What were you considering might apply -- blocking his vision or challenging for the ball? It's not OS -- though it could be USB. (C.f. I&G re player inside the goal.)
Is that really true though? Just a quick look at the last changes. Old text for "interfering with an opponent" New text No way the new text is more complicated. It might not cover as many situations but it is easily more understandable (both in text and in in-game situations). Old text for "gaining an advantage" New text Sure it might be a few more words as well as not cover as many situations but the new text is clearer, better defined and clears up the unanswered questions the old text didn't cover. Yes the offside law is a complicated law and the interpretations are a part of that but the only reason people see the changes as being more complicated is because they find it harder to learn a new definition rather than keep using the same one as they've always used (one that they usually didn't know all that well to begin with anyway). People are baffled because they are too ignorant or too lazy to know and accept the first sentence of the offside law, "It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.". That is a sentiment that have been in the laws almost as long as there have been laws and it has existed in practice even longer and that's a good thing because the laws would be poorer without it (IMHO at least). Of course they might but one also has to realise that the "non-experts" (both die-hard/casual fans, random tweeters or pundits/reporters) usually are somewhat biased and/or lacking in understanding of the full effects of implementing their opinions (as they by definition haven't thought that much about the issue). That said the Magee situation is right there on the edge of the issue IMO, I would like that to be offside (but a yard or so further away and it should be allowed) but I also think that until the IFAB comes out with a new and/or clearer definition of how close you have to be to "challenge" for the ball the interpretation has to be this strict to make it possible to have any semblance of consistency.
What's a keeper meant to do in that situation? It isn't up to him to judge OS, is it? So he has to play Magee as if he is on, which at least according to the NY people, means hesitating and not committing in time to get a ball that he supposedly would have easily saved otherwise. Is the keeper just SOL in those cases? Is he supposed to know/hope the player is offside and play it as if there is no chance for a redirect? Or is PRO's statement that Magee wasn't close enough to challenge meant to imply that the NY party line is BS, and that no keeper would have needed to consider the possibility of Magee redirecting that ball.
From PRO: So are they saying it doesn't matter how close Magee is to the ball, as long as he is far enough away from Robles (which Robles can't know because that phrase isn't defined)? This is a mess of a rule.
The keeper can play however he likes using the tactics of his choosing. Tactical choices made by defenders are completely irrelevant when it comes to offside.
I hear ya man. That's what I was questioning about the attacker distracting the keeper. Unfortunately that does not matter by rule. I think it should, but I don't make the interp.
This post made me go back a watch the clip again a bunch of times and I think I've changed my mind somewhat. It wasn't offside and I don't think I even want it to be, this because I don't think the keeper needed to consider Magee much. Had the keeper simply gone to collect the ball then this wouldn't have been a situation to discuss because he would have gotten the ball without Magee having any chance to stop it and that would have been it. It was just some really poor decision making by the keeper. No they are saying that to be "challenging an opponent for the ball" the attacker has to be close enough to the opponent and the ball to actually challenge for the ball, which Magee wasn't. And Robles doesn't need to know an exact defined distance, all he needs to do is go for the ball, which he didn't. I get that people have trouble with this concept (not that I see why) but IMO the IFABs intention is that there has to be an actual physical influence on the situation, not just a mental distraction, for interference with an opponent to be called.
Why would the GK be waiting to give Magee a chance to redirect (a high scoring opportunity) instead of beating him to the ball?!?
