I'm hoping some of you can share your thoughts on Man City's 2nd goal yesterday. Sterling was in an offside position on the ground in front of the GK. A defender partially blocks the shot in front of Sterling. Shot goes in. Noone appealed for offside. I agree there was no offside offense but I'm not sure of the reason. Is it that Sterling just didn't affect the GK so no offside or was it that the defender deliberately played the ball which meant that Sterling was not offside. I think if the defender didn't get a piece of that shot, I would have called offside. Any thoughts on this? Thank you.
Man City's 2nd Goal
- Thread starter NOVARef
- Start date
So, because Sterling didn't challenge for the ball the ball, the referees only had to consider what's below, correct? And because Sterling didn't obstruct the line of vision, everything was good?
interfering with an opponent by:
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 or...
one
RefChat Addict
And also didn't
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
( Amd didn't gain an advantage from a save or rebound, but that doesn't apply here)
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
( Amd didn't gain an advantage from a save or rebound, but that doesn't apply here)