Two very interesting offside decisions from today. First, from Sporting v Astana, this goal was allowed to stand: https://streamable.com/4asjp You'll note there are three players standing in an offside position at the moment the goal-scoring shot from near the top of the penalty area is taken. Two of those players are irrelevant. The third player is in physical contact with the goalkeeper at the time of the shot but he is not obstructing the goalkeeper's vision. As the shot starts to come through, he is temporarily in the goalkeeper's line of vision. By the time the ball is through, the goalkeeper has an unobstructed view and the player in the OSP is not physically challenging for the ball. I think the fact that the player in the OSP temporarily obstructs the vision of the goalkeeper during the shot is enough to trigger offside and that this goal should have been disallowed. But, if it's not (or if it didn't occur) would the physical contact at the time of the shot be enough to trigger an offside violation? The player is not attempting to play the ball, he's not challenging for the ball, and he's not (at the outset) obstructing the vision. By the letter of the Law, he's only offside at the time of the shot if he's "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent [the goalkeeper] to play the ball." I really don't think that is triggered either. So--eliminating the line of vision issue once the OSP player starts moving back away from goal--I think this is an example of a player in an OSP being in physical contact with a goalkeeper at the time of a shot from a teammate, yet not guilty of offside. It's pretty crazy when you think about it. Second incident, Leipzig v Napoli where this offside decision was made: https://streamable.com/txogl It's Jon Moss from a few weeks ago all over again, just a little more blatant. You have a player in an OSP. You have the ball played to that OSP. You have no other attacking player who could conceivably receive the ball. All the elements for offside are met and ready to be enforced. And then the defender makes a desperate play on the ball in an attempt to block it from going through. Desperate, but still a play. He had time to prepared and react to the ball--this was his decision to play it. So now the ball goes through perfectly to the attacker and this flag should have been waved down by Taylor. This incident absolutely should be onside. To me (and I think to most fans) it is crazy that the IFAB wants this to be onside because I see no reason to reward the attacker and no reason to punish a defender who is trying to play soccer. But it's reality.
In the Sporting vs Astana case, does the physical contact contribute to the goalkeeper ending up on his heels? I’m leaning toward no, but that’s after watching the video four times.
I guess the only thing I can think of is that the way the defender had to stretch to play the ball made it a deflection instead of a deliberate play. I don't know on half of these.
That’s a bit of a stretch since it’s still a deliberate action. Seems like the AR gave it some considerable thought before he put the flag up though.
I saw that too. Between the flag going up and Taylor blowing the whislte, I wonder if there is something that the FA and/or UEFA is teaching referees about deflection vs deliberate that we're not clear on.
In Sporting v Astana, I think there is too much overthinking. He interfered with an opponent, and gained an advantage. That's it..nothing more, nothing less. In Leipzig v Napoli, you said "no reason to punish a defender who is trying to play soccer". Well yes, he wasn't playing it very well. Not much different to when a player tries and makes an honest attempt to play a ball, but mistimes and trips an opponent. He was, after all all, trying to play soccer, he just didn't do a good job of it.
Except per the Laws, he didn’t do either of those things. That’s the point. Gaining an advantage is a complete nonstarter. Did he interfere with an opponent? Literally, most likely. But per the four definitions of interfering with an opponent found in the Laws? No—not unless you stretch the fourth definition far enough to encompass something it appears not to cover. Not a good comparison. In this case, the attacker is only attempting to play that ball because it is going to a player in an offside position. If that player wasn’t there, this goes out for a goal kick. So in this situation the player in the offside position is rewarded because of his position. In other words, the defender would have played soccer differently if the attacker wasn’t there. I think rewarding the attacker here is stupid and goes against the point of having an offside law. But that’s just my personal, idealistic position. To be perfectly clear, the IFAB says this is onside today and that’s how the Law should have been applied.
OK...on the issue of interfering with an opponent, we could go back and forth. I see both points of view, except I personally would have applied the old "Spirit Law" and of course, we only have a split second. In summary, I see your point. However, on the second scenario. Sorry, but the attacking winger, even though in an offside position, took advantage of his opponent not playing well enough. The defender played the ball. (not very well) An opponent capitalized. I side 100% with IFAB on this. I understand your point that the defender would have played it differently (perhaps by not playing it at all) had the attacking winger not been there...so in that case, was the winger "interfering with an opponent"? Hmmm.
Based on the direction given this past year, I'd not punish this as offside, but punish it under Law 12, as contact is made by the player in offside position with the GK as the shot is taken. That's enough for me to look at that and say "hey, that's a FK for the defense"
Interesting example. If the defender’s play had gone to the keeper, would you have called a back pass to the keeper?
Of course not, but the standard is different for a deliberate play in relation to offside and a ball deliberately kicked to the GK.
