Interfering or not...

[santa sangria]

93rd min, 20 secs from full time, 5-0, the home/winning team’s star midfielder has not got on the scoresheet but she’s run the game and has delivered a masterclass in control in zero degree snowy conditions... and she let’s off a rocket from inside left about 25 yards out.

I am behind and in line. The GK is not the biggest and is 50cm off her line, a yard or less in front of her is an attacking sub who is very small. The shot flies over the little attacker’s head and the GK miraculously tips the shot onto the bar and back into play. It’s cleared and seconds later I blow for FT.

After the game I ask AR2, who has had the quietest of games, if the little attacker was PIOP. He is clueless. Of course, I want to then ask if he thinks we should given offside if the ball had gone in.

The player was deffo in an offside position and right in line in front of the GK. But due to the height I think there was no obstructing the line of vision. However, if the ball had gone in I would have been wondering if thd GK’s ability to play the ball had been obstructed by the PIOP right in front of her, deep in the goal area!

What do you think?

If it had gone in, I think I would have gone over to AR2, told him what I saw, presumably got his blank response, then I think I would have got him to signal, disallowed the goal, and “shared” the responsibility with him

 

[Mintyref]

Offside....stop over thinking.....

 

[alexgr]

What offence had been committed? How does the attacker’s positioning there, when we’re clear there’s been no view obstructed, affect anything? Sounds fine to me

 

[santa sangria]

What offence had been committed? How does the attacker’s positioning there, when we’re clear there’s been no view obstructed, affect anything? Sounds fine to me

That’s the question... is standing right in front of the GK an “obvious action” that impedes the GKs ability to play the ball?

 

[alexgr]

That’s the question... is standing right in front of the GK an “obvious action” that impedes the GKs ability to play the ball?

The only way I could see the answer being yes is if he dived forward to save it. If the shot is in the air the whole way (as it seems in this case?) I don’t really think there’s much of a case to answer? Difficult one

 

[socal lurker]

That’s the question... is standing right in front of the GK an “obvious action” that impedes the GKs ability to play the ball?

No. It is either blocking the vision, a separate bullet, or nothing.

 

[one]

What was a attacking sub doing on the field?

YHTBT. But also think you are overthinking it.

 

[santa sangria]

What was a attacking sub doing on the field?

YHTBT. But also think you are overthinking it.

It just happened to be a late replacement Nothing illegal about the sub.

Still the question remains: is standing right in front if the GK an obvious action - the laws seem to imply the attacker needs to move somehow to be interfering - ?

What we see in TV is: if no one appeals,give the goal. I gave my “by the book” answer in the OP, but I think smart refereeing, if the ball is in the net and you are the only person in the ground thinking of bringing it back, especially at 5-0, FFS give the goal and talk in the dressing room after!

 

[one]

It just happened to be a late replacement Nothing illegal about the sub.

Then she was not a sub. She was a player. (Of course knew what you meant, just being pedantic about the terminology )

Still the question remains: is standing right in front if the GK an obvious action - the laws seem to imply the attacker needs to move somehow to be interfering - ?

Not for me. I agree with how you have interpreted of the law.

What we see in TV is: if no one appeals,give the goal. I gave my “by the book” answer in the OP, but I think smart refereeing, if the ball is in the net and you are the only person in the ground thinking of bringing it back, especially at 5-0, FFS give the goal and talk in the dressing room after!

Don't quite agree with this as a blanket statement. Sometimes it makes sense. But in many cases the reason players don't appeal is because they don't know the laws or at 5-0, they don't care anymore. And the reason you are the only one thinking of giving a free kick is because you are the only one who knows that obscure law.
Every player appealing is not cause for giving a free kick, I don't see what no player pealing should be cause for not giving it.

I think you are not implying this but I don't agree with knowingly ignoring the application of laws to avoid controversy because the score is one sided.

 

[Mintyref]

What offence had been committed? How does the attacker’s positioning there, when we’re clear there’s been no view obstructed, affect anything? Sounds fine to me

Of course the keeper's view is obstructed......think about it

 

[one]

Of course the keeper's view is obstructed......think about it

What if the attacker was 3 feet tall and the keeper is 7 feet tall?

