Another Day, Another Dubious Decision: The Dutch Offside Goal.

Aggravating as hell that in a World Cup semi-final, the game was (arguably) decided by a refereeing error. This whole World Cup has been one long argument for video replay or some sort of review.

Goal is definitely offside, not only is Van Persie screening it but attempting to play it, which prevents Muslera from committing to going for the save.

but van persie doesn't touch the ball so doesn't that mean calling it offsides would be incorrect?

I could not agree more. If the Paraguay goal was offside, then so was this one. And it did have an effect on the outcome of the game. Without this offside goal, Uruguay would have not lost their focus when Kuyt engineered Robben's goal (they left him unmarked in front of goal with a free header). It became all the more consequential when Uruguay scored in the second minute of stoppage time. It is most unfortunate when the feature that competes with Germany's stunning display of attacking soccer for the most memorable aspect of the world cup in South Africa is the egregiously poor officiating!

Chris, he doesn't have to touch it to be offside. The rules say it's offside if he interferes with play, which he did.

Well I thought van Persie was level when the ball was played through to him, which seemed to be the general opinion on the tv here…they were full of praise for the officials making a good call.

No, it's offside because he's actively offside when the ball is played by Sneidjer. Active offside is what matters, not whether he has the ball or not. Active offside is influencing the play…so in the Spain-Paraguay game, Cardoza who was offside influenced a Spanish defender (Pique, I believe) to mark him, instead of the goalscorer Valdez. In this instance, he's screening the keeper, and the keeper can't make a decision until it goes by him. Had Muslera dived to save it and Van Persie trapped it (as he was trying to do) he'd have looked like a fool.

Nah, as much as I wanted Uruguay to advance (and it was close, bravo to them, huge respect), it was hardly an offside. Van Persie was practically even with the defender and in such cases referees shouldn't award an offside.

yeah i just rechecked the offside rules

“Hardly” and “practically” don't matter. You're off, or your not. Hard call, but they blew it.

I definitely agree with you about this goal.

However, it should also be remembered that Laws of the Game states: “If an assistant referee is not totally sure about an offside offence the flag should not be raised (i.e. in case of doubt benefit must be given to the attacking team).”

A player is offside if any part of his body with which he can play the ball (hands and arms don't count) is ahead of the second to last defender. If you look closely, Van Persie's right leg is ahead of the defender, making him offside.

Don't forget “in the OPINION of the referee”

No doubt, tough (non-) call. But I tend to start hating super slo-mo. What human eye could judge on this situation correctly? In case of doubt, always for the attacking player. Nevertheless, chapeau Uruguay. But the Dutch will have a tough time against whoever, Spain or Germany. In my opinion, we'll see the WC champion playing tomorrow.

wow. after seeing offsides and bad calls like the mexico vs argentina and Lampard's goal game, this in nothing; look at the image above, the ball has already left sneijders foot. look by how much he's offside, its practically nothing. And the goal could not throw them off because FIFA didnt do the stupid mistake of showing the offside on the big screen to the players like they did on the Mexico game; now that does throw you off your game. example watch Osorio give away the ball second goal andmarquez getting a yellow card. Plus Ghana deserved to be here in the first play. Suarez hand should be more punished because for me that goes against fair play.

If it's so close that you can only see one of his leg being behind the defender in the photo (and the ball had already left the passer's foot in that picture, so it was entirely possible that Van Persie was truly on side at the moment the ball was struck), advantage should go to the attacking team.

The referee did a good job by not disallowing the goal. This offside rant is going beyond mental…just because the defender jumps to the front in the very last milisecond to make an offside situation, should be punished this way.

Plus, the German commentator in the video you are using, says that the referee made the right decision, because the ball did not touch Van Persie and he did not attempt to play the ball, but jumped away from it.

It sounds like whoever wrote this article is lobbying for videos to be used in officiating or just trying to pour dirt on Irmatov for the sake of other referee, Webb maybe?

Minus the reporter took it back later on and the analysts called it offside. It was clearly offside, but it's such a close decision, it's hard to blame the linesman for it.

True, it gets to be too much to hear about all these offsides and watch the slow motion replays but if it's your team, you complain; there's nothing wrong with that. Regardless of the offside goal, the important fact is that I think everyone underestimated Uruguay, including the Dutch players. 3 key Uruguayan players on the bench, and offside Dutch goal that wasn't disallowed, several strong fouls against Uruguayan players, Forlán pulled out, and Uruguay still gave the Dutch a run for their money. Maybe next time guys!

Van Persie didn't touch the ball. You could only try and argue about him blocking the view/getting in the way of the goalkeeper?

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the
ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this
definition
• “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

It's clear that Van Persie was offside, but he did not interfere with play as he crucially did not touch the ball. Did he interfere with an opponent? IMHO from his body language he, like most strikers who know they are offside, made an attempt to not play the ball. I wonder if this played a part to sway the referee's opinion.

The World Cup is pathetic. Virtually every game has had a decision in it to allow an offside goal, give a penalty where none was due, disallow a good goal etc. And that's without even considering the blatant diving (aka. cheating.) The only way to save the game and give it back at least some credibility is to introduce a video referee. Why this hasn't been done already ie beyond me.

