our way. In a world class, you would see that but then again this is MLS ref so I would be asking too much to get that right.

Posted by: hello refs | October 17, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

@ B. Toledo: Just because the offside rule is published doesn't mean that everyone who reads it immediately knows how it is applied in each situation. Our Constitution is published, yet we still have a Supreme Court to interpret it. Then again, no-one reads the Constitution.

@Karen: Best wishes for your godson.

@Steve: Can you embed a spreadsheet with the games so that we can sort by league, time, and network? Relax, I'm just kidding. Thanks for the info and have a good weekend.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 17, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Perhaps someone here that understands the offside rule better than I do "

The player has to be closer to the goal than the ball when it is played for being offside to be a consideration. Only then does 'two opposing players' become an issue.

"Can a player just stand next to the opposing keeper all game and wait for a teammate to beat the last man and pass to him?"

Sure, but unless the teammate gets closer to the end line than the player is, offside will be called. And the player will likely be considered to be interfering with play while in that offside position and have other teammate's goals called off. So not a good strategy (and the strategy that the offside rule is meant to negate).

Posted by: DCFanInArlington | October 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Toledo: Lighten up.

Karen: You are going to have a balding godson.

FF: I love Hudson :) Hey, it's pay-cable! You might want to not to watch a match w/ Hudson and Ronaldinho, then, who he has a man-crush on. I remember two years ago when Hudson said that some Barca goalscorer would be buying lap dances for Ronaldinho because of the wonderful pass he had given him...

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

If you were to stand/obstruct the keeper, you are interfering with the play, and guilty of offsides. Or even obstruction -- like that is ever called!

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

whats up with not posting Sundays tv schedule? that would be more helpful for me!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

RK,

Thanks for the response.

@B. Toledo -- if only it were that easy. I really was trying to get at the interpretation of Twellman's role -- in the original play or not. I've heard heated arguments over similar plays, so wanted to know what folks here thought.

Posted by: teamn | October 17, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"that would be more helpful for me!"

of course, it's all about you.

Posted by: DCU UCD | October 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I tend to think Hudson's bigger man crush is on Riquelme. But that being said, I was watching a game earlier this when a goal was scored as my mother was passing through the room (I believe in the Barca drumming of Athletico Madrid) when he described the play and finish as "absolutely orgasmic".

Posted by: Jacob | October 17, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh no you di'int! It's on, you fat geordie, I have THE BIGGEST man crush on Riquelme. Or as I (and no one else) like to call him, JR Riquelme. Hold my lettermans jacket, I'll fight you for the right to have the biggest crush on JR!

Posted by: Max Bretos | October 17, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: teamn | October 17, 2008 11:58 AM

---------------------------------

If it's an explanation you're still looking for, I believe I have it. Twellman was behind the last defender when the play started. He made no attempt at the ball and it went to Castro, onsides when the ball was played. This eliminates Twellman's previous offsides. Castro plays the ball over to a now-onside Twellman and we are down a goal.

Posted by: AJ | October 17, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

If a player is in an offsides position he needs to take himself out of the play. Twellman was a step offsides, and then immediately got involved in the play. That goal seems a little fishy to me.

Hudson rules! I need to get my goltv back. :(

Posted by: mizage | October 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Riquelme...Argentina...I wonder how Bretos would slaughter that pronunciation.

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

ray hudson is the greatest. so awesome. i can't be the only one who's completely disappionted when i turn on la liga and realize that 'the other guy' is commenting on that particular game. i hate 'the other guy'. i also hate 'the play by play guy', but that's pretty much a given considering The Current State of Sports Broadcasting in America.

Posted by: stairs | October 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I love Hudson, too. I was just wondering if the GOL team might not have crossed a line of good taste with comments about "wet dreams" and "towels"....

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Hudson was robbed of his biggest crush, "Twinkle Toes" Robinho

Posted by: Omar | October 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Your team actually wins a game for once, and all you people can do is whine and moan about a goal (that WAS onside). The playoffs will be a joy without you guys.

Posted by: SonicDeathMonkey | October 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

On offsides -- many parts of th rule may seem open to interpretation -- like being active in the play or gaining an advantage -- there are clear-cut rules about what it means to be in an offsides position.

A player can be in an offsides position for a moment, but that's irrelevant if it's not the moment the ball is played towards him (or shot on goal). If a defender tracks back and gets even with or behind the attacker, then he has been played onsides. At taht moment this teammate may safely pass to him. Similarly. if the ball travels beyond the offsides player's line, before it is played towards him, then he is not in an offsides position -- the ball has played him into an onsides position. Twellman was clearly behind the ball when it was passed to him. Ergo, he was onsides. It isn't even arguable. You may not like that rule, but it is the rule.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the magisterial tone, Toledo. Got a specific citation to the Laws of the Game that you can offer?

dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"Law 11--Offside....

...A player in an offside position is ... penalized if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by...gaining an advantage by being in that position."

Perhaps Toledo, Dr. Football, you can explain how being wide open for a tap-in can be considered something other than "gaining an advantage by being in that position."

dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

sonicdeathmonkey -- sorry, I'm not whining, nice play by NE, I'm just looking for info. One of the things I love about soccer, and this blog, is how many things are open to interpretation and discussion.

Fisch Fry -- damn, that was well written, thanks.

At the end of the day, the best part is the boys played hard and won. Great to see the effort, particularly by Doe.

Posted by: teamn | October 17, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I think it's a great thing we're playing Columbus for the season finale. By that time Columbus will feel really good about its position, they will already have the Supporters Shield, and they will want to rest some regulars in preparation for the playoffs.

