Match 38: TUN : FRA - CONGER (NZL)

Instead of posting clips from 18 years ago trying to compare them, just look at the play that happened and how it is relevant to the new offside rule. The new offside rule was made to stop penalizing defenders for making desperate plays at the ball and touching it allowing plays in offside positions to get an advantage.

desperately jumping up high, ball in the air, and a header like this has a pretty low chance of control. That’s why it was considered not a deliberate play

 

The player was in an offside position when the ball was last touched by his teammate. He then gains an advantage by playing the ball which comes off the defender.

The only way he is cleared to be eligible to play the ball here is if the defender clearly plays the ball. Which is the whole issue under consideration. All this "intended for him" is irrelevant. The intent of the attacking team has nothing to do with offside and never really has.

 

I’m pretty happy this happened on a world stage so soon after the new offside interpretation was added to the rules. When it was introduced everyone knew this was going to cause confusion, and now we see a great example of the exact type of play, a desperate defensive header in the air, that people wondered about, and we see it was considered not a deliberate play.

this should help all referees making these decisions in games going forward. Thanks goodness for the ridiculous amount of stoppage time FIFA has asked for so we could see this happen at 90+12

 

First time I looked at circular 26 in a while. I'm drawn to the distinction between an inaccurate/unsuccessful deliberate play, and an effort which achieved limited control. Comparing that distinction to the question of whether advantage is realized seems like a helpful way (for me anyway) to think about this.

e2a: Note I mean advantage in Law 5, not the advantage gained in Law 11, even though that's involved here too.

 

I think 12 million people in Tunisia think the result mattered!

 

If you guys want comedy go read the reddit comments where people don’t even know the circular that was sent out yet still make their opinions known

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

 

Actually we're penalizing him for being in an offside position when the ball was played and then gaining an advantage by receiving the ball by a non-deliberate play by the defender.

By the new interpretation, I assure you this decision isn't controversial in the slightest. I'm not trying to insult you by asking this, but are you a referee? Or just a fan? I have no problem explaining further but the foundation you have would require a slightly different explanation

 

What? The player wasn’t just “in an offside position” they scored a goal by gaining an advantage after having been in that position.
Even under the old OS this one is still probably coming back. You can’t argue it’s a deliberate play when the player is being pushed while trying to head the ball,

 

I’m pretty certain that under the old rules this would be a good goal.

 

I don't agree with that at all. Under the old interpretation, that's a reset. The challenge would not negated the deliberate act of heading the ball. This was a good goal a year ago (unless, I suppose, the R felt the attacker fouled the defender making the play). And it wasn't a goal a few years before that . . .

 

Really too bad Circular 26 comes in the era of online instruction. Recerts are going to give this a bullet or two, entry level probably not much more. Hope there are at least some of those videos included.

 

IIRC, there was a time when USSF used to teach that for a defensive touch to re-set offside, the defender must "possess and control" the ball.

I understand the desire to promote attacking soccer, but I do miss the simplicity of that interpretation. And it's unfortunate that the instructions on what is or isn't a defensive touch have waffled so much over the last ten years.

Even when there is a clear, technically correct answer based on the latest year's interpretation, I think this kind of play is doomed to be messy in the public eye.

EDIT: As I re-read circular 26, it actually pretty much precisely is the "possess and control" standard. Round and round we go!

 

I'm wondering if perhaps you're mixing up who was called offside on this play.

To be clear: you realize it was the goal scorer who was called offside, right?

 

No, I think even a year ago this was not a deliberate play. If you’re going all the way back to the nexus of deliberate vs deflection the you might have been right.

But a year ago we still had the fifa chart. And there’s more than a few reasons this wouldn’t be deliberate.

I think it might have had some more people arguing about it but for me even at that time I can justify this as a deflection.

 

Possession is an example of control but not a requirement. So if you have time and space to make a deliberate play, even a one-timer, it's control-->deliberate.

So yes, the play of an unchallenged defender as you describe would constitute control-->deliberate, and if it went awry and to the feet of an attacker in offside position the attacker would be free and clear.

 

https://www.brainshark.com/1/player...50c400a564667&custom=22webinar3deliberateplay

Good video instruction on the changes. Ignore that it's NCAA as we follow IFAB for offside verbatim. Dr. Amanda Ross presenting and she's also a CONCACAF AR coach.

 

I (jokingly) wonder if they made Abdullah Al-Marri go read/watch all of the circulars after that Portugal/Uruguay match to get ready for this one

 

Uh oh indeed. This is theoretically protestable per the Laws? France would win right? And be awarded the point.

Once you restart and then end the game it's over. You can't go back and do an OFR. Only if he blew for full-time after the goal without a kick-off taking place, then VAR can come in play.

 

Well, there's been another problem in that situation. After Griezmann scored, the referee first accepted the goal, a quick kick-off was played, and then the referee blew the final whistle to end the game.

It's only after that VAR check happened to eventually disallow the goal, then replay from the free kick on the offisde and blowing the end of the game for the second time.

Shouldn't the kick off have cancelled out the possibility of a VAR check?

 

That is very strange. I wonder if this would be a situation like I have seen happen in the nfl in the last two minutes or OT where a play snaps and then the referees blow it dead and claim they got the “alert” from the replay booth to go to video review before the snap got off, but the refs couldn’t blow the whistle until after the snap happened