Isn't it the case that, in areas of doubt, the benefit should be given to the attacker. This doesn't happen often enough, but in this instance, I think it's called absolutely correctly.

Sure, the super slo-mo shows Van Persie with his leg in an offside position, but at normal speed, I would suggest that this was impossible to call. Therefore, the decision was correct.

If the linesman thought he was offside, but not interfering with play, then that is a different matter; I do believe he was interfering as he is in the line of sight of the goalkeeper.

All that said, the problem is the non-communication of the referees, post-match. I would suggest that a large percentage of the issues that have arisen in this World Cup – and in ALMOST EVERY game, every weekend – would be resolved by having the referee explain his decision afterwards.

You must be an American.

Yeah, by the rules, it's offside if you have a slow-mo replay. However, close calls are left to the discretion of the officials, and benefit of doubt is to be given to attackers. As it is, with no technology involved, the call was fine.

Fifa World Cup : Where Rigged Games Happens!

Now, what we're all forgetting here is how that goal messed my fantasy football up.

It shouldn't have counted, because I didn't want it to? That work for anyone? Non?

It's actively offside…he doesn't need to touch it.

he obviously tried to play the ball, but that doesn't matter since either way he was obstructing the keepers view meaning he was interfering with an opponent. So yes he was offside.

Couldn't you say the same about Lampards non-goal or Tevezs offside? It was a hard call, but it still doesn't make it a right call. I'm not blaming the refs on this, just further evidence they need help.

It's not even offside? He is at the same line, 1 foot alone is offside, not enough, dumbs..

You mean further evidence that then (at least in this case) would be subject of further interpretation?

If he made an attempt not to play the ball he had to have had an effect on the goalkeeper who cannot move until the ball passed VP so he is interfereing and he is offside. all of this is irrelevant to Blatter who has an agenda never to have England in a Final and always to have the Euro teams in mode up at the top. This year the fav's were holland (who should have had 2 sent off in the first match and would never have got out of the group) and the first goal today was a red card so 0-0 and down to 10. Robben is a great player but Blatter has allowed diving to be an integral part of the game. so cheats prosper what a way to teach kids. the game is dying.

When I referee I go into the changing rooms and tell the teams that they have all just got a yellow for ungentlemanly conduct and that in the rules the next dive will be their last.

FIFA should say all matches will be highly scrutinised and any case of diving will receive a 10 match ban. Portugal and spain would be down to squads of 4-5 and holland would be using the coach driver but at least they would be playing football

In spite of all that, the cream has risen to the top as the remaining 3 teams are really really good independent of refereeing mistakes

So basically its a horrible officiating error because his leg is slightly offside (debatable, and clearly impossible to tell with the un-aided eye) and he stood there as the ball went past him? thats considered egrigious officiating? I was all for video replay on goals/key moments, but this is making me seriously reconsider.

Oh and btw, Uruguay was clearly due some karmic justice after that shameful handball save and even more shameful post most celebration/comments. If englands goal that was but wasnt had occured in this game that would be suitable justice? but this is just rubbish, get a grip.

this offside is hard to be seen. what i concern here is that there were a few times uruguay's players were clearly on-side but they were called off-side in the 1st half of the game, and that the dutchs were really good actors. they kicked uruguay's players, then fell down, rolled on the field, faked to be hurt. see how rude they played the game. they wasted the extra time by faking to be hurt & even trying to argue with the ref to give uruguay's player a yellow card. no wonder there were so many ppl said the dutchs were fakers after the game with brazil. i suspect by that time cuz i didnt watch netherlands' game before, but now i truly understand. ya netherlands win but they were fakers. no respect to them. uruguay was understrengthed but they played hard, never tried to hurt netherlands' players for win. i give full respect to uruguay's players in this game.

What the hell, how is this even an issue? Not only is van Persie just BARELY offside, but this is one of those strange offside situations involving “interference” and whatnot, not a clear-cut pass to an offside player who then scores. Why make a bigger deal out of this than of, for instance, Robert Vittek's goal against New Zealand?

The ball comes off a defenders leg who had deliberately made a play for it, although v. Persie is in an offside position, the fact that it comes off the defender means he cannot commit an “offside act” it is a LEGIT legit goal 100% Read law 11 before you run your mouth.

It's very simple people…if you know soccer, the dude was offsides!!! These refs have no excuses. stop making excuses for them 'cause you favor the team! It should have been a tied game leading into overtime to decide the victor of the battle. The ref screwed up just like all the refs have been doing in the World Cup all along!!!(CAN WE SEE A PATTERN HERE? HELLO??!!! Too many mistakes by them have cost many BIG teams to suffer not being able to advance. For you new people that havn't been watching the World Cup like I have since I was 13 years of age(I am 41 now), this World Cup has been a shame and disaster due to the poor calls by the Ref's!!! This World Cup is the Finals for the teams that managed to squeeze by the shitty ref's. Ref's make mistake's, but these ref's have turned around everything, and have ruined the hard work and struggle that many teams have trained for four years to be in this World Cup. What a disgrace to the world of Soccer. The Ref's won't be able to pull that crap in 2014 when it's in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. (The largest soccer stadium in the world which holds almost 300,000 spectators.-MARACANA. The Brazilians will be sure to give a good linching to the Bad Ref's I'm sure! For their own sake, lets hope that they have instant replay review by then.

