Well, it can't be interfering with play, you're right about that. It could be interfering with an opponent, though.
I disagree with that, if anything Ramsey got the keeper moving there earlier than he would have with just Sanchez there. It looked strange but I'd say it was the right call (might be a bit biased though ). The handling though I'd need a few more replays off but that I could very well see called.
That's plausible (I'm biased in the other direction, by the way). But to me it looked like if Ramsey hadn't been there, Courtois would have been able to at least challenge for the ball, if not collect it easily. Ramsey may not have touched the ball, but by occupying the space the ball was in, he profoundly affected the play. Did he "gain an advantage"? I'd say so, but there's a reason this is one of the most ambiguous of the laws.
Couple minutes ago (42nd minute?) there was a nasty challenge by Ozil on Hazard. Slide tackle from behind with no play on the ball. Taylor doesn't even stop the play. IMO this should have been a red, but definitely at least a yellow.
Wow. Moses off with a second caution, for a dive in the box. A correct decision, it has to be said. But for every clear dive that's not cautioned, it's sure interesting to see this one punished, at this moment.
Did the ball rebound off a post or from a deliberate save? If not, he wasn't gaining an advantage. That clause of Law 11 has a VERY specific meaning, and this situation isn't it.
Hmm, I might have missed something but I didn't see it like that at all. Sure it ended with a trip but not much of force in the contact. I thought it should have been a FK and likely a caution (tactical) but I wouldn't expect any more, especially in English football.
I don't think the keeper would have gotten near the ball even if Ramsey hadn't been there. I'd actually say that Sanchez was more hindered by Ramsey. As sulfur said, "gaining an advantage" is a completely different scenario. The only possible clause Ramsey could have breached is the "interferes with an opponent" one and I don't think this does that, harsh as that might be.
There's absolutely no way that Ramsey was interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage, and I also don't accept that he was interfering with play. Waving down the flag was correct here. Sanchez may have handled shortly earlier, but I wouldn't call that a miss by Taylor. Great decision on the 2CT. Thought he had a fantastic game.
Ramsey turned from his OP and took two hard steps to that ball and as a result Courtois came out to cut down the angle. If that's not "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent" I don't know what that language means. For me that's offside.
Ramsey takes himself out of the play. Not sure if it is handball or not, but it seems like the argument that it was offside is downright frivolous.
And as for the handling, assuming it was handling - there was no way it was intentional by Sanchez. That being said, if it hits his hand and gains an advantage like that, it's almost always called, deliberate or not.
Regarding the offside decision on Ramsey, I feel like this is the pertinent clause in the offside Law: "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent" Does Ramsey's actions rise to the effect of clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him? If yes, then offside. If no then not offside. Taylor seemed to think no.
Anybody have a link for the OS? As described above doesn't sound close to an attempt to play the ball -- taking steps toward the ball is not at all what that provision is about.
I might add that there hasn't been much critique for allowing the goal and among those that do think it shouldn't have been given it's more the handling they have issues with. Taylor has also received quite a lot of praise for the simulating caution (and resulting red) on Moses.
Good goal. Whether everyone thinks this should be a non offside call, it seems very clear to be that IFAB wants this to be a goal -- and they make the rules.
Well, in other discussions I've seen, people are getting more hung up on what "playing the ball" means, and think Ramsey's actions interfered with Courtois. I didn't think "impacting the ability of an opponent to play the ball" had much merit since Courtois wasn't anywhere near the ball and Ramsey wasn't blocking his line of sight, nor was Ramsey blocking Courtois' path to the ball.
http://www.espnfc.us/english-fa-cup...ld-have-seen-alexis-sanchezs-volleyball-block says: "Ramsey is out of control and bothering me, because if he's not there I can get out and get the ball before Alexis," Courtois said. "Because he's standing there, I stop and stop the defence. It's clear that he interrupts the game for me, that he participates in the game, and it's clear hands."
He might believe that but that doesn't make it so. Possible that he would have come out more and make it harder for Sanchez but he'd never get to the ball first. Of all the word to get hung up on in law 11 you/they pick those?
Courtois is complaining about Ramsey's presence ("if he's there"). Him being there is simply insufficient for an offsides call. Courtois just doesn't understand the rule.
Yeah, Courtois is essentially making the argument that goalkeepers and defenders have made in opposition to the law changes themselves (to the extent they know they've occurred). I have always sympathized some, from a practical standpoint, but the fact remains his protest does not have any founding in the Laws and instructions as they currently exist. The potential handling decision aside, this was a good call and a good goal.