Paraguay’s “Offside” Goal Against Spain

FIFA Laws of the game, Law 11:
A player in an offside position is only penalised 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:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

Cardozo was involved in active play because he:
a) interfered with play (attempted to connect with the cross, albeit not touching the ball)
b) interfered with an opponent (the Spanish defender pulled away to mark him)

It was offsides. Paraguay could have decided the game later on with their penalty and Santa Cruz had the chance to equalize. Paraguay has got no one else to blame but themselves. Spain was already playing on the lowest niveau they possibly could.

Absolutely correct, by taking a Spanish defender away from Valdez, he became active and affected how Spain could deal with Valdez

That's a pretty crazy interpretation of the rule. If you follow it to its logical conclusion, then any play with a player behind the defensive line will be called offside unless the defenders intentionally ignore the player, even though the player can easily become a valid target again. Not to mention, the player in question gained *no advantage* from being offside because the defender would have chased him anyway if he wasn't offside–this clearly negates the principle of needing to benefit from the offside position. There's no way that the original intent of the rule covered defenders chasing down the player in the offside position. Interfering with an opponent needs to involve contact or at least obstructing the opponent's field of view (in fact, if you watch FIFA rulebook's videos on the offside rules, it's pretty clear that this is exactly what they mean).

This was a mistake by the line judge, which is honestly somewhat understandable given the number of players involved and the fact that the defenders were in a cluster, but I wish they would give the goalscorer the benefit of the doubt when they're not sure, and I don't see how they could have been sure here.

Don't get me wrong, the best team won here, but I wish they had won in a more convincing manner. If Spain doesn't bring a better game against Germany they may as well start booking flights home now.

DEFINITELY…SPAIN SHOULD BRING THE BEST GAME TO TRASH GERMANY….GERMANY IS ONE OF THE BEST TEAM IN WORLD CUP 2010 AND WONT BE DEFEATED THAT EASILY

It wasn't a mistake Javier. I've watched plenty of those FIFA videos myself believe me (I'm training to become a pro referee), and the “interfering with an opponent” case Andy and I described is often presented in them (and not exclusively in its commonest form, i.e. obstructing the goalkeeper's view).

Like I stated there are two reasons why Cardozo was deemed offside: interfering with play (by jumping for the cross and attempting to head the ball… even though he missed it) and interfering with an opponent (the defender who was marking him). The second reason is less obvious to understand and its interpretation more specific (not every offside striker who is being marked by a defender will necessarily be penalized by an offside call), however in this case the law applies. Cardozo was too involved with that particular play not to have been considered offside.

However, a different, more difficult case would have been if Cardozo had not jumped to head the ball for instance. The assistant ref would then have had two scenarios to consider:
a) was Cardozo ignoring the play completely, for example by walking towards his own net? If yes, NO OFFSIDE.
b) was Cardozo trying to position himself to receive the cross, but at the last second realized he would not be able to connect with it, deciding to let the ball pass over his head? In this case, the assistant would still have to consider Cardozo involved in active play and raise his flag for OFFSIDE.

Yeah, because he went for the ball he was correctly ruled offside. I remember in 2006 in the US-Italy match the US had a goal disallowed because McBride was standing in an offside position and moved his leg to let the shot go by him but was ruled offside because he interfered with Buffon's ability to see the ball or something like that.

Definitions
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
defi nition
• “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

So, NO offside here.

This shows the corruption in the world… always favoring the rich and famous. Go ahead favor the fifa you ass kissers. Look again when he is about to shoot the damn ball for a pass. There is no freaking offside, and cardozo..the worst front player that Paraguay has… is not blocking the defense.. that same player you guys are saying hes soposivly blocking is running ahead as soon as the ball is being shot. But the Paraguayans lost theire mood to win when they realized that this honduras referee is just but kissing.. which they knew but didnt know it would be that bad. Obviously Fifa wants richer countries to winn… its to no advantage for them if a poor country like Paraguay wins.

Wrong.

Randolf, calm down li'l fella. No one above wrote that Cardozo is “blocking the defense”, so I'm a little confused as to what your rant is about. Interfering, according to the rules, doesn't have to mean obstructing, more like affecting. Cardozo clearly affected the play, hence he was offside.

You are. No touching the ball, no obstructing the defender. No offside.

It means obstructing. Even better, it means “clearly obstructing.”

or it means “making a … movement which … distracts an opponent”. As you wrote below:

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

OK, we are getting closer. “Affect the play” doesn't mean “distract an opponent”.

Was Cardozo making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent?

Please, take a look to the video before.

I would say that it is pretty clear that the defender who jumps with Cardozo was pretty distracted by him. If not, why would he jump like that?

To hit the ball. What else can the defender do? And, what else can the defender do if Cardozo stand still on that play?

Cardozo was really “preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball”?

that is so true as a paraguayan i say that it was not offsides and it was a goal by cardozo but the Honduras ref sez it was offsides typical ass kisser i agree wit u randolf we were doing great paraguay should b facing germany instead of those bull fighting Spanish people

As a Paraguayan, I imagine you are pretty free from bias on this one, so…

Tonight we saw a clear example of how Van Persie's movements distracts and *prevents* Muslera from catching the ball. Offside.

Cardozo doesn't prevent anyone from playing the ball. No offside.