Offside Offence Or Goal?

[FirsFox40]

Thank you for your help & clarification. Hopefully it helps others as well as me

A quick side question if you have the time. - In this scenario could the attacker ever have been offside for interfering with play?
- For example, would he have had to have touched the ball, run infront of the keeper to distort view, or how close to the ball and keeper without touching the ball would he need to be to be considered offside interference on the keeper, would he have to have touched the keeper in a challenge?
I hope this makes sense ok.

Kindest regards
Graham

Refer to Law. First paragraph of 11.2 gives you the exact answer(s).

(You’re on the right lines)

 

[bester]

In practice this is getting given as offside by nearly every referee including I've no doubt some who would argue there is no offence on this forum

He's running towards the ball and is a body length away, football expects offside.
An obvious action that impacts on the goalkeepers ability to play the ball (where he wants to)

 

[socal lurker]

In practice this is getting given as offside by nearly every referee including I've no doubt some who would argue there is no offence on this forum

He's running towards the ball and is a body length away, football expects offside.
An obvious action that impacts on the goalkeepers ability to play the ball (where he wants to)

That’s not what obvious action is aimed at. The language obvious action was an addition that was added after a famous play where an attacker dummied the ball, freezing a defender. The R gave OS. But the Laws as written didn’t actually support the call—he didn’t attempt to play the ball, challenge an opponent for the ball, or blocking vision. Obvious action came after that. Moving towards the ball isn’t captured by this.

If you want to get OS on the initial play, you need to get there by having the opinion that the player was close enough that he was challenging for the ball. Though I do agree with you a lot of people, probably even most players expect this to be called OS.

I think this is one of those examples where this clearly used to be an OS offense and IFAB clearly does not want this to be an OS offense.