 

[Peter Grove]

Of course the keeper's view is obstructed......think about it

The law doesn't just talk about their view though, it talks about their "line of vision." If there is a direct line of vision from the goalkeeper's eyes to the ball as it is struck and while it is in flight, that is not in any way obscured by the player in front of them (because they're so small) then there is no offence.

 

[santa sangria]

The law doesn't just talk about their view though, it talks about their "line of vision." If there is a direct line of vision from the goalkeeper's eyes to the ball as it is struck and while it is in flight, that is not in any way obscured by the player in front of them (because they're so small) then there is no offence.

Well, it doesn't say "directly"... it says:

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

Does a 4'11" player standing in front of a 5'7" player qualify... as written? No. But what is the intent of the law here? Surely the idea is to stop players standing in front of, or running in front of the GK in offside positions.

I think it's a bit moot anyway. If a player is standing less than 2 yards in front of the goalkeeper I think it's easy to justify that the GK's ability to play the ball is impacted... but the wording for that:

"...making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

As mentioned earlier, is "standing" an obvious action? It's level 7 pedantry... but by the LotG, I don't think so. But again, what's the intent of the law here... I think overall, this is a loophole And this is very obscure... selling any decision here is going to be extremely challenging because players, coaches, pundits have no idea!

 

[Peter Grove]

Well, it doesn't say "directly".

OK, so take the word "directly" out - it doesn't make the slightest difference to the underlying principle.

 

[socal lurker]

Well, it doesn't say "directly"... it says:

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

Does a 4'11" player standing in front of a 5'7" player qualify... as written? No. But what is the intent of the law here? Surely the idea is to stop players standing in front of, or running in front of the GK in offside positions.

I think it's a bit moot anyway. If a player is standing less than 2 yards in front of the goalkeeper I think it's easy to justify that the GK's ability to play the ball is impacted... but the wording for that:

"...making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

As mentioned earlier, is "standing" an obvious action? It's level 7 pedantry... but by the LotG, I don't think so. But again, what's the intent of the law here... I think overall, this is a loophole And this is very obscure... selling any decision here is going to be extremely challenging because players, coaches, pundits have no idea!

I think you are way overthinking this. If, ITOOTR, the OSP player unfairly impeded the vision of the GK and thereby prevented him from making a play on the shot, call the OS. It's really that simple. (The word "clearly" in there is IFAB telling refs to be sure it happened and not just go down the path of "well, he might have...")

Keep in mind that IFAB has been spending the last decade or so looking for reasons that OS should not be called so that there will be more goals.

 

[Kes]

Offside position.
Possibly impacts on GK's actions by virtue of proximity.
No brainer.
Offside.

 

[socal lurker]

Offside position.
Possibly impacts on GK's actions by virtue of proximity.
No brainer.
Offside.

Used to be true. Clearly not true under current LOTG.

 

[Peter Grove]

Offside position.
Possibly impacts on GK's actions by virtue of proximity.
No brainer.
Offside.

Sorry no, not under current guidelines and additional clarifications from the IFAB. A 'possible' impact is just not enough. Everything we have seen from the IFAB recently, indicates that what the PIOP does must clearly and directly have an actual (not just a potential) impact on the opponent's ability to play the ball.

 

[QuaverRef]

I think there was no obstructing the line of vision.

Then why on earth would you then go to the AR and asking him to give offside if it had gone in?

 

[Mogdon]

This scenario was covered in pre-match recently. Referee advised what to look out for. If the keeper has moved in accordance with the ball flight and made an attempt to save it then there is probably no impact from the player standing in an offside position. So do nothing. (Which I think is the scenario outlined in the original post.)
However, if it seems that the keeper has not been able to react, then it could mean they were un-sighted. I have 50 percent of the info and and should flag the offside. The referee has the other 50 percent based on his positioning and he can ultimately decide if there has been an obstruction of the view. If not he can overrule my flag.