Does the player "making a play" have the be the "second to last"/"determining player" with regards to offside? Scenario. A through ball is played toward a slightly offside forward (cannot tell at the moment), linesman keeps flag down. This puts forward 1v1 with the goalie. Both race to get to the ball FIRST. Goalie wins race and clears ball off the forward in such a way that it rebounds into the goal. Here we have a player (goalie) deliberately making a play and contacting the ball before "offside" player touches it. What is the call?
No. Any player on the defending team. That sounds like the attacking player is challenging for the ball to me. So would be offside. Would have to see it to be sure though... might even fall under the classic "diagram 4" interfering with play (despite the attacking player never touching the ball).
No any defender can deliberately play the ball and put an attacker onside. What you're describing with the GK is an offside offense if you feel the offside attacker is challenging the goalkeeper for the ball.
I hate this call, whether it's technically correct or not. A player in an offside position has a cross hit directly at him, and he's allowed to benefit from being in that position because a defender tried to clear it? It's not like the ball was going 10 yards away from the attacker, and the defender's play re-directed it towards him. That ball was always going to find him. He shouldn't be able to gain an advantage simply because the opponent flubbed his touch.
I know we've had some epic deflection vs deliberate debates over the year but this seems so far away from being even a debate.
I’ve always hated it too. No matter how much was the fault of the defender, the attacker gained an advantage from being in that offside position. With that said, this has been a closed book for a while, and it was clearly the correct call.
Out of all the scenarios where defenders may end up getting the short end of the stick with respect to offside interpretations, this isn’t one of them. Remove the attacker from the field of play, and the defender would be doing the exact same thing. The laws aren’t there to protect players from their own incompetence.
Amen. As someone once said to me, it’s not our job to bail players out of their bad decisions or play.
it’s not about bailing out the player. It’s about whether or not the attacker gained an advantage from being in an offside position. If the defender swings at the ball, slightly touches it, and it goes to the attacker, it’s not offside. If the defender swings and misses completely and it goes to the attacker, it’s offside. To me, that’s a really silly distinction.
I’ve always held this opinion philosophically. But I realized, again, somewhere around 10 years ago (I fought it for a little bit!) that IFAB totally disagreed. This is an easy offside decision, despite what any of us may want the law to be.
I used to. I've come around to their way of thinking entirely now. Despite being a GK (as can be seen in my profile pic).
Historically (and traditionally) there was always the "last played or touched by a defender" exception in the offside law. It was well understood and accepted for decades. Subsequently offside began to be called (flagged) as soon as the ball left the attacker's foot and before there was any possibility of the ball being contacted by a defender before it reached its intended target. There were confusing and contradictory diagrams in the LOTG book. To make things clearer, the "last played or touched by a defender" concept was removed. However it was later reinstated but with the proviso that it must be an intentional play,not merely a deflection or slight contact. So in a way this is now getting back almost to the original intent of the offside law. PH