MCI vs AV

Kes said:

It's a bizarre part of the law I think.

Semantics aside, for me, the attacker has quite simply challenged Mings whilst coming back from an offside position.

You can even see Mings glance over his shoulder at him as the ball is approaching for which you might argue that his presence is impacting Mings ability to play the ball. Mings's poor first touch would indicate this.

Whatever the outcome, there's no way I'm not giving that as offside during one of my grass roots matches.

Click to expand...

Tend to agree. You can get away with the semantics of the LOTG and interpretations to defend a decision either way when expectations are divided. Here football expects it to be offside (we are talking neutral footballing community) and the wording in lotg is not very specific on this type of play. It has to be given.

one said:

Tend to agree. You can get away with the semantics of the LOTG and interpretations to defend a decision either way when expectations are divided. Here football expects it to be offside (we are talking neutral footballing community) and the wording in lotg is not very specific on this type of play. It has to be given.

Click to expand...

"Football expects" is the new "spirit of the game" and both come close to "last week's ref". Same with "immediately" for handball before a goal.

At least this busts the myth that City are always guinea pigs for novel interpretations of the law, like whether you could head the ball out of the keeper's outstretched hand. That took three changes of mind in three seasons before the law said it wasn't allowed! Still a way to go to beat a red card for "walking aggressively".

one said:

Tend to agree. You can get away with the semantics of the LOTG and interpretations to defend a decision either way when expectations are divided. Here football expects it to be offside (we are talking neutral footballing community) and the wording in lotg is not very specific on this type of play. It has to be given.

Click to expand...

I think the 'football expects' argument is a dangerous route to go down. Why should an ignorance of the laws on behalf of players/coaches/pundits etc be an excuse to not enforce the LotG correctly? To argue that it's offside is a valid argument (albeit not one that I agree with), but I don't agree with suggesting that we should start giving decisions just because it's 'what football expects'.

bloovee said:

"Football expects" is the new "spirit of the game" and both come close to "last week's ref". Same with "immediately" for handball before a goal.

At least this busts the myth that City are always guinea pigs for novel interpretations of the law, like whether you could head the ball out of the keeper's outstretched hand. That took three changes of mind in three seasons before the law said it wasn't allowed! Still a way to go to beat a red card for "walking aggressively".

Click to expand...

Kevin Horlock is still dining out on that one 22 years later!

Mings complaining about ‘knowing nothing about that aspect of the OS law’. As though that’s anybody else’s fault but his. Also, I’m certain the clubs are briefed on law changes prior to each season...sounds as though Mings sat there on his phone paying no attention during that briefing.

Matthew said:

I think the 'football expects' argument is a dangerous route to go down. Why should an ignorance of the laws on behalf of players/coaches/pundits etc be an excuse to not enforce the LotG correctly? To argue that it's offside is a valid argument (albeit not one that I agree with), but I don't agree with suggesting that we should start giving decisions just because it's 'what football expects'.

Click to expand...

I think you missed my post #25 (receiving the ball from an opponent vs challenging an opponent for it). The same law you think makes this no offside I can use to make it offside. So the flip side is not calling this offside is an ignorance of the law.

I am not particularly interested in what players, coaches or pundits think on the law.

The point is, the law clearly says that it can not cover every situation. And in those cases we go with what football expect (not what they think what the law says). This for me is one of those edge cases that the law has not specifically covered. Hence the use of 'what football expects'.

one said:

I think you missed my post #25 (receiving the ball from an opponent vs challenging an opponent for it). The same law you think makes this no offside I can use to make it offside. So the flip side is not calling this offside is an ignorance of the law.

I am not particularly interested in what players, coaches or pundits think on the law.

The point is, the law clearly says that it can not cover every situation. And in those cases we go with what football expect (not what they think what the law says). This for me is one of those edge cases that the law has not specifically covered. Hence the use of 'what football expects'.

Click to expand...

