2020-2021 England Referee Appointments (EPL+) [Rs]

Very fair assessment. You wonder if they had called "offside" if it would have been overturned as "clear and obvious", whatever that means this week.

 

Maybe in the eyes of a ref, but not in the eyes of the players who the game and the rules are designed for.

 

I'm in the camp that thinks this falls fairly clearly on the no call side of things, but you make fine points (as always). I don't think the Law is currently written with the intent to bail out the defender here, but maybe it should be? There has to be some line where it becomes an offside-triggering challenge for the ball, but because interfering with an opponent is subjective, it's always going to be slightly fuzzy. You might propose making it an offside offense if the attacker moves within a certain radius of the opponent before the ball is deliberately played, but trying to apply that in practice sounds like a nightmare.

So in the end, whether it's definitely onside, or if it's debatable, there's absolutely no chance that NOT calling offside is a clear and obvious error.

 

Two things I considered as I reviewed the play.

1) I think the idea of "impacting the defender" (not in the Laws, but I'll use it here) probably increases the farther from the professional game you get. In other words, maybe I call this offside in the games I work, but it's not enough to be considered interfering with play/seeking to gain an advantage at the professional level.

2) I know that we are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attackers on the standard "bang-bang" offside play. Whether consciously or not, I would imagine that I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the attackers on this type of play as well. Not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that I could see myself thinking along those lines if I was on the crew.

On this play, the call on the field has to stand in my opinion. I personally think it's not offside, but if offside was called on the field it's not a clear and obvious error.

 

I watched this live (and of course the aftermath with Moss and the AVL manager) and I was very conflicted. While the letter of the Law says this is not offside it feels like it should be. The whole point of offside is to prohibit a player in an offside position from gaining an advantage. And that’s really what happened. Compare that to the list of goals taken out of the net by VAR and lines being drawn at armpits and toes and decisions being made by a cm or two. Which type of play really involves an advantage by the offside player?

Letter of the Law it’s onside. I’m not sure it is in the spirit of the Law.

And I agree that a professional match would likely be adjudicated very differently than a lower age/level match.

 

You're showing our age! "Seeking" hasn't been in Law 11 for decades!

Well, IFAB has been tweaking this for a long time to make OS harder to call. But I agree there is ambiguity on how exactly a defender playing the ball and interfering with an opponent interact. I think that IFAB thinks this is OS--once the defender plays the ball, it was no longer last played by a teammate so that if the defender hasn't interfered with the opponent before that, then it's not OS. But I also think there needs to be better clarification--as MR says, there seems to be a general sense that interference with an opponent immediately upon the defender's play is still an offense. But I don't know what guidance there is out there on how to apply that--and I think IFAB owes it to the Game to clarify the expectation so everyone knows what it is. (I do think that the understanding of a defender's play in the last few years leads to non-OS scenarios that just don't seem right. And I don't think many of those actually get consistently called the way IFAB says they should be in games below the professional level.)

 

Important not to lose the overview that the whole point of the offside law in the last fifteen-ish years is to allow more attacking chances / goals and not to be fair, per se.

 

The question under the laws is whether Rodrigo challenged Mings for the ball played by a teammate. From the video, its pretty clear that Rodrigo doesn’t challenge Mings for the ball played by a teammate... he’s a couple of yards away from him.

He can challenge for a ball played by Mings. This answers the timing question... once the ball is played by Mings, Rodrigo can challenge him for the ball.

 

We had a discussion about this a while back (don't know how long). I had been in the black-and-white camp that if the OSP attacker did not challenge before the defender played, then he was cleansed by the play (regardless of how bad of a play). But I think someone found some videos (UEFA?) that made clear it wasn't that crisp and an immediate challenge was not OK. But drawing that line is tough, and I don't know of clear guidance on this. It almost feels like IFAB is ducking it because they don't know how to draw a clear line. (So we have mm review of OSP and something totally vague on this.)

 

But this isn’t the question here. Rodrigo was five or so yards away, behind Mings, jogging back onside. He pounced after Mings played the ball and he saw an opportunity to win it. This wasn’t a challenge for the ball played by a teammate, but a challenge for the second ball.

The only questions are:

1. Did Mings deliberately play the ball? Answer yes.

2. Did Rodrigo challenge Mings for the ball last played or touched by a teammate? Answer No.

But, to answer your question, yes, once Mings plays the ball, he can be challenged for it by an opponent. It’s just difficult to come up with an example where an effective/successful challenge from an off side position begins simultaneously with the play.

 

We are absolving Mings from culpability here too. He has to be aware of his surroundings. He must know there is an attacker somewhere. He doesn’t. He plays it softly, and is punished. He should have headed the ball away from danger with purpose.

So, instead we blame the referee.

 

There was an excellent example of this from PGMOL a couple of years ago. Player in offside position, defender had ball coming to them and PIOP challenged them almost immediately after the defender played the ball, and PGMOL deemed it to be an offence.

I seem to recall that their wording was something to the effect of "if the PIOP does not allow the defender to play the ball fairly or give them the option to control the ball and not have their options limited by that PIOP, then it was an offence."

I'll see if I can dig that presentation up again and find the precise wording and video.

 

What minute did this happen in? I’m looking at the MOD replay.

 

And if he knows that, he lets the ball thru to his ‘keeper. It was a bad play.

 

Funny I saw this play and immediately thought onside. Deliberate play by the defender. I think the AV player has time and space:

• The player moves towards the ball.
• Player sees and expects the ball.
• Player makes a deliberate act.
• With enough time to act
• Balanced and ready to play

As for the interfering with an opponent argument. I mean he's not in his line of vision. There is no clear action to play nor does he Impact the defenders ability to play. He also doesn't hinders, delay, or prevent AV player (Mings) from doing any of the above.

Now communicating this with a referee team in real-time, and even to get uniformity amongst referees in top flight is going to be difficult.

 

I'm confused by what you are saying.
MC try to advance the ball by heading it. [MC #20] However AV receives it and is challenged by a player from from OSP. [MC #16]

A player in an offside position [yes MC #16] at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate [yes...MC #20] is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with an opponent by:
  • challenging an opponent for the ball [yes]

However, there seems to be some consensus that AV defender had "control" of the ball long enough to "reset offside". I can buy that if that is the argument, but I agree that there is still a big grey area.
As far as LOTG are concerned, we seem to agree that we can't agree on how immediate a challenge is, or can be, or what constitutes having possession, or played vs deflection etc. (I don't mean in THIS AV vs MC scenario...I mean generally)

The grey are could be removed IMHO by changing it to:

• interfering with an opponent by:
  • being the first to challenge an opponent for the ball

But then again...it's late and I have had much wine.