Well, in fairness, if it did deflect off a Croatian, that would count for offside. Remember it's "played or touched" by the attack. A deflection is a "touch." But I didn't see the deflection that he's referring to at all. And then the Irish defender plays the ball anyway--just extremely poorly--so things would be reset there regardless. Unless puyol saw something that we didn't see...
Look at Massrefs post. You don't need to control it. If I kick it into a Croat player and it goes to another Croat player in an offside position, he's offside. It just has to touch him.
IF it touched a Croatian player it should have been offside. But I haven't seen a replay yet where I could see the touch.
exactly , i thought i was the only one thinking that , but its a clear offside coz it came off a croation player
puyol, which player do you think deflected the ball? I'm not seeing it from the angles they show, but I guess it's possible that last player in the center of the field got hit by the ball as it went backward from the Irish defender. But I haven't seen anything that shows a touch.
Ah - corrected I am - fair points all. Must have been the shandy(ies) I was drinking earlier while watching Spain v Italy. thx for corrections.
I just watched the replay again...I don't see what you're seeing. I only see a bad clearance no deflection, no change of direction by the ball.
At least Alexi and Kasey kinda know why it wasn't offside. PS: I HATE the who "phases" thing try to use to explain offside.
thats what i saw from the replay , the irish defender miss-hit it but it still hit the croation player ( #8 ) , and went to the # 9 to score
Kasey Keller did a better job than Alexi Lalas of explaining (in simpler terms) why the second Croatian goal was not offside. I am not sure that the foul that led to the Ireland goal was even a foul. I see an arm by Corluka and the Ireland player goes flying (somewhat similar I thought to the foul called just outside the penalty area).
I went back and watched it in slow motion from all of the replays. It never hit #8 for Croatia. Straight from the defender's foot to #9.
It's a foul, he even decided to do it again. You cannot challenge a player from behind, they can't see you coming they can't prepare for it. Shoulder to shoulder fine but when you see their back you should contain and that's it.
Another good yellow. Kuipers is understated, but I like how he operates and I like his foul selection and misconduct application.
Hmm. I wonder if not giving that has more to do with having the wrong angle or not wanting to give a borderline penalty whilst Croatia was pissed about the injury situation. Also wonder if that's something an AAR could--or would--help with from behind. Strong, strong case for a penalty.
Looks like CRO got away with one there. the AAR should have had a perfect view. The CRO defender didn't get a lick of the ball.
Massref - Did they recently change the language to include "touched" in addition to "played" in the deflection offside law? I remember not three years ago being told at a clinic that a "touch" from the attacking player doesn't count.
Thats just incorrect. Anytime the attacking player touches the ball you need to determine offside position and offenses.
To reinforce how clear this is, the Laws cite "when the ball touches or is played by one of his team..." It's interesting that Law XI cites what the ball does, rather than what the player does, in regard to touching. It's as if the IFAB is making sure everyone knows that it does not matter if the attacker intended to touch the ball or not. This could not be clearer.
Well, I could see that thought going through MY head if I were CR, but can he really think that way? 100% foul, not sure on the position of it....