Now if only they would actually state that. I’m not disagreeing, but the language really doesn’t point out that there is a difference.
I thought there was direction given for "tactics" meant to distract such as several very obviously in an offside position but no reason to be there except to try to distract. There was a USWNT video shown to demonstrate where 3 US players were 10 or so yards offside, not blocking the keeper and as the kick was taken they ran back toward the 2LD - this was given as an example of what they meant by a tactic and it should be considered offside. I am not directly privy to National camp direction but through "trickle down" instruction I am almost certain this was the direction given to Nationals 2 years ago. Of course that's through the double filter of USSF and PRO (somewhat) and may have no relation to what IFAB wants but if the direction is correct I would have that as offside as contact with a keeper at the moment a free kick is taken is certainly distracting. And as always I could be remembering it all wrong or misunderstood the trickle down instruction all together...
You're correct. But this instruction was specifically about the tactic used at the taking of a free kick, so I don't think it can or is meant to be extrapolated to apply here. With the instruction you are talking about, the flag is supposed to go up the moment the free kick is shot toward goal. The whole point is that the players who choose to be in OSPs deliberately place themselves in those OSPs for tactical purposes. That's not what's happening in this video. Still might or should be offside, but it's not apples to apples.
I was thinking corner kick but the 3 players were left offside well after the corner so I see your point. At that level I agree good goal as none of the three were doing anything but casually moving back toward on side. Still has to be worrisome for the keeper but a legitimate play (running in on goal at a corner) got them on the goal line (no tactic), defense quickly pulls up leaving all 3 in OSP, on side team mate plays the ball directly into goal. Keeper is affected (he hesitates) but that isn't the standard.
Well, since they're in offside position, and the middle player impeded (if you will) the GK in his attempt to return to his proper position... Remember, when this happens, the GK is watching the play in front of him, backing up. At this point in time, the players is offside position are NOT entitled to their space, and the player in the middle must make an effort to not interfere or impede the path that the defenders have taken. This doesn't happen here, and the player interferes with the path the GK has taken (because the GK doesn't have eyes in the back of his head... unlike my mother)...
I think this may be topical to this subject. This video seems to pop up anytime one googles offside law/rule. . So many people will be viewing this and taking it as gospel. Thoughts, concerns? I am troubled that viewers may think that an attacker just standing in OSP could be perceived as distracting a defender, and could be called for OS. That is the perception that I get from this. At 0:44 - "Now, merely interfering with another players perception of the field constitutes the OS rule being called." There are other issues in this video as well.
It's all a matter of opinion I suppose but for me I don't see how you can argue that the player is not guilty of "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball." It's a little trickier to tell because there isn't a good angle on it but I think he may also block the keeper's line of sight. The player moves back past the keeper as the shot comes in and although I can't tell for sure, seems to make actual physical contact with the keeper, knocking him slightly off balance. Whether he touched him or not the keeper seems to lose his bearings and is still trying to recover his balance and positioning as the shot sails past him. For me, the keepers ability to play the ball is clearly impacted by the player's action.
To me, this is a situation where the spirit of the game is what matters most. And be damned what IAFB says. My concern is....would the GK have had a better chance to make the play if not for the player in OSP? Contact was made and possibly vision was obstructed. GK was definitely negatively affected. End of story, easy offside. And maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the offense would have argued it (much).
I agree with you in a way, but we can not use this thinking to make the decisions. If a player is legal you can not consider what would happen if that player isn't there. In an extreme, if a PIOP was way over at the corner flag and a defender decided to go cover them, of course the defender would not have gone over there if not for the PIOP - however - it is not an offense to be in an offside position and if a defender decides to take themselves out of play to go cover a PIOP, we do not bail them out - we can not consider "what if that player wasn't there". We do have to consider the other points you make (possible vision obstruction, possible contact) and anything else that makes a PIOP actually offside. And I fear you may be very wrong in that there would have been a good bit of argument had offside been called, just as there appeared to be argument that it wasn't. I think this goes somewhat to calling what is expected (within the LOTG) - as this COULD have been called offside and justified just as it can be justified to let the goal stand - then at this level it is likely expected to stand. At youth levels, probably expected to be offside.
Yeah, since posting this, I've received guidance from a pretty authoritative source that physical contact at the time the ball is last played/touched is inherently interfering with an opponent (if the opponent, of course, is involved in the play or about to become involved int he play). The contact should be construed as a clear action. Still think this play is very weird and a number of factors make this difficult. But the flag should have gone up--actually for two different reasons in this case.
It is not. It should have been offside in FIFA's eyes. Certainly for the line of vision standard and, based on what I have been told by someone who would know, also for the "clear action" standard.