CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
What do you think about the offside decision?
Also, gold star to whoever spots the other problem...
USA v COL - women's - offside (and something else)
- Thread starter CapnBloodbeard
- Start date
What do you think about the offside decision?
Also, gold star to whoever spots the other problem...
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Give us a clue as to what time in the match?
I haven't got 48 mins to sit and watch some women's football match.......
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
When I watch it, the clip starts at 29 mins in. While i can see where it might be debatable (was that a deliberate play by the defender or a deflection?) it looks like a reasonable decision to me.
As for the other problem, I take it you're referring to the white undershirts being worn under tops with blue sleeves?
As for the other problem, I take it you're referring to the white undershirts being worn under tops with blue sleeves?
That part's not an issue because the Laws state on pg 22:
In this case the main colour of the shirt is white, so the undergarments must be white.
For the offside decision, I see that as a good one, as the white player has clear impact on the yellow player, and the yellow player makes a play she might not make if the white player is not there. That play turns out poorly and deflects (off the white player) and into the goal.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Actually, that can be read two different ways. I can see where it could be taken to mean the sleeve should match either the main colour of the sleeve or the main colour of the shirt but it could also mean that the sleeve of the undergarment should match the sleeve of the jersey (a garment which can also be referred to as a shirt).
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
"main colour as the sleeve". Only one way to interpret that one 
I find it bizarre that several players were allowed to wear white, even if it is a friendly.
As for the offside - I thought this would be a case of 'plays the ball' (Though I think that's ludicrous - makes no sense to punish a defender for a desperate attempt to stop a ball), but never thought about the influencing opponent...
I find it bizarre that several players were allowed to wear white, even if it is a friendly.As for the offside - I thought this would be a case of 'plays the ball' (Though I think that's ludicrous - makes no sense to punish a defender for a desperate attempt to stop a ball), but never thought about the influencing opponent...
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I had always thought that's what it meant and looking at the minutes of the IFAB meeting where the change was made and re-reading law 4, it seems to me that the phrase "jersey or shirt" is being used in the sense of jersey/shirt, so the good Capn is correct, the sleeve of the undergarment must match the sleeve of the shirt."main colour as the sleeve". Only one way to interpret that one
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."
It is such a shame that the laws are poorly phrased here. It would be much easier if there was clearly a point 3 e.g.
iii) that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him by an opponent, that is not in control of the ball, in the act of blocking a shot or pass.
It is really a shocking omission considering how much this happens, especially blocked shots.
Interceptions would seem like a deliberate attempt to play the ball, and not a "save" so it, according to the letter of the law, this should not be offside. But... we are instructed to treat all blocks, deflections, interceptions with head and foot, as a player not in control of the ball, therefore the defender is not deliberately playing the ball, therefore based on the attacker's position when the ball is passed, and subsequent interfering with play (the tasty shot), it's offside. Good call.
I am interested in how to interpret muffed clearances. My understanding is that an attempted clearance is a deliberate attempt to play the ball, therefore a muffed clearance will mean an attacker "is not considered to have gained an advantage." But the fine line between blocking, interception and clearance, especially when there is a mistake is really grey IMHO...
Is there any written guidance clarifying blocks, interceptions and clearances and offside?
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."
It is such a shame that the laws are poorly phrased here. It would be much easier if there was clearly a point 3 e.g.
iii) that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him by an opponent, that is not in control of the ball, in the act of blocking a shot or pass.
It is really a shocking omission considering how much this happens, especially blocked shots.
Interceptions would seem like a deliberate attempt to play the ball, and not a "save" so it, according to the letter of the law, this should not be offside. But... we are instructed to treat all blocks, deflections, interceptions with head and foot, as a player not in control of the ball, therefore the defender is not deliberately playing the ball, therefore based on the attacker's position when the ball is passed, and subsequent interfering with play (the tasty shot), it's offside. Good call.
I am interested in how to interpret muffed clearances. My understanding is that an attempted clearance is a deliberate attempt to play the ball, therefore a muffed clearance will mean an attacker "is not considered to have gained an advantage." But the fine line between blocking, interception and clearance, especially when there is a mistake is really grey IMHO...
Is there any written guidance clarifying blocks, interceptions and clearances and offside?
So wow. Apparently I couldn't read when I posted that. Either that, or I couldn't process."main colour as the sleeve". Only one way to interpret that one
Either way, the US women have worn those outfits with the long sleeve whites underneath on at least one other occasion (possibly two). Apparently not worth enforcing. Ha.