Interfering with an opponent

[one]

Is this interfering with an opponent by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision?

 

[one]

 

[es1]

Nah keeper sees the ball the whole way

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Careful, the City Mafia know where you live..... they’ll be asking the PL refs for a meeting soon about all these dodgy goal that they keep getting awarded!

 

[santa sangria]

We had a course the other day and looked at a load of these.

The letter of the LotG says that the player must be directly in line. So, if the GK can see the ball, it's not interfering.

However, that is just rubbish IMHO. It is totally daft that a player can e.g. be this close to the flight of the ball, or move across the flight of the ball and it not be "interfering" by the letter of the LotG. This sends us back to trial by photo.

The LotG should be updated to make this interfering IMHO. In front goal in front of the GK should be enough.

 

[alexgr]

Nah no chance. Keeper sees the ball, deflection off Kompany takes it away. Had it not hit Kompany I think you may have had a good case but nah, not for me this time.

 

[bloovee]

 

[RustyRef]

He sees it the whole way, you can tell that as he is moving to his right to make a save from the initial shot. At the time Kompany plays it Sane isn't blocking his view of the ball at all. The only way I would say offside here is if Sane made any kind of significant movement whilst stood in an offside position.

 

[one]

He sees it the whole way, you can tell that as he is moving to his right to make a save from the initial shot. At the time Kompany plays it Sane isn't blocking his view of the ball at all. The only way I would say offside here is if Sane made any kind of significant movement whilst stood in an offside position.

Offside would not be for blocking the view when Kompany plays it. It would be for blocking his view when Gundogan (I think) played it. For me Its very close I wouldn't have complain either way.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Offside would not be for blocking the view when Kompany plays it. It would be for blocking his view when Gundogan (I think) played it. For me Its very close I wouldn't have complain either way.

But Gundolan's shot goes straight to Kompany, so not in any sense of the law is Sane offside for that touch. As others have said, GK then has a clear view of Kompany's shot, Sane doesn't impact his ability to play the ball either so again not offside.

Of course Wenger summed all that by saying that "no one understands offside any longer"

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
Some chose not to understand when it does not suit. GK dives to save shot and the ball is deflected by Kompany who is clearly onside. In fact had Sane interfered with the GK causing him not to dive it would have been to his advantage!
Opening line of Law 11 needs to be spelt out.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Hi
Some chose not to understand when it does not suit. GK dives to save shot and the ball is deflected by Kompany who is clearly onside. In fact had Sane interfered with the GK causing him not to dive it would have been to his advantage!
Opening line of Law 11 needs to be spelt out.

I was actually shouting that line at the TV watching his interview!

 

[one]

But Gundolan's shot goes straight to Kompany, so not in any sense of the law is Sane offside for that touch. As others have said, GK then has a clear view of Kompany's shot, Sane doesn't impact his ability to play the ball either so again not offside.

Of course Wenger summed all that by saying that "no one understands offside any longer"

Good point. What I was missing from my thinking was that just obstructing the view from an offside position is not enough. They must also prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball at the same time.