Posted by: Dan in FL | October 17, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

SDM, just focus on ATL in 2011 ;)

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Offsides is by far the most mis-understood law of the game. To be in an offsides position; the player must be in front of the second-to-last defender and the ball when it is played to him by a teammate (all bets are for defensive passbacks).

Just because you're in an offsides position doesnt mean it will be called, the ref holds the right to judge your involvement in the play (may it be blocking the goalie's view, making the goalie play you, obstructing a defender etc) or call advantage (i.e. the ball played to you in an offsides position is unplayable or goes to the keeper for collection).

From our twellman example last night, he was in an offside position at the time of the pass to castro, who was onsides. Twellman was ruled to be out of the play (a correct judgement in my view) and a new play was commenced with castro's run down the right side. At the time of Castro's pass,twellman was clearly behind the ball and thus onsides.

Don't feel bad if offsides is still confusing, it is by far the subject new referees spend the most time studying, alotting almost half of a two week course to this law (granted i was 14 then).

Vamos United.

Posted by: DudeAbides | October 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@ Dave Nelson -- see my post above -- but FIFA lays it out as 3 step decision. Gaining an advantage -- that's in step 2 of the decision. First step is whether the player was in an offsides position WHEN the ball was played. In this case, where Twellman was standing when the ball was played to Castro becomes irrelevant. When Castro passed the ball to Twellman, he was already beyond Twellman's line. Since Twellman was behind the ball at the moment it was played towards him, he cannot be offsides. End of story.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"From our twellman example last night, he was in an offside position at the time of the pass to castro, who was onsides. Twellman was ruled to be out of the play (a correct judgement in my view) and a new play was commenced with castro's run down the right side. At the time of Castro's pass,twellman was clearly behind the ball and thus onsides."

Sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but given your officiating background, could you provide some examples of a player being in an offside position who should be called for the offside offense, notwithstanding the fact that he has not touched the ball, simply because he is "gaining an advantage" by being in the offside position?

Thanks,
dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

DudeAbides -- I guess you had to skip the Dude-fest at the new Montgomery Drafthouse last night, too? Couldn't miss the last home game. Besides, I had one flex voucher left.

Since you've been to ref school, maybe I'll ask you about something I posted in the Rev match thread.

Moreno was standing at the mid-stripe waiting to check in. There was a stoppage. I think maybe DCU had a corner kick? In any case, it seemed to me the ref wasn't going to let Jaime come in. He seemed to be trying to get the play started without ever looking over to the 4th official, when the announcement came over the loudspeakers about the Moreno sub. It seemed to me that the announcer forced the ref into allowing the sub at that moment. Did you -- or anyone else -- have that impression?

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"could you provide some examples of a player being in an offside position who should be called for the offside offense, notwithstanding the fact that he has not touched the ball, simply because he is "gaining an advantage" by being in the offside position?"

Screening the goalie. I was ~17, called that in a tournament, and had a coach rip me to shreds as it was the only goal of the game. It was my opinion that the other kid had screened the goalie, gaining an advantage, despite not touching the ball at any time.

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but given your officiating background, could you provide some examples of a player being in an offside position who should be called for the offside offense, notwithstanding the fact that he has not touched the ball, simply because he is "gaining an advantage" by being in the offside position?

Thanks,
dn
----------------
FischFry and DudeAbides did a great job of explaining. An example of "Gaining advantage" without touching the ball can be done by screening a player physically or visually. This often happens when a player in the offside position is within the keeper's field of view on a shot. generally it is called if the player is basically between the sticks and the penalty spot, but that's also up to interpretation.

Posted by: soyinocente | October 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Law 11--Offside....

...A player in an offside position is ... penalized if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by...gaining an advantage by being in that position."

Perhaps Toledo, Dr. Football, you can explain how being wide open for a tap-in can be considered something other than "gaining an advantage by being in that position."

dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 1:39 PM
------------------------------
My homeboy Baldi is not around, but I'll take a crack at it.

Read the whole thing, dopey:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lotg%5fen%5f55753.pdf

Offside Position
* * * *
A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than BOTH the BALL and the second last opponent
* * * *

Twellman was not nearer to his opponents' goal line at the time the ball was played to him, and hence was not in an offside position.

I thought that was made abundantly clear by some of the posts above, but apparently not clear enough to penetrate your thickness.

If DCU's backs had actually defended instead of looking around for an AR to make a (bad) call, that goal could've been prevented.

Posted by: A. Okulaja | October 17, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

@ Dave Nelson -- "interfering with the play" -- a player can be offsides without touching the ball, if he interferes with the play -- deliberately distracts players, or gets in the way.

Gaining an advantage seems to be more about touching the ball. First, the player has to be in an offsides position when the ball is played forward. Twellman wasn't -- not when it was played to him, which is what counts there. When Castro carried the ball beyond him -- that was the equivalent of a defender tracking back. Twellman went from being in offsides position, to being in an onsides position.

However, if Castro had shot before -- has to be before -- before he traveled beyond Twellman, then Twellman would still have been in an offsides position. So, if the shot was saved and the rebound came to Twellman, then he would be offsides AND gaining an advantage. The flag would have to come up then.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"My homeboy Baldi is not around, but I'll take a crack at it.

Read the whole thing, dopey:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lotg%5fen%5f55753.pdf

Offside Position
* * * *
A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than BOTH the BALL and the second last opponent
* * * *

Twellman was not nearer to his opponents' goal line at the time the ball was played to him, and hence was not in an offside position.