There's no way that Robles could beat Magee to the ball in this specific play. If Magee didn't pull up, there's just no way Robles could get there first. So... Robles has three options: -- Position himself to block Magee's redirection/shot -- Position himself to save the shot from Shipp, assuming that Magee is going to dummy the ball -- Position himself to save the shot from Shipp, assuming that Magee can't touch it because he is offside Watching Robles, he clearly takes option 1, setting up to block Magee's redirection/shot. Option 2 is highly unlikely, based on how Magee plays, and Robles certainly knows this. Also, with the relatively slow pace of the ball that Shipp put in, it was likely intended to be a pass to Magee. There's a big part of me that thinks it's completely unfair for Robles to be forced into option 3, because for him to know every attacker that is offside at any moment in time is asking a bit much. However, we can't really look at it from Robles' standpoint when judging offside. We have to look at what offense the attacker committed. Since Magee committed none of the aforementioned criteria from previous posts, he can't be declared offside. And since Magee's not offside, and now that we have a ball in the back of the net, we have a goal. It seems like one repercussion of omitting the "deceives or distracts" clause was that it changed our outlook from judging what is fair for the defense to judging what is fair for the offense. And in this case, since no crime was committed by the offense, a goal is fair for the offense. This is a great example of how attacking soccer, through a combination of IFAB changes and good referee teamwork, prevails on the field. It may feel dirty to you, but this is the way the LOTG are written. They've really made it quite clear now. We can continue to discuss it so that we get comfortable with this, but we do need to get comfortable with this and we need to be on the same page.
Not how I see it all -- I see Magee pulling up because he can't beat the GK to the ball. YMMV. But I agree that there are two separate issues that we need to keep separate. (1) is this offside based on current interpretations, and (2) would we like the Law'official interpretation to be different. The first, I think, has an easy answer; the second is a subjective judgment on which any opinion is valid. Weneed to be cautious about letting our opinion on (2) affect our judgment on (1).
This paragraph is incredibly well said. It's probably the best way to explain it to fans and other non-referees.
I disagree, the ball comes from the right and Magee slightly from the left so if Robles had gone forward to catch the ball then he would have gotten to it before Magee would have.
Thought this similar play was interesting from this weekend: Link A bit closer to "challenging an opponent?" For the record, I still think this is the correct decision
Some discussion of that sequence on this page: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/2014-mls-referee-assignments-and-discussion-rs.2000143/page-62
Offside. Too many people take the "challenging an opponent for the ball" thing too literally in terms of the normal use of the term "challenge" in soccer.
I agree. People have made this a mess of a rule. The spirit of offside with regard to this flavor is that opponent makes the defense react to his presence by acting as if he intends to play the ball. This would include the scenario in the OP. It would also include the most common scenario of forcing an opponent to pursue him...what the hell is the defender supposed to do? "I think he was offside, so I'm going to just let him run in, collect the ball and go 1 v my keeper. After all, ARs NEVER make mistakes.
Absolutely not offside. If we can pretty much uniformly agree that Magee wasn't involved in the CHI-NY play, then there's no way this is offside. Magee at least made a move toward the ball; Wenger actually tried to avoid the ball! An OSP player cannot be punished simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He must actually do one of the three things that constitute involvement before he can be punished for offside. If Magee didn't interfere, then Wenger certainly didn't interfere.
I don't understand what you mean. The Laws were deliberately changed to use the word "challenge." It replaced previous language that used very different words and had been well-established. Who are these "too many people" and why are they taking things "too literally?" Do you think FIFA came up with new, specific and explicit language, so that we could just invent our own interpretations?
To answer your last question, no, I don't think that it was so we could just invent our own interpretations. I think that the purpose was to say the same thing in a simpler way.
The only time anyone will take the effort to amend teh laws to say the same thing is if they think it is currently being misapplied due to misunderstanding. (Which is more or less what USSF said about the "save" clarification.) But I don't think that was the intent with changing distract or decieve to challenge; I think like many (almost all) of the changes made to Law 11 over the last 40 years it was a conscious effort to narrow the meaning of interfering with an oppponent. PRO obviously does, too -- and I suspect they have more contact with the thought leaders at IFAB than either you or I.
As mentioned previously, I think this example from FIFA directly contradicts your statement. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/video/video=2148670/index.html
I think I'm reading this incorrectly. Are you saying that even if Kennedy dove directly into Wenger, making C obviously true, it still wouldn't be offside because Wenger's action wasn't an attempt to play the ball? Or that a player in an offside position who stands still (because they know they're offside) and ends up blocking a defender isn't committing an offense because they aren't actually doing anything? That sounds odd to me.
True, but I think this example shows an attacker making "the defense react to his presence by acting as if he intends to play the ball." That is the statement I was saying is contradicted by the video.
I think that was the reason why they decided to make a change but I also think that when they had decided to make the change/clarification they also decided to go a step further and limit the scope of "interfering with an opponent" a bit too.