In keeping with my effort to write more about soccer, I reviewed Joe Latakgomo’s amazing book about the history of South African soccer for ESPN Soccernet, the largest soccer publication in the world.
–Deji Olukotun
Filed under: Uncategorized on August 17th, 2010 | No Comments »
I am pleased to announce the coming release of my work Nigerians in Space.
The novel is set in Nigeria, South Africa, and the U.S. Selected chapters have been published but the work has not been found in one complete volume.
The website will blast off soon. Meanwhile, enjoy the cover.
–Deji Olukotun
Cover (c) 2010 Deji Olukotun
Filed under: Uncategorized on July 14th, 2010 | 1 Comment »
The Linesmen Shuffle
Graham Poll, erstwhile referee who handed out three yellow cards to the same player at the world cup – and who happens to be an astute writer – called the movement of a linesman an absurd shuffle. And it is very amusing. The linesman must track the last defender or the last striker and change direction when the player does, shifting his flag so that it always faces the field. It is a funny dance to watch, especially when an attacker tries various runs or a defender lunges forward in an offside trap.
The linesman develops a strange relationship with the last defender because he is always watching him (or her.) He notes the player’s good plays and foibles, all without any real communication other than a raised hand by the defender or a whiny complaint from the attacker.
Anyway, I caught this shuffle on camera (please forgive the formatting) at the North Korea v Portugal game. One of the most exhilirating experiences of my life. South Africa was my home of three years and it feels great to be back. A dream come true.
–Deji Olukotun
Filed under: Uncategorized on June 21st, 2010 | No Comments »
Have you ever wondered why little Argentina and Barcelona star Lionel Messi always seems to get calls his way? Sometimes it seems unfair when seemingly minor fouls result in free kicks – usually direct – or yellow cards.
Are the referees biased? Do they protect him because he’s small? Maybe. But a better reason may be found in the Laws of the Game.
Under Law 12, a player may be cautioned for ‘persistent infringement’. This rule is meant to penalize players who consistently commit fouls, even if they are quite small. A referee can then manage the game by cautioning a player who constantly kicks another’s ankles, for example.
Importantly, warning one player is seen as enough to warn all the players of one team – or even players on the other team. Each player does not start fresh. Each referee call is part of a continuum, a developing series of decisions of which the players should be aware.
Messi attracts fouls because he is skillful with the ball and often taps it just out of reach of the defender, drawing contact. But eventually these repeated contacts add up and amount to persistent infringement.
If you watch the game, you’ll see that the best players often seem to be protected. It’s extremely difficult for defending teams because their strategy typically involves bumping or frustrating the best players in order to marginalized them.
So next time you see a card issued to a defending team, think about all the things that have come before. Did you see them?
–Deji Olukotun
Filed under: Uncategorized on June 12th, 2010 | No Comments »
Mexico's missed scoring opportunity
The opening game of World Cup 2010 started with a bang. Some great goals, and, from a referee’s perspective, some tough decisions. (Which means great.)
The Offside decision against Carlos Vela
Mexico striker Carlos Vela put the ball in the back of the net after a mad charge by Khune, the South African goalkeeper, left Vela unmarked during a corner kick. Everyone thought it was a goal, but the assistant referee held up his flag to signal Vela offside. Was it?
The offside law
Offside is governed by Law 11 in the Laws of the Game.
We’ll walk through each piece in turn.
The Law begins by stating that ‘It is not an offense in itself to be in an offside position.” This means that being in an offside position does not mean that you have committed an offside offense. You need both to be penalized. They are separate analyses. First we have to look at whether Vela was in an offside position and, if he was, we can determine whether he committed an offside offense.
Determining an offside position
Here is the rule: “A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his opponents’ goal than both the ball and the second last opponent.”
There are three exceptions to this rule:(1) if he is in his own half of the field of play or; (2) he is level with the second last opponent; or (3) he is level with the last two opponents. (Sorry to the millions of women soccer players out there — the laws say ‘he’.)
Here we go.