I thought that was made abundantly clear by some of the posts above, but apparently not clear enough to penetrate your thickness.

If DCU's backs had actually defended instead of looking around for an AR to make a (bad) call, that goal could've been prevented."
________________

Oy vey.

Professor Okulaja,

The issue is not the pass to Twellman, but the initial pass to Castro. At the time of the pass to Castro, Twellman was in an offside position. My question was simply how Twellman, undeniably in an offside position at the time of that pass, could have nonetheless avoided committing the offside offense of "gaining an advantage" by being in that position.

I'd have thought at least the contours of the argument were clear at this point, but apparently, your thickness significantly exceeds mine.

dn

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

@dn -- THis is getting ridiculous!!

Yes, Twellman was in an offsides position when the abll was playe dto Castro. HOwever, he was not interfering with the play nor was he "gaining an advantage." HOw many times do you see one player standing in an offsieds position, but no flag comes up because the ball isn't played his way at that time. Happens dozens, maybe hundreds of times a game.

If Castro had taken the pass and shot -- and Crayton saved it -- but the rebound went to Twellman -- that would be gaining an advantage from his offsides position.

Got that?

When Twellman was in an offsides position, he did not "gain an advantage". Then Castro played him onsides by carrying the ball past Twellman's line. SO, when the pass came to Twellman, he was in an onsides position. No offense at either moment.

Really -- you're the thick one here.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"Gaining an advantage seems to be more about touching the ball."

Well, that's not what the rule says. If you're getting that from somewhere else, I'd appreciate a source. I don't mean to sound combative here--I'm really looking for an education rather than an argument.

"First, the player has to be in an offsides position when the ball is played forward. Twellman wasn't -- not when it was played to him, which is what counts there."

If that's "what counts," then you seem to be completely reading the "gaining an advantage" language out of the rule, no? I agree, if Twellman was not committing an offside offense when the ball was played to Castro, then the pass from Castro to Twellman does not give rise to an offside offense. My question is only whether Twellman was comitting an offside offense when the ball was played to Castro.

"[I]f Castro had shot before -- has to be before -- before he traveled beyond Twellman, then Twellman would still have been in an offsides position. So, if the shot was saved and the rebound came to Twellman, then he would be offsides AND gaining an advantage. The flag would have to come up then.

Sorry, but where is this concept set forth in the Laws?

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

You may think Twellman -- or the Revs were gaining some advantage because Crayton had to worry about Castro AND Twellman.

As a matter of logic, I'd agree with you, but that's not how FIFA explains the rule. So long as Twellman is standing in an offsides position, Crayton basically has to pretend he's not even there -- even though a second later Twellman is onsides and in position to get the pass and score.

You may not like that interpretation of the rule, but that is the rule. If you wan't FIFA to change that, write to them. Leave this board alone.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but where is this concept set forth in the Laws?

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 2:29 PM

@Dave Nelson

Google this: FIFA offsides rule

Then watch their flash player graphic presentation. If you have any further questions....you're a moran.

That's where this concept is set forth in the Laws..

Posted by: FIsch Fry | October 17, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

moran?
just playin'...

Posted by: dadryan | October 17, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of bowls, I was looking at the DCU team poster they handed out las night and does anyone else think Fred, Burch, McT, Gallardo, Namoff, and Peralta look high?
Just sayin'.

Posted by: dadryan | October 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't have called that an offside as I don't think a yard at 40 yards from goal provided Twellman that much advantage.

Martinez stopped on the play, giving the ultimate advantage. United's inept marking on behalf of the entire defense gave them an advantage . . .. did anyone even track back?

The handball-no call in the box-was pretty obvious.

Just happy that none of the calls made the ultimate difference . . which is the way it should be!

Posted by: delantero | October 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

You know what's misunderstood about offside"s"? The fact that it's just offside.

Sorry, please to continue

Posted by: Kev | October 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: test | October 17, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Moran. Nice.

Some on this board seem to have attended the Sarah Palin school of discourse.

Anyhow, that Flash presentation is illustrative, but what of Slide #21, which seems to present an analogous situation. Do the pro-Twellman goal camp on this board mean to argue that if the non-offside player in 21 had, instead of shooting, tapped the ball to his offside teammate for a shot, there's no offside offense? That certainly doesn't appear to be the FIFA position.

dn

dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"agree, if Twellman was not committing an offside offense when the ball was played to Castro, then the pass from Castro to Twellman does not give rise to an offside offense."

Last try -- you're conflating two things.

whatever "offence" (I'm going with FIFA's British spelling because it's cool and won't be confused with the offense/defense distinction) Twellman might have been committing when the ball was played to Castro is irrelevant with respect to analyzing the situation when Castro played it to him.

There is either an offence at the moment the ball is played, or there is not. ALthough Twellman was standing offsides, FIFA doesn't consider that to be gaining an advantage. The play might never have involved him -- so there was no "advantage" gained when the pass was made to Castro. Twellman was 20 yards away. If Castro had shot immediately and scored, would you have considered Twellman's position relevant? I hope not. If Castro had taken on Crayton, dribbled around him and scored, it also would never have mattered that at one point Twellman was standing offsides.

So, by that reasoning, Twellman's position ONLY becomes relevant because Castro plays the ball towards him. There was no offence before that moment. Twellman was in ian offsides position, but there was no offence to be flagged. Flag was down. Then Castro carries the ball beyond Twellman's line. SO, Twellman is no longer in an offside position. You can't call him offsides any longer. It's the same thing if a defender had tracked back to try and break up the play. IT doesn't matter that Twellman was offsides for a moment. IF it did, then EVERY time a player was in an offsides position, the flag would have to go up.

