Good point. It appeared to be a pass to 11, but it was headed toward the goal so I guess it technically is a "save" by the LOTG.
I am hard pressed to think of any scenario where a legal handball by a goalkeeper would not be considered a save. In this case, distance and reaction time alone makes it a save.
I agree in this case, but while they will be rare I don't think its hard at all to come up with non-saves by a GK. Two on one against the GK to the right side of the goal, and the pass is to the side away from the goal and GK gets a hand on it (though not a save, reaction time might argue for deflection rather than play in that context); long cross that is clearly not going toward the goal and GK goes up to punch away and punches it poorly. So I don't think those plays are unicorns, but they will certainly be rare, so referees should start from the expectation that GK handling (or other stops) are saves unless proven otherwise.
I'm not sure if I can find good instructional language to back me up, but I would think that any handling on a two-on-one would inherently be a "save." Even if it's a clear lateral pass, if you're inside the penalty area and you're the goalkeeper, you're clearly trying to "save" a goal at that point. Preventing someone from tapping a ball into an open net is effectively the same as stopping a shot. Punching a cross poorly is a little more interesting. I still think the same principle (which I may have just invented, of course) could apply in almost all situations. Practically, if a cross came in and a player was in an OSP and a bad punch caused the ball to land with that player in an OSP?... I just have a hard time wrapping my head around a situation where that wouldn't feel like a "save." I guess the idea of a long cross that is "clearly not heading toward the goal" and would still get a goalkeeper punch AND would have a player in an OSP who could capitalize on the misplay... well, that scenario does feel like a unicorn to me. So maybe the act of a goalkeeper "playing" a ball with his hands rather than saving it is possible (actually, of course it is) but a scenario where it relates to offside seems highly unlikely.
Going to the LOTG, the language is that a save is when a player "stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal..." So I think everything hinges on an unknown definition for "very close to the goal." I think my theory on two-on-ones would hold. Again, crosses could be a little more challenging. I would think anything in the goal area would probably count as a save, while near the top of the penalty area wouldn't--where the boundary is for the grey area is anyone's guess.
Wait--you can't be suggesting that an IFAB definition is unclear?!? Absent clarification, we disagree slightly on what makes a save. I think the concept is about saving a shot, not about "saving" a ball from going to an opponent I think the close to the goal language is meant to say that we don't ask if it was a shot on frame--if it quacks like a shot (or other ball that might be on the frame), then it's a shot and therefore a save. I am absolutely going to err on the side of considering a GK play (with or without hands) a save. But as I read it, absent additional instruction that I have not see, I don't think a pass that cannot possibly itself can go into the goal can be considered a save. (Though as a former GK, I like your version better! Indeed, I wouldn't mind an interpretation or law change that said simply that a GK handling the ball is never a play within the meaning of Law 11.) If I were the Laws czar, I would go back to the concept of possess and control, which I think more fairly draws the line for when OSP players should be relieved of OS restraints, but no one asked me.
Not where we expected it, either! Do you think Van Boekel just missed the near side defender in his first analysis? Or was this a communication issue? It feels like the former, given the time it took to correct the "correction."
At 8:50 in the video, for the pen, in what world does the PORTO player think it's legal to grab your opponent around the waist... I mean come on.
OK, I have to preface this by saying that I haven't seen the clip (video has been removed) but based on the description alone, This doesn't really sound like it meets any of the definitions of "interfering with an opponent." I think IFAB Circular 3, which provided additional clarifications and definitions related to the offside law makes it clear that unless the opponent has been prevented from playing or being able to play the ball by the offside-positioned player's actions, there is no offside offence. In fact the incident under discussion sounds very close to an example that's given in Circular 3 as follows: It also points out that even if a player attempts to play the ball and fails, then it's once again not an offence unless this action actually prevents an opponent from playing (or being able to play) the ball. Once more, not having seen the video makes it a little difficult to judge but even if the player did step over the ball, that still doesn't necessarily make it an offence - not if an opponent's actual ability to play the ball was not affected.
Napoli - Barcelona: BRYCH (GER) [Dankert (GER)] Chelsea - Bayern: TURPIN (FRA) [Letexier (FRA)] Big test for Turpin.
