FRANCE vs Spain UNL Final Mbappe Offside

[newref]

Surprised no ones talking about this. However, I think it’s worth reviewing.

According to the one referees explanation - “Eric Garcia played the ball and that kills the offside”

However, Mbappe interferes with play and is offside. That's true even with a touch from the Spaniard Eric Garicia. He wanted to play the ball because the ball would have reached Mbappe who was literally hounding him and in an offside position in doing so. The ball is only “killed” and enters a new phase of play when the defender is free to play the ball and not put under pressure from an offside player.

From a neutral perspective, personally, I think it was a great move and finish. However, it was a very poor decision, especially when you have VAR at your disposal. It really is dreadful to have high level referees make such mistakes when it’s all there to view and see on replays.

 

[Anubis]

there is already a thread.......Nations League Offside

its also, vety much onside and a perfectly legal goal.

its an excellent call by the match officials.

at the time of the defenders touch, the striker was too far away to have any impact, and, UEFA training drums in the word ' immediate'

if you look here, at the point of the defender playing thr ball, in no way is the striker hounding the defender

 

[Anubis]

i cant post link but of all places, this from the Star, quoted by an ESPN guy, is perfect

 

[newref]

there is already a thread.......Nations League Offside

its also, vety much onside and a perfectly legal goal.

its an excellent call by the match officials.

at the time of the defenders touch, the striker was too far away to have any impact, and, UEFA training drums in the word ' immediate'

if you look here, at the point of the defender playing thr ball, in no way is the striker hounding the defender

This is a matter of opinion. In the modern game when you have a striker chasing the ball he doesn’t need to be that close to have an impact even from 7 or 8 yards an impact can be made if he is making a run towards the ball. In this case he is only a few yards away. I’ve seen many same instances where the striker is a further distance away but has been ruled offside, so for me it’s offside. Also note that just because that particular team gave it onside, there are other UEFA referees who have disagreed with that decision and I’m with them in this one it certainly was an interesting one though.

 

[ARF]

This is a matter of opinion. In the modern game when you have a striker chasing the ball he doesn’t need to be that close to have an impact even from 7 or 8 yards an impact can be made if he is making a run towards the ball. In this case he is only a few yards away. I’ve seen many same instances where the striker is a further distance away but has been ruled offside, so for me it’s offside. Also note that just because that particular team gave it onside, there are other UEFA referees who have disagreed with that decision and I’m with them in this one it certainly was an interesting one though.

Before the defender deliberately plays the ball, the attacker has not touched the ball, the attacker hasn't prevented the opponent from being able to play the ball, the attacker hasn't challenged the opponent for the ball, the attacker hasn't attempted to play the ball, or made an action which impacted on the ability of the opponent to play the ball. As the offside law is written, it simply cannot be offside.

 

[newref]

Before the defender deliberately plays the ball, the attacker has not touched the ball, the attacker hasn't prevented the opponent from being able to play the ball, the attacker hasn't challenged the opponent for the ball, the attacker hasn't attempted to play the ball, or made an action which impacted on the ability of the opponent to play the ball. As the offside law is written, it simply cannot be offside.

That’s where there is a difference of opinion even amongst the UEFA referees. Like them, I feel that he has impacted the ability of the opponent to play the ball because otherwise the defender would let the ball run, then he is in control of the ball and it is then that when the “deliberation” of playing the ball comes into play. If after this the defender plays a pass and for e.g he miscues it and it goes to the attacker he has no argument and it is onside but this never reached that stage as his action was impacted by the attacker before this could happen.

Even if by law it is onside which some argue, common sense prevails because just think about it for a second. If the defender misses the ball he is offside but if he gets a touch he is onside. Shouldn’t the defender be punished more if he misses the ball? How can he be punished for getting a touch and not if he doesn’t it’s absolute common sense. I think the worst thing about all this is the fact we have such a flaw in the law which can easily be removed it’s actually quite embarassing for those who have written this law because it’s not grassroots level where the local referee secretary is writing these up (in tha case he could be excused) as he is busy with another job trying to pay his bills on time

 

[ARF]

That’s where there is a difference of opinion even amongst the UEFA referees. Like them, I feel that he has impacted the ability of the opponent to play the ball because otherwise the defender would let the ball run, then he is in control of the ball and it is then that when the “deliberation” of playing the ball comes into play. If after this the defender plays a pass and for e.g he miscues it and it goes to the attacker he has no argument and it is onside but this never reached that stage as his action was impacted by the attacker before this could happen.

The attacker's presence has impacted the defender's decision whether to play the ball or not, but that's not a consideration for offside. It hasn't affected his ability to play the ball - the defender had a clear line of sight to the ball, and messed up his interception completely of his own accord.

As for your "common sense" argument - I can only suggest you contact IFAB to discuss rewording Law 11!

