Brentford vs Chelsea

[TheCuriousOne]

For Brentford's second goal when Ajer headed the ball, Outtara was in an offside position, and he then tried to play the ball but didn't touch it when Reece James tried to play it as well - it went through to Carvalho who was left unmarked and scored a tap-in.

Here are images for reference.

I was just wondering whether that's offside or the rules have changed after I think United had a goal chalked off against Fulham (Maguire trying to go for the ball but not touching it) a couple of seasons ago.

PS. I am a fan, but I am not trying to argue, just understand the rules, see what people with more expertise have got to say, because most Chelsea fans will say it's an offside, while most other fans will say it's not, and I am really not interested in that.

 

[one]

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 or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Did any of the above happen? Not for me.

Just going for the ball doesn't make it an offence. It has to impact an opponent. IMO Reece James wasn't impacted.

 

[socal lurker]

All I’ve seen are the stills, and from them, I think it is impossible to tell if this could have met the second or third bullet from the Laws, which One posted above. What I think fans often lose sight of (some of them because they played in a different era of how we apply OS) is that the modern game really insists that the OS player to either touch the ball or have a meaningful impact on an opponent to have an offense.

 

[Russell Jones]

It’s certainly a very marginal decision. You can see the active AR hold his position post goal which suggests he communicated the offside position to the referee. I’m somewhat surprised that, given it’s a subjective decision, VAR didn’t choose to send the referee to the screen to assess.

 

[RefereeX]

It’s certainly a very marginal decision. You can see the active AR hold his position post goal which suggests he communicated the offside position to the referee. I’m somewhat surprised that, given it’s a subjective decision, VAR didn’t choose to send the referee to the screen to assess.

I agree in terms of the marginality (if thats a word) of the decision, but surely for the VAR to send the referee that would involve them saying 'we think this is clearly an offside offence' which, given as you've said it was marginal, is unlikely.

 

[RustyRef]

Dale Johnson has reported that the on pitch officials said that they knew Ouattara was in an offside position but didn't do anything to trigger an offence. If that is correct, and I'd have to assume he has access to the audio to know that, it feels like VAR didn't really have anywhere to go.

 

[bester]

Dale Johnson has reported that the on pitch officials said that they knew Ouattara was in an offside position but didn't do anything to trigger an offence. If that is correct, and I'd have to assume he has access to the audio to know that, it feels like VAR didn't really have anywhere to go.

Surely if the officials had seen something to trigger an offence he'd have put the flag up? That information certainly doesn't rule out VAR involvement for me.

 

[socal lurker]

Surely if the officials had seen something to trigger an offence he'd have put the flag up? That information certainly doesn't rule out VAR involvement for me.

Of course it dowsn’t make it impossible. But VAR intervention on challenging an opponent would be a subjective decisions limited by the C&O error standard, unlike offside position, which is an objective decision for the VAR. So the intervention here should only be made if the VAR thinks there was clear interference with an opponent.

 

[RustyRef]

Surely if the officials had seen something to trigger an offence he'd have put the flag up? That information certainly doesn't rule out VAR involvement for me.

He would, but in saying they had seen that Ouattara was in an offside position that limits the potential for involvement by VAR. They would need to be sure that the judgment they had made that he was in an offside position but not committing an offence was clearly and obviously wrong, and for me it is just too subjective for that.

Whereas if the on pitch officials said they didn't see that he was in an offside position that opens it up more for VAR. It shouldn't change the outcome as they are still looking at the same footage, but it is just human nature that it will draw more scrutiny as the actual offside was missed. I'm probably not describing it very well.

 

[Ori]

The attacker tried to kick the ball which affects both the keeper and the defender who are drawn to this action. The attacker misses his kick and the ball moves to a player who isn’t offside and scores.

Make of that what you will, but for me that’s offside. Maybe subjective, but a clear attempt to to play the ball has to be interfering with play.

 

[one]

which affects both the keeper and the defender who are drawn to this action

I don't agree with this but accept that you are entitled to have this opinion.

a clear attempt to to play the ball has to be interfering with play

I don't agree with this and it is clearly not supported in law. To interfere with play you MUST actually play or touch the ball.

 

[JamesL]

I don't agree with this and it is clearly not supported in law. To interfere with play you MUST actually play or touch the ball.

Yes but you can interfere with an opponent by attempting to play a ball which is close and this action impacts an opponent.

I agree a clear attempt to play the ball doesn't HAVE TO BE offside but its certainly plausible that it can

 

[one]

Yes but you can interfere with an opponent by attempting to play a ball which is close and this action impacts an opponent.

True but he didnt say interference with opponet.

I already said he is (and you are) entitled to form the opinion that interfering with oppoent may have happened (not in those words). My opinion is it didn't.

My first post on this thread quotes what interfering with opponent means.

 

[Archer]

what interfering with opponent means.

 

[Russell Jones]

The attacker tried to kick the ball which affects both the keeper and the defender who are drawn to this action. The attacker misses his kick and the ball moves to a player who isn’t offside and scores.

Make of that what you will, but for me that’s offside. Maybe subjective, but a clear attempt to to play the ball has to be interfering with play.

As others have said, in purely LOTG technical terms, attempting (and failing) to play a ball can never be deemed “interfering with play”. It can, however, be “interfering with an opponent” but ONLY if the ball is close AND the attempt impacts an opponent. We can debate the niceties of the OP but important to register that attempting to play the ball MIGHT constitute an offside rather than DOES constitute an offside offence.

 

[Ori]

I don't agree with this but accept that you are entitled to have this opinion.


I don't agree with this and it is clearly not supported in law. To interfere with play you MUST actually play or touch the ball.

Sorry, but that’s not true and was clarified after the rashford goal against city a few years back. Rashford didn’t touch the ball or attempt to play it. He was clearly interfering with play though and so the law/guidelines clarifies to say that.

 

[one]

Sorry, but that’s not true and was clarified after the rashford goal against city a few years back. Rashford didn’t touch the ball or attempt to play it. He was clearly interfering with play though and so the law/guidelines clarifies to say that.

I think best you read @Russell Jones's post above and law 11 to understand the difference between "interfering with play" and "interfering with an opponent". You would then agree with me

 

[Ori]

Hey, I guess it’s subjective to a degree, but going back to the incident in question. The attacker who is offside clearly makes an attempt to play the ball. He misses it, but at that point he is offside for me and the call needs to be made. Especially as defenders, keeper etc….all adjust for that potential touch.

 

[RefereeX]

Hey, I guess it’s subjective to a degree, but going back to the incident in question. The attacker who is offside clearly makes an attempt to play the ball. He misses it, but at that point he is offside for me and the call needs to be made. Especially as defenders, keeper etc….all adjust for that potential touch.

I think you're missing the point being made. The scenario you describe (and possibly this one, but it's subjective) there is an offside offence but that offence is 'interfering with an opponent' from an offside position, not 'interfering with play'.

 

[one]

Hey, I guess it’s subjective to a degree, but going back to the incident in question. The attacker who is offside clearly makes an attempt to play the ball. He misses it, but at that point he is offside for me and the call needs to be made. Especially as defenders, keeper etc….all adjust for that potential touch.

I think you're missing the point being made. The scenario you describe (and possibly this one, but it's subjective) there is an offside offence but that offence is 'interfering with an opponent' from an offside position, not 'interfering with play'.

@Ori Search for those terms in laww 11.