dot   Home     World     World Cup Blog  

Paraguay’s “Offside” Goal Against Spain

   

Valdez, the goal scorer, certainly wasn’t offside, but Cardozo, well offside, certainly impacted the defense.

What say you?

(0-0 at the half)


  • http://www.mcalcio.com Marco P.

    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)

  • Bense235

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/worldcupreferee Andy Slater

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

  • http://openid.ivern.org/javier Javier

    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.

  • ESPN_SMRITI

    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

  • http://www.mcalcio.com Marco P.

    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.

  • http://atalanta.theoffside.com Jae @ Atalanta 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.

  • http://twitter.com/gigarrido Gustavo Garrido

    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.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Randolf-Enns/823358361 Randolf Enns

    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.

  • http://www.mcalcio.com Marco P.

    Wrong.

  • brentonwalters

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/gigarrido Gustavo Garrido

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

  • http://twitter.com/gigarrido Gustavo Garrido

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

  • brentonwalters

    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

  • http://twitter.com/gigarrido Gustavo Garrido

    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.

  • brentonwalters

    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?

  • http://twitter.com/gigarrido Gustavo Garrido

    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”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cristian-Alarcon/100000417443270 Cristian Alarcon

    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

  • brentonwalters

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

  • http://twitter.com/gigarrido Gustavo Garrido

    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.

blog comments powered by Disqus
 

CATEGORIES & ARCHIVES

 

 
Closer

International Football Jerseys
Bet on International Football
Football Tickets
Noticias de Futbol
Tournaments
Euro 2012 Qualifying
Africa Cup of Nations 2012
UEFA Champions League
Europa League

Follow WorldCupBlog on Facebook   Follow WorldCupBlog on Twitter  
World Cup Resources
World Cup History
World Cup Legends
World Cup Memorable Moments
World Cup Photos
World Cup Videos