Nations League...offside
- Thread starter es1
- Start date
Isn't this the issue with most of football laws? It's a rule book that is short and concise and doesn't go into massive details and examples (probably for better). The law is literally "deliberatley plays the ball". That's it. There's nothing else. And who is the one to say how a law is intended? Isn't that IFAB? They say this is intended and not offside.
Changing it to say that only a controlled touch resets offside might make it better, but then you get into debates around what constitutes a controlled touch. For me if a defender makes a complete mess of playing the ball that is their own problem, but it seems just wrong that Garcia is penalised because he was forced to make a last gasp interception, whereas had he left it Mbappe would have been offside. Any defender not trying to reach that ball just wouldn't be doing their job properly.
I think there's always going to be problems in terms of language and interpretation, but your final point I think is pretty much the point of the change in the law in that it moves the focus onto defenders needing to defend instead of relying on what is, after all, a technical offence to get them out of trouble.
Not to say it doesn't have it's problems (one of which is ensuring people understand the law itself, but that's hardly a new thing)!
Justylove
RefChat Addict
I agree. It does feel wrong. But I'm not sure how you put it into the LOTG so that it:
A) is less ambiguous
B) Does not cause a subsequent unintended knock on effect
It kind of feels like it needs to be a perfect storm for it to be an issue in so much as:
1) The attacker needs to be in an offside position
2) The defender needs to make a deliberate play on the ball
3) The defender needs to make a poor enough play on the ball for it to not go where they intend it
4) The attacker in the offside position receives the ball from the defenders deliberate play
I'm not discounting the fact that this feels bad, especially in the final of a major championship, but does it warrant a law change? I'm on the fence.
Agree with everything but major championship....
Certainly old enough to remember him!
I'm surprised in that case then. Don't see how anyone knowing football can intend law to be applied like this.
It's the fall back that everyone uses when they don't like something in the LOTG.
Gave his all and was a good team player. Not the best on the ball!!
They have a technical committee which has Collina and Ellerey on too. Not sure of the full workings at IFAB but certainly in terms of the names they have on their advisory boards from referees to players they've got the very best.
Perhaps it's more a case of spending so much time debating something that its over complicating the matter? For me, if a ball reaches an attacker who was in an offside position via a deflection of any kind then it should be offside. For me that's simplistic enough for all to understand at all levels and removed some ambiguity because any deflection at all would make it offside. Not perfect, but better than we have now.
The handball law was changed because football isn't comfortable with a goal being scored directly or immediately after the ball touches the hand/arm and this seems to fall under the same principle I think. Are we comfortable with a goal being scored by an agtacker who was offside from the intended pass, a pass which ultimately set up the goal? I don't think most people are.
Whatever committee you need to be on, get on it!
But what is a deflection? We're talking about a line in the sand. No matter where you set that line, there will be cases like this one that fall right on that line. Just as they do with SFP vs reckless. Just as they do with handball vs no handball. Just as they do for interfering with an opponent vs not.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
You're assuming that the powers that be think it's a bad law. There has been a long evolution to deciding on this interpretation of what a deliberate play is for OS. Almost all of the changes to OS in the past 40 years have been to narrow the scope of OS because the powers that be want more goals scored. I don't think this play will make them think it should be changed--and certainly not in a way that will create a lot more OS calls.
(As I posted above, this is not the line that I would choose to draw, but I'm still waiting for that phone call from IFAB when they ask my opinion . . . .)
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
All lines are going to have gray areas. But I think there is actaully pretty clear guidance on where to draw the boundary between deflection and play. A reflexive stab can still be a deflection. A considered action in an attempt to play the ball is a play if there is any contact, even if the contact is minimal and entirely uncontrolled. I'm not sure this one is that close to the dividing line.
(I say I think it is pretty clear guidance even though I have to admit I botched it in the heat of the moment recently.)
I think the law can be 'fixed' by adding an exception to 'deliberate play'. Just like a deliberate save doesn't 'reset' offside, neither should an unsuccessful attempt at an interception. This would cover cases where a defender deliberately plays the ball but the attacker in an offside position still receives the ball. The only ambiguity would be 'was it an interception?'; but, it's usually very easy to spot an interception.
It's a simple fix and only a few additional words would need to be added to law 11.
It's a simple fix and only a few additional words would need to be added to law 11.
Any contact at all.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Back in the day, if a defender tried to intercept a through ball aimed for an attacker in an offside position, play continued if the referee failed to whistle before the defender touched the ball.
Law 11 in those days read "seeking to gain an advantage" so the attacker could be penalised if hoping to get a through ball.
Once the defender touched the ball, offside was reset.
Whatever IFAB decide, opinion will be an element in decision making and thus feed RefChat with new debates regularly
Law 11 in those days read "seeking to gain an advantage" so the attacker could be penalised if hoping to get a through ball.
Once the defender touched the ball, offside was reset.
Whatever IFAB decide, opinion will be an element in decision making and thus feed RefChat with new debates regularly
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Rossetti also suggested the Law should be changed . . . .
Mbappe 'offside': Refs' chief wants law change
UEFA's chief refereeing officer wants the offside law to be changed after Kylian Mbappe's goal for France against Spain in the Nations League.
Gamespoiler
Well-Known Member
Just watching this on sky sports with Jamie rednap, blatant foul throw in the build up