A&H

World Cup GER NGA - Blindfolded

The Referee

Well-Known Member
For Germany's first goal, the Nigerian goalkeeper's vision was clearly obstructed by an offside German player. After a video review, the referee awarded the goal.

Is there any official guidance on how to interpret the law?
 
The Referee Store
I disagree that we have an angle at shows it was clearly obstructed and prevented the GK from playing the ball. I thought the angle was equivocal as to whether vision was actually blocked-which IMO means that either on field call should have stood. (The R presumably agrees with me, whilst the VAR appears to have agreed with you.)
 
For Germany's first goal, the Nigerian goalkeeper's vision was clearly obstructed by an offside German player. After a video review, the referee awarded the goal.

Is there any official guidance on how to interpret the law?

Good question.

In reality, the keeper had no chance of saving it... Glad it stood.

I'd hope the rules state that it would only be offside if there was actual interference as in it makes a difference. In the case today, even if the attacker wasn't there, it was going in
 
Good question.

In reality, the keeper had no chance of saving it... Glad it stood.

I'd hope the rules state that it would only be offside if there was actual interference as in it makes a difference. In the case today, even if the attacker wasn't there, it was going in
That then relies on the opinion of the referee as to whether the goalkeeper could make a save
 
The standard is that the defender (here the GK) has vision blocked that prevents the defender from playing the ball. And it’s a judgment call, so should only be reversed by var if clear error.
 
I'd hope the rules state that it would only be offside if there was actual interference as in it makes a difference.
They do. The law doesn't say that it's an offence simply to be in the keepers eye-line, it says it's an offence to "prevent[..] an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball" by doing so. IMHO, the keeper was not prevented from being able to play the ball by the attacker's presence.
 
Last edited:
For Germany's first goal, the Nigerian goalkeeper's vision was clearly obstructed by an offside German player. After a video review, the referee awarded the goal.

Is there any official guidance on how to interpret the law?
There's no official additional guidance but I think that in this case, the law itself gives us enough guidance to work with. The law basically says it's only an offence for a player in an offside position to obstruct the keeper's vision if by doing so, they prevent the keeper from playing or being able to play the ball.

Even if the German player was clearly obstructing the keeper's line of sight (and I'm not 100% sure she really was clearly obstructing it) my judgement was that she didn't prevent the keeper from being able to play the ball. It appears that's the view the referee took as well.
 
There's no official additional guidance but I think that in this case, the law itself gives us enough guidance to work with. The law basically says it's only an offence for a player in an offside position to obstruct the keeper's vision if by doing so, they prevent the keeper from playing or being able to play the ball.

Even if the German player was clearly obstructing the keeper's line of sight (and I'm not 100% sure she really was clearly obstructing it) my judgement was that she didn't prevent the keeper from being able to play the ball. It appears that's the view the referee took as well.
Pretty nonsensical argument, by definition if you cannot see the ball you cannot play it
 
Pretty nonsensical argument, by definition if you cannot see the ball you cannot play it
So if the goalkeeper is standing on the right hand post and a player blasts the ball in off the left- hand post but there's a player in an offside position blocking the keepers view of the ball as it flies in, you're going to disallow that? The argument is that if the goalkeeper never, ever had a chance of physically reaching the ball in the first place, that's what prevented them playing it, not the presence of the attacker.

I also said that in this particular case, I'm not even convinced the offside-positioned player did obstruct the keepers view anyway.
 
Last edited:
So if the goalkeeper is standing on the right hand post and a player blasts the ball in off the left- hand post but there's a player in an offside position blocking the keepers view of the ball as it flies in, you're going to disallow that? The argument is that if the goalkeeper never, ever had a chance of physically reaching the ball in the first place, that's what prevented them playing it, not the presence of the attacker.

I also said that in this particular case, I'm not even convinced the offside-positioned player did obstruct the keepers view anyway.
Now you're making it up.....
 
Sounds like the referee has to judge whether the keeper can make a save which means if it's Karius, offside will never be called; but, if it's De Gea, offside may be called.
 
This is the best angle. No offside for me. Not directly in front.


View attachment 3547

Didn't notice this angle when watching on the tv - thanks for this. However...

Although the offside attacker is not obstructing the GKs vision at the point of contact of the header, the offside attacker did cross the GKs line of sight just before the header. I've been a GK a few times (reluctantly!) and know that sometimes you have to dive before the shot (if it's from close range) in order to have a chance of saving it. Since the GK's vision was obscured just before the header, the GK was unable to anticipate the header.

EDIT: I've just spotted the offside German player hiding behind two Nigerian defenders (in the image posted by @one ) and is in the GK's line of vision. (On first viewing of the image, I incorrectly thought the offside player was the German player to the left of the image.)
 
Last edited:
Didn't notice this angle when watching on the tv - thanks for this. However...

… the offside attacker did cross the GKs line of sight just before the header. I've been a GK a few times (reluctantly!) and know that sometimes you have to dive before the shot (if it's from close range) in order to have a chance of saving it. Since the GK's vision was obscured just before the header, the GK was unable to anticipate the header.

What any player does before the header (or pass, shot, etc) is irrelevant, you can only look at their actions after it has happened.
 
What any player does before the header (or pass, shot, etc) is irrelevant, you can only look at their actions after it has happened.
True but was she offside when the original ball was played because it can be argued that you look at the action after that point in play
 
But the image you posted does show the offside player directly in front of the goalkeeper

I disagree. I think she is sightly to the right of line of vision (or left from keeper's view point). Also noteworthy is the actual wording of the law "clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
 
Now you're making it up.....
The idea that a goalkeeper could be to one side of the goal while the ball goes in at the other side, and that there could be an offside-positioned player potentially in the keepers eye line, is made up? Hardly - in fact I think we've discussed that almost exact scenario on more than one occasion.
 
The idea that a goalkeeper could be to one side of the goal while the ball goes in at the other side, and that there could be an offside-positioned player potentially in the keepers eye line, is made up? Hardly - in fact I think we've discussed that almost exact scenario on more than one occasion.
The visual obstruction comes from picking up the original player shooting not the deflection or rebound from the opposite post
 
Back
Top