First question: Was Vela, the goalscorer, nearer to his opponents’ goal than both the ball and the second last opponent?
a. the ball
Yes. You can see that Vela (second circle in red) is closer to the South African goal than the ball (white circle.)
b. the second last opponent
Yes. Oddly enough, the second last opponent is not a South African field player (blue circle on the goal line) but rather the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper is the second last opponent and Vela (second circle in red) is closer to the goal.
Now we’ve established that there has been an offside position. But does an exception apply that would allow the goal to stand?
(1) if he is in his own half of the field of play
No. Vela is not in Mexico’s half of play. He is in the South African field of play.
(2) if he is level with the second last opponent
No. Vela is behind the goalkeeper, who is the second last opponent. It does not matter that the goalkeeper wears a funky shirt. He’s still just a ‘player.’
(3) he is level with the last two opponents.
No. Vela is not level with the last two opponents. He is behind the goalkeeper.
So we have determined that Vela is in an offside position.
But has he committed an offside offense? As we saw earlier, you need both an offside position and an offside offense to be penalized. (In this case, for the goal not to count.)
Is it an offside offense?
Here is the rule: “A player in an offside position is only penalized if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referree, involved in active play by: (1) interfering with play; or (2) interfering with an opponent; or (3) gaining an advantage by being in that position.
Let’s break it up again.
“[T]he moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team…”
When do we make the analysis of when to look at the positioning of the players? In the play, the ball was kicked first during the corner, but then touched again (white circle) by a Mexican player, who headed it towards Vela. There is nothing in the text that requires the player to purposefully play the ball — a mere touch is enough. (This is different for defenders when they touch the ball, but we can save that for another discussion.) Okay, so we have our snapshot. We can see where the players are at that time from the photo.
Involved in active play
The second part of the offside offense analysis — again, this is different from the offside position analysis — is to determine whether the player was involved in active play. What is active play? Active play means the player is affecting the action of the game. He’s affecting the choices that both defensive and offensive players make in a way that directly affects the attack.
So, did Vela (1) interfere with play?
Yes, Vela collected the ball and pushed it into the net.
(2) Did he interfere with an opponent?
Not really.
(3) Did he gain advantage by being in that position?
Yes, he pushed the ball into the net because he was in the offside position.
There is no need to walk through every single reason for an offside offense because the rules state that any one of them is enough to warrant penalizing an opponent. But from our analysis above, he violated two of the rules.
Vela was offside according to the Laws of the Game.
This is a strange result and one that I don’t think anyone would have predicted. The announcers clearly got it wrong on television while I was watching. But they’re not referees.
Did the goalkeeper intend to force Vela into an offside position by trying to intercept the ball? Probably not. But it does strengthen the tactic of leaving a player on the goal line to clear any balls. If the goalie charges out and there is only one player on the goal line instead of two players (two would nullify the offside position), then most plays like this should result in an offside call. I don’t see this happening but it’s an interesting development.
A final question: did the assistant referee and the referee go through the analysis we just did? Maybe. See that little bit in the rule that says that the “opinion of the referee” matters? This little phrase allows referees to do their job. In a world stuffed full of cameras, countershots, and impossible angles, the laws currently state that the referee’s opinion is what counts, not a replay or some obscure objectivity.
They still try to get it right, though. Avashan Irmatov, the Uzbek referee in the opening game, could have overruled the assistant referee if he disagreed with the decision. But Irmatov trusted his assistant referee and stuck with the decision. It is possible that the assistant referee had seen such situations before and knew how to make the correct call. Often assistant referees at World Cup matches are the best in their region or even the best in their country, but have not yet made it through the political ranks of international refereeing.
It’s a hard rule for everyone
It shows you how difficult the offside rule is — even for experts. Indeed, the introduction of the modern offside rule in 1925 was arguably the most significant development in the history game of soccer.
You’re not the only one who’s scratching your head…
–Deji Olukotun
Filed under: Uncategorized on June 11th, 2010 | No Comments »
