A&H

Offside?

The Referee Store
Good offside call.

The yellow player in offside position jumped over the ball, and in doing so, made a movement near the ball that impacted the GK. This has been consistently punished as offside in the mainland European leagues (as well as Champions and Europa Leagues).

In addition to that, the player is a bit close to the line of sight of the ball (though isn't in that range).
 
Goal

Total goal.


What the yellow player does changes nothing.

Its textbook one of the reasons the offside law was amended so not to penalise attackers who just happened to be in an offside position
 

Attachments

  • C07B4AF3-DB63-4486-8E99-F3A84FB15B76.png
    C07B4AF3-DB63-4486-8E99-F3A84FB15B76.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 12
  • Like
Reactions: one
AlexF said:
Good offside call.

The yellow player in offside position jumped over the ball, and in doing so, made a movement near the ball that impacted the GK. This has been consistently punished as offside in the mainland European leagues (as well as Champions and Europa Leagues).

In addition to that, the player is a bit close to the line of sight of the ball (though isn't in that range).
Click to expand...


Jumped over? Thats a movement to get away the ball and play no part in the proceedings
If you are penalising him for jumping over it, you are as well flagging for him just being there..as neither change a thing here

His only offence is being in an offside position, which as we know, is not an offence
 
I wouldn't be putting my flag up based on the keeper's reaction, if he couldn't see the ball he would be letting you know. With a keeper appeal it is nigh on impossible in real time to say whether the offside player blocked his view. It looks to me like he did, but then again it looks like there is a defender blocking it as well.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Goal

Total goal.


What the yellow player does changes nothing.

Its textbook one of the reasons the offside law was amended so not to penalise attackers who just happened to be in an offside position
Click to expand...
Simply happening to be a PIOP has always, and still is, sufficient for a whistle - you can become actively involved by standing still. But, only for some categories of offside.

This is a good decision for me.

The attacker isn't just 'happening to be there' - he's running INTO the path of the ball. Now, having to give it live, all you see is the shot taken, a PIOP having to jump over the ball and the keeper makes a delayed reaction and can't save it. That seems like a very solid 'blocking vision'. If you were at the ground live, there's no way you'd argue it wasn't.

Now, with this shot, the benefit of the behind-the-goal angle shows the keeper's view probably wasn't obstructed. Though personally, I think running at the ball and jumping over it in a situation like this meets the criteria of 'making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball'. The keeper clearly had to change his reaction because of that player. Now, if the player was just standing there, then the keeper's apparent delayed reaction is his problem. But by running into the path of the ball and jumping over it, the player has now done something himself.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Simply happening to be a PIOP has always, and still is, sufficient for a whistle - you can become actively involved by standing still. But, only for some categories of offside.

This is a good decision for me.

The attacker isn't just 'happening to be there' - he's running INTO the path of the ball. Now, having to give it live, all you see is the shot taken, a PIOP having to jump over the ball and the keeper makes a delayed reaction and can't save it. That seems like a very solid 'blocking vision'. If you were at the ground live, there's no way you'd argue it wasn't.

Now, with this shot, the benefit of the behind-the-goal angle shows the keeper's view probably wasn't obstructed. Though personally, I think running at the ball and jumping over it in a situation like this meets the criteria of 'making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball'. The keeper clearly had to change his reaction because of that player. Now, if the player was just standing there, then the keeper's apparent delayed reaction is his problem. But by running into the path of the ball and jumping over it, the player has now done something himself.
Click to expand...



If he does not jump, the ball hits him and he is offside. By jumping over the ball, he of course has not changed where he is position wise, but he has ensured that he is taking no part in the play.
By your thinking this is offside as soon as the ball is struck, as whether the player stays still, or jumps, he is always going to be offside.
For me, him not playing the ball here, and the distance he is from the gk means he is taking no part in the play.
 
one said:
Did you mean "insufficient"?

What you say is clearly contradictory to the very first sentence in Law 11.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's amazing what you can do when you only quote half of somebody's sentence, isn't it?

As I said, it's enough for some categories of offside. Just standing in an offside position might be enough to block a keeper's view of a shot. Or it might be enough to interfere with an opponent by being in his way.
Heck, the LOTG used to have an example of a player being in an opponent's way while he was lying down injured - still offside.
Some offside criteria can be met by simply 'being there' and not doing anything, depending on the situation. Some can't.
 
'Making an obvious action' - yes. 'Clearly impact[ing] on the ability of the opponent to play the ball' - not nearly so evident. It seems to me the keeper had a clear view of the shot and had already started his dive before the player jumped to avoid the ball, so I'm not convinced that his ability to play the ball was really affected. I don't see from the clip that the actions of the PIOP caused the keeper to change or delay his reaction at all.

However I can certainly see the counter-argument and I'm not too surprised to see it given offside. For instance, I don't think that this was a clear and obvious error that should have been subject to VAR review - as indeed, given that this was a game in Germany where VAR would have been in use, it apparently wasn't.
 
It wasn't so much the jump, but I felt that it was the running at the ball that was putting the keeper off. I could accept that there is enough subjectivity that the VAR wouldn't be able to rule either way.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Yeah, it's amazing what you can do when you only quote half of somebody's sentence, isn't it?

As I said, it's enough for some categories of offside. Just standing in an offside position might be enough to block a keeper's view of a shot. Or it might be enough to interfere with an opponent by being in his way.
Heck, the LOTG used to have an example of a player being in an opponent's way while he was lying down injured - still offside.
Some offside criteria can be met by simply 'being there' and not doing anything, depending on the situation. Some can't.
Click to expand...
It's just the way you wrote the first part. Glad to see that's not what you meant or I misread it. Even though the rest of your paragraph said some categories , it never negated the "always" part of the first bit for me. Anyway we are all good.
 
I wouldn't give it myself, but if my assistant flagged I would go with him as I don't think I'd be fully able to consider all the factors on what has happened other than 'he didn't touch it', at least not without replays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top