Wigan v Lincoln

[ladbroke8745]

Game from earlier this month.

Penalty in the game.
Taken and saved. Player blocks defender from rebound. He just about encroached but without VAR I think it's hard to give.
I totally get the assistant on the goal line and couldn't see the offside, but why is the referee looking to move out of the area and not see the follow up and subsequent offside?
The attacker blocking the defender from clearing is offside when the shot occurs and is very much material in the ability for the defender to play the ball.
Learning curve for some here personally.

172K views · 234 reactions | Sat 1 Feb 2025League OneWigan Athletic 1 Lincoln City Football Club 1@top fansEFL👍💙⚽️ | Football hopper

Sat 1 Feb 2025League OneWigan Athletic 1 Lincoln City Football Club 1@top fansEFL👍💙⚽️

www.facebook.com

 

[Big Cat]

Bloody Hell, there's a lot going on there
Maybe I'll concentrate next time I preside over a Penalty Kick!
Correct outcome here is a retake of the PK as players from both sides encroached
Offside would be correct if the encroachment had not happened

 

[JamesL]

Bloody Hell, there's a lot going on there
Maybe I'll concentrate next time I preside over a Penalty Kick!
Correct outcome here is a retake of the PK as players from both sides encroached
Offside would be correct if the encroachment had not happened

I don't think the defending player impacts and so should it not be an indirect free kick...

 

[Big Cat]

I don't think the defending player impacts and so should it not be an indirect free kick...

The encroaching defender in question, would probably have cleared the ball had he not been impeded by the offside attacker (who also encroached). They both had an impact in that they were both a consideration in the offside decision

 

[JamesL]

The encroaching defender in question, would probably have cleared the ball had he not been impeded by the offside attacker (who also encroached)

But he did not...

a team-mate of the goalkeeper is penalised for encroachment only if:

the encroachment clearly impacted on the kicker; or

the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and this prevents the opponents from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity

Therefore his encroachment was not an offence.

Little edit: I have written to my pals at IFAB for clarification on this because the in my view the written text takes precedent but the summary table doesnt make the distinction about which player impacts so you may be right. Will confirm what they say.

 

[Big Cat]

But he did not...



Therefore his encroachment was not an offence.

Any Referee that could identify everything that happened and recall and process that exact wording in that moment, is a better Referee than me

It makes for an interesting scenario
If we think about it, the exact wording you've posted makes it very unlikely we'd ever penalise both sides for encroachment following this year's change.
In practice, without replays, it leans me towards only ever penalising the attacker OR defender
So, OK, happy to go with IDFK to defending side

 

[one]

But he did not...



Therefore his encroachment was not an offence.

Little edit: I have written to my pals at IFAB for clarification on this because the in my view the written text takes precedent but the summary table doesnt make the distinction about which player impacts so you may be right. Will confirm what they say.

It's a circular argument. For this to be offside you need the impact of the defending player, and if the defending player impacts then because of his encroachment it can't be offside.

As the law is written now, I'd go retake.

 

[JamesL]

It's a circular argument. For this to be offside you need the impact of the defending player, and if the defending player impacts then because of his encroachment it can't be offside.

As the law is written now, I'd go retake.

Might need some elaboration. What defender impact do you need for offside?

Bearing in mind law 14 impact as quoted above and offside only needing attacker to be close to goal than 2nd last opponent which needs none of the law 14 impacts

 

[one]

Might need some elaboration. What defender impact do you need for offside?

Bearing in mind law 14 impact as quoted above and offside only needing attacker to be close to goal than 2nd last opponent which needs none of the law 14 impacts

In this case the reason for offside is interfering with an opponent. If that opponent is there 'illigally' then i would call that impact. Hope this makes sense.

Not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, but we know being closer to goal than 2nd last opponent puts a player in offside position which is not an offence on its own.

 

[JamesL]

In this case the reason for offside is interfering with an opponent. If that opponent is there 'illigally' then i would call that impact. Hope this makes sense.

Not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, but we know being closer to goal than 2nd last opponent puts a player in offside position which is not an offence on its own.

Well seeing as he played the ball that would be an offence of interfering with play... Which had zero to do with the non-impacting defender a couple of yards behind him.

Did the defender impact the kicker? No

Did he play the ball or challenge an opponent for the ball and this prevented the opponent from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity? No.

Law 14 says: no impact.

 

[Archer]

3-0 home win for me tbh.