 

[Anubis]

This is a matter of opinion. In the modern game when you have a striker chasing the ball he doesn’t need to be that close to have an impact even from 7 or 8 yards an impact can be made if he is making a run towards the ball. In this case he is only a few yards away. I’ve seen many same instances where the striker is a further distance away but has been ruled offside, so for me it’s offside. Also note that just because that particular team gave it onside, there are other UEFA referees who have disagreed with that decision and I’m with them in this one it certainly was an interesting one though.

the buzzword on this is, immediate impact

and as shown by the still, he is nowhere near close enough to be considered impacting

there is no matter of opinion here, this is onside. Factually.. offside is not a subjective call

 

[Martiju]

That’s where there is a difference of opinion even amongst the UEFA referees. Like them, I feel that he has impacted the ability of the opponent to play the ball because otherwise the defender would let the ball run, then he is in control of the ball and it is then that when the “deliberation” of playing the ball comes into play. If after this the defender plays a pass and for e.g he miscues it and it goes to the attacker he has no argument and it is onside but this never reached that stage as his action was impacted by the attacker before this could happen.

Even if by law it is onside which some argue, common sense prevails because just think about it for a second. If the defender misses the ball he is offside but if he gets a touch he is onside. Shouldn’t the defender be punished more if he misses the ball? How can he be punished for getting a touch and not if he doesn’t it’s absolute common sense. I think the worst thing about all this is the fact we have such a flaw in the law which can easily be removed it’s actually quite embarassing for those who have written this law because it’s not grassroots level where the local referee secretary is writing these up (in tha case he could be excused) as he is busy with another job trying to pay his bills on time

The crucial thing is that it is not an offence to be in an offside position. Therefore, there is no sense in which the laws 'punish' a defender for making a decision one way or another. The defenders job is to defend, not to try and catch an attacker offside. So coaching for an offside trap becomes a much riskier tactic than in the past, giving spectators a more attacking game, which I think was probably the intention.

As Alex says, maybe take it up with IFAB. Whether or not we agree with the approach taken, it was clearly a considered decision amongst people charged with making these choices and I'm sure plenty of consideration was given to it. Using terms such as 'common sense', 'flaw' and 'embarrassing' suggests that you are only thinking about this from that one perspective, when actually there are plenty of issues at play here.

 

[bester]

Offside is a daft law at times but I'm not sure there's anything much better, doesn't mean alternatives aren't worth being trialled.


If he'd stopped the ball, and Mbappe had ran back and challenged before he had chance to get up and play if again it would've probably been given offside...

 

[RustyRef]

I don't like the law, especially as an ex-defender, but there is no way that can be given as offside as law is today.

 

[Anubis]

Offside is a daft law at times but I'm not sure there's anything much better, doesn't mean alternatives aren't worth being trialled.


If he'd stopped the ball, and Mbappe had ran back and challenged before he had chance to get up and play if again it would've probably been given offside...

no, that would also be a deliberate play

a block/save/deflection is the only way this would be offside
Stopping the ball would be a deliberate play

 

[socal lurker]

no, that would also be a deliberate play

a block/save/deflection is the only way this would be offside
Stopping the ball would be a deliberate play

For better or worse, there is a distinction in interpretation as applies to interference with play and interference with an opponent. It is generally taught that it is still interfering with an opponent if the attacker challenges the defender "immediately" upon his receipt of the ball. That is what @bester is referring to. I've always found it a bit of a contradiction, but no one has asked me my opinion as to what the official interpretations should be.

 

[Anubis]

For better or worse, there is a distinction in interpretation as applies to interference with play and interference with an opponent. It is generally taught that it is still interfering with an opponent if the attacker challenges the defender "immediately" upon his receipt of the ball. That is what @bester is referring to. I've always found it a bit of a contradiction, but no one has asked me my opinion as to what the official interpretations should be.

immediately is indeed UEFA's buzzword.

bottom line, if anybody needs this onside confirmed by superior powers rather tban Johnny Random online, an email to IFAB wlll furnish their knowledge.

sadly, even after being told ( told, not advised) this is onside, we have too many officials who will ignore this and use their own diagnosis.

 

[socal lurker]

sadly, even after being told ( told, not advised) this is onside, we have too many officials who will ignore this and use their own diagnosis.

I literally had an instruction from a R a couple of years ago to not follow modern interpretations of OS because he thought they were wrong. Sigh.

 

[Anubis]

I literally had an instruction from a R a couple of years ago to not follow modern interpretations of OS because he thought they were wrong. Sigh.

yes.

Suppose thats same with anythimg tho.

 

[Anubis]

Uefa confirm goal correct

 

[Joshref]

there is no matter of opinion here, this is onside. Factually.. offside is not a subjective call

When the wording says “interfering with play” that is a subjective call. Not on about this game, just mean in general offside does have an element of subjectiveness to it

 

[Anubis]

When the wording says “interfering with play” that is a subjective call. Not on about this game, just mean in general offside does have an element of subjectiveness to it

sorry no, the reference in law 11 to interfering with play is clear

" playing or touching the ball"

factual.

the player either touches the ball, or they do not.

 

[socal lurker]

When the wording says “interfering with play” that is a subjective call. Not on about this game, just mean in general offside does have an element of subjectiveness to it

As @Anubis notes, interfering with play is completely objective and defined. (With the diagram 4 caveat that it can be called before the actual touch where the OSP player is pursuing the ball and the only attacker with a chance to get there.)

There is a degree of subjectivity in interference with an opponent on some of the variations. E.g., just exactly how close do you have to be to be"challenging" for the ball? When is an "obvious action" really enough?