Question Number: 30462

Law 11 - Offside 5/28/2016

RE: I'm just a fan but am anxious. No. 2 High School

Tolga Eskici of Bedford, United Kingdom asks...

In the 2016 Champions League final, Sergio Ramos scored a goal in an offside position. However, during this, his shirt was being tugged, would the goal still not count or would there be a penalty offence instead? Please answer, thank you. Sorry, I'm new, you can forget this question if you want. but was Ramos' offside goal a penalty offence as his shirt was getting tugged or just a disallowed goal? Do I get emailed this by any chance?

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Tolga, I am responding with the U.S. high school rule since you asked for the high school interpretation. My understanding of what you were asking is that an offside attacker received the ball and then kicked it into the goal, but while he was kicking it, a defensive player grabbed his shirt in order to stop the kick. The high school ruling would be offside and the goal would not count because the offside as defined by U.S. High School Rule, 11-1-4 indicates that the attacker is offside at the time his teammate passed the ball to him because he is involved in active play while in the offside position. Since you are in the United Kingdom and high school rules are not played there, I expect that this may not help you much but at least you will know how this is handled in high school games in the U.S. I hope that your team is having a successful season..

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Tolga,
I hold the opinion a disallowed goal could be a reasonable call here
It was a difficult call, because as the flick on header occurs it does appear in a FREEZE FRAME moment, that Ramos had a playable body part ie.. a leg step closer to the opposing goal line then the 2nd last opponent. It does appear he was marginally offside but if the CR and AR were uncertain then the correct call is to allow play. They would call it only if they were CERTAIN it was offside. Some will point to the use of technology to make a distinction rather than rely on the eye vision and knowledge of the officials. The AR looking in might not be aware of the flick on touch by Garth unless the CR communicated it.

The offside call is determined by the action of the restricted player only if the officials are certain there was an offside position established with clear certainty. We often suggest when in doubt do not wave it about. (Raising an offside flag!) It is also unlikely the fact of such a close call is going to raise irritation as the more obvious lapses in judgement. Athletico might be disappointed about the REAL goal but the missed PK off the crossbar during the match and the penalty shot off the post during KFTPM will hurt more.

There was some holding going on and it is remotely possible the timing of the holding might have started prior to the Garth flick on and if spotted as such, there could be a pk awarded as no advantage would apply to a goal scored if the player was adjudged to be offside. But if the offside position was adjudged to have occurred first then the holding would not be punished as the INDFK restart for interference with an opponent takes precedent.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Tolga
This was a very difficult offside situation to determine at speed and in a crowded penalty area. Ramos was clearly onside from the kicked cross and it was only the touch by Bale that made it offside. As the touch was a glance by Bale it is very possible that the AR may have missed that contact which at that time then placed Ramos in an offside position. That position though was also very tight as only part of Ramos, his right leg was in an offside position. That though under Law 11 is suffice to place Ramos in an offside position.
Now as you point out he was also being shirt held and as the offside offence happened first it could not be a penalty. It could only be a penalty if Ramos was onside or for that matter that the offside was missed or that the holding happened before the Bale headed touch of the ball. In addition advantage would require that play continue in a goal scoring situation which it was. At this level holding at set pieces has become a major issue for referees. Most of these *holding*situations are ignored and only the most obvious blatant ones are called.
In the Ramos instance the only correct decision in Law was an IDFK for offside.
Finally what it does point to is that officials cannot compete with technology. It is for this reason that IFAB is introducing technology on a trial basis
http://quality.fifa.com/en/var/
Going forward the referee will be able to ask for assistance in determining if this was a legal goal or not. Under video review using modern technology it could be shown to be offside and the goal ruled out.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 30467