Chelsea vs Madrid
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
Context?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Now then the Werner solo goal.
When he shoots, Chelsea 29 is in an offside position with one defender behind him in the goal. 29 then jumps out of the way of the shot. Is this an offence?
strange situation
When he shoots, Chelsea 29 is in an offside position with one defender behind him in the goal. 29 then jumps out of the way of the shot. Is this an offence?
strange situation
Looked like the player in an offside position was behind the goalkeeper and the save from the goalkeeper took the ball away from the defender so he couldn't have interfered with that opponent either..
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I just saw it again and the GK was in front
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Wow! What a game, so many chances, close but no cigar. Benzema ultimately the difference between the sides over 2 legs. 
Overall thought ref did well. However, could be argued though Chelsea should have had a penalty. Havertz chasing a loose ball, Casimiro chases and sticks out a leg, appearing to trip Havertz into Courtois yet referee gave a defensive free kick for a foul on Courtois. Was it reviewed? If so, it was very quick. Didn't change much in the end as Chelsea scored shortly afterwards, from a corner that Madrid argued should have been a goal kick.
Overall thought ref did well. However, could be argued though Chelsea should have had a penalty. Havertz chasing a loose ball, Casimiro chases and sticks out a leg, appearing to trip Havertz into Courtois yet referee gave a defensive free kick for a foul on Courtois. Was it reviewed? If so, it was very quick. Didn't change much in the end as Chelsea scored shortly afterwards, from a corner that Madrid argued should have been a goal kick.
Player took a shot, deflected back from the defender into the player's hand. He then smashes it into the net.
Disallowed for handball.
Assume it's that one.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Absolutely not. The player is not fulfilling any of the conditions required for an offside offence to occur.
Doesn't interfere with play or an opponent and doesn't gain an advantage according to any of the specified criteria.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
“
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball“
Which opponent did he impact their ability to play the ball? He's behind the keeper and he's not in the line of sight of the defender who got wrong footed by the save.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
It's a pretty mental move by the Chelsea player to jump so high out of the way of the flight of the ball.
Interesting that there is a prone Real player who may well have been the second defender playing the Chelsea player onside anyway.
I don't think it is an offside offence either. But "absolutely not" is also not constructive or accurate.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Yes, but the player in question clearly did not do this. The only opponent who had the opportunity or ability to play the ball at any time after Werner hit it, was the keeper (who in fact did play the ball).
It's true there was a defender behind the keeper but the only negative impact on his ability to play the ball was from his own keeper, who deflected the ball away from him.
The offside-positioned Chelsea player was behind the defender and especially after the deflection occurred, was no longer anywhere near the flight of the ball.
So for me, there is just no possibility that a player who is neither in the line of flight of the ball nor visible to the defender, can impact on that defender's ability to play the ball.
I suppose there might have been a chance if he'd been physically much closer to the defender, in a position that hampered the defender's freedom of movement - AND that defender had been in a position to play the ball. However neither of those things is true.
The defender was not in a position to play the ball (due to the afore-mentioned deflection by the keeper) and the player behind him did not block his sight or movement in any way whatsoever, so I can only reiterate my previous position that there is absolutely no way in which that could have been an offside offence.
Although as is often mentioned, a still cannot truly reflect a complex moving situation, I think in this instance the picture below actually does illustrate the scenario quite well. The defender has a clear sight of the ball and the player behind him is not impacting on his ability to move towards the ball or play it (as mentioned, it's the deflection that did that).
I'm sorry, but I'm still at a loss as to why you think there's a possibility of an offside offence here.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I don’t and that’s a much better picture and explanation
the law says it’s an offence if the PIOP
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
…but I think the law is poorly phrased as that cannot be taken literally. You meed all the extra guidance that is not in the laws to learn than “an obvious action” is not the intent of thd law in situations like this.
You really are flogging a dead horse with this, there is clearly not even a chance of an offside offence here.I don’t and that’s a much better picture and explanation
the law says it’s an offence if the PIOP
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
…but I think the law is poorly phrased as that cannot be taken literally. You meed all the extra guidance that is not in the laws to learn than “an obvious action” is not the intent of thd law in situations like this.
In this case he is behind all defending players, they probably don't even know he is there. And he is jumping solely for the reason of making sure the ball doesn't hit him, a) because it might stop the ball going in the goal and b) because he is in an offside position.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Agree that the first part means there is no possible offense. But the second part is irrelevant—he could be jumping to avoid the bal and it could still be an obvious action that triggers OS if there was a defender with a chance to play the ball and it impacted the ability of the defender to play the ball.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don’t get what is unclear.I don’t and that’s a much better picture and explanation
the law says it’s an offence if the PIOP
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
…but I think the law is poorly phrased as that cannot be taken literally. You meed all the extra guidance that is not in the laws to learn than “an obvious action” is not the intent of thd law in situations like this.
(Well, in the U.S. it could be more confusing, as we are more strict about using “which“ descriptively and “that” restrictively. By American convention, “which“ is the wrong word here: it would be “that.” (And, indeed, “which” should always be preceded by a comma.) But my understanding is that in British English, “which” without a comma is restrictive, which means the obvious action has to be one that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball--that is the literal meaning. And any other meaning doesn’t make sense: unless that is the meaning , the rest of the sentence has no meaning.)
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Try this, instead of the striker being a yard behind, lets move him to standing next to the defender, but a yard to the left, or right. Onside
lets put him directly in front of the defender, offside. He would then be impacting etc