I actually think that we agree on the general principle here, though we are coming at it from a different angle. Calling it one way or the other isn't an 'ignorance of the law' because it's a subjective decision based on what I think we can all agree is a grey area. Mings has brought the ball down and taken a touch and for me Rodri is jogging back and makes the tackle after Mings has had a couple of touches, so for me he hasn't impacted his ability to play the ball and is no longer offside. You, along with many other referees, may read that differently which is absolutely fine.

My point is that we shouldn't use the 'what the game expects' argument to give what the average fan/player/pundit expects to be given. We should make a judgement on what we believe to be the correct interpretation of the LotG, whether it's what the game expects or not.

I think the changes in the law over the last few years are a problem with this incident - because I don't believe the changes were meant to address this, but they can be interpreted as such... and the changes, I mean: mention of coming back from an offside position, and that "gaining advantage" is mentioned in the context of deflections and saves and not in the context of interfering with an opponent.

I am with @one on this. My friend (and newly appointed ref trainer) cited rule 18: common sense. It's not specifically covered in the book, the attacker was close enough to very quickly make a challenge, therefore offside.

Has anyone written to IFAB yet for this?

santa sangria said:

I think the changes in the law over the last few years are a problem with this incident - because I don't believe the changes were meant to address this, but they can be interpreted as such... and the changes, I mean: mention of coming back from an offside position, and that "gaining advantage" is mentioned in the context of deflections and saves and not in the context of interfering with an opponent.

I am with @one on this. My friend (and newly appointed ref trainer) cited rule 18: common sense. It's not specifically covered in the book, the attacker was close enough to very quickly make a challenge, therefore offside.

Has anyone written to IFAB yet for this?

Click to expand...

IFAB won't respond about specific incidents.
I guess it would depend on who wrote the question as to what answer you'd get.

Matthew said:

My point is that we shouldn't use the 'what the game expects' argument to give what the average fan/player/pundit expects to be given. We should make a judgement on what we believe to be the correct interpretation of the LotG, whether it's what the game expects or not.

Click to expand...

To make my point, is there any time we can use "what the game expects"?

JamesL said:

IFAB won't respond about specific incidents.
I guess it would depend on who wrote the question as to what answer you'd get.

Click to expand...

Or who answers it. I have no doubt IFAB would be decided on this too, just like the flick at a goal kick.

Matthew said:

My point is that we shouldn't use the 'what the game expects' argument to give what the average fan/player/pundit expects to be given. We should make a judgement on what we believe to be the correct interpretation of the LotG, whether it's what the game expects or not.

Click to expand...

I have to strongly oppose this statement.
The lotg literally says that we should, where an exact situation is not covered in law, do what football expects...


Of course where law exists we can interpret it, guided by clarifications and governing bodies. However, in the absence of, doing what football expects is exactly what we should do.

...and if you forget about the pedantry with LotG what football expects is that referees deal with goal hangers.

On that level, Rodri was goal hanging, simples. He'd have got mobbed in my school playground!

I must say, I think the word "challenges" is very clear. Football knows what is and is not a challenge. Being in the proximity of the player playing the ball is not challenging them.

Redster said:

I must say, I think the word "challenges" is very clear. Football knows what is and is not a challenge. Being in the proximity of the player playing the ball is not challenging them.

Click to expand...

True, but Rodri literally takes the ball off Mings' foot. If that's not challenging for the ball then I don't know what is.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned and perhaps the way offside was interpreted for most of my career as a referee is excessively colouring my view but I think that even under the current law, this is an offside offence.

The law says that:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
[...]
interfering with an opponent by:
[...]
challenging an opponent for the ball ...”

Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, Rodri's actions fall squarely within this definition.

I also don't believe that stripping a player of the ball within a split-second of him first touching it and while he's still trying to control it, falls within the parameters of:

receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball

Click to expand...

Peter Grove said:

True, but Rodri literally takes the ball off Mings' foot. If that's not challenging for the ball then I don't know what is.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned and perhaps the way offside was interpreted for most of my career as a referee is excessively colouring my view but I think that even under the current law, this is an offside offence.

The law says that:



As far as I'm concerned, Rodri's actions fall squarely within this definition.

I also don't believe that stripping a player of the ball within a split-second of him first touching it and while he's still trying to control it, falls within the parameters of:

Click to expand...

