Offside goal?

[CapnBloodbeard]

What do you think about this goal? Central Coast Mariners (yellow/navy) vs Sydney (white and blue).
The goalscorer is fine, but there's a 2nd attacker, PIOP, and for me I think the other CCM defender wanted to get across but had his run blocked by the PIOP. No goal for me. Just because I'm biased doesn't mean I'm wrong

https://streamable.com/jn3w6

EDIT: As pointed out below it seems he was offside. So no issues then. But for the sake of an educational discussion, let's assume he was a PIOP and discuss

 

[cwyeary]

It took me a few watches, but I think that does strike the box for interfering with an opponent.

 

[one]

How did you figure PIOP? These are the two still images one is on (possibly just before) pass and one just clearly just after. There is no in between frames. It looks level to me. Any benefit of doubt to attackers.

 

[cwyeary]

How did you figure PIOP? These are the two still images one is on (possibly just before) pass and one just clearly just after. There is no in between frames. It looks level to me. Any benefit of doubt to attackers.

Good point. I didn't look at that closely enough. Good goal.

 

[Tino Best]

Good goal. Would the defender been able to challenge the scorer even if the other player wasn't there. Personally I think he is too far away. But as he is onside it doesnt matter anyway.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Goal, regardless of the scorers team mate, ( if the question is focussing on him rather than the scorer)

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Ok, fair point, I think he was onside. I'll edit the original post, but I think we can still have a discussion around 'if he was offside'...

Good goal. Would the defender been able to challenge the scorer even if the other player wasn't there. Personally I think he is too far away. But as he is onside it doesnt matter anyway.

So, do we need to be certain the defender would have made it, or certain we wouldn't have? We have a defender whose movement was clearly blocked. How are we determining whether that's enough for an infringement or not?
For me, 'benefit of the doubt goes to the attack' is a misnomer. I don't think that's it at all.
Benefit of the doubt always goes to 'not stopping play'. It just so happens in Law 11, not stopping play benefits the attack.
Not sure if there's a foul? Play continues. Not sure if it went out? Play continues. And so forth.

So, where do we draw the line on doubt when a defender has been (arguably) prevented from challenging an opponent?
I personally think the defender had a fair chance of getting to the opponent. Not a guaranteed one, but I don't think it's a big stretch to say he could have saved that goal. After all, we're never certain he would have stopped the attacker, so we're looking at opportunities, likely impact on play. Defender on the far side gets impeded by PIOP, no impact on play, no offence. Here, there's arguably an impact on play.
Is that enough?

If not, why not - given there's been a defender who's been interfered with?

 

[Peter Grove]

Based on the new wording below, added this year, and assuming the player was in an offside position I think it could be offside under the first part of the wording though I'm not convinced the attacker here has done enough to impact on the defender's ability to play the ball. If you were going to call it though, I think this would be the clause to use.

However let's not forget that if, as you say, there's a question of impeding, there's perhaps an argument for it being a Law 12 offence rather than offside - as outlined in the second part of the new wording.

In situations where 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 the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12.