Oh great, @Law5, considering the lively debate we have on the "pass back" how do you think that makes things any more clear!?
Can we talk about the pass back a little, while we're here? Just a little ... What I don't remember is whether the interpretation of "deliberately" (in "deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate") as applying strictly to "kicked" as opposed to "kicked to him" is only a U.S. thing or whether the ROTW views it similarly. I don't see anything supporting it in the I&G.
Was a while ago but IIRC the discussion I've seen among non-US referees was somewhat split (as the I&G doesn't have equally clear language) but in the end most looked at the deliberateness in the act itself (thus coming close to the ATR interpretation) as otherwise players could quite easily bypass at least the spirit of the laws (and it's more in line with the "no mind reading" ideas). But it was far from unanimous.
Can anyone remember if the three criteria -- the ball is kicked, action deemed deliberate by referee and no intervening touch -- which were part of the "triangle" US Soccer presented were based on FIFA documentation? I have seen folks from UEFA use that same language in a blog but can't recall seeing an official document from any body other than the US. If that concept is indeed from FIFA, it would seem they support what Bubba was saying. I guess the bottom line is, if you referee in the US what does it matter (since the powers that be are fairly clear of how they expect it to be called)?
No advantage here. Two wrongs don't make a right. Punish the handling...no one can claim a misapplication of the laws for that.
And that contradicts what FIFA and UEFA said when this happened in Germany. Ball played in, defender handled on the line to save a goal. Ball falls to a PIOP who fires it into the goal. Decision at the time was good goal, caution for defender. UEFA and the German league came back and said that it was incorrect and that it should've been red card to defender, penalty. Because it was a deliberate save, advantage could not be applied, because PIOP would gain an advantage from being in the offside position.
They didn't receive the ball from a teammate, either. By that logic, advantage can never exist if a defender touches the ball. What's the other wrong? Deliberate handling, that's 1. What's the other? Read the first sentence of Law 11 before answering. Is this the same UEFA that wants the LOTG to change because of the "triple punishment" DOGSO offenses? They want the correct call here to be "award the triple punishment?" Sounds good
It is good to think this through off the pitch and take decisive action when the situation occurs on the field. The PRO site (US) had a clarification on a very similar play - http://bit.ly/1F05jks There are two factors here on which the decision rests: defender action: deliberate play, or a deflection attacker action: gaining advantage, interfering with opponent, or involved in play Reaching out and playing using arm is a deliberate action, most definitely not a deflection. Ergo, the attacker cannot (and must not) be penalised for gaining an advantage. From OP's post there is no mention of any activity by attacker in offside position.
Briefly, yes. Now advantage may be applied and should be signalled. The illegal touch - of reaching out and playing with arm - is an offense by defender, and it is advantageous to the opponent.
Different bits. Ref committee gave the recommendation I quoted above. Platini wants the "triple punishment" out, even though no such thing actually exists in Law.