Or maybe you think it's just on the plays that eventually lead to goals, if the goal-scorer was standing offsides at some point during the play? That if he was standing offsides at some point, he necessarily gains an advantage and so cannot be involved in the play. That makes no sense, because then you're deciding whether the play stands on who scored. Not whether the player was offsides when he the ball came to him, but whether he was ever offsides. That's not the rule.

Advantage only counts if he's in an offsides position at the very instant the ball is played forward -- it means that he's standing offsides and in a position to get the rebound on a shot or a deflected pass.

Here's how FIFA explains it:

What does gaining an advantage by being in that position mean?

The International Football Association Board defines it as - playing a ball that rebounds off a post or the crossbar after having been in an offside position, or
- playing a ball that rebounds off an opponent after having been in an offside position.

Those are the only two situations where the "advantage" rule applies. Again, you might think advantage means something more, but it doesn't. FIFA sets the rules.

The horse is dead. Bury it.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

OffsideS -- sounds like something a kid would say...like "out of balance" when playing ball...

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Are you sure you mean slide 21? That's your basic offsides call. THe only wrnkle is that the onsides player isn't trying to pass to the offsides palyer. He shoots and the ball def;ects to a on ffsides player. That's offsides -- whihc is what FIFA indicates tehre.

I think you mean slide 22, which is exactly what happened last night. The pass goes to player B, who is onsides, at a moment when player A is an offsides position. THis creates a situation where two players are attacking the goalie, with no defender in the picture. Exactly where we were last night, with Twellman standing offsides and Castro carrying the ball.

In the FIFA example, they explain "Attacker (A) does not become involved int the play,so the referee waits to see what happens."

Then, attacker (B) carries the ball beyond Attacker (A)'s line, before crossing it back to him (it actually doesn't matter that the pass goes backwards -- it could be a lead pass, since the important thing is where they are standing at the moment the ball is struck). According to FIFA:

"Attacker (A) finally intervenes, but the assistant referee does not indicate an infringement because the player is not nearer to the opponents' goal line than the ball."

That is exactly what happened last night. Exactly as pictured. FIFA clearly states there is no infringement. The "advantage" rule you keep citing is not applicable because that comes into play only when there is a rebound that comes to a player who was in an offsides position when the ball was struck.

Do you finally get it?

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

TYpo correctiosn --

Are you sure you mean slide 21? That's your basic offsides call. The only wrinkle is that the onsides player isn't trying to pass to the offsides palyer. He shoots and the ball deflects to an offsides player. That's offsides -- which is what FIFA indicates there.

Technically, FIFA considers that part of the "advantage" rule, but you might as well consider that straight offsides. The only difference is that it wasn't a direct pass - it came to the offsides player via deflection. I think of "advantage" as a rebound -- off the goal or on a save from the goalie.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey folks,

Since the game ended last night, something's been bugging me:

Wasn't Taylor Twellman offside?

Posted by: Joe Doc | October 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

No Joe, I think he was offsides

Or maybe he was onsides

Posted by: Kev | October 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"Here's how FIFA explains it:

What does gaining an advantage by being in that position mean?

The International Football Association Board defines it as - playing a ball that rebounds off a post or the crossbar after having been in an offside position, or
- playing a ball that rebounds off an opponent after having been in an offside position.

Those are the only two situations where the "advantage" rule applies. Again, you might think advantage means something more, but it doesn't. FIFA sets the rules."

-----------------------

Many thanks. This is what I was looking for. I'm not sure why it took so many sharp words to get there, but I appreciate the citation nonetheless.

I will note, however, that this limited definition includes neither (1) the "screening the GK" situation, which has been cited by several posters here nor (2) the offside player jumping up to allow the ball to pass under him or between his legs and into the goal, which is specifically cited as an example of an offside offense in the FIFA Flash presentation.

dn

dn

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Unless those situations fall under "interfering with play" rather than "gaining an advantage", I guess.

Boy, what a terrible rule. If this were a law subject to judicial review, it wouldn't last very long.

dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

what of Slide #21, which seems to present an analogous situation. Do the pro-Twellman goal camp on this board mean to argue that if the non-offside player in 21 had, instead of shooting, tapped the ball to his offside teammate for a shot, there's no offside offense? That certainly doesn't appear to be the FIFA position.

dn
Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 2:54 PM
--------------------------------------

I misunderstood you -- you do mean slide 21. Your confusion is exactly why I think it's not helpful to call this offsides by virtue of "gaining an advantage".

In slide 21, the deflected ball goes to a player in an offsides position. You seem to understand that thsi is offsides. Bravo.

Your confusion over what happens if there were no defelction shows that you're tied up in mental knots. If there were no deflection -- if as you say the player with the ball "tapped the ball to his offside teammate for a shot", that is the most basic offsides call. A player passes from an onsides position to a player who is standing offsides when the pass is struck. That's the starting point for offsides.

That you might think the most basic offsides offense could actually be OK because it doesn't involve the "advantage" deflection rule says you need to take a deep breath.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

From US Soccer Referee Position Paper

In situations where an attacker is coming from an onside position and another attacker coming from an offside position, each with an equally credible chance of getting to the ball, it is imperative that officials withhold a decision until either it becomes clear which attacker will get to the ball first (even if this means having to wait until one or the other player actually touches the ball) or the action of the attacker coming from the offside position causes one or more opponents to be deceived or distracted.

