Interfering with an opponent is closely defined and jst as with gaining an advantage, the definition is not what is expected in everyday language
View attachment 3253
Did Sterling prevent the defender from playing the ball or directly challenge for the ball? I think not. Was the defender's touch deliberate? I think it was. Therefore, by the tightest of definitions of Law 11, was an offside offence committed? No
AR had 50% of the info, Ref had 50% of the info. There is no way Aidy Holmes could have seen the defender's touch on the ball.
I’m going with Brian in the miniority here and as someone said at the beginning of this thread, based on the complicated law you could probably argue on or off for this situation. I’m happy to go with offside after seeing it 10 times. It’s the part of the law that sees defenders cutting out a cross that is heading for an offside attacker many yards away - we don’t give offside there, and personally I would like to see the law changed so that these necessary interventions are called offside - but that’s not the law today. In this incident if Sterling was a few yards further away (but still in an offside position) the defender would of done the same thing and it would of been out for a corner and no question about being called offside. Now in reality he is closer so we have to use criteria above - you can’t say he prevented or even directly challenged because the defender got a solid hit on the ball and kicked it into Sterling. Those saying he was “challenging for the ball” would agree with my proposed law change because I agree it was necessary for the defender to get involved but it’s not really “preventing or directly challenging” IMHO.
[Bracing for impact]
Tierney is improving, but he's got some way to go before getting this appointmentThere is also no way on earth that ref does that at say Utd v Liverpool
I'd happily go with this! Challenging for the ball is only a factor if it prevents the opponent playing the ball and the opponent obviously was not prevented from playing the ball.Interfering with an opponent is closely defined and jst as with gaining an advantage, the definition is not what is expected in everyday language
View attachment 3253
Did Sterling prevent the defender from playing the ball or directly challenge for the ball? I think not. Was the defender's touch deliberate? I think it was. Therefore, by the tightest of definitions of Law 11, was an offside offence committed? No
AR had 50% of the info, Ref had 50% of the info. There is no way Aidy Holmes could have seen the defender's touch on the ball.
I'm not sure you are refereeing using the same law bookkeeping as I amChallenging for the ball is only a factor if it prevents the opponent playing the ball
That's what my book says.I'm not sure you are refereeing using the same law bookkeeping as I am
No, you've misquoted that. The full section (starting from "interfering") is:A player in an offside position ... is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by .... interfering with an opponent by … preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by ... challenging an opponent for the ball.
interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball
Somehow I think he knows he has misquoted the law @Peter Grove. And I also think that he knows that we knowNo, you've misquoted that. The full section (starting from "interfering") is:
Challenging for the ball is a separate bullet point and a separate clause from the previous one which refers to obstructing the opponent's line of vision. Challenging an opponent does not have to prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.
If the section read:
"interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or by challenging an opponent for the ball"
Then you would be correct - but it doesn't.
Each clause is to be taken separately - that's why they're written separately. So what the law is saying, is that a player is to be penalised for:
"interfering with an opponent by: [...] challenging an opponent for the ball" - whether that prevents an opponent from playing the ball or not.
I'll give in on that. I like to think I've usually read it right but the bullet points got me between the eyes on that.No, you've misquoted that. The full section (starting from "interfering") is:
Challenging for the ball is a separate bullet point and a separate clause from the previous one which refers to obstructing the opponent's line of vision. Challenging an opponent does not have to prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.
If the section read:
"interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or by challenging an opponent for the ball"
Then you would be correct - but it doesn't.
Each clause is to be taken separately - that's why they're written separately. So what the law is saying, is that a player is to be penalised for:
"interfering with an opponent by: [...] challenging an opponent for the ball" - whether that prevents an opponent from playing the ball or not.
That's what my book says.
A player in an offside position ... is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by .... interfering with an opponent by … preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by ... challenging an opponent for the ball.
Challenging for the ball does not make a player offside - preventing the opponent from playing the ball does. But the opponent was able to play the ball.
The next question will be whether VAR gives "what football expects" or what the letter of the law says.
Within playing distance...Is there a definition of challenging for the ball from the IFAB, i.e. how close does the attacker need to be to the defender to be considered to be challenging?