A&H

Australia vs Peru

The Referee Store
Without VAR this wouldn't have even been a debate. The assistant would have either missed the offside and we play on, or the assistant spotted it and would have flagged long before the defender touched it.
 
bester said:
Without VAR this wouldn't have even been a debate. The assistant would have either missed the offside and we play on, or the assistant spotted it and would have flagged long before the defender touched it.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof that the player was 100% in an offside position? I've yet to see such evidence. I've only seen evidence that he might have been.
 
one said:
And apparently the parts that are actually in there are invisible ;)
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're talking about the "obvious action clause" but running isn't an obvious action. Sticking out a leg is. Jumping to head the ball is. Running isn't. So in the end, the question returns to "Did he challenge an opponent for the ball?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
CapnBloodbeard said:
you're right, that's what I meant
Click to expand...
Excellent! Just testing??
At least it won't turn into another Liverpool Spurs thread
I do think that by forcing the defender into a hernia injury, the attacker was interfering. Even David Elleray hides behind the 'football expects' clap trap
 
bester said:
Without VAR this wouldn't have even been a debate. The assistant would have either missed the offside and we play on, or the assistant spotted it and would have flagged long before the defender touched it.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think he wouldn't have at all. For all the talk about 'delaying the flag', I think without VAR the right decision was made and no AR would be raising the flag for that.

We've seen a number of goals at the top levels where a defender has tried to stop the ball, failed, and had it go to an attacker.

Big Cat said:
Excellent! Just testing??
At least it won't turn into another Liverpool Spurs thread
I do think that by forcing the defender into a hernia injury, the attacker was interfering. Even David Elleray hides behind the 'football expects' clap trap
Click to expand...
You can think that but you're wrong. The defender made the decision. That's his responsibility (FIFA's view), not the attacker's. Influencing is not interfering.

And Elleray, at times he doesn't even seem to read the question he responds to. Maybe he struggles to find time for the emailed queries.
 
cwyeary said:
running isn't an obvious action. Sticking out a leg is. Jumping to head the ball is. Running isn't.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, apparently there are new parts in law 11 that no one has ever seen.

I think we better agree to disagree on this one.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
No, I don't think he wouldn't have at all. For all the talk about 'delaying the flag', I think without VAR the right decision was made and no AR would be raising the flag for that.

We've seen a number of goals at the top levels where a defender has tried to stop the ball, failed, and had it go to an attacker.


You can think that but you're wrong. The defender made the decision. That's his responsibility (FIFA's view), not the attacker's. Influencing is not interfering.

And Elleray, at times he doesn't even seem to read the question he responds to. Maybe he struggles to find time for the emailed queries.
Click to expand...
Which circular was this addressed in? Is it in one of the resources on this site?
 
The defender simply knowing an attacker is behind him and making a decision based on that is 100% NOT INTERFERING.

I think the law should be altered though because as a defender if you go for the ball and mess it up, you put the attacker through. If you don't go for the ball, you risk the attacker being onside. It's very unfair in my eyes.

Offside should only be reset when a defender makes a deliberate play AS INTENDED or something along those lines. That way a sliced clearance doesn't cost their team a goal because the offside was reset.
 
It is daft, but now that I've read through circulars & guidance, I'd change my mind and conclude the following (in agreement with several commentators above);
The Peruvian attacker did not commit an offside offence even though the defender adopted a Kama Sutra pose in desperately trying to reach the ball. Therefore, it makes no odds that he was onside or level when the pass was made
VAR temporarily redeemed. Nothing to see here....next
 
one said:
Running towards the ball and the defender who is about to play the ball is the action and it have clearly impacted him by rushing a touch rather than letting run.
Click to expand...
But that's not what the law says - it says that it's only an offence if what the attacker does "clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball." If the defender rushed a touch, it hasn't affected his physical ability to play the ball, it has merely influenced his thinking on when to make a touch. Everything I have read from the IFAB on this, including IFAB Circular 3 which clarified the "impacting on an opponent" concept, reflects the position that the opponent's actions have to have an effect on the physical ability of the defender to play the ball, not just influence his thinking.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
But that's not what the law says - it says that it's only an offence if what the attacker does "clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball." If the defender rushed a touch, it hasn't affected his physical ability to play the ball, it has merely influenced his thinking on when to make a touch. Everything I have read from the IFAB on this, including IFAB Circular 3 which clarified the "impeding on an opponent" concept, reflects the position that the opponent's actions have to have an effect on the physical ability of the defender to play the ball, not just influence his thinking.
Click to expand...
Was thinking more with my heart than my head last night. I can see how the wording supports no offside more so than offside. Still not as clear cut as it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top