In a Bundesliga match between Hertha BSC and FC Nurnberg on February 2, 2014, a rather interesting match situation occurs and I can’t figure out what the correct decision should be. I’ve been fighting with myself for over 3 weeks and at first I thought I knew the answer however, upon looking at the clip again, I’m starting to second guess myself. So I ask you all…did the referee get it right in the end?
In the 87th minute of the match, Herta midfielder takes a long range shot on goal as the keeper is out of position. As the ball is travelling in the air and about to enter the goal, a Nurnberg defender sneakily handles the ball and tried to make it look like a header.
Pretty simple and textbook call for the referee, right? Red card for DOGSO-H, restart with a PK for Hertha. However, this is where it gets interesting. After the referee shows the Nurnberg defender the red card, he is summoned by his AR and they have a quick chat. After about a minute, the referee takes back the red card and awards an IDFK to Nurnberg. The offense? A Hertha player was in an offside position when the shot was taken and deemed to be involved in active play.
After watching the replay you will notice a Blue Hertha player in an offside position (Hertha player is standing between 2 Nurnberg players…Nurnberg player is just outside the goal line, which places him on the goal line, and the goal keeper ahead of him making the goal keeper the second last defender.) No argument there! The shot is taken and after the DOGSO-H happens, that same offside player gets the rebound and plays the ball into the net.
My first impression was that the AR was signalling for the offside at the moment the offside player got the ball. If that was the case then the referee was correct in his first decision to punish the DOGSO-H as that happened before the offside offence. However, after watching the replay about 1,000 times, it seems to me that the offside offence that the AR is signalling is for the collision with the GK. For 3 weeks I had decided that it was my opinion that there was no infringement here and the DOGSO decision was the correct decision, and the referee in the end got his final decision wrong. However, now that I watch the clip again for the 1,001-st time, I’m starting to see that the Hertha player did in fact come into contact with the Nurnberg GK, which impeded his progress to attempt to save the ball headed towards his goal and therefore, the Hertha player must be penalized for being in an offside position and involved in active play by interfering with an opponent.
Now I’m just completely confused and i’m not sure which way to go.
So I ask you…did the referee get this right?
You make the call and let me know your thoughts!
The Third Blind Mouse
With the recent clarification to the interpretation of Law 11, the outcome of this entire situation has now changed!
Let’s break it down…
1) Shot on goal from long range. Blue player in offside position (stop clip at 2:24)
2) Ball is headed directly into the net and a red player deliberately handles the ball.
3) Interpretation for law 11 states “A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.”
4) One cannot make a deliberate save by deliberately handling the ball (except for the GK within his own PA)
5)Therefore, in this case, the red defender has now deliberately played the ball (albeit with his hand)
6) This deliberate action now negates the offside position and the Blue player is no longer deemed to have gained an advantage – advantage is applied
7) Goal is scored and allowed
8) Red defender is Cautioned for Unsporting Behavior, and shown the yellow card.
Ping-pong anyone??? 🙂