Does the keeper have to dive into him for it to be interfering or is the pure fact he didn’t dive because he was there enough
Netherlands vs France
- Thread starter Gabriel
- Start date
Does the keeper have to dive into him for it to be interfering or is the pure fact he didn’t dive because he was there enough
Isn’t obstructing the line of the vision of the goalkeeper, applying the laws of the game, this shouldn’t be offside
The attacker doesn't make any action
The keeper is never in a position to make the save regardless of the Dutch attacker’s position, it’s past him before he sees it (the Dutch attacker doesn’t prevent him from making the save, he could’ve dived, he chose not to - for clarity) and then claims for the offside in vain.
The attacker doesn't make any action
The keeper is never in a position to make the save regardless of the Dutch attacker’s position, it’s past him before he sees it (the Dutch attacker doesn’t prevent him from making the save, he could’ve dived, he chose not to - for clarity) and then claims for the offside in vain.
See @Redref34 post above.
"a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball;"
If he was stood directly next to him feet touching in an offside position but didn’t make any action still not offside?
But is he
moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball
He prevents a dive because he is stood between the keeper and the ball. I think he is interfering because of that.
Probably harder to justify giving it than it was to justify denying it.
This one rings a bell as well. In the PL, wolves vs West Ham, we were all using the argument that we can’t just assume the keeper won’t save it. Same applies here imo, we can’t assume he won’t save it even if the players not stood there, so it has to be offside.
it’s the problem with subjective decisions
I would argue that the keeper isn’t even ready for the follow up shot, the ball is past him before he’s even had time to make a conscious decision to make a save, he does that weird action of dropping to his knee when keepers know they have been beaten (similar to when they go the wrong way for a penalty)
The position of the Dutch player does not prevent him from playing the ball in my opinion, it was a cop out decision
Again, we can’t assume he won’t dive. And for the fact he didn’t, I wouldn’t fancy launching myself in the direction of an opponent either!
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
This is one of the oddities of how the Laws are written. This isn’t in the main bullets for how to interfere with an opponent, but buried in the notes. It’s always bothered me how they wrote this.
As others have said, the goalkeeper shouldn’t have to dive in to the striker and risk getting hurt doing so (or hurting the striker) to prove that he is offside.
I’ve said before, but the benefit of the doubt in terms of subjective offside decisions should go to the defending team for me (in situations like this). If you don’t want to be given offside, don’t stand in an offside position and you can’t be considered offside.
I’ve said before, but the benefit of the doubt in terms of subjective offside decisions should go to the defending team for me (in situations like this). If you don’t want to be given offside, don’t stand in an offside position and you can’t be considered offside.
one
RefChat Addict
The fact that it was "very unlikely" for the keeper to make a save is irrelevant. He had a very small chance and that makes it an offside offence for me. Had the laws said clearly interferes, or clearly impacts, then goal would have been a better decision. But as the laws are written now, this is an offence.