Why did the ball go where it did? Skill (lack of) or circumstances? My opinion in this case is it was primarily the circumstances, mainly the close range and lack of time to coordinate the body, that resulted in a lack of control and the ball ending up where it did. So offside (assuming the attacker was in an offside position at the time of the pass). However I would agree that the defender could have been more careful and I wouldn't mind a law change to clarify this as not being offside and put more responsibility on defenders over the potential risk of making contact at any cost.
Offside - deliberate play or deflection?
- Thread starter OnlyUseMeWhistle
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
knee slide too?
I should clarify my genuine view on this without hyperbole
This is not a 'deliberate play' and the correct decision is offside. That assessment of mine is borderline because I wouldn't vehemently argue against a deliberate pass to a defender
However, the book is a pamphlet which means that we can't apply science to fringe scenarios which lie outside the scope of which the wording is intended. Without a complete re-write for the purposes of VAR (and I'm talking tear up the book and start again), very contentious situations will continue to occur and the correct thing to do when this happens is to revert to the 'art' of refereeing and give the supportable decision that the game expects. Equally important, this is the decision which works best for you, 'the referee'
Additionally, this is what the book tells us to do, hence 'the spirit of the game' trumps the scientific thinking in such fringe cases
This is not a 'deliberate play' and the correct decision is offside. That assessment of mine is borderline because I wouldn't vehemently argue against a deliberate pass to a defender
However, the book is a pamphlet which means that we can't apply science to fringe scenarios which lie outside the scope of which the wording is intended. Without a complete re-write for the purposes of VAR (and I'm talking tear up the book and start again), very contentious situations will continue to occur and the correct thing to do when this happens is to revert to the 'art' of refereeing and give the supportable decision that the game expects. Equally important, this is the decision which works best for you, 'the referee'
Additionally, this is what the book tells us to do, hence 'the spirit of the game' trumps the scientific thinking in such fringe cases
Last edited:
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I think that’s a really well argued and coherent point of view. And ties in nicely with @JamesL view that we go against other football stakeholders at our peril.
The challenge, in this context, is deciding the boundary between a ‘fringe’ case and the more widespread situations where the footballing public are surprised / offended by the correct in law decision. Specifics like not sending off the GK who denies an OGSO as a result of a handling offence in his area. More general situations like sticking to the premise that (nearly always) a team gaining significant advantage from the ball hitting the hand in a genuinely accidental manner isn’t to be penalised etc etc. Basically, the risk of the ‘slippery slope’ descent into the path of least resistance. I don’t have an easy or obvious answer. I just always feel more comfortable justifying and defending big decisions if they are truly in accordance with law rather than taking an allegedly easier option.
