MCI vs AV

[JamesL]

For me its quite worrying the amount on here who say this is offside. I appreciate the book cannot cover all instances but in my opinion it covers there in black and white. As I’ve mentioned previously Rodri meets none of the criteria for interfering which therefore means hes onside.
None of this what football expects or I’m giving offside at my level etc.

otherwise whats the point in having bullet points at all.

I'm not sure it is as straight cut.. I think you are right. But I also think this can be interpreted as offside.
What is clear is football expects offside here. I wouldn't be surprised if ifab in the near future change the law to make this offside or FIFA come out with an interpretation.

 

[Tonydent]

I'm not sure it is as straight cut.. I think you are right. But I also think this can be interpreted as offside.
What is clear is football expects offside here. I wouldn't be surprised if ifab in the near future change the law to make this offside or FIFA come out with an interpretation.

The sentiment that it is worrying that people here seem to think this is offside, despite the clear rules in the bullet points in law 11, is very valid; it is worrying.

 

[Kes]

The sentiment that it is worrying that people here seem to think this is offside, despite the clear rules in the bullet points in law 11, is very valid; it is worrying.

Don't you go fretting over it mate.

Yes, I'd be blowing for offside in one of my games but the impact of that on you or Degnann will be minimal - I promise...

 

[Tonydent]

Don't you go fretting over it mate.

Yes, I'd be blowing for offside in one of my games but the impact of that on you or Degnann will be minimal - I promise...

What other laws would you deliberately choose to ignore then?

 

[Kes]

What other laws would you deliberately choose to ignore then?

Actually none. I'm simply interpreting it differently is all.
The law in this case has been used to allow the goal to stand. I'd use it to rule it out for offside.

 

[santa sangria]

The sentiment that it is worrying that people here seem to think this is offside, despite the clear rules in the bullet points in law 11, is very valid; it is worrying.

I don’t agree that the bullets are clear and/or clearly appears apply in this case (and, as mentioned earlier, I’ve got my local peers, including my country’s arguably best AR, does Champions League etc. ...and other ARs with FIFA badges... saying they would call an offence here.

I think this thread has been full of great posts people, lots of really made points, really good stuff.

Perhaps IFAB could clarify the parameters for deliberate play and challenge for the ball, if they won’t comment on a particular incident.

 

[Degnann]

Don't you go fretting over it mate.

Yes, I'd be blowing for offside in one of my games but the impact of that on you or Degnann will be minimal - I promise...

Maybe but impacting the next referee who has gives the goal instead of the offside you’ve given for the same thing against the same teams is possible

 

[Big Cat]

What other laws would you deliberately choose to ignore then?

I ignore the same Laws as everyone else. Absurd therefore, that we analyse some other Laws (like this one) with such zeal

I've just looked at the goal to see what the furore is about and FWIW, I'm ruling this offside all day long
Match Control firmly in tact, game concludes without further incident. Simple as that

 

[socal lurker]

On issue that we have in applying what the game expects at lower levels is that what the players expect is an outdated (often very outdated) application of Law 11. How many players still think thy should get the OS FK back where the player was when the ball was kicked?

I think, but I can’t prove, that IFAB intends there to be a difference in how OS is reset on interference with play vs. interference with an opponent by challenging for the ball. But, in not atypical IFAB form, it’s really not as clear as it should be. There have been some examples floated by different authorities (not IFAB as far as I know) that supports he idea that an immediate pounce on a defender who just played the ball can still be an offense. Butt he fact that Referee nerds like those who frequent this site cannot even agree on what the basic rule is on that is a fundamental failure by IFAB to clearly delineate the Law.

For me (and this is consistent with the position AYSO has taken so far), until there is more clear guidance, I am going to apply the “no immediate pouncing” rule on OSP attackers, and allow at least a beat before a defender is challenged. I can’t prove that is ultimately “right,” and if IFAB gives us more clear guidance, I’d be happy to change how I do it.

 

[santa sangria]

Absolutely concur @socal lurker
Again, another cracking post in this thread.

 

[Kes]

Maybe but impacting the next referee who has gives the goal instead of the offside you’ve given for the same thing against the same teams is possible

That's just an idea though mate. This particular scenario at grass roots would always be given as offside in my opinion. And even if it wasn't, it's hardly the stuff of "last week's ref" that players would remember.
In simple terms, Mings was challenged and had the ball taken off him by a player in an offside position.

 

[Mr Dean]

What other laws would you deliberately choose to ignore then?

That 20mph zone on the high street. Especially when the street is empty.

 

[RefIADad]

What other laws would you deliberately choose to ignore then?

“Challenging for the ball” is in the opinion of the referee. This is no different than determining if a foul is careless or reckless.

We fully realize what the Laws say. The interpretation matters. "Challenging for the ball" can mean different things based on the age and skill level of the players. At the Premier League level, what Rodri did probably isn't challenging for the ball (at least until after Mings made his deliberate play). Work a U12 or U13 B team game, and there's absolutely zero chance that I'm letting this go as a legal play.

 

[Degnann]

That's just an idea though mate. This particular scenario at grass roots would always be given as offside in my opinion. And even if it wasn't, it's hardly the stuff of "last week's ref" that players would remember.
In simple terms, Mings was challenged and had the ball taken off him by a player in an offside position.

I fully respect what you are saying.
I’m a grassroots ref and wouldn’t give this as offside.
In simple terms Mings controls the ball by deliberate play so therefore had the ball taken off him by a player who in onside.

 

[one]

What other laws would you deliberately choose to ignore then?

I detests the fact that you are saying those with opposite view to yours ignore the law or twist it. In fact even though I don't believe so, I can claim those who think this is not offside ignore or twist the law to their own liking. If you were to read the laws directly (without twist or interpretation), Rodro was "in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate". He then becomes "involved in active play by" both
"interfering with an opponent by" "challenging an opponent for the ball" AND "interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate".

There is nothing in law about phases of play or how long after team-mate touched the ball a player in offside position is no longer offside. Or there is nothing saying how many touches a defender can take before offside player can become active. The only bit relating to this (which wrongly applies to gaining an advantage only which is in my favour) is when offside player receives the ball from an opponent, he is no longer offside. This does not apply here as he did not receive it from an opponent but challenged for it.

Now I know these are are semantics and the law is poorly written. Therefore the application of it is taught the way it should have been written. Unfortunately that teaching, or the wording as is now does not cover the specific situation in OP. Applying the generic teaching or existing wording to this situation is not right IMO.

All that to point out, telling those who argue for this being offside ignore the law is wrong.

 

[bloovee]

True, but Rodri literally takes the ball off Mings' foot. If that's not challenging for the ball then I don't know what is.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned and perhaps the way offside was interpreted for most of my career as a referee is excessively colouring my view but I think that even under the current law, this is an offside offence.

You say that 3.5 metres isn’t playing distance, but when I was training the instructor told us that playing distance is relative to the level. At this level 10 feet or so is easily playing distance. The players are so much fitter and think much faster, especially forwards.

I'm old-fashioned enough to remember when playing distance meant the circumference of the ball.

 

[Tealeaf]

Done.