Tough offside decision - goal? Hyundai A-League

[CapnBloodbeard]

What do we think about this goal? From Melbourne Victory - Melbourne City in the Hyundai A-League (local derby)

Worth watching the whole clip - this is the same match in the 'Cahill RC' thread. That incident is also shown here.

 

[Mintyref]

If that's not interfering with play, I don't know what is!

 

[Paul March]

It's one of those where you could answer both ways but my take on it is that the defender was cutting out the cross and he was not impeded or interfered with at all during his attempt. Ask yourself, if he had put it past the post would a corner have been given? If you are happy with this then you must also be happy with awarding a goal. The attacker commits no offence just being in an off side position.

Great refereeing

 

[McTavish]

If that's not interfering with play, I don't know what is!

He clearly hasn't played the ball so it must be interfering with an opponent so which one of these?
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision - NO
- challenging an opponent for the ball - NO
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent - POSSIBLY however I would say that the ball is not particularly close to the attacker and so doesn't attempt to play it as it never gets close enough.
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball - NO, doesn't impact on the defender's ability to play the ball

 

[Russell Jones]

It's one of those where you could answer both ways but my take on it is that the defender was cutting out the cross and he was not impeded or interfered with at all during his attempt. Ask yourself, if he had put it past the post would a corner have been given? If you are happy with this then you must also be happy with awarding a goal. The attacker commits no offence just being in an off side position.

Great refereeing

I agree it is a borderline call. And also agree that the defender's actions weren't impeded or interfered with But what about the Goalkeeper's actions? My view would be that the presence of an offside attacker in such close proximity to the GK has to be in the mind of the GK. And the attacker does actually try to play the ball (it just never actually reaches him). So I'm (just) in the 'clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him when this action impacts an opponent' camp ...

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

1) I don't see how the goalkeeper's actions were interfered with. Without that attacker, I think he would have done the same thing - and I don't see how the attacker stopped him from stopping the ball
2)The defender played the ball, so that nullifies offside. The only possible argument is that the attacker interfered with the keeper before the defender played the ball - and I don't see that to be the case.

If anybody believes that influencing the defender's decision (not capability) to play the ball is sufficient for offside, can you please point out where in law it supports that?

 

[Paul March]

RJ, I see where you are coming from, but the keepers view of the event is totally unobstructed. If the positions were reversed, the attacker misses it and the defender slots it home I would absolutely agree with offside through interference etc.

This is where we could do with the IFAB and PGMOL providing us mere mortals with guidance. The law book provides obvious examples not these potentially 'controversial' ones.

 

[Russell Jones]

I don't see how the goalkeeper's actions were interfered with. Without that attacker, I think he would have done the same thing - and I don't see how the attacker stopped him from stopping the ball

You don't think there's any chance that, in the absence of any attacker nearby, the GK shouts for the defender to leave the ball so that he can comfortably claim it?

 

[RefJef]

Probably in law, the goal should stand. But then, what's that phrase, "the law's an a..."?

Simple solution - sat anyone in the six yard box is influencing play, after all, what are they doing in the six yard box if not to influence play?

If that attacker had not been in the position he was, would the defender have played the way he did? Probably not.

 

[DB]

Borderline; watch the keepers eyes. He's not looking at the forward, he goes for the ball. To me, that shows he's not being influenced by the oncoming attacker.
very brace decision and one that I don't think you can argue with. However, I also think if the goal was disallowed, you couldn't argue with it. Defender clearly plays the ball into his own net. Fantastic teamwork by the officials.

 

[AlexF]

Because of where the attacker is, he's got no chance to actually ever play the ball.

FIFA (IFAB?) had a video that they shared about a year ago of two similar situations, both of which were deemed to be valid goals (no offside):

1. Brazil match. One attacker is PIOP, the other is not. Ball comes in from the left side of goal (when facing it). Offside attacker makes a move for the ball, but onside attacker plays the ball before it can arrive at PIOP. Good goal because PIOP never had opportunity to play the ball.
2. Premier League match (I think?). Similar play to the A-League one above... defender slides in front of attacker (maybe 2 yards in front?), slots ball into own goal accidentally. Again, good goal because PIOP never had opportunity to play the ball.

This also happened last week between Stoke and Everton, where a Stoke defender played the ball into his own goal, and Lukaku was PIOP, making a play toward it (distracting GK), but actually had no opportunity to play the ball because the ball did not come "near" him.

It comes back to what McTavish said above:

- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent - POSSIBLY however I would say that the ball is not particularly close to the attacker and so doesn't attempt to play it as it never gets close enough.

If the ball never gets close enough to the PIOP to have opportunity to play it... that play cannot be (by definition) impacting simply by being in offside position.

 

[WilliamD]

Think it's pretty clear in slow mo, replayed a few times, watching the keepers eyes etc that it's a good goal....but would we blame them if they called it offside. So close, and a bit grey. Someone once told me a dodgy offside is better than a dodgy goal - though I know we are meant to get the calls right.

I like @RefJef idea of adding guidance that an attacker in the 6 yard box is assumed to be influencing play...

 

[DB]

On a side note... if you look at siggurdson's goal against Man City this afternoon... that should have been deemed offside; he was clearly obstructing the view of Cabalerro. Unfortunate for Manchester City but that's just how it goes sometimes.

 

[Trip]

Agreed on the City goal.

What are the ARs supposed to do in this situation? They can see that the player is offside but can't possible be expected to see that he's in the keeper's eyeline. Flag or not flag?

 

[DB]

Trip, I've had it before. Exactly this.

I flagged. Referee came over and asked what had happened. I'd explained that the player (despite not touching the ball as it sailed past him), was standing in an offside position. I couldn't gauge exactly his position in relation to the goalkeepers, so when the referee blew his whistle to acknowledge my flag, I signalled him over.

I said exactly what I saw "Player is offside, however I can't tell if he interfered with the goalkeeper. The referee replied "Great call. From my angle, he was between the keeper and the ball".

I'm sure the assistant and Mike had a little chat in the comms but had deemed it okay. Personally, I believe this was a much easier call to make than the subject offside, but one which weren't made through reasons beyond my knowledge. That's the beauty of being humans. Video replays - any doubt, this goal would not have stood.

 

[RustyRef]

Under the current laws there there is no way, no way at all, that this can be called offside.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

You don't think there's any chance that, in the absence of any attacker nearby, the GK shouts for the defender to leave the ball so that he can comfortably claim it?

FIFA have, for years, been clear that influencing the decision of the defence to take action - say, running out of position, or playing the ball - based on the presence of the PIOP is the defender's problem and does not constitute active involvement. New laws or old.

 

[santa sangria]

Trip, I've had it before. Exactly this.

I flagged.

Surely that is what is wrong here. In this case the AR should stand (and not run up the pitch to signal the goal, of course) and not flag, because that signals to the ref that the AR is not sure about the offside and goal/no goal outcome....?

By flagging the AR has committed a gaffe, surely the "right" move is to stand and wait for the ref to come and discuss?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I'd tend to agree. Stand there and call the referee over.

 

[GraemeS]

Surely that is what is wrong here. In this case the AR should stand (and not run up the pitch to signal the goal, of course) and not flag, because that signals to the ref that the AR is not sure about the offside and goal/no goal outcome....?

By flagging the AR has committed a gaffe, surely the "right" move is to stand and wait for the ref to come and discuss?

Maybe just about true although I'd still like a signal of some sort to call the ref over - surely with no flag, it would be easy for the ref not to check with his assistant thinking it was just a goal? But also, isn't it possible that the AR initially thought the attacker had player the ball or made contact with the defender and so thought it was simply offside?