[Here's an example where the officials got it wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqmuO8WT4hM]

An earlier memo clarified an attacker in an offside position must act (touch the ball, move to the ball, interfere with
an opponent, block an opponent, distract or deceive an opponent) to be declared offside.

Twellman did none of this...

A player’s offside position must be reevaluated whenever the ball is again touched or played by a teammate. In this case, Twellman is no longer in an offside position when Castro played the ball forward and he is now behind the ball as he was when the ball was crossed and he scored.

As much as I didn't like the result, the officials got this one right...

Posted by: Arbitro | October 17, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Many thanks. This is what I was looking for. I'm not sure why it took so many sharp words to get there, but I appreciate the citation nonetheless.

I will note, however, that this limited definition includes neither (1) the "screening the GK" situation, which has been cited by several posters here nor (2) the offside player jumping up to allow the ball to pass under him or between his legs and into the goal, which is specifically cited as an example of an offside offense in the FIFA Flash presentation.

dn

dn

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 3:21 PM
-----------------------------------------

I think the shaarp words wer because you were being so obstinate -- not understanding what others were saying and not bothering to look up the rule yourself.

As for the other examples you cite: They are also offsides offences -- not because of the "advantage" rule, which applies when the player receives a deflection or a rebound. They are covered by the "interfering with play" language.

As for judicial review -- that's what the flash presentation is. It reflects the determinations of the IFAB on the application of the offsides rule. They are very clear about how it is to be interpreted, leaving no wiggle room,

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Twellman was out of balance!

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Fisch,

Perhaps we're looking at two different slides, but on my display, it's #21. There's no deflection involved.

Player C plays the ball into space behind the defense. Player A is in an offside position at the time of C's pass. Player B is onside at the time of C's pass. Both A and B run toward the ball, which is now in front of the goal.

I understand that if B strikes it past the GK, it's a goal, no offside. I don't think that's a good rule, but I understand that it is the rule. However, I thought the slide indicated that offside would be called if (1) A rather than B struck the ball past the GK or (2) B passed to A, who then shot. I thought this point #2 was analogous to what happened last night.

Incidentally, in the column of what's "helpful," I might include a collegial and respectful tone on message boards.

dn

Posted by: Dave nelson | October 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

By the way -- if we're moving on (and I apologize for monopolizing the thread, but I was trying to move us to resolution...), Levi Stubbs died. Temptations singer. One of the greats.

"When the world falls apart some things stay in place Levi Stubbs' tears run down his face."

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Well, that's one thing I've no doubt we agree on. RIP Levi Stubbs. RIP Alton Ellis, as well.

dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

@ Fisch Fry
---
Those are the only two situations where the "advantage" rule applies. Again, you might think advantage means something more, but it doesn't. FIFA sets the rules.
---

Just to add to the confusion -the "advantage" rule (or more appropriately concept) only applies to Law 12 (Fouls & Misconduct) and not Law 11 (Offside). The "advantage" concept is not the same as "gaining an advantage" used in determining offside.

Posted by: Arbitro | October 17, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Twellman was out of balance!

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 3:39 PM

That nay be, but after two DC goals, Steve Nicol got out of whack!

Posted by: Frank Beamer | October 17, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

@ Dave -- Maybe we're looking at different presentations. On my 21, there are two players behind the defense. The shot comes from a third onsides player deflects (it's not obvious, but it's supposed to be a deflection off the last defender) to the offsides player across the field. No goal. Slide #22 is the situation from last night. Ball played into space ahead of B, who was onsides. B gets the ball while A is still offsides, but B dribbles beyond A before passing it to him. A is no longer offsides. Goal. That's what happened last night. Goal stands. Absolutely the last time I will answer the same question.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I think I finally understand, but still think it's a terrible rule. Too much for the referee to decide and unfair to the GK, who is required to guess who is offside and who isn't.

Fisch, I'm not trying to antagonize you, but I assume it makes no difference if B doesn't dribble past A, but instead allows the ball to run past A before taking possession? That's what happened w/ Castro last night.

Sorry if I've been exasperating some posters here by trying to understand the rule thoroughly. I'm not sure too many fans do understand the rule thoroughly, but I certainly understand more now than when I started, and I thank you for that Fisch.
dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Change of subject:

Let's get the word out on the effort to collect soccer equipment for Mali. Saturday, Oct. 25, Williamsburg MS, Arlington.

Hey Fisch: you can bring those Predators that you swore would help you bend a ball like Beckham.

Posted by: Joe Doc | October 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dadryan | October 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't trust dadryan :)

Posted by: RK | October 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey don't hate the player, hate the game ;-)

Posted by: dadryan | October 17, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I apologize for asking the original question concerning the offsides, as I did not mean to cause this kind of issue on the blog -- although I find the discussion useful.

I think I'll go back to lurking.

Posted by: teamn | October 17, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Stubbs was with the Four Tops, actually. Three of the original four are now gone.

Posted by: The Jeff | October 17, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I think the one thing most can agree on, is that the New England Revolution will not make it to a fourth straight MLS Cup final.

Posted by: SonicDeathMonkey | October 17, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Joe Doc -- I didn't get the Predators. I got Absolados. Cheapies. Besides, I'm still using 'em. Hit me back when I go retire again -- possibly at the end of this season.