 

[one]

Well seeing as he played the ball that would be an offence of interfering with play... Which had zero to do with the non-impacting defender a couple of yards behind him.

Did the defender impact the kicker? No

Did he play the ball or challenge an opponent for the ball and this prevented the opponent from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity? No.

Law 14 says: no impact.

I'm not convinced he played the ball. But again it's 3.30am here and I'm watching it on low light phone screen.

If he did play it then I agree it's offside. Otherwise it's an interesting scenario of interfering with oppoent.

 

[JamesL]

I'm not convinced he played the ball. But again it's 3.30am here and I'm watching it on low light phone screen.

If he did play it then I agree it's offside. Otherwise it's an interesting scenario of interfering with oppoent.

I think you might be right. Sorry it might be my eyes not working. I was convinced he had played the ball....

 

[one]

Looking at it in better light and zoomed in, i am convinced he did not play the ball.

All of this made me think of a similar scenario, probably a little less complex but explains why I thought OP is a retake.

Green player temporarily off the FOP with ref permission (eqipment/injury). Blue player in offside position. Ball played through for blue. Green player runs in without ref permission to chase the ball. Blue player does not touch the ball but interferes with Green player who just ran in and impacts his ability to play the ball. (No 'physical fouls' committed otherwise) Decision?

 

[JamesL]

Looking at it in better light and zoomed in, i am convinced he did not play the ball.

All of this made me think of a similar scenario, probably a little less complex but explains why I thought OP is a retake.

Green player temporarily off the FOP with ref permission (eqipment/injury). Blue player in offside position. Ball played through for blue. Green player runs in without ref permission to chase the ball. Blue player does not touch the ball but interferes with Green player who just ran in and impacts his ability to play the ball. (No 'physical fouls' committed otherwise) Decision?

Direct free kick Blue. And caution for green for entering without permission.

Rationale:

The interference/offences of both players happen at the same time (blue interferes with green committing an offside offence and blue interferes with play law 3.8 having entered without permission) so the more serious offence is entering without permission and interfering with play.

That's how I would interpret it anyway.

Back to OP. Now that I've fixed my eyes and can see that the attacker doesn't touch the ball I'm torn on this one.

Considerations here for me are

1. Are the defender and attacker challenging each other for the ball

If yes then I agree with your initial assessment of retake.

If no

2. Does the attacker make an obvious action that clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Hard to say anything but yes. I don't think law says what happens if that touch would be an offence elsewhere in law so offside perhaps? Spirit of game? What would football expect?

I think on balance retake is potentially the better outcome.

 

[one]

and interfering with play.

He didn't actually interferer with play (back at ya ) or in this case even with an opponent playe the ball.
My scenario is directly covered in law. Though not explicitly, IMO it trumps the other offence at the same time. Referee should not stop play if there is no further involvement from the player and caution at next stoppage. Otherwise DFK and caution.


But let's move on to OP. To me it looks like the defender trying to reach the ball and the offside attacker is shielding it. So it's closer to you point 2.

And interfering think we both agree it's not directly covered in law. Even spirit of law is not clear.
Can we look at it as two offences at the same time? Its a real.mess.

Anyway for me a retake is the best outcome. Giving offside rewards the defender encroachment.

 

[RefereeX]

Personally I think offside is the better outcome for the game. Appreciate the reasoning behind the retake and don't disagree with it, but I think offside is an easier sell (the encroachment is minimal and those in the ground are not likely to know that it has occured) and for me, if both players were there legally (from an encroachment POV) , its 100% an offside offence.

 

[Kent Ref]

Personally I think offside is the better outcome for the game. Appreciate the reasoning behind the retake and don't disagree with it, but I think offside is an easier sell (the encroachment is minimal and those in the ground are not likely to know that it has occured) and for me, if both players were there legally (from an encroachment POV) , its 100% an offside offence.

Easier sell v correct in law?

 

[RefereeX]

Easier sell v correct in law?

If law was explicit in how we should deal with this, then I would agree. But it isn't.

 

[one]

Personally I think offside is the better outcome for the game. Appreciate the reasoning behind the retake and don't disagree with it, but I think offside is an easier sell (the encroachment is minimal and those in the ground are not likely to know that it has occured) and for me, if both players were there legally (from an encroachment POV) , its 100% an offside offence.

In some situations the answers to below three questions are different

What is the fairest outcome?
What does the law want me to do?
What would I do?

In this case (in may opinion of course) my outcome is slightly fairer than yours, yours is much easier to manage, and the law has no idea what it wants .