The Third Yellow vs. Deliberate Actions

The very deep and occasionally painful rabbit hole that is why the word deliberate doesn't mean what you think it means.

Photo By J. Alexander Dolan

There is a suppressed memory here at The Third Yellow that I thought I would never have to speak of again. Alas the time has come…

Pedro Amador’s 28th minute offside decision during the New England Revolution’s 1-0 win over Atlanta United sparked a major talking point in the match in which the Five Stripes were twice denied by the offside flag and at least twice denied by the post.

A quick aside on one Emmanuel Latte Lath, Atlanta’s new winger and as far as I’m concerned a surefire lock at finalist for Newcomer of the Year at least. Yes, Latte Lath committed a charging foul on Carles Gil inside the box late in the first half. Yes, I love Capi, but I wish he would stop stutter-stepping on his penalties.

New England Revolution at Atlanta United: 3 Thoughts

Also in the second half, ELL goes up for a contested header and it appears to deflect down and off Mamadou Fofana hand before heading towards goal. There’s greater deference allowed for handballs off set pieces/corners due to the reduced reaction time, and it looks fairly clear that Fofana was setting up to chest on the fly before the deflection. Therefore putting the motion of his arm into the “natural playing motion” category despite it being extended and no point to the spot. It is a good no call under the current interpretation.

I don’t have time to yell about both the handball and offside laws this week, but just know if ball off Fofana’s arm had behaved much differently (and not gone towards goal and forced a full stretch save by Aljaz Ivacic) and taken away a potential advantage for Atlanta, I think there should be some kind of IFK given. I get not wanting to award excessive amounts of penalties for plays like this and IFK in the box are a pain, but I do think there needs to be some balance for situations that clearly stop an attack but are not worthy of a foul (direct/PK) level of infraction.

Speaking of changes to laws over the last few years…I was hoping I’d never have to watch this play again…

Yes, that is the great Antonio Delamea against Toronto FC circa 2019. Under the guidelines six years ago, this was allowed for some unknown reason and the game was worse off for it. Even the Toronto media thought it was a daft interpretation back then and I’m sure there are numerous examples worldwide of such nonsense. But this is a Revs site so we use Revs plays here.

Essentially Jordan Hamilton is several yards offside and Delamea attempts to play/block the ball not without knowing Hamilton is offside. This action, at the time ruled deliberate, negated the offside position against the spirit of the law which is designed to protect the defense in theory and why it gets changed rather quickly.

I show you this play because it is important in the evolution of the law which has annoyed me to know end over the years.

Okay, you all remember this one - Gustavo Bou back in 2023 being judged offside for interfering with the goalkeeper’s vision on a blocked cross at the top of the box. PRO eventually came out and said this should have stood as a goal but as I explain in the article, the logic of the call is sound and I would welcome a stricter interpretation of “passive” offside when it comes to attackers especially in the center of the box.

I show you this play because it is important to know that the Laws of the Game are generally very bad at dealing with weird.

Okay, now for the reason why we’re all here today:

In the 28th minute, Atlanta’s Latte Lath sends in a cross that is rejected by Revs’ defender Fofana before eventually falling to Pedro Amador on the left wing. Atlanta cycles the ball around the box before Miguel Almiron hits a laser into the far side netting. The problem is Amador was offside on the initial ELL cross that got blocked, and this playing action does not reset Amador’s position so the flag goes up on VAR review.

Three Revolution Players Who Had Strong Performances Against Atlanta United

Unlike in the first clip from 2019, we have better and more specific guidance for this play - this is from July 2022 and I think made it into the rules for 23/24 cause the IFAB meets in January and essentially is updating the laws for the next European season not the current one.

No longer does any defensive attempt or action on the ball negate offside (nor should it have ever but I digress), instead choosing to better define the only exception to the offside law for attackers. It is legal for an player in an offside position to receive the ball in only one instance and that is a defender in clear control of the ball makes a pass, clearance, or otherwise gains possession.

The specific wording on deliberate action is here:

‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

• passing the ball to a team-mate; or

• gaining possession of the ball; or

• clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).

So, why does Fofana’s action get labeled as a block and not as a clearance. Excellent question, more definitions from the IFAB:

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it

• The ball was not moving quickly

• The direction of the ball was not unexpected

• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control

• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

Let’s break these down one at a time. Fofana has a clear view of the ball so that’s not an issue. The ball is definitely moving quickly but aside from being a really good low cross, I wouldn’t count the movement as unexpected (it’s not like spinning at 1000 rpm or something that would make it harder to control/play).

Fofana has some time to coordinate their body movement, but this is clearly a case of instinctive stretching more than a full clearance. The ball also being slightly off the ground adds to the difficulty so we’re somewhere around like 2.5 out of 5 here for this being a ball that not likely for a player to be in control.