If a player is not in an offsides position when the ball is played to him, he cannot be ruled offsides. It doesn't matter how you got to that situation. The only sort of exception si the rebound/deflection rule. Those rules mean it doesn't stop being offsides just because an opponent touches it or because it rebounds off the goal. I believe it also means that if the offsides player moves back onsides -- say before the ball deflects or rebounds to him, he is still deemed offsides. That's the only circumstance in which the ball can come off/from another player (or the goalpost) at a moment when a player is standing onsides and still be deemed offsides. A deflection or a rebound is different than a pass only in that respect. The moment that counts is the last moment a ball is struck by a teammate, before it comes to the player whose position is in question.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the correct Jeff. I need some coffee...or a drink.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else thankful that the Houston-LA game (which at this point doesn't seem likely to do much other than end LA's season) is on HDNet, while FSC is carrying the more important RSL-Dallas match? I have often criticized FSC, but I'll take Bretos and Sullivan every time over having to deal with Balboa advocating hyperdefensive play the moment either team gets a 1-0 lead, or simply ignoring what's going on in the game, making things up, and then sticking with them despite replays to the contrary. Can you imagine a game with him doing the color and Christian Miles on PBP? I think I just vomited in my mouth a little.

Posted by: Chest Rockwell | October 17, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

For the ultimate determination of of offside(s) and a good interpretation of the offside rule, watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k3QX_Z7uSA

Posted by: SportzNut21 | October 17, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Fisch Fry,

I have to admit I asked the question in part because I saw a very similar play called offside this weekend. Granted, it was at a U-14 boys tournament, but it matters to those kids. So, I wondered why the different interpretation.

Thanks again.

Posted by: teamn | October 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Glad we cleared that up.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

In other news, Michael Bradley played a full game in Gladbach's 2-2 draw with Bochum (on the road).

Posted by: BigWave | October 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

What about Subotic? Maybe, if we start talking about him as a Yank Abroad, he'll come around to the same view of himself. From what I've seen of our young defenders, I think we could really use him -- now, and in the future...

Subotic '10

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Since it's Friday -- I've got a real offsides puzzler (if any other keen legal minds want to chime in). Let's say an offsides player somehow winds up onsides after a shot is taken. He doesn't play the ball because he's afraid the play will be ruled offsides, but he screens off a defender allowing a teammate to get the rebound and score. Offsides? If so, why? Can you be guilty of interfering with play when you're suddenly in an onsides position? If not, why not? He couldn't play the ball without being ruled offsides -- so if he gets involved in other ways, he should be ruled offsides, no?

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 17, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

It really WOULD be funny if laws of the game could come under judicial review. It would then subject to some scrutiny as it is actually applied and how it impacts the players.

Crayton, for example, was hung out to dry (by his defenders, obviously, but also by) FIFA, since he was forced to ignore Twellman, who was in fact offside on his approach. Twellman and Castro carefully followed the rules to the letter, which disallowed Crayton from defending to his full capacity. Crayton was not only forced to make a decision about the approaching attackers, he essentially had his choice made for him.

Posted by: viv | October 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Fisch Fry,if you're trying to start something, you're about 80 posts too late :-).

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

for a change you might find why we love this game. Everyone trying to get a p
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=Al_TAqYwkcxyyJcKbIzLTwImw7YF?slug=ap-economy-soccer&prov=ap&type=lgns

Posted by: td | October 17, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Lordy, didn't know I'd get some Continuing Education credits for a Ref license by reading the Insider . . .

Go "all THREE TEAMS THAT must be beaten or at least tied this weekend"!

Posted by: delantero | October 17, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Observation . . I'm a single table fan, a relegation fan . . and the MLS playoff run is likely as close as we'll get to that for a long, long time . . .

While the punishment is certainly less severe . . . or is it with Soehn's job on the line (!?). . . it makes the end of the season fun to watch . .

Posted by: delantero | October 17, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

In the college games Goff mentioned, BC upset Virginia, 1-0, while Maryland had a 4-0 lead over Evansville late in the second half. In a game involving two nationally ranked women's teams, West Virginia beat Georgetown, 2-1, in double overtime.

A football-oriented film, Sixty-Six, is now showing at the Charles Theatre in Baltimore. (Actually, I gather that all the action is far off the pitch, as a kid juggles a World Cup final with his bar mitzvah.)

http://www.thecharles.com/schedules/now.asp#1346

Posted by: The Jeff | October 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Long live John Cleese! And the his last statement is fitting . .

"OFFSIDE is when the linesman puts his flag up."

Posted by: delantero | October 17, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse


WE must ALL be Chivas USA fans this weekend.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully this post goes through. I've now had 2 that never appeared.

teamn:

Offside is such a tricky call that I'm guessing the officials at the u14 level may have just misinterpreted the rule. I've seen plenty of that, regardless of what the FIFA-mandated interpretation is at the time. Generally speaking, officials at lower levels will take the safe way out and wave off the goal.

Don't beat yourself up because the discussion got heated and lengthy. It's Friday and there wasn't much new to discuss.

Fisch Fry:

I think you've presented a trick scenario. If the shot is truly a shot on goal, then no one can be offside because the only players "involved" are the shooter and the keeper. Let's say Twellman had stayed ahead of the ball last night and Castro had shot. Crayton makes the save, but the ball loops over his head and closer to goal than Twellman, but not in. Twellman is now onside, because he was not involved before (and thus not eligible, if you will, for being called offside) and is now behind the ball.

Of course, either way I imagine this hypothetical ends with several players yelling at the linesman.

Posted by: Chest Rockwell | October 18, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

So... Castro was offside???

:P

Posted by: B.A. | October 18, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Incidentally, in the column of what's "helpful," I might include a collegial and respectful tone on message boards.

dn

Posted by: Dave nelson |

--------------------------------

good luck with that.

