The Offside Rule Strikes Again ... this time at UEFA Euro 2008

9 July 2006, Berlin - that was the stage for the finals of the 18th World Cup hosted by Germany. As Fabio Grosso slotted home the winning penalty, Italian fans around the world cheered, Lippi basked in the glory of leading his nation to the ultimate prize (while at the same time contemplating how he was going to deliver his parting words to the Italian FA - he announced his resignation 3 days after the victory) and Zidane hung his head in shame as he retired from football in the least expected manner. That moment also signalled the beginning of a 4-year wait before international football's largest spectacle will be staged again (this time in South Africa 2010).

Fortunately for us (and by that, I mean the 'football nuts'), we don't have to wait that long as there is the European Championships in June 2008, co-hosted by Austria and Switzerland - affectionately coined as UEFA Euro 2008. Admittedly, there is always the Barclays Premier League, Primera Liga, Serie A and Champions League football to whet the appetite every year. However, those matches are only played during the months of August to May (i.e. a maximum of 10 months of club football) - that leaves June and July barren. And that is a long time to go cold turkey. Being based in Singapore, local football standards aren't exectly there yet (the team that plays arguably the most attractive brand of football in the S-League is a Korean club which was invited to particpate - so you get the idea). To satisfy one's needs to watch football during the barren months would require sitting down, tuning in to channel 27 on Starhub and watching re-runs of Spurs v Bolton. The word 'depressing' wouldn't even be close to describing the situation.

The Offside Controversy

So anyway, UEFA Euro 2008 is a welcome relief. And what was more of a relief was that ever since the kick-off in Basel (Switzerland), apart from the snooze-fest match between France and Romania, the rest of the matches have been played at a good tempo and offered reasonably decent football. In fact, it has even sparked its first 'refereeing controversy' (if you can even call it that) in the Netherlands v Italy match - and it happened at the 26th minute:

- Buffon (the goalkeeper) punches the ball away but upends his own player (Panucci) in the process
- Panucci stays on the ground injured (he is lying outside the field of play) but the game continues
- Dutch player (van Bronckhorst) shoots the ball towards goal and another Dutch player (van Nistelrooy), who was standing between the last 2 Italian defenders (apart from Panucci) and the goalline, stabs the ball into the net
- Appears to many as a plain vanilla offside, but referee deems it to be a legitimate goal

This is a graphical illustration:

Was Van Nistelrooy Offside?

Now, Donadoni has gone on record to say that the Swedish referee, Peter Frojdfeldt, made a mistake. Commentators have instinctively called it a clear offside. However, there have been a sort of uneasy hesitation to vilify the referee. If the aggrieved team was England, you can be sure the reaction would be mass hysteria. Why was there such a muted response?

Well, the simple answer to that is that van Nistelrooy is apparently NOT offside - accordingly to an Austrian official. And that has plunged doubt into the minds of football experts, pundits and/or analysts all around the world - that they could possibly not have been aware of such an obscure rule sounds ridiculous. Or does it really?

The Mysterious 'Refereeing Code'

The chairman of Austria's refereeing commission, Gerhard Kapl, has explained that it is, in fact, NOT an offside because Panucci was behind the goalline as the ball was stabbed home. He referred to article 11.4.1 of the refereeing code and stated that "an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play".

You'll not be the only one to think you've learnt something new today. In any case, you're also probably wondering what this 'refereeing code' is. Is it the Laws of the Game published by FIFA? Or the Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees published together with the Laws of the Game? The answer is neither, at least it appears to be neither one of them.

So far, a search on the web is unsuccessful and one can only venture a guess that the so-called 'refereeing code' is probably locked away in hardcopy in one of Kapl's secret chambers. If you take what Kapl said at face value, then it is true, van Nistelrooy was not offside. However, without any sort of corroboration in terms of sighting the actual document, it really is difficult to verify.

We can only analyse those regulations which are available at hand.

1. Laws of the Game (FIFA)

The official written rules of the beautiful game - all 17 of them. The one in question is Rule 11 (Offside Rule). It has been the most controversial one and it has dumbfounded many over the decades - not just your wives and girlfriends, but as of yesterday, also so-called football experts.

