Man City vs Fulham

[bloovee]

Back to the main issue. I'm baffled - is this still official guidance?

https://thirdblindmouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ifab-law-11-illustrations.pdf

This includes:

‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player
However, just because someone is an offside position it does not always mean that they are having an impact. e.g:

if the ball is on the right-hand side of the field and an ‘offside’ player in the centre of the field moves into a new attacking position he is not penalised unless this action affects an opponent’s ability to
play the ball

where a player tries to play the ball as it is going into the goal without affecting an opponent, or situations where there is no opposition player near, he should not be penalised

Now scroll down to Hull City v Manchester United (not offside) under "clear attempt to play the ball" where the PIOP jumps to avoid the ball.

But then scroll to Preston North End v Manchester United (offside) under "obvious action" where the PIOP moves to avoid the ball.

In the first case, the explanation is that the goalkeeper has a clear sight of the ball, so does not need to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball.

In the second case, it's that the goalkeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball.

All I can think is that in the second case the GK doesn't have clear sight of the ball (but it doesn't say that) or the implication is that the PIOP might be moving to receive a pass.

No, I'm still baffled.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Advice from 8 years ago, and has been updated more than once since then.
The source is an interesting choice.

 

[bloovee]

Advice from 8 years ago, and has been updated more than once since then.
The source is an interesting choice.

It's what came up when googling for IFAB offside. Where are the updates?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Incorporated into Law 11

 

[bloovee]

Incorporated into Law 11

Not those illustrations.

The illustrations in the LOTG are in the "clear and obvious" category, not down to fine margins like those in that "additional guidance".

 

[RustyRef]

Back to the main issue. I'm baffled - is this still official guidance?

https://thirdblindmouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ifab-law-11-illustrations.pdf

This includes:

‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player
However, just because someone is an offside position it does not always mean that they are having an impact. e.g:

if the ball is on the right-hand side of the field and an ‘offside’ player in the centre of the field moves into a new attacking position he is not penalised unless this action affects an opponent’s ability to
play the ball

where a player tries to play the ball as it is going into the goal without affecting an opponent, or situations where there is no opposition player near, he should not be penalised

Now scroll down to Hull City v Manchester United (not offside) under "clear attempt to play the ball" where the PIOP jumps to avoid the ball.

But then scroll to Preston North End v Manchester United (offside) under "obvious action" where the PIOP moves to avoid the ball.

In the first case, the explanation is that the goalkeeper has a clear sight of the ball, so does not need to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball.

In the second case, it's that the goalkeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball.

All I can think is that in the second case the GK doesn't have clear sight of the ball (but it doesn't say that) or the implication is that the PIOP might be moving to receive a pass.

No, I'm still baffled.

The clue is in the URL, it contains 2015/07. Of course it should have been removed, but IFAB and national FAs are notoriously bad at leaving out of date material online.

 

[bloovee]

The clue is in the URL, it contains 2015/07. Of course it should have been removed, but IFAB and national FAs are notoriously bad at leaving out of date material online.

So what's out of date? When was this additional guidance withdrawn? Are there any new illustrations?

 

[socal lurker]

So what's out of date? When was this additional guidance withdrawn? Are there any new illustrations?

Law 12 has been significantly rewritten three times since then. While the majority of calls are going to be the same, the nuance on the edges has shifted, and some of the shadows of the abandoned Law changes still lurk in the shadows though removed from Law. You can’t really expect people to give you a line by line of what is out of date in what is now ancient guidance. (And I feel for fans who try to have an understanding of what is a handball, as the standards keep shifting, and despite efforts at global uniformity, certain leagues have quirks in how they enforce it.)

 

[bloovee]

Law 12 has been significantly rewritten three times since then. While the majority of calls are going to be the same, the nuance on the edges has shifted, and some of the shadows of the abandoned Law changes still lurk in the shadows though removed from Law. You can’t really expect people to give you a line by line of what is out of date in what is now ancient guidance. (And I feel for fans who try to have an understanding of what is a handball, as the standards keep shifting, and despite efforts at global uniformity, certain leagues have quirks in how they enforce it.)

Law 12?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

So what's out of date? When was this additional guidance withdrawn? Are there any new illustrations?

No new pictures for you, just the improved text in Law 11. It's always, of course, in the opinion of the referee (with help from the AR's and VAR if available)

 

[socal lurker]

Law 12?

Sorry, crossed threads And had handball on the brain. Alas, they keep mucking around with OS, too. While the language of Law 11 hasn’t had much tweaking, some of the interpretations and guidance have been a moving target, which can make it diceynto rely on older material.

 

[bloovee]

Sorry, crossed threads And had handball on the brain. Alas, they keep mucking around with OS, too. While the language of Law 11 hasn’t had much tweaking, some of the interpretations and guidance have been a moving target, which can make it diceynto rely on older material.

My point was that even when it was written, it seemed self-contradictory. Most City fans seem to think City's second goal should have been called offside, but after the Rashford stepovers at Old Trafford last season they aren't too bothered. It was the implication in the wording (with the illustration) that so long as the GK can see the ball, the presence of a PIOP doesn't mean the GK can't dive so is not impacted. If that's nonsense, then the only issue is whether the GK actually did delay his dive.

Most VAR offside calls are factual (is the player in an offside position?) but where it is subjective (is the opponent impacted?) should it be an onscreen review by the match referee?

 

[RustyRef]

My point was that even when it was written, it seemed self-contradictory. Most City fans seem to think City's second goal should have been called offside, but after the Rashford stepovers at Old Trafford last season they aren't too bothered. It was the implication in the wording (with the illustration) that so long as the GK can see the ball, the presence of a PIOP doesn't mean the GK can't dive so is not impacted. If that's nonsense, then the only issue is whether the GK actually did delay his dive.

Most VAR offside calls are factual (is the player in an offside position?) but where it is subjective (is the opponent impacted?) should it be an onscreen review by the match referee?

What relevance is what most Man City fans think, and what relevance is whatever Rashford might or might not have done last season? This is a refereeing forum.

My understanding for this situation is that the VAR should have recommended that Michael Oliver went to have a look at the screen for a review.