Posted by: troy | October 18, 2008 5:53 AM | Report abuse

"Crayton, for example, was hung out to dry (by his defenders, obviously, but also by) FIFA, since he was forced to ignore Twellman, who was in fact offside on his approach. Twellman and Castro carefully followed the rules to the letter, which disallowed Crayton from defending to his full capacity. Crayton was not only forced to make a decision about the approaching attackers, he essentially had his choice made for him."

yeah--this is why it's a bad rule as far as I'm concerned. Makes the GK have to guess who's in play and who isn't, when the GK is in absolutely no position to be able to do so. The GK has to be able to position himself correctly.

dn

Posted by: Dave Nelson | October 18, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

unsubscribe

Posted by: moreno4prez | October 18, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

arlington local latino channel 15 has 30 minutes MLS mostly DC United show by Mr. Bravo with all sorts of player interviews, highlights and so forth. Even though I didn't understand a word of spanish I enjoyed the highlights. I wish our English language channels would do that. I guess I will dream on forever.

Posted by: td | October 18, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Would it be possible for someone to do a DCU post game show on Public Television?
Arsenal goes up in the 70th minute. I sure do dig this rojadirecta!

Posted by: dadryan | October 18, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

WE must ALL be Chivas USA fans this weekend.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 9:41 PM
........................................

That is not the only game of interest, is it? I imagine some people will be rooting for Columbus in its battle with NYRB, for SJ to upend KC, etc.

Posted by: The Jeff | October 18, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Poor Tim Howard. Screened out by two defenders on the first Gooner goal and victimized by shambolic defending on the next two.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

CCL 3rd jersey? Bring back the pirate shirt for Halloween! We already have players with peg legs.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

@Chest -- Boy, I hate to continue this, but I think you're wrong. That is exactly what the "gains an advantage" provision is there for. The ball doesn't play him onside in that case. The moment that counts is the moment that shot was taken, not when it rebounded. If you're offsides when the shot is taken, you're still offsides when the rebound comes to you.

In fact, if I follow the logic of that rule, you'd still be offside to play the rebound if you find yourself even with a defender in the meantime, because you were in the offsides position when the ball was played, and gained an advantage -- though that bit of complication might escape anyone trying to officiate the play.

Posted by: FIsch Fry | October 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

@ The Jeff -- I don't think we have to root against KC. In fact, I'm ready to concede 4th place in the East to KC right now. DCU's sights have to be on the "wild-card".

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, is it still offside?

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse


Steve Nicol > > Is he serious? The no call handball in the box was a gimme call and this idiot has the audacity to suggest that United were getting favorable calls. I can't stand the Revs . .

>>>>>>>>
from MLSNET On the first part of the second half:
"" You know, you come to D.C. and you know there's going to be calls, but all you're asking for is tit for tat. The referee is going to call one thing and then give it the other way on the other side. You expect some calls to go against you.""

Posted by: delantero | October 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

FF: It is far from self-evident that the East will get five berths. Thus, KC, RB, and United should be regarded as competing for a single spot, although of course, we will only know for sure after the fact.

In the event that two of the three do get an invite, is your comment an implicit judgment about Columbus vs. Houston as a possible first-round opponent?

Posted by: The Jeff | October 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Jeff -- I wasn't saying the East will definitely get 5 berths. Just that I think it virtually impossible we'll catch KC. They will win at least one of their last two, and possibly both. So, we have to aim for the wild-card.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 18, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Rooney's really good, no? Knew exactly where the near post was, and put the ball where it had to be.

Posted by: FF | October 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I was marking Berbatov on his goal. I was just as close to him as the West Brom defenders.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 18, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Rooney's really good, no? Knew exactly where the far post was, and put the ball where it had to be.

Posted by: FF | October 18, 2008 1:48 PM
=======

Edited for the 4th goal. Easy shot for Nani

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | October 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The Revs may finally be doing something on the SSS front:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/16/a_pitch_for_soccer_in_somerville/

Posted by: The Jeff | October 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I love the idea of building it on a platform above the railyard. That was, of course, what Giuliani wanted to do on NYC's West Side. It was going to add an incredible amount to the cost -- hundreds of millions, but it was NYC and it would have been a much bigger stadium. If they could do that in Somerville -- and make the field immune to vibrations -- that would be the ideal kind of usage. Taking space that could have no other economic value -- that's the kind of development state and local governments should help subsidize.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like a sweet spot for an urban/city stadium.

First thing I'd do if I were the Krafts would be to send those Aldermen and a few local businessmen to London for an EPL or Championship match . .

The stadiums are low profile in some nice neighbohoods.

Posted by: delantero | October 18, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I'd like to see DCU do something like that over the tracks behind Union Station. I guess it would be too far from any highway, and parking would be difficult. So, we go on hoping for Poplar Point/Barry Farms...

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Fisch Fry:

Didn't Twellman gain an advantage by being so far beyond potential markers? When you're talking about a shot on goal, obviously the ref has to judge that it was 100% a shot and had no other intent, but generally a player not in the keeper's way and not in the path of the shot would be judged to be not involved with this particular "play" (as much as I don't like to separate a soccer game out into football-style units of play). Plus, if the shot is in fact saved into the path of the striker, the last player to touch the ball is the keeper, and he/she did so with intent. If a defender plays a foolish backpass that suddenly brings an attacker into an onside position, the attacker is supposed to be considered onside. The keeper meant to save the ball, so you can't say it was the ball playing the man, which in my view means you have to say he intended for the ball to end up where it does.