Unfortunately, it is not entirely helpful in this instance. Here is what it says:

Offside Position
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the fi eld of play or
• he is level with the second last opponent or
• he is level with the last two opponents

Offence
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

No Offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
• a goal kick or
• a throw-in or
• a corner kick

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

Decision 1:
In the definition of offside position, “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of his 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 definition.

Decision 2:
The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:
• 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 post 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.

2. Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees

This gives additional guidance for referees in interpreting the Laws of the Game. The guidance note on Rule 11 is more instructive. It says that :

If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of play.

In this instance, Panucci was behind the goal line. However, this rule requires (i) Panucci to have 'actively' stepped behind the goal line and (ii) possess the intention of catching van Nistelrooy offside. There is an uncomfortable emphasis on 'intention' which is never a conducive element for the interpretation of a rule during the euphoria of a football match. And this will always spark off unnecessary debates. If Panucci had actively run off the pitch, perhaps there will be less contention once we apply this rule. However, he was knocked out of the pitch and was appeared to be injured. In this case, there appears to be a lack of clear intention on his part and it would certainly have been a real gamble to have staged this just to catch the Real Madrid forward offside.

All in, I doubt this rule can be the basis for justifying the Swedish referee's decision. And I highly doubt this can be the refereeing code Kapl was refering to.

3. US Soccer Federation's Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game

This is probably the closest we can get to a corroborative interpretation of Kapl's comments. Under Law11.11:

A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return must still be considered in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his or her off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position.

This unequivocally takes out the "intention" element, which created some interpretation difficulties in FIFA's Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees. As such, if this rule is applied, Panucci would have played the Dutch striker onside, even though he had not (i) actively left the field of play and (ii) intended to catch van Nistelrooy offside.

That being said, it must be clarified that this is the US Soccer Federation's (USSF) interpretation of the Laws of the Game. The question is whether this is FIFA's position as well? Assuming for a moment that it is, then Kapl's comments were certainly justified. In fact, it will be a refreshing education in football rules for football commentators and pundits alike - and I would definitely expect Barclays Premier League referees to be applying the same interpretation (Big Sam's brain is probably working overtime trying to device a method of exploiting this now - if he can appointed as Blackburn's new chief).

However, there is nothing so far to indicate that this is the widely accepted interpretation of the Laws of the Game, much less FIFA's. Perhaps Kapl's mysterious refereeing code is similar to USSF's advice to its referees. Nevertheless, until we can sight this elusive refereeing code, all we have is this document from the USSF - the most persuasive piece of evidence supporting Frojdfeldt's decision.

4. Other materials

Over the years, there are many Q&As on the Laws of the Game - some issued by FIFA, others by their respective football associations. It is possible that there could be some directive or interpretation documented which supports Frojdfeldt's decision and Kapl's comments. And I would certainly appreciate anyone pointing this out to me. However, at the time of this post, I have been unable to find any.

What can we conclude with this?

The Laws of the Game simply sets out the framework of the offside rule. So, there is a heavy reliance on how such laws are interpreted - for e.g. in the form of the FIFA's Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees. Again, this document is unhelpful in the interpretation of the situation at hand (for the reasons mentioned above). That leaves us with the USSF's Advice to its referees - the most instructive document. Its interpretation of the offside rule in this situation is relatively clear. The question really is whether this is FIFA's position, or even the widely held interpretation of the offside rule. Most commentators, pundits and journalists are extremely cautious in taking a stand so far - and FIFA and UEFA has been silent on this. Until an official position is taken, this looks to be another unresolved issue for a while more.

Regardless of the controversy, the decision of the goal will stand, the final score is 3-0 and Netherlands are now in the driving seat of the Group of Death. Their strikeforce certainly looks to be the most lethal at this stage of the tournament and if their defence (together with Engelaar) can hold up, they will be firm favourites to lift their first trophy since '88.

The Mas Selamat Saga - Closure? Far from it

At around 8pm on 27 February 2008, almost4 hours after the leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah network - Mas Selamat bin Kastari - escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre, one of the largest nationwide manhunt was launched in Singapore. It became the talk of the town; controversial issues were thrown about and almost everyone had something to say. This saga was an overnight sensation.

In fact, over the course of the last 3 months, probably every aspect of his escape had been discussed to some extent.

