Jovan
04-29-2008, 09:19 PM
To: State Referee Administrators
State Youth Referee Administrators
State Directors of Referee Instruction
State Directors of Referee Assessment
National Referees, National Assessors
National Instructors
State Directors of Coaching
From: Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education
Subject: Offside Issues
Date: October 16, 2007
During a match between FC Dallas and the Columbus Crew on October 6, 2007, a sequence of
play occurred which resulted in the scoring of a goal by Columbus player #12 (Eddie Gaven). At the
time, Columbus player #26 (Andy Herron) was indisputably in an offside position and some analyses
of the play have suggested that the goal should have been canceled because Herron had committed an
offside infraction.
Being in an offside position is not an offense. A player in an offside position is only penalized
if he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• Interfering with play or
• Interfering with an opponent or
• Gaining an advantage by being in that position.
Below, using the guidance provided by FIFA, we examine whether Herron should have been penalized
for being in an offside position.
Although Herron is seen sticking his leg out as the ball passes him, there is no contact with the
ball and therefore Herron cannot be considered to have interfered with play. This is a fact.
The camera angles on the several replays of the event on the attached clip do not provide us
with a clear line of sight from the perspective of the Dallas goalkeeper #30 (Ray Burse) so we must
draw our conclusions from what can be seen. First, Herron is about 12 yards from the Dallas
goalkeeper when the play was initiated by Columbus. Accordingly, Herron occupied only a small
portion of the goalkeeper's field of view and it is therefore inconclusive that Herron interfered with the
goalkeeper by blocking Burse’s view of the path of the ball. Second, there is no video evidence that
Herron's actions deceived or distracted the goalkeeper (much less any other defender). The
goalkeeper's position to defend against this shot on goal appears to be set by the trajectory of the ball
as it left Gaven's foot, not by any action taken by Herron. The evidence thus supports a decision that
Herron did not interfere with an opponent.
Gaining an advantage while in an offside position is not an issue here since there was no
deflection from the goalposts, crossbar, or a defender. This also is a fact.
As a consequence, none of the elements of involvement in active play while in an offside
position were present and the referee's decision not to penalize Herron for his position must be
supported.
State Youth Referee Administrators
State Directors of Referee Instruction
State Directors of Referee Assessment
National Referees, National Assessors
National Instructors
State Directors of Coaching
From: Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education
Subject: Offside Issues
Date: October 16, 2007
During a match between FC Dallas and the Columbus Crew on October 6, 2007, a sequence of
play occurred which resulted in the scoring of a goal by Columbus player #12 (Eddie Gaven). At the
time, Columbus player #26 (Andy Herron) was indisputably in an offside position and some analyses
of the play have suggested that the goal should have been canceled because Herron had committed an
offside infraction.
Being in an offside position is not an offense. A player in an offside position is only penalized
if he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• Interfering with play or
• Interfering with an opponent or
• Gaining an advantage by being in that position.
Below, using the guidance provided by FIFA, we examine whether Herron should have been penalized
for being in an offside position.
Although Herron is seen sticking his leg out as the ball passes him, there is no contact with the
ball and therefore Herron cannot be considered to have interfered with play. This is a fact.
The camera angles on the several replays of the event on the attached clip do not provide us
with a clear line of sight from the perspective of the Dallas goalkeeper #30 (Ray Burse) so we must
draw our conclusions from what can be seen. First, Herron is about 12 yards from the Dallas
goalkeeper when the play was initiated by Columbus. Accordingly, Herron occupied only a small
portion of the goalkeeper's field of view and it is therefore inconclusive that Herron interfered with the
goalkeeper by blocking Burse’s view of the path of the ball. Second, there is no video evidence that
Herron's actions deceived or distracted the goalkeeper (much less any other defender). The
goalkeeper's position to defend against this shot on goal appears to be set by the trajectory of the ball
as it left Gaven's foot, not by any action taken by Herron. The evidence thus supports a decision that
Herron did not interfere with an opponent.
Gaining an advantage while in an offside position is not an issue here since there was no
deflection from the goalposts, crossbar, or a defender. This also is a fact.
As a consequence, none of the elements of involvement in active play while in an offside
position were present and the referee's decision not to penalize Herron for his position must be
supported.