@Chest -- Boy, I hate to continue this, but I think you're wrong. That is exactly what the "gains an advantage" provision is there for. The ball doesn't play him onside in that case. The moment that counts is the moment that shot was taken, not when it rebounded. If you're offsides when the shot is taken, you're still offsides when the rebound comes to you.

For what it's worth, I believe that in such complicated situations, the advantage still goes to the defensive team over 80% of the time. I see where you're coming from, but my understanding of the current interpretation is that the attacker gets every advantage one can imagine, short of actual cherry-picking.

And now, since everyone seems to want to be done with it, a new thought:

Toronto is doing everything they can to rejoin the playoff chase. Admirable, but if they get in, I think my head will explode.

Posted by: Chest Rockwell | October 18, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Why do they call 2 goals a brace?

Posted by: Atl | October 18, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Chest - you really need to read through the above posts or watch FIFA's flash presentation on the offsides rule. "Gaining an advantage" doesn't mean what you might think. It has a very specific meaning -- limited to when the attacking player, in offsides position when the ball is played, receives the ball off a deflection or a rebound (from the goalie or the goal frame itself). As for Twellman, when he was offsides, he did not receive the ball -- the ball was played to him only after he was no longer offsides. The rules are very clear and not subject to loose interpretation -- except possibly in one case: My hypothetical was just a situation that is so extreme that I don't think IFAB has decided what should happen.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 18, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

So, I turned to the end of the Villareal game, and Altidore was playing. Whoo Baby! Looked like he belonged, too. I bet he felt especially at home because the crowd looked about as big as what he was used to for Red Bulls' home games. How can these teams afford transfer fees like his, if the stands are about 20% filled?

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 18, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow! The world works in fantastic, mysterious ways!!

If you're watching the Atletico-Real Madrid game -- or even if you're not -- Real just lost a goal for offsides -- and I think it was exactly one of the two questionable cases I described above.

Ray Hudson and Phil whatshisname both thought the refs blew it, but I think the refs got it right -- because of the implications of the "gaining an advantage" rule.

Ruud van Nistleroy is, I believe, in an offsides position, when the shot is taken (if he's not, then the refs really did blow this call). The goalie saves the ball, but the rebound pops up awkwardly spinning and towards van Nistleroy. Meanwhile one of the defenders has followed the play back so that he is at least even with van Nistleroy -- maybe even deeper, as he defends against an attacker coming on the other side. Van Nistleroy steps up, beating the goalie to the ball and knocks his shot into the back of the net. Ruled offsides.

The announcers think he came from an onsides position, but my argument is that this is a case of "gaining an advantage" albeit a fuzzy one. It might have looked like he's coming from an onsides position, but he was offsides when the shot was taken. And, I believe that's all that counts under that circumstance.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 18, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

TFC beats Chicago, 3-2, to keep its sliver of a chance alive for another week.

Posted by: The Jeff | October 18, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

NCAA (specifically, ACC) men's action tonight includes Virginia Tech at North Carolina and Duke at Wake Forest. Both games are 35-40 minutes along. The Albicelestes are up 1-0 in the one game; the other one is scoreless.

Posted by: The Jeff | October 18, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Danny Cepero, of Harrisburg City Islanders fame, is between the pipes for RBNY tonight.

Posted by: The Jeff | October 18, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Reyering isn't kicking for UVa anymore.

Posted by: RK | October 18, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow interesting win by RSL tonight, however without the two red cards by Dallas I'm not sure it would have been possible.

The fans of RSL deserve a playoff spot...not the team. Beckerman is so overrated its like watching Gallardo (if he actually played).

Posted by: Southeasterner | October 18, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Cepero goal?

They beat Columbus on that goal!

I can't hate NJ more. God I wish they would disappear.

Posted by: Southeasterner | October 18, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Cepero goal?

They beat Columbus on that goal!

I can't hate NJ more. God I wish they would disappear.

Posted by: Southeasterner | October 18, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

At least, it's simple now. United has to win, and needs NYRB or KC to lose.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | October 19, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Good thing is that Red Bull and KC play the Fire and Revs who both have something to play for (maybe?) so maybe that is where we can get some luck.

Posted by: LN Hunter | October 19, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Fisch Fry:

I'm just going off of what NCAA refs have told me and what the last FIFA statements were during their last public "we're changing the interpretation" deal (I think it was before the 2006 World Cup). I'm not saying you're wrong, though if you're right I worry about some NCAA results. I have seen goals counted precisely because the rebound fell to a guy that, previously, was offside but not involved. It could well be that there is just widespread misinterpretation, since it's not like this is an easy thing to decide.

***

If you had asked me to pick 2 MLS results to go our way and 2 that had to go against us, I would have gone with the exact opposite of what happened. If NY and KC both win, we're done. If one wins and one draws, we have to beat Columbus by 3 goals (head-to-head with both NY and KC are tied) to get through. It looks to me like Chicago has a much better chance at home against NY Thursday night, since the Revs without Ralston just look like an also-ran at this point. Realistically, I think KC is more likely to win that game than any other outcome, so we have to hope Chicago helps us get into the playoffs (as opposed to their normal role escorting us out of the playoffs). On the plus side, the entire Fire organization would love to beat Osorio and NY and possibly see them eliminated, so NY will not be getting the same easy ride as they did tonight against a Columbus team that looked like they'd rather be chilling at home.

Posted by: Chest Rockwell | October 19, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Correction to an earlier post of mine: TFC's win was apparently not sufficient to get past this weekend alive. Toronto is gone along with LA, SJ, and FCD, with Colorado now hanging by a thread.

Posted by: The Jeff | October 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company