However, once the dust from all the speculation on how Mas Selamat managed to escaped (and I have heard some really unusual ones - for e.g. prior to his espcape, he was seen chanting like a bomoh and he had actually 'teleported' himself out of prison - and there are some who would fiercely stand by this version; and there is of course the king of all conspiracies - he never escaped! He was either tortured to death by the ISD or was extradited or 'renditioned' to another country for political reasons - granted, I heard this from mainly taxi drivers) had settled, there was only really one key issue to address - accountability.

This is where the local media steps in and had so far appeared to be trying to subdue the people's call for heads to roll (in particular, that of DPM and Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng). I do recall an article written sometime back by Chua Lee Hoong, Political Editor of the Straitstimes, where she commented that "reading internet postings makes [her] blood boil" and she argued that the only loss suffered in this saga was a loss of face - mostly. In fact, she goes so far as to categorically state that Mas Selamat is not a homicidal maniac and impliedly concluded that he is therefore not a danger to the Singapore public. She then went on to proclaim that "Terrorism did not begin, and will not end, with Mas Selamat" (Well, well, well ... ladies and gentleman, please rise and show some appreciation for that astute observation - the world leaders, especially you, George, should sit up and take note of that comment. So remember, forget Osama! Because terrorism did not begin, and will not end with, him!). All in all, it appears that her main contention in the article was: People of Singapore, let this matter, which concerns a head of a terrorist organisation escaping, rest and move on - it is a trivial matter, so why must Wong Kan Seng resign over something so silly?

Are her views fair? Perhaps and perhaps not - some netizens were up in arms over this article and some went as far as to claim that she was formerly an ISD employee like her sister, Chua Mui Hoong (also a Straitstimes journalist), hence claiming that she was biased. Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that she was biased. But the immediate question is (taking into account the fact that her contrarian views are now documented) whether your views on the issue of accountability should now be riding off the essence of her arguments - i.e. would you now agree with her? Well, from my perspective, the simple answer to that should be, no. Why? Because, as 'persuasive' as her arguments may be, it does not detract from the fact that accountability dictates for our ministers to be held responsible to the very people who elected him into power. As much as we would all like to move on - the fact that Mas Selamat is still at large and there was a obvious deficiency in the system and protocols which has partially caused this decacle, would indeed make it difficult for us (the electorate) to put a stop to demands for accountability.

Accountability

And the issue of accountability has finally come to a .. let's just call it a momentary pause. In parliament on 26 May 2008 (Monday), Wong Kan Seng announced that the Whitley Nine were to be held accountable for this saga. And remarkably, as reported by the Straitstimes, some MPs and analysts believe that these penalties bring 'some closure'. For ease of reference, these were the personnel disciplined:

The 'Whitley 9'

- ISD Command Director and officer-in-charge of Whitley centre
Relieved of responsibilities

- Superintendent of Whitley centre

Dismissed form service

- Deputy Superintendent of Whitley centre
Demoted in rank and paycut

- Chief Warder
Letter of warning (for failure to consider security implications for the use of toilet)

- Technical Officer
Letter of warning (for failure to ensure CCTV was recording at the time of escape)

- Special Duty Operative's supervising officer
Letter of reprimand (for failure to obtain proper security assessment for use of toilet)

- Special Duty Operative
Dismissed from service

- The 2 Gurkha guards
Demoted in rank

Where Should the Buck Stop?

A special mention was made regarding the director of ISD and Wong Kan Seng unequivocally stated that it would place an "unreasonable and overly onerous burden" on the ISD chief to blame the latter for this matter. Of course - how convenient - no blame to be placed on the individual who reports directly to you (and possibly the PM) and, if blame was placed on the ISD chief, then the public would question why the buck conveniently stops one level below the Minister for Home Affairs. Or maybe not? Either way, the question of where the buck stops is still relevant. Should it stop at the Command Director of the ISD, the ISD chief, the Minister for Home Affairs or even (how dare we say it) the PM?

In fact, this was the point raised by the PM in parliament on 22 May 2008 (Thursday) - he asserted that if the members of parliament were to accept the public's argument that ministers (like CEOs in private sectors) should resign when there are serious lapses and take this to its "logical conclusion", "it should go all the way up to the prime minister". And that was his point - "that is NOT how this government works" (emphasis mine).

Can Political Accountability be Achieved?