I was supporting Uruguay, this goal was offsides, but it was so close that I don't begrudge the refs for not calling it.

Why we're not talking about the botched offside calls against Uruguay, or about the red card offense committed before the Dutch's first goal that should have had it disallowed, is what I am wondering.

FIFA: we avenged our friends Ghana! everything is in or control!

First of all, it doesn't look like the Dutch player is offsides (I know the rule very well). The still frame that is shown is slightly after the ball was struck. If you stop the frame exactly when the ball was struck it looks like the Urguarian defender has a foot behind him. This is a very fast moving play with the Dutch player running toward goal and the defender quickly stepping up as the ball was struck. Either way, this call could easily go either way and I hope that if video replay is used in future for offsides calls it would only be used in cases where there is clear evidence that that call was wrong. If there is any debate, as there certainly is in this case – play on.

Thank you for telling it like it is steveinfrance. I couldn't agree more, crying your way to the top is not world class football. I would strongly support a 10 match ban. This game is about who has a better team of players, not actors. If you can't win on your merits as better players, then what value is that trophy? If this type of officiating (or the lack thereof) continues you will wind up with Pablo Escobar football.
I am an American and I support our team, but the simple facts are that Brazil is the best team in the world. That doesn't mean they win every single match. Once and a while we have our day and beat them, but overall they are simply better than us. Guess what? I'm ok with that, because having lived in Brazil I can tell you that it is more than just a sport. The people eat, sleep, talk, and live football. I watched 3 year old kids wrap up wads of paper into a ball with duct tape and play barefoot on cobblestone streets. By the time their 20 year old players get in the world cup, they are 15 year veterans at competative play. Do I hate that? Not at all, I would rather learn from it. I truly hope that pure game play can decide teams fate in 2014 and not this pathetic excuse for refereeing during this cup.

Amen Bo. For christ sake, after Suarez' form against Ghana, how could you possibly make out as Uruguay are a team of do-gooders? This was not offside at all.
Uruguay played damn well, they should be proud they made it this far.

Well now that I threw in my 2 cents about the things I haven't liked about this World Cup I can add something positive. Weather or not the calls always go the way I want or maybe the team I root for gets beaten. I still have to say that I love this sport. It truly is the Worlds game. It's inspiring to watch the talent and sometimes luck in these matches. My wife said to me a couple of years ago. “Why do you watch that stuff? It's so boring. Nintey minutes and most of the time no one scores. How can you watch a game that ends in a tie?” While I knew what she was saying, she hadn't seen a good game yet. I asked her to watch a game with me one night on tv. It was one of those games where your heart literally claws its way out of your chest. By the end of the game she was squeezing her soda cup so tight she popped a hole in it. I think she gets it now. For anyone who's never experienced this, keep watching. You may go through a couple of scoreless and uneventful games, but eventually you'll catch the game that converts you. For those few moments which are so nerve racking that we don't even have a term for it, many of us could grow old in those crowded stands. We would gladly trade that one game for a lifetime of season tickets to any other sport. Because once you get that mind blowing adrenaline rush, you just know. There's nothing else like it. Long live Football, long live the Fans.

I totally disagree that uruguay was playing fair. Too much acting, especially at the beginning. Remember that yellow card for Sneijder? He barely touched the Caseiras (or whats-his-name) and he felt instantly. Well.. THE SHAME. And that kick into De Zeeuw face was awful as well.
Dutch side.. Van Bommel was playing too harsh, and Robben tried faking few times, but not critically dangerous situations. Still, ref did not fell for that.
And about that “offside” goal. Persie was barely offside, and he even did not touch the ball. Stop saying that it would be 2:2, because dutches would be much more cautious if they were leading 2:1.

It was good game though.

the snapshot shows Sneijder already having kicked the ball. This snapshot cannot be considered for ruling the offside issue that has been raised in this discussion. All of us know that the kicker must be on the verge of making contact with the ball when the interfering person makes his run, only then can there be justification for the ruling.. but then Offside rule itself is so mysterious that one can never be quite sure!

this blog post is totally biased

Thanks for at least having an article about this. The despicable commentator for the CBC didn't even try to hide his bias this entire game and hardly even mentioned the word offside.

It was a close call that I cannot hate the refs for not making correctly. But close or not, it was still a BAD call that changed the entire course of the game.

This may not be the accurate snapshot to take but I saw the accurate one and RVP was in the same position. Ahead of the last defender, offside, and not in a “passive” position whatsoever.

I agree with dointhebestikan. There is no mistake that the ball was shifted by the Uruguayan defender. In this case, there isn't any offside to consider so why is this thread still going?

@Yaffee Adong

You mean the “friends” you colonized and exploited? I am sure they love you. I hope you had fun coming up empty-handed again.

@Yaffee Adong

You mean the “friends” you colonized and exploited? I am sure they love you. I hope you had fun coming up empty-handed again.