I would agree with you if Mings's first touch was the one with his foot, as by that point Rodro was challenging him. But his first touch was the chest control, and at that point there is just no way Rodri could be deemed to be challenging him as he wasn't anywhere near close enough.

RustyRef said:

I would agree with you if Mings's first touch was the one with his foot, as by that point Rodro was challenging him. But his first touch was the chest control, and at that point there is just no way Rodri could be deemed to be challenging him as he wasn't anywhere near close enough.

Click to expand...

As usual, a sensible reply from you, and one that shows how well you adapt to changes in law.

Rodri was 3.5 yards from Mings when Mings chests the ball - can anyone truly say that Rodri can challenge from that distance? Especially as Rodri was behind Mings.

I’m afraid a lot of us on here seem to be wilfully ignoring the laws and twisting them to what they want to see, rather than what it says. And ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

We may not like the law, but it is quite clear and there’s even examples of it in the Law updates.

The fact players and managers don’t know the laws is their problem and it’s quite unbelievable that people at the top of their profession seem to choose to ignore and not learn about the rules that govern how they go about their work. You’d get away with it in no other profession.

Tonydent said:

The fact players and managers don’t know the laws is their problem and it’s quite unbelievable that people at the top of their profession seem to choose to ignore and not learn about the rules that govern how they go about their work. You’d get away with it in no other profession.

Click to expand...

Plausible deniability leaves room for excuses!

Tonydent said:

As usual, a sensible reply from you, and one that shows how well you adapt to changes in law.

Rodri was 3.5 yards from Mings when Mings chests the ball - can anyone truly say that Rodri can challenge from that distance? Especially as Rodri was behind Mings.

I’m afraid a lot of us on here seem to be wilfully ignoring the laws and twisting them to what they want to see, rather than what it says. And ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

We may not like the law, but it is quite clear and there’s even examples of it in the Law updates.

The fact players and managers don’t know the laws is their problem and it’s quite unbelievable that people at the top of their profession seem to choose to ignore and not learn about the rules that govern how they go about their work. You’d get away with it in no other profession.

Click to expand...

I don’t think many are saying they’re ignoring the law, rather that they don’t like it the way it now is. Personally I enforce this strictly so that if a player deliberately plays the ball and loses it then he’s fair game. If he controls it then he’s fair game.
But as far as I’m concerned I think he’s too close for this to stand. He’s brought it down and is immediately challenged by a player he knows is there. This was obviously in his mind because of the way he looked at Rodri before bringing it down. This affected the way he tried to control it and let Rodri take the ball easily. The sensible thing would have been to head it back the way it came, but Mings is a defender so obviously doesn’t think on his feet(!)

You say that 3.5 metres isn’t playing distance, but when I was training the instructor told us that playing distance is relative to the level. At this level 10 feet or so is easily playing distance. The players are so much fitter and think much faster, especially forwards.

One of the reasons I don’t use CARs is exactly this. A CAR would be flagging furiously here, (but then so would a lot of NARs as well. ) and I’d have to overrule if I didn’t agree. That’s not a problem, but it’s an awkward conversation I don’t need to have, especially when on this occasion I’d have sympathy. I’d probably have to send players off because the players I do are a lot less forgiving than on this occasion.

As has been said, the decision is correct in Law and I’d probably enforce it, (and have in the past, although not when the player is this close) although at Jackey Bakers rec on a November morning in the rain and without VAR it would probably look a lot closer so who knows.

Welcome to the forum btw

The questions that I have posed to those saying interfering by challenging:
1) if after the first deliberate play of the ball he can't then challenge, when can he?
2) if the scenario changed slightly and Rodri had got back onside before making the challenge, ie so Mings could see him, would you still say it was an offside offence?

For me its quite worrying the amount on here who say this is offside. I appreciate the book cannot cover all instances but in my opinion it covers there in black and white. As I’ve mentioned previously Rodri meets none of the criteria for interfering which therefore means hes onside.
None of this what football expects or I’m giving offside at my level etc.

otherwise whats the point in having bullet points at all.