Well if that is the government's position, I say, fair enough. In fact, like most constitutional systems - our constitution provides for the tenure of ministers to only be revoked under only 2 circumstances: by the President (under the advice of the PM) or if the minister resigns. Certainly, we know the PM will not take such a bold move to advise the President to do so (we can glean that from his statement). So, the alternative will be for Wong Kan Seng to resign? Are there other alternatives enshrined in our legislations? Unfortunately, they are vague (there are no clear legislations on impeachment or anything similar) and they only provide for the Minister (as a member of parliament) to be expelled by the parliament invoking their "powers of expulsion". This, as we all know, will not happen as long as the party whip is still out there cracking.

That brings us back to the only other alternative suggested so far - Wong Kan Seng resigning. Yet again, it would take a man who is willing to stand up, raise one hand and put the other to his chest, look the public in the eye and honestly declare that "it is my fault". I highly doubt that would happen. There's just too much at stake - more than just "face" this time (right, Ms Chua?).

So, with the Whitley Nine punished, is there really closure? No, far from it. This is hardly even a significant milestone in this saga - there has to be accountability at the very top. And perhaps there is possibly a way for some sort of a closure and this strikes a chord with the very notion of accountability - and that is political accountability to the people who have voted you into parliament. As a nation, we must understand that elections are a direct way of holding ministers accountable to the public. The decision lies with the electorate - they hold the vote, they decide. That means even the PM is not spared (seeing that he was elected to parliament as well - thus making his "logical conclusion" as reproduced above all the more logical). Unfortunately, this method of holding Wong Kan Seng accountable is flawed in a number of ways and relies on too many assumptions along the process - one of which is that once he was elected, the public are unable to hold him accountable during his current term. And by the time the next election comes, this is an issue that will be long forgotten and buried. Besides, Mr Wong was elected as part of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) - Bishan-Toa Payoh - which has not been contested since its formation in 1997. Even if the public wishes to vote him out of parliament, they may not wish the same fate to befall the other MPs in the GRC.

A Long Road Towards Closure...

To summise, we would only reach a significant milestone towards finding a closure to this issue once there is satisfactory accountability from the top. Is that possible? Maybe and maybe not - As I said - the issue of accountability would really only be settled by the electorate (and not by Wong Kan Seng or even our PM). The decision lies with the voters as always and when would we find such closure? Perhaps we will only know by 2011.

The Proverbial Introduction

Word: blog (noun)

Definition: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log

Example: Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author.

Etymology: shortened form of Weblog

Usage: blog, blogged, blogging v, blogger n

---------------------------------------------------------------

Some would call a blog an online journal dressed up with a chic appeal. While it is sometimes used as a tool to update friends and family of your latest events in your life, it is also often utilised as an avenue to air your thoughts and view - the fact that no one can deny you your princely right to say anything you want (save for seditious comments) is a very charming proposition. It has developed somewhat over the years to include any bit of media expressed by the author on a personal website. That being said, a blog is fundamentally an online publication of one’s expression and thoughts - a modern and more sophisticated version of a hard copy diary or a journal. It provides the author with a whole host of tools, programs and features to express oneself – it goes beyond merely words and drawings, hence, its appeal. Just visualise the Diary of Anne Frank as a website with her personal thoughts, photographs and videos – and you’ll probably get the picture.

With that I shall begin penning my thoughts (which may occasionally come across as rants) on this blog. However, I do apologise in advance should I offend anyone (albeit unintentionally) whether through my boring or somewhat monotonous posts or through my uncharacteristically snide remarks (in any). Bearing that in mind and my learned associate’s advice, I do wish to categorically state that:

___________________________________________________________

All information and statements contained in this blog are for general information purposes (where applicable) and are purely my humble thoughts and comments (and those of the readers of this blog) only. I am under no obligation to keep any information up-to-date and correct, I make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to this blog or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on this blog for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will I be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of or in connection with the use of this blog.

If, through this blog, you are able to link to other websites, please note that these websites are not under my purview (unless otherwise indicated). As such, I have no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply my recommendation or endorsement of the views expressed within them.

___________________________________________________________________

Now - with that heavy load of disclaimers slipped discreetly into my first post, I shall begin sharing my thoughts, uninhibited by any factors (hopefully), because I believe that whilst a great mind can build a thousand cities, a great and free one can build a legacy that can last generations. So, as much as I will be expressing my thoughts, I will appreciate yours as well (if you ever do drop by for a quick read). As the learned Holmes once said - the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Thanks for reading.