Meanwhile in Spain, Sergio Ramos is annoyed with referee Hernandez Hernandez after the 0-1 defeat at the hands of Levante. "I'm annoyed with Hernandez Hernandez. "Referees were more respectful before and captains could speak to them. "The arrogance is something that you have or you have. "I asked [the referee] if he had any personal problem with me and, if he did, to tell me so we could work it out." http://www.marca.com/en/football/real-madrid/2020/02/23/5e51b646268e3eee1a8b4639.html
I think you need to see the clip. It may very well still be not offside. But it’s not close to what it written in the quoted passage from the circular. Everyone is bunched together on the far side of the field and a deliberate run is made toward the ball from an attacker in an OSP. Movement alone, of course, isn’t enough to trigger offside. But the proximity of everyone makes it a very interesting question. That said, the clip only showed one angle and that was the standard broadcast camera. Without something closer, we’re all guessing without enough facts.
Incredible Fenerbahçe - Galatasaray game today for Halil Umut Meler (33yrs, UEFA 2nd) who is pushed to be "the next Çakır". Fenerbahçe – Galatasaray Halil Umut Meler (Abdulkadir Bitigen) 18’ Penalty (tripping) to Fenerbahçe given; no sanction 34’ Penalty (holding) to Galatasaray? 35’ Careless, Reckless or Violent Conduct (kicking), GAL no.36? No sanction 46’ Careless, Reckless [Second YC] or Violent Conduct (striking), GAL no.9? No sanction 64’ Penalty (holding) to Fenerbahçe? 65’ Fenerbahçe Coach ejected (entering FoP) 68’ Reckless vs. Serious Foul Play, GAL no.15? Yellow Card given 76’ Penalty (tripping) to Galatasaray; no sanction 82’ Red Card (punching?) to FEN no.23; Second Yellow Card (striking) GAL no.10; further sanctions needed?; management of substitution(s) vis-à-vis disciplinary sanctions; management of huge confrontation inc. technical staff +100’ Penalty (charging) to Fenerbahçe?
The VAR intervened twice in the Feyenoord - Fortuna Sittard match and convinced the ref both times to award penalties (luckily to both teams). Nobody in his right mind would consider those penalties (my opinion, but also of both coaches)
Lyon - Juventus: GIL MANZANO (ESP) [Martinez Munuera (ESP)] Real Madrid - Man City: ORSATO (ITA) [Irrati (ITA)] Will Irrati haunt Man City again?
"Convinced" shows, perhaps, the least understanding of how OFRs work yet. Regardless, "nobody in their right mind" is a pretty high standard given a VAR and Referee both agree. The clips are actually incredibly interesting. I'd invite you to post video of matches you want people to talk about, rather than just stopping by to complain. Full match highlights are below. For both penalties, it really goes back to one of the underlying philosophical questions about VAR. Both incidents are CLEAR fouls. If either of these things happened anywhere but the penalty area, no one would blink an eye when the foul got called and would probably be shocked if it didn't. But both fall in the category of things that--as the initial post argues--never get given as penalties. So should VAR be used to give more penalties that have traditionally been ignored? Or should it only award penalties in line with historical expectations? The lack of clarity on a VAR mandate around that question has always been another big problem in my eyes, but one that gets far less attention than the other issues at the moment. There are also two other intriguing incidents in this highlight package. The incident at 4:19 of the video (13' of match)... what was the call on the field? Bench management at 8:04 of video (54' of match) after first penalty. For those of us that said cautions for coaches could be a dumb idea, this is some good evidence in our corner. The two penalties are at about 6:53 and 8:36 of the video.
He could have gone on and carded the entire bench I wonder how the refereeing team keeps the records in such cases.
All we talk about is VAR now and seemingly everyone else does as well, but I saw the highlights of Neymar's red card and what bad match management by a FIFA referee. Players ultimately have to be responsible for their owns actions, but this red card could have been completely avoided. The original foul on Neymar used to be always a 100% caution. Now blatant and cynical holds like that are not always depending on the time of the match. Easy caution not given that could have slowed the game down and instead he allows the quick restart. One question why is PSG taking the quick restart? You are winning by 1 in added time. Take your time and kill the clock. Neymar predictably loses the ball and loses his head and lashes out and gets sent off and then the referee doesn't do anything to combat the dissent by Marquinhos. The 4th was the only one that showed any urgency in this situation.