One of the great problems with the Laws is that they use things like “deliberate” / “intentional” and “in control” / “possession” when they are not synonyms in the world of soccer. This leads to a lot of understandable confusion when trying to explain things in plain English and not law speak.

The defender in clear control of the ball aspect here essentially has to be an absolute, bona fide howler. The player being in control means they even without the ball, their first action is very likely to result in either a pass to a teammate, a clearance that ends up on the other side of the field or Row Z, and/or gaining possession to make a subsequent pass or clearance.

Tomas Chancalay Makes Emotional Return

Nothing that Fofana did with his outstretched right leg would qualify as a deliberate action on the ball in the rules of the game. Yes, he absolutely did very well to get the ball out of the box, but we’re not judging the result of his play, we’re judging Fofana’s opportunity once Latte Lath hit that cross that from say 10-15 yards Fofana will be able to effectively pass, clear, or gain possession of that ball.

That is not a reasonable conclusion to make. That ball is travelling too quickly, it’s just off the ground and I think even curving away ever so slightly for a even a professional player to be expected to make an defined deliberate action on the ball. The fact that Fofana did as well to direct the ball back out to the wing is fairly impressive, but has no bearing on the decision which is that play should always be ruled as a block (deflection) and not a clearance (deliberate action).

A clearance, or attempt at a clearance, is only defined as heading or kicking the ball in the laws above. Heading is self-explanatory but kicking is not sticking out your leg and having the ball hit it. It’s like a full golf swing, leg goes back, laces/cleat contact the ball, ball goes somewhere else. It might be straight, it might not be where you were aiming, but it is clearly a kick.

What would have been great is a pool report from the referee crew, but the vaunted Doug Roberson of the Atlanta Journal Constitution unfortunately knows better than to engage in the cycle of futility that is getting actual useable information out of PRO. I also agree with Mr. Roberson, you can lawspeak an answer for both goal and offside here, I just think one is better.

Also, just as an aside for PRO - if the listed pool reporter for an MLS game doesn’t think it’s worth an attempt to get an explanation for something as potentially controversial as a disallowed goal, there is a major problem with that process and it’s coming from your end.

When judging whether or not a player in an offside position has received the ball from a defender via a deliberate action, it is a very high bar to clear. It was set up that way specifically to avoid plays like the one in the first clip above. Actual specific insight from the center referee and/or the VAR booth would be a welcome addition to the game and increase the knowledge of the fans, players, and media alike.

Remember, the offside law exists to protect the defense. It is not the defensive team’s responsibility to figure out if they’re in a legal onside position; it’s the attacking team’s. In decades of updates to the offside law, it was eroded to the point where absolute without a doubt offside goals were being allowed routinely.

This was not allowed to stand, and changes back to a more stricter norm followed. This is overall good for the game and having the referees constantly reinforcing this notion I think would go a long way.

However, just like the Gustavo Bou goal, there is still a gray area. The law can not read perfectly for every play or situation. There is no perfect definition and sometimes weird is going to carry the day. It is entirely plausible that after VAR review, Almiron’s goal could have stood and the amount of outrage or complaining would have been minimal. It is not ridiculous to rule Fofana’s clearance to be of the deliberate variety but I think it would be in the extreme minority of how this play would and should be called

I am not here to change anyone in Atlanta’s mind about this play. If you think it is a miscarriage of justice from the soccer gods, you are welcome to that opinion just as I am welcome to the opinion that if you believe that then you also believe goals from Jordan Hamilton should regularly occur and are good for the game. I won’t have that opinion by the way, I wouldn’t never wish a goal like that upon anyone, not even NYCFU.

We’re using the Hamilton play because it’s the same play as Amador with just a different interpretation. No, they don’t look anything alike and that is what makes defining such plays within the laws so difficult. You have to take one broad rule and apply it to so many different situations.

At the end of the day, there is only one question to ask regarding the Amador offside call, did it clear the very high bar for receiving the ball directly from a defender on a backpass or other play in which he had almost absolute control of the outcome barring a catastrophic mistake?

No, it didn’t. Which means that Amador by definition received the ball as if it had come directly from a pass by his teammate Latte Lath, and since he was clearly in an offside position, the flag must go up. As always, this situation can be solved by being an onside position which is the responsibility of attacking team. That is why the onus and expectation can and will be weighted so heavily against them when applying the offside law.

I’m not saying it’s not weird, I’m not saying it will always make sense. But go back to the top and watch that Toronto goal again so you can understand why that high bar exists for deliberate actions by defenders and why it’s good for the game.

Even if it means we have to rob a thunderbastard away from Miggy F Almiron which is never good for the game. I’m sorry that had to happen to reset mistakes that were made by lawyers several years ago.