Juan Mata FK... Offside?

[McTavish]

I asked "Why would you allow players in an offside position to obstruct the GK's view when that would be an offence if they're still there when the kick is taken?" and it looks like PGMOL have essentially said it should be treated as an offence.

I don't think they have. They have said that when Mata shot, the players were in an offside position and were at that point interfering with the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If Mata had not shot there would have been no offside; if the players had made it back past the second last defender before the shot there would have been no offside.
It is not an offence to be in an offside position and this interpretation doesn't change that. At the absolute most it says if a player is in an offside position when the ball is played and if that player interferes with an opponent's ability to play the ball then some consideration should be given as to whether the player was in that position for a tactical reason.

 

[bloovee]

....They have said that when Mata shot, the players were in an offside position and were at that point interfering with the ability of an opponent to play the ball....

I'm not sure that helps. It's surely obvious that at that point (when the ball was played) they were not interfering with the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If it had been obvious, there would be nothing to discuss.

That leaves the AR (in this incident) having to judge whether by the time the kick is taken all three attackers, running at speed toward an onside position, have all got back onside. Impossible call.

What if a defender blocks or holds or pushes one of the attackers running to get onside to make sure he stays in an offside position? Offside or foul? If the ball hasn't been played it can't be a foul but (see above) it would be an offence!

 

[McTavish]

I'm not sure that helps. It's surely obvious that at that point (when the ball was played) they were not interfering with the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If it had been obvious, there would be nothing to discuss.

No, the exact opposite. They were interfering according to the interpretation

That leaves the AR (in this incident) having to judge whether by the time the kick is taken all three attackers, running at speed toward an onside position, have all got back onside. Impossible call.

Surely judging whether players running at speed are in an offside position or not is exactly what ARs are supposed to do. In fact this is exactly what ARs have to do with players running from an on-side position towards the goal when a FK is taken.

What if a defender blocks or holds or pushes one of the attackers running to get onside to make sure he stays in an offside position? Offside or foul? If the ball hasn't been played it can't be a foul but (see above) it would be an offence!

So players shouldn't be allowed to stand in an offside position in case an opponent holds them to prevent them getting in to an onside position? Is that your argument?

The players in the clip were in an offside position before the ball was played but until the ball has been played there has been no offence and so the referee can and should do nothing. It really is that simple...

 

[bloovee]

No, the exact opposite. They were interfering according to the interpretation


Surely judging whether players running at speed are in an offside position or not is exactly what ARs are supposed to do. In fact this is exactly what ARs have to do with players running from an on-side position towards the goal when a FK is taken.

I'd be reasonably confident of catching a player moving toward goal, but not getting it right when there are three all racing at 20 mph in the other direction past the second last defender.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

However for me, there is still a good argument that they all make obvious movements that impact on the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball.

Their entire purpose for being there is to throw off the keeper because the keeper has to consider the possibility of them heading the ball or pressuring him, and that's going to affect his decision. I think the chance in offside interpretation is actually directly targeting these shenanigans. Offside for me, but I've only seen those stills

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Offside says the IFAB

http://l.facebook.com/l/FAQG-InLhAQ...ce-on-new-interpretation-of-offside-rule.html

 

[Kes]

This has only become an issue for debate because the ref allowed the goal to stand.
If he'd blown for offside (or the AR had flagged) like he should have done, we'd all have just accepted it based on what we've seen rather than pouring over the minutia of it trying to justify his reasons for permitting it in the first place.